Knaust Posted November 26, 1999 Share Posted November 26, 1999 Hey guys..do u know the little wall surrounding the wheatfield in Last Defence?..ok...i ordered my Tiger to cross it just to see what it would have happened.To my surprise the Tiger went through it like an ectoplasm! Now i am not a perfectionist fanatic but if the tank goes over the little wall it can show its underbelly to hits..say of a baz hidden in the wheatfield. What about that?....just my 2 cents... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angels_Star Posted November 27, 1999 Share Posted November 27, 1999 ghost everything, Angels everywhere * I saw inf squad killing my tank at over 47m with grenades. They sure are on the east germans weight toss teams. And boom they got right in the open turret. WOW twice on 2 tanks who was firing at them with all the pee chooter of an hellcat. Geez. I got also stuck on a bridge with armor!! Do this game have damages to building or walls? If tanke can go throught it , does bullets pass throught walls? Like angels do * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted November 27, 1999 Share Posted November 27, 1999 Soldiers do the same thing going through walls. This is purely a graphical thing. They just didn't have time to make the graphics for soldiers vaulting over walls and such, so they just move through them. The walls act as they should though. There is a thread further down about using walls for cover... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knaust Posted November 28, 1999 Author Share Posted November 28, 1999 sure Ben..for men no problem...but i said that a tank going up a wall shows its underbelly and thus it is extremely vulnerable to shots..this isnt a graphics phanatism! I didnt speak wall protection... Think this at Last Defence..the Tiger crosses the wall near the wheatfield...a baz in the field can have only a front/side shot. If the tank vaults over the wall the baz can hit it on its underbelly...completely different! always my two rusty cents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lokesa Posted November 28, 1999 Share Posted November 28, 1999 I've never driven a Tiger so cant be sure but, them tiger's are somewhat heavy beasts, wouldn't the wall just be crushed??? It seems as though instead of having the tiger climb over and show it's belly that a gap in the wall would be more appropriate. I dont expect this however with everything else we want and the time crunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knaust Posted November 28, 1999 Author Share Posted November 28, 1999 Hi Lokesa old cc2 guy the Tiger was only an example...it can crush the wall never mind...maybe the mkiii cant...or the stuart...oh well the question to BTS is: are underbelly hits considered in the game? I read that it wasnt on list...just to be informed...anyway i am no underbelly fanatic! I appreciate the game even without underbelly hits! Many thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lokesa Posted November 28, 1999 Share Posted November 28, 1999 Man, why you got to call me old in the 3D world of CM I would expect belly shots to be simulated. Hope they're in. ----------------- looking forward to good gaming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 28, 1999 Share Posted November 28, 1999 I think that underbelly shots aren't simulated. I think that until we actually get the graphics of tanks rising up as they try to climb walls etc (CM2, 3 etc?) that they won't be modelled. Underbelly shots were very vanishingly rare but I agree it'd be nice if they were modelled. It is, I think, one of those things which will have to wait for CM2 though by virtue of the fact the graphics and belly armour data aren't in. I have no 100% certain answer on this though. That's just my opinion given what I see in the data and game. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted November 28, 1999 Share Posted November 28, 1999 Underbelly hit's were actually very common. Not by infantry or guns granted but by planes. That's the softest place on the tank so many allied fighters used to shoot in the ground in front of the tank and let the richocet take care of the rest. Sounds amazing but that's what I read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted November 28, 1999 Share Posted November 28, 1999 and, um, what about mines? Wouldn't they tend to strike the belly? Jon ------------------ Quo Fas et Vino du Femme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted November 28, 1999 Share Posted November 28, 1999 sorry guys, double post deleted ... Jon [This message has been edited by JonS (edited 11-28-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 28, 1999 Share Posted November 28, 1999 Well plane bullets wouldn't penetrate belly armour anyway. They would simply damage drivetrains and other unarmoured things so missing out the belly armour for such things as planes isn't a big deal. As for mines. Well, that's factored into mine strength. A weak mine is likely to break a track but not knock out a tank while a strong one is liekly to knock out the tank. It's abstracted but belly armour would be accounted for in there. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted November 28, 1999 Share Posted November 28, 1999 yeah well planes aren't exactly what this game is about but I think you're wrong or the pilots are lying. Don't ask me to document it because I can't I don't remember where I read it but maybe some others can ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Charles Posted November 28, 1999 Share Posted November 28, 1999 I don't have a source, but I believe this is referring to bouncing bombs (probably 500lbs or less) off of the ground in front of the tanks to strike the underbelly. Don't know how often this was attempted, but it doesn't sound like a high probability shot. ------------------ Not THE Charles from BTS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS was 71331 Posted November 28, 1999 Share Posted November 28, 1999 If I recall correctly from the memoir of the top flying tank buster of WWII, Rudel, he never relied on ricochets to kill tanks. He went for direct hits from his bombs and cannon shots. (I'm sure if one of his near misses bounced into and killed a tank, he'd gladly have taken credit for the result.) I'd really like a source for this concept. I've read a lot of WWII history, and I can't recall anyone suggesting this tactic. As for tanks and walls, I doubt any tank can just push through a stone wall. I'd expect a tank could climb a low (perhaps 1 meter or so high) stone wall, damaging the wall to some extent but not eliminating it. From a programming point of view, I'd treat stone walls as permanent barriers and track no damage to them. If such a wall is taller than x meters, no tank can climb over it. If lower, a tank can. WHILE the tank is crossing the wall, it should be more vulnerable to AT fire. BTW most AT mines work as track busters -- run over the mine and its explosion breaks your track. Back in the late 60s, when I was training or on active duty, the primary US AT mine was topped with a rod sticking up in the air and not easy to see from a buttoned tank. The tank would push the rod down, and the mine would fire, driving metal through the tank's belly into the crew compartment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy_Eye Posted November 29, 1999 Share Posted November 29, 1999 In semi hull down position the underbelly is the most weak spot and alway have the most perpendicular armor to the shots depending on the slop. Also any at shot touching ground in front of a tank will hit the front belly of it. Hull donwn competly is veru good , but half is worse then then no hull domw positon. Underbelly were very thin. Since almost any mine was HE and not AP. The under part of tanks like the tops were the most fragile of the tanks. If the game take no account on the underblly, what happends to ricochet rounds who it it? it counts as a frontal it? and does ricochets hits are modeled? Since tanks had AP traps on certain models. How the physics work? shot hit, then where, then what amor thikness, then blows or break ammo. Then rocochets? or shrapnel of the round break out? Also it was very risky for tanks to break suspension on wall climbing. Of course depending on the walls, some were very thin in france, not like england sctotish old farm walls. so under 12 inches thick no problems, but over 12, very risky. My Chrysler sure wont Like the old myths of tank going throught houses, they sure have to recon the house for basements. Cause basement are good tank traps. or nice place to have a party. "What we dont know wont hurt us" not in WW2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knaust Posted November 29, 1999 Author Share Posted November 29, 1999 Thats why i like best Renault cars!...hehe..just kidding Spy...no abuse! Anyway im seeing that my first posting was no graphics fanatism! Im asking myself if underbelly hits arent important in a Normandy bocage scenario. BTW i think that all these remarks are for a possible CM2. Geezzzzz...it looks like being at the University of Details.. what about a bird ******* on a Tiger?...the Tiger will button up or not? Kidding...always appreciating the efforts made on improving a game. Many Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted November 29, 1999 Share Posted November 29, 1999 No that was not a german tactic it was solely performed by allied fighters. I even think they used it on german Tigers. If I'm not mistaken I heard it on Discovery channel and it wasnt with bombs but with mg/cannon fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 29, 1999 Share Posted November 29, 1999 Spy-Eye, If a vehicle is hull-down it is actually impossible to hit it's underbelly. By all the laws of physics it's actually impossible. To hit the underbelly (even in a semi-hull down position) you'd have to shoot through the hill. For everyone's info. Each tank had a performance value called the vertical step which was the maximum vertical step it could surmount. This varied from tank to tank but basically tank's could climb only very small vertical steps. 30 cm for many of the early tanks of the war was the maximum. Knaust, In a bocage scenario underbelly shots would virtually never occur since : a) German tanks could NOT cross bocage. US tanks "cut" through bocage using the rhino teeth and didn't try to "climb" the bocage (thus exposing their underbellies). So, in summary about the only time an underbelly shot could occur was when a tank was in the middle of climbing a low wall. Mines could sometimes penetrate the underbelly but basically the hevay AT mines could penetrate any amount of underbelly armour so underbelly armour is extrapolated in their "to kill" chance. Light AT mines had difficult and were mainly track breakers and again underbelly armour is abstracted in their "to kill" chances. Sure it's not a perfect solution but it is good enough for now IMO. For CM 2 probably more can be done although it should be noted that belly armour values are often difficult to come by since it was so rarely hit that a lot of people never bothered giving it. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PeterNZ Posted November 29, 1999 Share Posted November 29, 1999 Fionn i'd tend to disagree a -touch- I think yer right, underbelly hits are kinda pointless to model because the circumstances in which they happened were rare, but I'd disagree with the bocage statement, about no lower hull exposure. Check out yer cc1 vids hehe, and see the one on the teeth cutty things, you can see a tank speed up to and through bocage and in the process, from memory, (not home to check myself) it launched itself into the air just about! (i was pretty surprised watching it!) Remember the bocage wasn't just a high hedge, it was also a mound of dirt at the base, and a very solid one, (centuries old in some cases), up to 2 or 3 feet high, nice speed bump. anyway, in the avi you can see that the bottom is briefly exposed, but for less than a second so any PS team would be damn lucky to hit it, and why bother trying since a direct hit will likely kill anyway! So anyway, i think bottom of hulls would be exposed in bocage crossing, but no point in modeling cos the time they are exposed for is so brief! PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 29, 1999 Share Posted November 29, 1999 Ah, the CC video. 1. That was shot out of combat. 2. What a tank driver does to impress the camera and what he does when there's a real chance of Germans in the next field are two very different things Anyways, as you say EVEN if that was SOP (which I firmly believe it wasn't) the exposure is so brief as to make a little abstraction ok IMO ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted November 29, 1999 Share Posted November 29, 1999 I have no problems buying what Fionn said about the rareness of underbelly shot's and therefor it shouldn't be in the game. Speaking of hull down, I find it rather hard to put my tank so just the turret or gun appears to the opposing tanks even with the LOS tool because the LOS tool usually gives you a little hight difference. I really hope there will be a better way of setting up positions for tanks to avoid driving too far or to little in position. If you drive to little in position you can screw up that turn and if you drive to far... well you can probably forget about the tank for the rest of the campaign (maybe you'll get it back as an Ostwind some months later heh heh). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS was 71331 Posted November 30, 1999 Share Posted November 30, 1999 I've no doubt that a relatively small explosive charge would breach the underbelly of a tank. The question is what would cause that charge to explode when the tank was over it? Most mines are pressure detonated, and the only the tank tracks could exert that pressure. The resulting explosion would break the tracks and damage the tank's suspension but probably not breach the crew compartment. The '60s AT mine I mentioned earlier had a rod the tank's belly would push down as it rode over the mine so detonation would occur at the optimum time. Other AT mines could be "command" detonated by an infantryman located near (or with in the case of suicidal Japanese infantrymen) the mine. I suppose there were some magnetic AT mines that would explode because of the tank's proximity. For the most part, WWII AT mines would immobilize rather than destroy tanks. Of course, once the tank is stationary, it's a lot more vulnerable to additional damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted November 30, 1999 Share Posted November 30, 1999 While I am a stranger in these parts, I just want to make a quick point… To help set the tone for CM, I have been rereading some WWII history books. According to Ambrose in Citizen Solders one of the main reasons that the U.S. started experimenting with ways to breach the bocage was due to a high incidence of Sherman losses due to exposed bellies while attempting to climb over. The two most common German systems that caused the crew casualties, according to Ambrose, were panzerfausts and MG 42s. That said, this alone in no reason to go crazy about one detail of a wonderful game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted December 1, 1999 Share Posted December 1, 1999 JoshK: That's interesting. I've also heard about MG42's killing armor from multistory buildings with AP ammo. Soft armor on top of some tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts