Penetration KT vs M-18 - some strange conclusions

[MichaelU]

As the original tester here, I realise that it was hardly a real world situation. Unfortunately that tends to be the case when you're trying to isolate just one variable. Does illustrate an interesting principle though, which is that in some situations it may be more useful not to be hull down. It's now up to the gamer to decide when this applies.

Thanks Steve for your informative answers to this thread.

[Ben Galanti]

Quick question (kind of a tangent here, I guess). But does silhouette affect ROF at all? I know larger targets are easier to hit then smaller ones, but shouldn't smaller ones take a bit more time to lay in? Now, this would only be for the first shot (against a stationary target).

Is this realistic? Or is the same basic effect being factored in by the fact that smaller targets are more difficult to hit?

Ben

[Jarmo]

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

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But doesn't that increase the chance of the next hit striking your head?

Sounds unwise.

[BloodyBucket]

Yikes! Hope that kevlar is all it is advertised to be!

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

"Roll on"

[Mr. Clark]

I think that one of the problems here is that there are two ways of looking at this "situation."

One is that it is better to be hit non-lethally, and the other is that it is better to not be hit at all.

I honestly think that people are getting worked up over nothing here, now that Charles and Steve have explained it. The general purpose of being hull down is to expose less of your vehicle to the enemy, and this is accomplished in the game with a lowered chance to be hit. Obviously, if you ARE hit, it will probably be in the turret.

Look at the Infantryman example!

If you were sticking your head out of a foxhole, and you got shot, it would be in the head... and thus much more likely lethal.

However, if you are running at the enemy in the open, you could be hit in any body part, and thus the hit would have less a chance of being lethal.

(EDIT: Yet, men still used foxholes for the cover it provided, lessening the chance of being hit)

I've not been in the army, but I know that when in police handgun training, we were told to fire for the center of mass. (Double tap, move to next target.)

I'm betting that in the thick of combat, most tankers simply fire quickly at enemy tanks, rather than always trying to zone in on weak spots. (This is only a "guess", as I'm not a tanker that has ever been in combat.)

[This message has been edited by Mr. Clark (edited 12-14-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

MichaelU, correct. Sometimes it is very difficult to look at one factor objectively in a test situation, at least relevant to the game in generally. However, the more a factor is affected by tactics (good and bad), the less likely such a lab test will have real meaning. Basically, you can't draw too many conclusions from such a test.

As we can see in this discussion, the observations you made were accurate. The conclusions were also accurate (after a small discussion about probability and how the code works). What was not accurate was its relevance to a real game. The reason is there are many more factors that make hull down beneficial which were not tested for (such as quicker escape, easier to reposition, harder to spot, etc.). So saying that hull down is somehow a disadvantage vs. being in an open field, based on your tests, is unsupportable using your test results alone.

Contrast this with an accuracy test. That part of your test was easy to simulate. You really needed to do things at different ranges to base conclusions on the results, but the test itself is a fair representation of battlefield accuracy in static conditions. Why? Because tactics and other dynamically variable circumstances play little role in simple accuracy measurements. So as long as conclusions are drawn from such a test that only speak about accuracy, then the test is valid. Using an accuracy test to say one vehicle is "better" or "worse" than another runs into the same problem as the hull down conclusions.

Ben, RoF should be slower for smaller targets. It matters not if the target is a smaller vehicle of the top half of a larger vehicle in hull down mode. I have passed this on to Charles and it has gone onto The List for future inclusion (sometime in the next century )

Mr. Clark has FINALLY put into words what many of us have been dancing around. Excellent example! This is exactly the case. Think of an infantry man instead of a tank. Would you rather be positioned behind a stone wall or standing in an open field? The answer is, of course, behind a stone wall. Yet the chance of dying from a hit (or a near miss even - stone splinters!) behind the wall is FAR greater than dying from a hit in an open field. So for the same reasons an infantry man would rather be behind a wall, a tank would rather be hull down. All things being equal.

Steve

[MichaelU]

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

The reason is there are many more factors that make hull down beneficial which were not tested for (such as quicker escape, easier to reposition, harder to spot, etc

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How true. One factor that greatly increased the survivalibility of the M-18s after the first shot was that they could reverse out of LOS.

What really impressed me was that not all the M-18s reacted the same way to what was an identical situation for each tank. Some reversed, some popped smoke and reversed and others stood and fought it out for their posthumous medal of honour. The lack of predictability of the Tac AI is one of the (many) things that make this a great game.

[Treeburst155]

As a former gunner on an M60 tank in the early '70s I can say that it does take a precious little bit longer to accurately lay the gun on a small target. Also, the gun moves after every shot and must be adjusted each time. The smaller the target the longer this takes on the average. A good gunner tries to be ready to fire before the loader can get another round loaded. Sometimes he is successful in this, thereby making the loader the RofF determiner. With small and/or moving targets the job of laying the gun gets more time consuming and the loader is often ready first.

Making fine adjustments of the gun/turret is necessary to accurately lay the gun on small targets. When making these fine adjustments it is very easy to "over-adjust"; especially when you're in a hurry, which you always are. The traverse and elevation controls are only so sensitive. Fine adjustment takes TIME.

For a good taste of what it's like to be a gunner I recommend Steel Beasts. Even with modern equipment you will find it takes more time to engage small targets accurately. Try it with the stabilizer disabled and watch what happens when you fire.

In answer to another question. We were trained to aim at the center of visible mass. However, when presented with a large target, taking the precious time to lay the gun on the exact center is stupid. Speed is of the essence. Think of the center of visible mass not as a point but as a circular region. With small targets this circular region becomes very small indeed, thus requiring pinpoint laying of the gun for an accurate shot.

I think Steve has successfully defended the way CM treats hull down vehicles. He said he would mention the RoF issue to Charles. This is not really that big of a deal as far as enjoyment of the game is concerned IMO, but it would be nice if it could be implemented. More realism is always nice.

Treeburst155

[aka_tom_w]

Ok

Great Responses from Steve and Charles and Matt. Thanks for your attention and discusion here.

Can we discuss (especially with Mr. Treeburst's experience in this area) HOW much the RoF should slow down to engage the hull down target?

In this case it seems a VERY good arguement has been presented to slow the rate of fire against a hull down target. I may be wrong, but I think we all support that decision.

Now the next step, Steve usually tells us is to "quantify" what is about to be changed or implemented.

What reliable evidence can be found to suggest how the implementation of the slower rate of fire against the hull down target can be modeled and coded into the game.

A highly uneducated guess would be to propose that the rate of fire be a certian percentage slower. If BTS wanted to make this complicated they could make the RoF a more slower percentage for Green crews and slower but less slow percentage for elite crews. (sorry, that was not very well written or explained, perhaps an example is better: .... )

Maybe RoF would 45-50% slower for conscript gunners against a Hull down target than against the same target not hull down?

40-45% slower for Green gunners against a Hull down target

35-40 % slower for Regular gunners against a Hull down target

25-35 % slower for Veteran gunners against a Hull down target

20-25 % slower for Crack gunners against a Hull down target

AND

10-20 % slower for Elite gunners against a Hull down target

Just a suggestion

nothing more...

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-14-2000).]

[Guest Rex_Bellator]

I'm back and it looks like I'm going to have to drop the 'Non' from 'Confrontational' at this rate

This is a great discussion but I'm still certain that (for example) you should never move a PzIV to Hull Down against a 75mm Sherman in this game. A lot of posts seem to have little to do with the problem we've found so I'll try to explain it (hopefully better) using my example. It's also the same for the original KT v's M18 and many other combinations -

A 75mm Sherman cannot usually penetrate a PzIV's hull armour, but is quite capable of penetrating a PzIV's turret armour, at 600-1000m range.

Example A: The Panzer is out in the open. The 75mm Sherman gets a hit on it. The probablility is that the round will strike somewhere other than the turret and be deflected.

Example B: The Panzer is Hull Down. The 75mm Sherman pays a modest 'to hit' penalty. It gets a hit. The round will penetrate the turret and kill the Panzer.

Experience and the test has shown that whenever any tank with weak turret armour relative to its hull armour moves into hull down, and is facing a tank with marginal penetration ability, it will die more often. Therefore stay in the open, Hull Down is bad

Unfortunately Steve's argument based upon the M10 v's PzIV test he ran is irrelevant (owch!) as the M10 can comfortably penetrate any part of a PzIV at 1000m. It will obviously be worse off shooting at the target when it is just as likely to get a kill but less likely to hit it.

I've just tried to set a test using the 75mm Shermie v's the PzIV at approx 1000m example and unfortunately my game crashes on the map editor so if someone has the time and inclination to do a test it would be much appreciated. Although I may still stand by my experience with the game Meanwhile please be aware that sometimes being Hull Down is very BAD news indeed.

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

"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"

[Mr. Clark]

But Rex...

The fact that such and such tank can only penetrate such and such's turret armor is kind of irrelevant to the HULL DOWN situation.

Hull down is not supposed to make a HIT tank less killable, but simply lower the CHANCE to hit it, even if forcing the enemy to shoot at a more vulnerable area.

Treeburst has confirmed my guess that tank gunners normally shoot at "center of mass", which means that a gunner shooting at a tiger in the open is going to shoot at the basic "center" of the target, increasing his chance of hitting. The same gunner firing at a hull down Tiger is going to be aiming at the upper hull/turret, because that will be all that is visible to shoot at! Thus the turret BECOMES the "center of mass"... whether the turret is more "vulnerable" or not, and at the same time is a smaller/harder target to hit.

Now, if I understand the rest of these posts correctly, this is EXACTLY how CM goes about handling Hull Down situations.

Not trying to be too argumentative here. I just think that you may be looking at hull down the wrong way, or at least out of context, Rex.

I think this is a great thread/discussion. Unfortunately, I'm off to work now... and won't be able to jump in again till morning...

[Triumvir]

Not sure if I understand your post, Rex: Are you suggesting that Steve's test was irrelevant because the M-10s were the firing vehicles? Because it's vice versa -- the M-10s were fired upon. Not having the game at hand, I'd assume that the reason he chose the M-10 was because the PzIV has a decent chance of killing the M-10 though a hull shot, but a great chance of killing it through a turret shot.

If I'm wrong about what you're implying, then my bad. If I'm right, perhaps you might want to go over the posts a little more and read a bit more for comprehension.

[Treeburst155]

Hi Tom,

I think adding a few seconds to the time between rounds would be sufficient for fire against hull down targets (or any small targets). Realize we are dealing with averages here. There is no exact answer.

Also, we are defining hull down targets as being small by nature. A close hull down target may not be that small. A far away fully exposed target might be small.

If we really wanted to get picky then the RofF should be calculated for each target individually based on apparent size of the visible target. This is going way overboard I think. You would rarely, if ever, notice the difference in gameplay. I only brought up rate of fire as a way to enhance the benefits of being hull down since some were questioning the wisdom of a hull down position in CM (myself included). Adding a few seconds between rounds when engaging hull down targets would just add a little more accuracy to the game since generally speaking the hull down target will tend to be small.

Treeburst155

[This message has been edited by Treeburst155 (edited 12-14-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Hi Tom,

I think adding a couple seconds to the time between rounds would be sufficient for fire against hull down targets (or any small targets). Realize we are dealing with averages here. There is no exact answer.

Also, we are defining hull down targets as being small by nature. A close hull down target may not be that small. A far away fully exposed target might be small.

If we really wanted to get picky then the RofF should be calculated for each target individually based on apparent size of the visible target. This is going way overboard I think. You would rarely, if ever, notice the difference in gameplay. I only brought up rate of fire as a way to enhance the benefits of being hull down since some were questioning the wisdom of a hull down position in CM (myself included). Adding a couple seconds between rounds when engaging hull down targets would just add a little more accuracy to the game since generally speaking the hull down target will tend to be small.

Treeburst155<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow Great response

I woud disagree slightly with "If we really wanted to get picky then the RofF should be calculated for each target individually based on apparent size of the visible target. This is going way overboard I think."

I think that is a GREAT idea, now I don't write computer game code and Steve and Charles always get ticked when some of us "laypeople" suggest something is easy to code, but risking their rath and getting flamed, I would say it should be pretty easy to say/write in code,.... (regarding time delay in RoF when targeting for Hull down tanks)......

if target hull down and less than 500 m then x time delay in ROF

if target hull down and 501 - 750 m then x + y time delay in ROF

if target hull down and 751 - 1000 m then x + y + z time delay in ROF

if target hull down and 1001 - 2000 m then x + y + z + 1(?) time delay in ROF

Treeburst, thanks for your insight, I think distance to the target, if it is hull down, may be a more significant factor than crew experience.

Good Point!

-tom w

This of course would lead some of us to question if delays the RoF for in Non hull down tank targets should also be implemented based on distance from the shooter, so YES, now it is getting very complicated

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-15-2000).]

[Treeburst155]

In reality, variations in rate of fire occur from round to round due to the fact that gunners and loaders are not machines. To have the computer constantly calculate rate of fire for each targetting situation just wouldn't add that much to the game in terms of realism IMO. Maybe dividing targets into small, medium, and large categories and adjusting the rate of fire based on that might make sense, but I still don't think it would add much in the way of noticeable realism to the game for the effort. Singling out hull down vehicles for special treatment regarding R of F does make sense to me in order to enhance the benefits of being hull down. BTW I have edited my previous post to suggest "a few" seconds be added rather than "a couple". IIRC it was often quite a tedious task to lay the gun accurately on a small target.

Here's something else to consider. At the ranges prevalent in CM I'm not sure I would classify ANY target as small unless it were hull down.

Treeburst155

[Guest Rex_Bellator]

Triumvir - The good news is that yes I got the attacker/defender the wrong way around in Steve's test . The bad news is that it makes it just as irrelevant because a PzIV can comfortably penetrate any part of an M10 at 1000m. As I tried to explain what we need is a test where the firer can penetrate the turret but not the hull, ie, Sherman 75mm v's PzIV or M18 v's KT @ 1000m etc.

Mr. Clark all I was trying to suggest is that a Hull Down tank should be more likely to survive an encounter than one in the open. At the moment under certain fairly common combinations (as above) they will die more regularly than if they were in the open. I am very interested and pleased with the expert real life advice from Treeburst and all, but the bottom line is that if you move a tank with weak turret armour into hull down IN THIS GAME it is often more likely to be destroyed.

I cannot say wether this is 'realistic' or 'acceptable' but hopefully it is at least worth noting.

[Jarmo]

If the ROF would be dependent on hull down, it should also be depend

on distance, the size of the target, etc.

Many factors to be included.

Fortunately all these factors are already summed up into one

figure. The hit probability.

So, I suggest that the rate of fire would decrease with the hit chance.

Makes sense to me. You aim longer for the tough shots.

[Treeburst155]

Jarmo,

If hit probability is based on a perfectly aimed gun then it should have no relation to the speed at which the gunner achieves perfect aim (RofF). Does hit probability involve the gunners work or does it involve the hardware itself such as the sights, the gun, the nature of the round, etc., or does it involve both? Perhaps Chance to Hit is based solely on range? How do moving targets figure in? We would have to know what goes into hit probability before we can determine whether RofF should be tied to it in some way. Luckily we have Charles to deal with these sorts of questions. This whole RofF issue is very minor IMO, but it is interesting.

Rex

I'm going to run extensive tests with the Sherman 75 against PzIV at 1000 meters tonight just out of curiosity. I will post results here very late tonight.

Treeburst155

[Slapdragon]

Just to throw two cents in on testing:

Testing is unrealistic, but it is done to test the effect of a single variable while controlling the rest of the variables. To work, it needs enough reps, but luckily we know that the computer generates a predictable output unlike the real world that is normally distributed. I would believe the results of a test over someone saying "that Honey killed my King Tiger -- make the King Tiger stronger".

For those who want to take it a little farther do at least 40 tests (you can do much less but you really need some hard core stats to handle it) and then code your findings as kill/no kill after a set number of shots Be careful that only one side can fire, that they are actually hull down, and all that. Then report your results. If you want to perform an experiment, then do that once hull down and once not hull down. If you are hard core you canl run proportion stats, but of you do the test 40 times each then you have lowered the margin of error down low enough that any really different number represents a real difference.

Of course, if the question is not worth all that work then just play the game and be happy!!!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tom, RoF is already dependent on crew Experience. The only question is, how much TIME should it take to lay the gun correctly for the first shot. This should be calculated based on the crew's experience (as nearly everything is already), distance to target, and visible area of target. I don't know when we will add this, but it will eventually go into the game. Not for CM2 though.

Treeburst155, "to hit" is based on a large number of factors. Velocity, shell type, range, a bunch of flight physics, etc. are all included with basic crew Experience modifiers (i.e. Green is bad, Veterans are good ). Optics are not simulated. Don't even ask about this until you do a search There is at least 2 FIVE HUNDRED+ threads on this subject

Rex:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mr. Clark all I was trying to suggest is that a Hull Down tank should be more likely to survive an encounter than one in the open. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A hull down tank DOES stand a better chance of survival in a battlefield encounter. However, depending on the tank and the shooter, it might not stand a better chance of surviving a hit. Totally different things.

As stated several times by several people, these artificial tests are totally irrelevant for assessing hull down effectiveness. See Mr. Clark's point again. Then, reread it again The benefit of being "hull down" is reducing the chance of being hit, not reducing the chance of surviving a hit. You keep pointing to a fact, which is totally realistic and not in dispute, and drawing the wrong conclusions from it.

The only way to simulate what you are advocating is to give the hull down vehicle some magical armor bonus. Based on what... I have no idea because it is totally unrealistic to do this.

Again... a man standing in a field has a greater chance of being hit, but a greater chance of surviving if hit vs. a man in a foxhole, who has a lesser chance of being hit but a greater chance of being killed if hit. What you are advocating here is that we should give the man in the hole Three Lives or an armor plated head

If you still feel that your point is valid, you first need to show why Mr. Clark's point is invalid since it is the exact same principle. Then you would need to conduct tests as I described, which include tactics and not just shooting range conditions.

Science is the key here. Without any insult intended Rex, you are not being scientific.

Steve

[Treeburst155]

OK, I've run a large test on this just for the fun of it.

Ten firing lanes on the map separated by woods just to isolate the dueling units. Ten Pz IVG regulars against ten M4 Sherman regulars at 912 meters. Depressions on each side to provide hull down positions for both sides. Both sides were given targetting orders (hotseat). The status of the units was checked and tallied at the end of the movie. Hull down status was verified for both sides while issuing target orders. I ran the scenario ten times for a total of 100 individual tank duels. I then elevated the depression under the Pz IVs and did the whole thing ten more times for 100 duels where the Pz IVGs were not hull down. In both tests the German's had a 19% chance to hit. While the Germans were hull down the American M4s had a 15% chance to hit. When the Germans were elevated the American chance went to 25%. Here's the results:

Hull down Pz IVG: 28 KO, 8 Abandoned, 10 buttoned (1 in shock), O gun damage, 54 OK

Fully exposed Pz IVG: 47 KO, 12 Abandoned, 3 buttoned (they were all immmobilized and 2 were in shock), 1 Gun Damage, 37 OK

I have the Sherman stats too if anyone is interested but that wasn't the purpose of the test and I'm lazy so I won't get into it.

I'm convinced it is definitely better to be hull down even when your turret armor is weaker than your hull armor. I saw lot's of hull penetrations in the second test.

Case closed for me.

Treeburst155

[Jarmo]

Just to clarify my earlier point.

What I meant was, that IF the ROF is going to be made slower

against hull down targets, it should also be slower against

other tough to hit targets.

But I don't really think any changes need to be made.

It's a very minor issue.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks for doing that Treeburst155. Hopefully that will close the case for everybody

While this test is still just a test, and does not tell the whole story about hull down benefits, it does prove one thing very well. And that is, even when all other factors are ignored, it is still better to be hull down than to be in an open field. As has been discussed, the other benefits of being hull down should only increase the nearly 20% survivability "bonus" that Treeburst155 uncovered in his test.

Steve

[Treeburst155]

My pleasure Steve. I enjoy running tests like that. I'll be keeping my eyes open for threads that might justify more tests on various aspects of the game.

Treeburst155

[M Hofbauer]

ok, I've done a litle scenario everyone can DL and run a thousand times to see for himself.

Ten M18 Hellcats having a full load of tungsten, in seperate firing lanes, firing at ten KingTigers. KTs have no ammo. distance 500odd meters for everyone of the ten firing lanes.

now - five of the KTs are hull down, and five are in the open. This gives you instant results without having to note how many shots etc. it takes one way or the other. All you do is run the test and see who lives longest.

My results are that after 3 to 4 volleys usually the last KT is gone. However, to a statistically significant degree, the last surviving KT is from the non - hulldown group (!).

(my results (which clearly indicate that hulldown is unfavorable in this scenario) are from using 1.05 since I am still waiting for the 1.1 patch - I'ld be interested to hear about your results using this scenario in 1.1)

Anyone not believing this can just DL the scenario and see for himself by running it a couple of times (20 or so) (it's really user - and research-friendly, just starte the game, all padlocked and all, just hit the GO button).

http://www.geocities.com/pizzatest/kingtigerm18trial.zip

(you need to RENAME (not unpack) it to kingtigerm18trial.cmb)

This might or might not be explained by the fact that in a hulldown situation the gunner is forced to aim more careful at the more vulnerable turret, which is a reasonable and maybe realistic behavior.

However, it clearly contradicts Steve's opinion that "And that is, even when all other factors are ignored, it is still better to be hull down than to be in an open field."

Not saying this is totally unreaistic, but the fact of the result is clearly there.

[This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 12-15-2000).]