:USERNAME: Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 BTS After researching the subject of AFV main weapon depression and getting no clear answer and reading some strange 'facts' (the stug was hard to get hull down supposedly..?), I would like BTS to answer the question "Does CM model gun depression and how does it factor into minimum range and hull down status?". I realize that both of you are busy or not available but a short answer would be appreciated. Lewis PS Stugs with their low profile and decent gun depression could attain great HD positions. Its really a matter of how much is "gun up" as opposed to "hull down". I think the early stug B might qualify as one of the best vehicles at keeping itself from getting noticed/hit and putting firepower on the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preacher Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 The answer to most types of depression is a combination of professional counseling and appropriate pharmaceuticals.... ahem.. couldn't resist Preacher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 :Username:- I always thought that the StuGs had lousy gun depression - at least the G onward. What's the depression angle? -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 One would think this is taken into account; the traverse and elevation are limited, after all. Not sure how it affects the hull down equation, though... Charles? ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted July 14, 2000 Author Share Posted July 14, 2000 I believe the B had -10 and the later versions -6. Without getting into a lecture on geometry Ill sum it up as follows: The lower the gun is to the ground, the less gun depression is needed. Take for example a JS2. Its weapon must be at least 6 feet off the ground. With only 2-3 degrees gun depression (I forget), You arent hitting infantry within 120 feet (assuming a flat plane). With a stug having a gun at about 5 feet you get about 47 feet. See my BTS: HULL DOWN MOVE posts. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMAN Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 I HATE THE STUGB I think it very bad. never gets the job done I go with the King Tiger. But don't let infantry get near Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanW Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 Well my "real life" experience is zero, so take this as you want. I think the implications of gun depression vs hull down is the range of reverse slopes that will a vehicle can handle. Say for instance your main gun can only depress 10 degrees, and you're trying to go hull down on a reverse slope of 20 degrees. The problem is going to be that anywhere along that whole reverse slope you wind up with your main gun pointing +10 degrees up into the air (+20-10=+10). Now if we consider more "realistic" terrain, something like a rolling hill. We can see that the hill is flat at the top, i.e. 0 degrees, and as we go further off the ridge line we get a generally increasing slope. Say for instance up to 20 degrees at the point. Imagine a rounded hill, it's flat on top, steepest in the middle of the sides, and then flat again at the base of the hill. An AFV with good gun depression could manuever on that hill so that just the gun barrel was showing, and be assured that it had plenty of depression to accomodate whatever slope is found at the point. If a vehicle had poor depression, it might be that the slope in the middle range of the hill was too steep, and that it couldn't get its gun depressed onto targets. As a result it could retreat further, fully behind the hill, out of sight and out of action, or the option would be to advance further towards the top of the hill. As it got closer to the top the slope of the hill decreases, and it can bring its gun to bear, but it's also exposing more and more of it's hull to fire. Thus I suspect that the StGs were criticized because: 1) They couldn't go hull down in some steep terrain that other vehicles could 2) They couldn't always go completely hull down, and sometimes had to expose more of themselves to get their guns on target. The drawback to a low sihlouette tank is exactly this problem. I know that some vehicles have looked at encasing the breach in armor, and then moving it outside of the turret/hull. This would let the gun depress further then would normally be allowed by the roofline of the vehicle. I think the Swedish S-Tank even had a special suspension which would let the whole hull (nice rhyme) pitch forward to achieve gun depression not just by depressing the gun, but also by pitching the tank rear up (nose down). This poor depression is one of the drawbacks for a low slung vehicle. The Russians have considered it worthwhile, the NATO designs have generally decided that better gun range of motion is more worthwhile then being a small target. I suspect this stems from the facts that the NATO tanks tended to be more defensive, while the USSR armor was more geared towards aggression, obligated to move to close with the NATO units, and hence would be under fire, probably more then they were firing? Hope this helps, or at least makes sense. Dan W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted July 14, 2000 Author Share Posted July 14, 2000 Dan "Just" -10 degrees? Not many closed top vehicles had better... That is actually a pretty good gun depression. Most soviets were -2 to -5 in WWII. The US had almost all its vehicles with -10 most likely because of a design requirement before acceptance. As for the rest of your post.. I guess a picture is worth a thousand words. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanW Posted July 14, 2000 Share Posted July 14, 2000 Lewis, Don't sweat it, you're just the last in a long and distinguished line of people who have politely listened to what I'm saying and then said, "what in the heck are you blathering about?" The -10 degrees was just for illustration. The whole point is that if the hill tilts your vehicle back (up) further then your gun can tilt forward (down) then you're not going to be doing very good at shooting things. If you can't tilt down much, then you can't park on a lot of hills. Dan W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted July 14, 2000 Author Share Posted July 14, 2000 I think I understand what your saying. Gun depression is a good thing and believe me, gun depression AND a low profile is a great thing. Lookup my BTS: Hull Down Move post and some of the others. I still want to know if gun depression is modeled in the game.. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted July 15, 2000 Share Posted July 15, 2000 Lewis, Gun depression isn't modeled. The reason is mainly that it would be very difficult to get the TacAI to deal with it properly and not do "stupid" things where the vehicle would be in a position where it couldn't shoot, but "should know how to maneuver to fix it". So we left it out. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted July 15, 2000 Author Share Posted July 15, 2000 Thanks Charles I dont think its that big a deal on the western front because my research shows that US tanks generally had about 10 degrees and german armor was a little less but comparable. Its obvious then that minimum ranges are not modeled either? ON THE OTHER HAND.. If you want my CM2 money then hopefully something can be abstracted/modeled since we all will have multiGHz systems by then. It was a big deal and rightly so and taken advantage of Im sure. Take the weekend off and have a few on us Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subvet Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 So will this be modeled in CM2 or not? This has always been a sore spot with me in CM:BO. It sticks out pretty bad in what is in many other ways a realistic game. It would be even more important to model this in CM2 with the Soviet AFVs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJungnitsch Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 So the 'gun high' design of the T-34 would make it a good machine to hide hull down but poor to use reverse slopes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman: So the 'gun high' design of the T-34 would make it a good machine to hide hull down but poor to use reverse slopes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 I think I'm a long shot from that multi-GHz system, even come the end of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: ON THE OTHER HAND.. If you want my CM2 money then hopefully something can be abstracted/modeled since we all will have multiGHz systems by then. It was a big deal and rightly so and taken advantage of Im sure.Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CM2 or CMII? I doubt that we will all have multi-gig machines by the time that CM2 rolls out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacheldraht Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I always thought that the StuGs had lousy gun depression - at least the G onward. What's the depression angle?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> -6 through + 20 degrees main gun elevation, 20 degree total (hand) traverse for the StuG III Ausf G and StuG IV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted July 7, 2001 Share Posted July 7, 2001 Wow. This is almost a year old. I think that with the current plans for a hull down order, that BTS can abstract the gun depression into the success of getting HD. Success in getting HD would depend on unit experience, gun depression, vehicle height, etc. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radar Posted July 7, 2001 Share Posted July 7, 2001 Well, IMHO the map would have to less abstracted too, to make gun depression accountable, don't ya think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted July 7, 2001 Share Posted July 7, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Radar: Well, IMHO the map would have to less abstracted too, to make gun depression accountable, don't ya think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Presently gun depression can allow a tank to fire down the side of a cliff. Theres nothing that addresses that fact. The HD status being effected by gun depression is just an abstraction. So at least they are not HD while firing down the cliff. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts