Penetration KT vs M-18 - some strange conclusions

[Juardis]

I concede on the LOS/LOF issue. I'll make my concession speech tonight right before Mr. Gore's . Sorry to sidetrack the real question (that being Hull down). Still like to hear BTS's position on that.

------------------

Jeff Abbott

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis:

I concede on the LOS/LOF issue. I'll make my concession speech tonight right before Mr. Gore's . Sorry to sidetrack the real question (that being Hull down). Still like to hear BTS's position on that.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK

I think The LOS/LOF thru live vehicle issue is somthing all players should be aware of..

and BUMP...

waiting for "official" BTS comment on the high turret vulnerablity of the hull down tank issue?

-tom w

[LynnL53]

The Russian Military Zone has an article called " Was the tiger really King?" It has a photo of a 76 mm front turret pentatration-- I do not remember the ammo used though -- the Tiger has been well shot at but i was impressed-- btw the L71 was also tested on the turret and it went completely through front to rear and out. I also have had some interesting actions with the Tiger2 and the US 76 mm-- they have been seemingly like yours but i have not kept records on them.

[Guest MantaRay]

Hi Tom,

I must ask if this test has been done more than once? It sounds as though you may have a concern, but only if you can find the results to be similar every time.

Ray

------------------

When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one."

New CM Site. In process of switching. Brought to you by Hardcore Gamers Daily

The Red Army of the Rugged Defense Group Ladder

[Guest Big Time Software]

Combat Mission makes an assumption about gunnery: crews are assumed to fire at the "center of mass" of a target, and not to have detailed knowledge of varying armor thicknesses of the different parts of its target. By that I mean that a crew is not assumed to know that, for example, a vehicle has a thinner turret front armor than front hull (which is the case for the Pz IV). Crews do understand basic things like flank armor being thinner than front, and cases where an opponent outmatches them or cannot be killed (e.g. a Stuart faced with a King Tiger).

So this can lead to results which might seem odd at first, but make sense when you think about it. Consider the case of a Sherman firing on a Pz IV.

If the Pz IV is in the open, the Sherman will fire at its "center of mass", which means that a hit on the hull is quite likely (which let's say will not penetrate, for the sake of argument). If we assume that a hit on the thinner turret armor will penetrate, then the overall chance of penetration is only moderate, as has been observed.

If the Pz IV is hull-down, the Sherman is forced by circumstance to fire at the turret (note that some of the upper hull is considered exposed so occasional shells can strike the upper hull of a hull-down target). Most hits will therefore strike the turret, (nearly) guaranteeing penetration. The chance of hitting the Pz IV is lowered, of course.

So we have a situation in which the Sherman is actually better off firing at the turret rather than the Pz IV's "center of mass", penetration-wise, because the turret has thinner armor.

Given that CM assumes that the Sherman crew does not know this, however, the Sherman will not take advantage of this fact when the Pz IV is out in the open. Only when the Pz IV is hull down will the Sherman do the "right thing" even though it's not aware of it. This is an intentional part of the design.

A very, very early version of CM (in the alpha stage, I think) allowed crews to know all the weak spots of all enemy vehicles and make snap decisions about where to aim. And the results were problematic, because we suddenly had "robotic" tank crews that made "perfect" decisions far too often. It also had a strong imbalancing effect because it especially increased the effectiveness of Allied tank crews, since several German tanks have the "varying armor" characteristic in place (Pz IV has 'weak' turret, Panther has 'weak' lower hull, etc.) We were seeing Sherman crews picking off German tanks right in their 'thin' spots at a rate which seemed far too high to be historically accurate. So we took out that "perfect" knowledge. I think it was the right decision, but of course you do get what seems to be the strange result of a PzIV having to think twice before going hull-down in the face of 75mm weapons. It does actually make sense in the big picture though.

Charles

[Mr. Clark]

Thanks a ton for the clarification Charles!

[Jeff Heidman]

Thanks Charles. I think that is about what my second long-winded post said.

It still feels a bit odd, but it makes sense in the big picture.

Definitely something good players had better be aware of!

Jeff

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 12-13-2000).]

[A Arabian]

Thanks. Makes sense theoretically - the reduction in chance to hit seems a bit small still, but I can take that.

BUT - at the risk of beating a dead horse, doesnt the EFFECT of this still seem problematic - i.e. that hull down is disadvantageous? It seems like the effect of the calculation (i.e. a math gimmick) rather than an actual historical probability. I would tend to think any WWII tanker would have taken hull down in any circumstance vs. out in the open, and if you told them about these numbers they wouldn't buy it.... Doesnt make them right though I guess.

Or am I off base on that?

[Sergeant Huang]

I am trying to answer your questions

at my best.

my questions are:

-What exactly is tungsten?

Ans : A metal which is "harder" than

the steel, so it can penerate the armor

of tanks easier than the AP shell.

-What is Hull down?

Ans : If your enemy can only see the turent

of your tank, then your tank is in hull down

position, which means you hide the hull

of your tank behind a hill or a stone wall, or anything can cover your tank's hull.

-What is AP?

Ans : Armor Piercing shell, which made of

steel. (which I know there is no explosive

inside the shell, so it is not suitable to

against soft target)

Anyone is welcome to correct it

if I was wrong.

------------------

Sgt. Huang

I LOVE my country, but my

government sucks.

[Guest Rex_Bellator]

Oh dear, despite Charles' appreciated explanation my own last flog of this dead horse will be to agree with A Arabian and say that IMHO being hull down should be a benefit and not a death trap.

It doesn't bother me that it isn't in this game A) Because it's too good a game to let something marginal like that spoil it and My opponents have yet to figure it out

Please no-one else post here so this thread sinks out of sight...muuuhahaha....

------------------

"We're not here to take it - We're here to give it"

General Morshead's response to the popular newspaper headline "Tobruk Can Take It"

[This message has been edited by Rex_Bellator (edited 12-13-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

Charles writes:

"Given that CM assumes that the Sherman crew does not know this, however, the Sherman will not take advantage of this fact when the Pz IV is out in the open. Only when the Pz IV is hull down will the Sherman do the "right thing" even though it's not aware of it. This is an intentional part of the design.

Hi Charles, Thanks for your prompt and very informative reply.

I agree, lets not beat a dead horse,

BUT have we not just figured out here that the a Hull Down position is NOT the most desirable position to put your tanks in?

We (some of us here), are coming to the conclusion that our tanks have a better rate of surviability if they are NOT hull down. This seems at odds with reality?

If the tank has a better chance of surviving an upper hull or lower hull hit than a turret hit and if the tank has a better chance of getting hit in the upper hull or lower hull when NOT in a Hull Down position, is it not advisable to leave them out in the open and NOT hull Down?

I think as a result of your last post and our own game play testing of this hull down surviablity issue, the conclusion some of us are coming to, is that the lower chance to hit percentage, of the hull down tank DOES NOT out weigh the higher liklyhood or odds of a Gun Hit or frontal turret hit and penetration?

I am now no longer in favour of working hard to get my tanks into that "ideal" hull down position.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-13-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

Lets not forget that survivability in the event of a hit is not the main reason to go hull down. The idea was not to get hit in the first place. It's still quite a bit harder to hit a hull down tank than it is to hit a tank in the open.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Rex:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh dear, despite Charles' explanation my last flog of this dead horse will be to agree with A Arabian and say that IMHO being hull down should be a benefit, period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is, at least to the best abilities of the tank's armor. The MkIV going hull down does in fact reduce the chance that it will be hit. Therefore, all things being equal, hull down is an advantage. However... this does not change the charactoristics of the armor that is left facing a threat. Just because the tank is hull down doesn't mean that its armor is suddenly harder to penetrate.

The chance of hitting is significantly reduced, therefore the chance of surviving an engagement is increased. However, if a hull down PzIV should be unlucky enough to be hit, its chances of surviving that hit are lower than if it had been out in the open since the only probable surface the enemy shell can strike is weaker than the surfaces hidden from LOF.

This is realistic, so we don't understand why people still feel this is "wrong". What is "wrong" is the notion that hiding behind something increases the chance of surviving a hit.

Also note that test situations like what has been conducted here are not very good indicators of in-game probability. I think that, on average, a hull down tank has a lot more going for it in a real game situation than on some test range. Also... note that 500m is rather close range so lethality and chance to hit are all quite high.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Rex:

It is, at least to the best abilities of the tank's armor. The MkIV going hull down does in fact reduce the chance that it will be hit. Therefore, all things being equal, hull down is an advantage. However... this does not change the charactoristics of the armor that is left facing a threat. Just because the tank is hull down doesn't mean that its armor is suddenly harder to penetrate.

The chance of hitting is significantly reduced, therefore the chance of surviving an engagement is increased. However, if a hull down PzIV should be unlucky enough to be hit, its chances of surviving that hit are lower than if it had been out in the open since the only probable surface the enemy shell can strike is weaker than the surfaces hidden from LOF.

This is realistic, so we don't understand why people still feel this is "wrong". What is "wrong" is the notion that hiding behind something increases the chance of surviving a hit.

Also note that test situations like what has been conducted here are not very good indicators of in-game probability. I think that, on average, a hull down tank has a lot more going for it in a real game situation than on some test range. Also... note that 500m is rather close range so lethality and chance to hit are all quite high.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Steve

Thanks also for weighing in on this one.

I am not at all suggesting:

"the notion that hiding behind something increases the chance of surviving a hit."

not at all.

But what I would humbly suggest is that it seems to me that " chance of hitting (a hull down tank) is significantly reduced" is not exactly what we seem to be experiencing in the game.

If (BIG if), the chance to hit the hull down tank is 50% less than the chance to hit a non hull down tank then perhaps that would out weigh the higher risk of a front turret hit and likely penetration experienced by a hull down tank, but what we are finding is that the chance to hit the hull down tank, is NOT that ( 50% or more less chance to hit would be nice) "significantly reduced". Again this is only my opinion but the chance to hit a hull down vehicle "should" be less than 50% less than the chance to hit a fully exposed tank, simply because the frontal turret area is (usually) not as wide as the rest of the upper hull. What prompted this is that we are not seeing the chance to hit percentage for hull down tanks drop lower than 50% less than the chance to hit the same exposed tank.

Perhaps I am mistaken and more testing and playing are required.

More than anything thanks for listening, maybe I'm DEAD wrong on this one TOO !

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-13-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sergeant Huang:

I am trying to answer your questions

at my best.

my questions are:

Ans : -What is AP?

Ans : Armor Piercing shell, which made of

steel. (which I know there is no explosive

inside the shell, so it is not suitable to

against soft target)

Anyone is welcome to correct it

if I was wrong.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AP Shells will contain a small amount of HE. An AP Shot will be the one without the HE, aka solid.

[Guest Rex_Bellator]

Wow, great responses from BTS, just wish I could agree with them. Also I wish I could leave this alone as there is no way I want to disagree with the professionals but (oh dear here I go) -

Steve, crucially it has been demonstrated by a dedicated gamers series of tests at the beginning of this thread that a tank with weaker turret armour than hull armour (King Tiger in that instance) has it's chances of surviving an engagement DECREASED not increased if it is in a Hull Down position. Perhaps as you say the test was flawed but it reinforced something I noticed in general gameplay, with PzIV's in particular, hence my interest in this topic. Boy I wish I had time to do some tests myself, maybe this weekend...

Obviously I have the intelligence to realise that being hull down does not improve your exposed armour or make it any more likely that you'd survive being hit, but I still can't see that it can actually be detrimental to go hull down as the current hit routine seems to suggest it could be. If it was, why did tankers do it.

I feel that my suggestion of using the same 'centre of mass' to hit routine (no penalties applying) to Hull Down targets as used on open targets, then selecting a hit location in the usual way and disregarding all non turret hits may produce more realistic results. It seems that the current penalty for shooting at H/D targets is well worth paying for the increased chance of the kill. Thereby we return to the fact that that PzIV is better off fully exposed. Is this reasonable?

Go easy on the reply, my other nickname is Mr. Non-Confrontational !! Long nickname....

------------------

"We're not here to take it - We're here to give it"

General Morshead's response to the popular newspaper headline "Tobruk Can Take It"

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Again this only my opinion but the chance to hit a hull down vehicle "should" be less than 50% less than the chance to hit a fully exposed tank, simply because the frontal turret area is (usually) not as

wide as the rest of the upper hull.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>(tom_w)

If you had read this thread you would find that this has been more than adequately explained (some analogies were made with rectangles on screens IIRC).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I feel that my suggestion of using the same 'centre of mass' to hit routine (no penalties applying) to Hull Down targets as used on open targets, then selecting a hit location in the usual way and disregarding

all non turret hits may produce more realistic results.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A rather loose use of the word 'realistic' IMO. I can just see a tank gunner aiming through a hill at where he thinks the centre of the tank is rather than at the turret which he can see LOL!

These tests are inherently flawed anyway because they ignore some of the advantages of being hull-down.

A Harder to spot

B Easy avenue to new firing position.

C Quick to move out of enemy los if things get hot (similar to

D Harder to hit

A and D mean that all other things being equal you will get more shots at the enemy than they will at you. Quite frankly most things will kill a PzIV so they are better off avoiding being hit.

[This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Treeburst155]

Another advantage to presenting a smaller target to the enemy gunner is that of TIME. It takes longer to lay the gun accurately on a smaller target thereby decreasing a tanks rate of fire. Seconds count in tank gunnery. I'm not sure this is modeled in CM. If not, I think rate of fire should be adjusted down some against hull down targets. This would help to alleviate the fact that it is probably sometimes better not to be hull down to an enemy gunner for reasons explained by Steve above.

As far as chance to hit is concerned, the rectangle/screen example makes sense to me. Here's another way to look at it that may be more clear.

Suppose I have a 100% chance of dropping a marble into a 12" diameter bucket from one foot above the bucket rim. If I reduce the bucket diameter by 50% I would still have a 100% chance of hitting the bucket. Eventually, as bucket diameter is reduced further I would begin to miss, but the chance to hit will not go down in proportion to the bucket diameter. It would be some sort of curve I think, dropping off slowly at first and then getting steeper.

I say CM has everything right except the TIME factor involved in engaging smaller targets. If this were to be modelled through reduced rate of fire against hull down targets then perhaps it would no longer be preferable to remain in the open with some vehicles. Reality would be better simulated.

Treeburst155

[Pak40]

It seems that some of you are jumping to the conclusion that being hull down is worse without weighing what type of vehicle. For example, it is pointless for a nonmoving M18 not to be hull down because its armor is so weak that it would almost certainly die if any shell were to hit it anywhere. In fact, it makes perfect sense for all light armored vehicles to be hull down.

The fact is, they're going to die if they're hit so you might as well make it harder for them to be hit.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well, Mr. Non-Confrontational... let me tell you a thing or three... oops... sorry! I thought you said Mr. Confrontational

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve, crucially it has been demonstrated by a dedicated gamers series of tests at the beginning of this thread that a tank with weaker turret armour than hull armour (King Tiger in that instance) has it's chances of surviving an engagement DECREASED not increased if it is in a Hull Down position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps in that test. But it is a clinical test that only covered one possible instance which has little to do with a real game situation.

The important part to keep in mind is the range. The chance of hitting at 500m is very good. Therefore, even though the HD tank is harder to hit, the chances of hitting are still very favorable. Now... move that tank back to 1000m. The chances of hitting, at least on the first or second shot, decreases to a large degree. And now the smaller target really begins to pay off, making a hit in the first couple of shots much more likely to be a miss. In a direct head to head confrontation, this is a distinct edge.

But Simon laid out some other advantages that this test doesn't account for at all. These advantages increase chances of surviving an engagement. Again, not surviving a hit.

And that is the critical point of this discussion. The purpose of acheiving a Hull Down position is to get an advantage over the enemy vehicle so you are NOT HIT at all. But like any position a tank takes on the battlefield, there are risks involved. And if they go against you, they will most likely outweigh the benefits.

Since the test examaple does not look at the full range of benefits, the risk of a turret hit therefore appears to outweigh the benefits. It is an unfair test in that regard.

Oh... and RoF is not lowered for engaging a HD tank. I'll mention it to Charles as it does make sense. However, I don't think there is a way to change the way it works at the moment.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Just did a VERY quick test.

4xPzIVH vs. 4xM10s (two Hull Down)

Range was 1000m, clear weather, all other things equal.

Ran the test 4 times. Results were 6/8 non-hull down M10s were killed. Many of them on the first or second shot. In contrast, 2/8 of the hull down M10s were killed. Several of them survived 5 or 6 misses.

So... by this quick test I have shown the opposite of the previous test. And that is, being hull down significantly decreases the chance of being hit. Three times more likely in fact. And that is more than just a little bit of a bonus

Note that my test is not much more "realistic" than the first test. Instead I did it to illustrate that different circumstances, even on a "test range" yield different results. Meaning... large, generalized conclusions based on a few tests is most often the wrong way to figure out what is what.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 12-14-2000).]

[BloodyBucket]

As an infantryman, I will always try to stay "Hull Down", no matter what anyone says to the contrary!

------------------

"Roll on"

[Guest Madmatt]

Just to put things in a slightly different light, i have often conducted repeated tests to prove a point or make a suggestion to Charles about the game (yes, some of what you see in-game came from my demented brain BWAHAHAHAH!).

How many tests do I usally run before I weigh in on something? 100! Any less just won't produce a good sample at all. Yeah, it's takes a large amount of time to run tests like this but its really the best way to make sure you aren't getting too may outliers in your numbers.

Madmatt

[Guest Big Time Software]

It is also necessary to point out that Madmatt also takes the time to conduct tests that are representative of the types of situations the subject requires to prove his point. Otherwise Charles tells him to go get bent

The problem with this hull down test is that it is so HIGHLY variable. Range and vehicle types are a huge factor, but other elements which are harder to do in a "lab test", play a critical role in the risk:benefit ratio. Really, the best test would be to watch 100 different playings of the same scenario and record all the hit/miss info by vehicle type, range, etc.

In other words... this one is a difficult thing to simulate in a lab environment. No matter how many times it is repeated.

Steve

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Otherwise Charles tells him to go get bent<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You mean he isn't already?

------------------

"Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot