Penetration KT vs M-18 - some strange conclusions

[A Arabian]

Thanks, treeburst. Good info. I'm curious as to why that differs from the stats posted that started this thread (n=100 in both cases, right?)

FYI - I looked at some front on x-sections of a couple of AFVs and it appears that hull down results in about 30-40% of total cross sectional area still being visible (depending on the tank.)

Interesting also to note that at longer ranges, the reduction of chance to hit a hull down vehicle was somewhat less at longer ranges, but its impact (going from 25% to 15%) was greater.

[Wolfe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm convinced it is definitely better to be hull down even when your turret armor is weaker than your hull armor. I saw lots of hull penetrations in the second test.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the hulls of the fully exposed tanks are obliqued, you won't get the same number of hull penetrations. Of course, CM 'fixes' this after only a shot or two by forcing the tank to turn it's hull flush with its target. I really wish it wouldn't do this. Obliqued armor is really cool. I had a Tiger bounce a shot off the frontal armor of an obliqued M4A2 (French) Sherman not too long ago. A shocking development!

Do you have just the number of turret penetrations of hulldown vs. not? I'd be interested to see if this percentage went up when the tank was hulldown. I did a brief test, and it seemed to.

I do agree that's it's almost always best to be hulldown, but if you're at short distances (high chance of a hit), pitting a PzIV against a Sherman, you might be better off being exposed, but obliqued rather than hulldown. It's a gamble, but I think in some cases, it may be justified.

Though with other tanks like Panthers and Churchills, you'll definitely want to hide the weaker lower hull armor.

BTW, if a tank which is obliqued rotates its hull after firing one shot at the enemy, I assume this upsets its aim?

- Chris

P.S. I'm still constantantly amazed at the level of detail in this game. And it comes in such a small package too.

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

[MichaelU]

Treeburst, what we need to know for your test is what percentage of hull hits led to penetration. If the answer is most of them, then the test doesn't really add anything to the argument. Also, because it was at longer range and using different vehicles from the KT vs M-18 test, the two aren't comparable. It might be a case that it's better to be hull down at longer ranges, but not closer up, which would be an interesting conclusion in itself.

With the KT the hull armour can stop 76mm tungsten at 500 metres most of the time, whereas the turret armour can't. So a hull down KT is worse off in a straight shooting match in these circumstances if it is hull down, without looking at the other benefits of hull down such as ease of switching positions.

"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."

Not at all, it is very relevant. In a hull down situation, most hits will fall on the turret. If there is no difference in the chance of being penetrated, such as an M-18 being shot at by a KT, then hull down is obviously better.

"The benefit of being "hull down" is reducing the chance of being hit, not reducing the chance of surviving a hit."

Couldn't agree more, but if the reduction in chance of being hit is outweighed by the increase in the chance of a hit penetrating, then you are worse off being hull down. This was the result of my test, which M Hofbauer seems to be have duplicated.

"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."

A classic example of where the reduction in the chance of being hit outweighs the increase in the chance of being killed. Plus whether this analogy is even relevant to the argument can be queried in that most anti-infantry fire is unaimed relative to anti-tank fire, so the chance of being hit is closely related to the amount of area exposed.

All I know is that after running that test, I will be making sure any tank facing an enemy that can penetrate its turret but not its hull will be immediately moving out of its hull down position.

[Mr. Clark]

Sigh...

That's entirely your decision.

That's not the reason I'm arguing. It's entirely up to the player if hull down is worth it or not to them.

I can't really write any more on the subject w/o having something new to argue against.

Basically, Hull Down should lower the chance to BE HIT. It does this. If you then get hit, it's gonna be in the turret or the upper hull. You take your chances with that just like you would in real life. CM Also simulates this.

So WHAT EXACTLY is wrong with this system???

What EXACTLY do you think needs to be changed about the hull down rules???

I'm not really understanding what the argument is anymore.

Are you arguing that Hull Down in real life was a bad idea, or that CM is somehow modeling Hull Down wrong?

[Theron]

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

With the KT the hull armour can stop 76mm tungsten at 500 metres most of the time, whereas the turret armour can't. So a hull down KT is worse off in a straight shooting match in these circumstances if it is hull down, without looking at the other benefits of hull down such as ease of switching positions.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually if you look at M. Hofbauer results he says the following.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

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 (!).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Therefore after 3-4 volleys the King Tiger is dead no mater what. I would not say that being in the open makes you that much more likely to survive. M. Hofbauer says that it is statistically significant, but doesn't give any data or statistical numbers to back this up. I'm trying to point out that without an analysis or data you can't tell how "significant" it is.

I would like to point out that the King Tigers have no ammmo in the test that M. Hofbauer does. This make his experiment a test of the armor of the King Tiger and not a test of the advatage of being hull down. If two tanks are able to kill each other the one who hits first is most likely to win. Therefore being hull down is a tremendous advatage in that the hull down tank is more likely to hit first and win the tank duel i.e. it is less likely for his non hull down opponent to hit first.

Theron

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

[Mr. Clark]

Good Point!

I knew there was something I did not like about the KT no ammo test.

The test should be set up WITH the KT's having ammo, and then see which ones survive to kill their opponent. Can someone set that up?

Crap, off to work again...

Looking forward to checking back tommorrow for this new test.

[Treeburst155]

If you are close enough to the enemy, such that your turret alone presents a fat target then I would say being hull down is not so much of an advantage. He will hit you anyway, and it will be in the turret. This is assuming you cannot back out of sight completely utilizing the same terrain that allowed you to go hull down. (This is a very important benefit of being hull down IMO. You can often escape!) At close range I think it is safe to say First Shot=First Kill in most instances whether one of the combatants is hull down or not. I think it may very well be possible in reality that in some cases with certain units going against certain other units at shorter ranges being hull down is of dubious advantage IF you don't consider the fact that the hull down unit could often back out of sight completely in a very short time.

Also, it seems to me that when you conduct a test that does not let the vehicle in question fire back you are negating one of the primary advantages of being hull down. The hull down vehicle presents a smaller target and is more likely to be missed. Every miss buys TIME for the hull down guy to kill the enemy. I cannot overemphasize the importance of TIME. Being hull down will usually buy you time. By castrating the vehicle in question you deny it the ability to take advantage of the time gained due to missed shots by the enemy.

EDIT: Theron beat me to it and expressed it better. I'm with him.

Treeburst155

[This message has been edited by Treeburst155 (edited 12-15-2000).]

[Mr. Clark]

Completely agreed Treeburst.

Off to work...

TGIF!

[Guest Rex_Bellator]

Thanks for the test Treeburst but unfortunately there looks like a fatal flaw with it which doesn't help this thread.

You unfortunately chose the PanzerIVG which has a the weakest hull armour of the PzIV series in the game - 73mm. If you choose a PzIVH or J their Hull armour is 80mm. The M4 Shermans penetration @ 1000m is 78mm.

Therefore it looks like it could penetrate both the Hull and turret armour of a PanzerIVG at 1000m. It would probably be much less likely to penetrate a H or J series' Hull armour but will easily get through their turret.

This is the kind of situation we are discussing, we need tests where you are unlikely to penetrate the hull but you can penetrate the turret. I can't be bothered to try to explain why again (Sorry it's late over here!)

Also I am pleased to see that M Hofbauer and MichaelU are not disuaded and have done yet more tests which back up the "IN THIS GAME Hull Down Can Sometimes Be More Dangerous" gang (long name, good job I don't run any real gangs). This is all we are trying to point out. Don't give up guys! I could reply to the 'magic armour' and other patronising stuff but... Owch! I told you it was late

Just wish I could run tests myself though. Are we in front of the PENG thread yet?

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

"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 12-15-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

M. Hoffbauer wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it doesn't. As others have pointed out, you have removed a key point. The KTs can not fire back. So eventually the M-18s will kill them all. It is that simple since the KTs are defenseless.

The other problem is that you chose one of the largest targets in the game at a very close range (500m). The chance of the M-18 hitting, and killing, is very good no matter what position the KT is in. So coupled with the point above, the results you got are not surprising at all. But they do not contradict what I said in the context in which I said it.

MichaelU wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Couldn't agree more, but if the reduction in chance of being hit is outweighed by the increase in the chance of a hit penetrating, then you are worse off being hull down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unscientific conculsion. You can't say this without weighing in the other advantages of being hull down (listed many times in previous posts). In other words, you are bringing in outside factors for one side and not for the other, then drawing a conclusion from this lopsided look. Therefore, your point is invalidated right there.

Treeburst wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you are close enough to the enemy, such that your turret alone presents a fat target then I would say being hull down is not so much of an advantage. He will hit you anyway, and it will be in the turret. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well put. I said this above, but I thought it would be good to say it again. The KT test does not measure hull down advantage in any meaningfull way. Kinda like testing out the strength of a bulletproof vest at 3 meters and allowing the shooter to use a high powered rifle and fire as many rounds as he likes. It doesn't matter what he is wearing, the guy with the vest will die, period. So much for testing the value of the vest

Rex wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is the kind of situation we are discussing, we need tests where you are unlikely to penetrate the hull but you can penetrate the turret. I can't be bothered to try to explain why again (Sorry it's late over here!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you still fail to understand here is that penetration has NOTHING to do with the advantages, or disadvantages, of being in a hull down position. It is totally, and utterly, irrelevant. The advantages of being hull down are to avoid being HIT, not to avoid being PENETRATED. If you can not seperate these two elements then we are going to just argue forever.

Please... address the point we have made over and over again about the soldier behind cover. So far you have not so much as attempted to explain why it would be better to stand out in a field than to be in a foxhole or behind a wall. It is critical that you do this to prove your point.

Now...

If the point is "in some circumstances it is less desirable to be Hull Down than in others" the answer is "of course, but only if you lose the gamble". In other words, statistically speaking, it is better to be hull down. My test and Treeburst's test confirm this, as does simple mathematical probability. But sometimes luck does not go in your favor, and therefore BECAUSE OF BAD LUCK being hull down might not be much of an advantage. But it is LUCK (and other circumstances) that are what leads to this, not the fact that you are hull down.

And finally...

Does anybody here really think there is some sort of need to change Combat Mission's coding? I certainly hope not since there hasn't been any case presented to suggest that we should

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 12-15-2000).]

[Guest Rex_Bellator]

Okay, let's try once more. First off please do not tell me 'what I fail to understand'. I do not make comments like that and do not wish to be on the receiving end of them.

Meanwhile I will respond to the patronising parts this time. Of course penetration capabilities/armour capabilities do not change when you go Hull Down, you are simply there to reduce the Hit chance. The reason I have not thought it necessary to explain why it is better to be standing out in the open, rather than Hull Down IN REAL LIFE is because it quite patently isn't!

Unfortunately both your's and Treeburst's test were flawed as I tried to explain. I'm not going into that again but I will try to say why this debate DOES centre around Hull penetration in this game. Also bear in mind that I'm not talking about REAL LIFE, I'm talking about COMBAT MISSION. Please also read my probably clumsy explanation.

When a tank is under fire IN CM the round will hit some part of the facing armour, probably the Hull. Say the incoming round can penetrate the Turret but not the Hull. As the tank has strong Hull armour a probable hit there will be deflected. If by chance it is hit on it's relatively weak Turret armour it will be killed.

Now that same tank moves into Hull Down IN CM, and gains a small defensive penalty on the incoming fire. Bear in mind that this incoming fire would not be able to penetrate it's hull we're it in the open. The round is guaranteed to hit the turret and the tank will die.

What we have seen in some tests and in the game, is that IN CM some tanks will be better simply letting themselves get hit slightly more often out in the open and relying on the fact that the round will probably bounce off the stronger Hull armour. They will be worse off being slightly less likely to be hit in Hull Down, because they will be hit on the turret and they will die.

I can't think of a better way to try to explain this and it will be my last attempt. This situation will only ever occur IN CM when the attacker cannot penetrate the defenders hull but can penetrate it's turret.

I am English (as you can probably tell!) and I now begin to agree that we may be two nations divided by a common language as I seem to have failed to get my message across previously, and have failed to see anything so far to persuade me against mine and others current views.

Ps. It's really late now...

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

"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"

[Pak40]

What about a hull down hamster?

[Theron]

Rex,

I simply have to disagree and here is my reasoning from your arguement.

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

When a tank is under fire IN CM the round will hit some part of the facing armour, probably the Hull. Say the incoming round can penetrate the Turret but not the Hull. As the tank has strong Hull armour a probable hit there will be deflected. If by chance it is hit on it's relatively weak Turret armour it will be killed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So we all agree that the non hull down tank can kill the "target" tank if it hits in the right place. The "target" tank is the one which may or may not be hull down.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Now that same tank moves into Hull Down IN CM, and gains a small defensive penalty on the incoming fire. Bear in mind that this incoming fire would not be able to penetrate it's hull we're it in the open. The round is guaranteed to hit the turret and the tank will die.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The round is not guaranteed to hit the turret, it could miss! In fact it is more likely to miss now than it was before when the tank was not hull down.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

What we have seen in some tests and in the game, is that IN CM some tanks will be better simply letting themselves get hit slightly more often out in the open and relying on the fact that the round will probably bounce off the stronger Hull armour. They will be worse off being slightly less likely to be hit in Hull Down, because they will be hit on the turret and they will die.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What was the "target" tank doing all this time while you were shooting at it? I hope that it was firing back, otherwise it should go into reverse and hide behind the slope. If it was a King Tiger or Panzer IV it could cetainly kill most American tanks from 1000 meters. I beleive that in most tank vs tank fights the tank that hits first wins. Of course a king tiger VS a sherman 75 is a different story, since a Sherman 75 is lucky to penetrate any of the KT frontal armor. The comparison is between a KT and a Sherman 76 with tungsten or a Pz IV against a sherman 75. In both cases we all agree that the German tank is vulnerable.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I can't think of a better way to try to explain this and it will be my last attempt. This situation will only ever occur IN CM when the attacker cannot penetrate the defenders hull but can penetrate it's turret.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree with your explanation, IF the "target" tank has no ammo like in M. Hofbauer's test. If the target tank can shoot back your analysis fails. No one has shown that in a tank vs tank fight (i.e. they both shoot) that being in the hull down position is a disadvantage. In a true fight is where the hull down position matters. If all you have is a firing range then it doesn't really matter.

Theron

[Leaman86]

I downloaded the combat mission demo and i start playing. I play it for

maybe 1 or up to 5 turns and then it freezes and returns to windows. I have a K6 500mhz,directx7,64ram and a 3dfx card(voodoo3 2000).What is wrong?

[Guest Big Time Software]

To anyone who thinks that something is wrong with the way CM handles hull-down: please state how you would like to change things. Be very specific. I think this will help explain your points and should also help illustrate why CM is the way it is, and why we feel it's the best way.

Charles

[Treeburst155]

Hehehe....

So this thread is still going. I'm somewhat amazed. I feel certain I understand what Rex means. I also feel certain he's missing the importance of allowing the subject tank to fire back. Soooo.. JUST for Rex I'm going to run my test again using the best combination of vehicles I can find in the database that fit what Rex wants to see tested. I will be looking at a subject vehicle whose upper and lower hull are substantially more resistant to penetration than it's turret. I will pit this vehicle against a gun that can easily penetrate the turret of our subject, but not the upper or lower hull. The subject will be allowed to fire back as this only makes sense to me. You don't take up a hull down position to an enemy just to see how many shots it takes him to kill you while you swill beer. You go hull down to fight!

I'm off to the test lab. This will take quite awhile. I'll post results here by early tomorrow morning(GMT-6).

Treeburst155

[karch]

Hi folks,

I have found this thread fascinating in that it seems like everyone is arguing the same facts, getting the same results, agreeing on all the details... but disagreeing on some fundamental... or something.

I was thinking of showing another test to prove the reason even a PzIV should go HD against a sherman. Imagine this test. Shermans on 1/2 map of nothing but billiard board flat concrete. No where to run at all. Germans get nice rolling ground, perfect for HD positions. Take 8 Shermans and line them up on the concrete.. and take 8 pzIV (or close to that number depending on how you want the test simulated) and place them all TD (turret down otherwise known as hidden) behind the rolls in the ground. Start the game and start "topski-lowski"ing all the pzIVs from hidden to hulldown, pause, fire, back to hidden. If you stagger their timing, you will see the Shermans having to change targets all over the place.

If too many of your IVs die, use ground cover to run away. You may lose the firefight, but you still have some tankers. Once the Sherman's start losing tanks, the IVs can start ganging up and the remaining Shermans can't go anywhere.

What I'm trying to support is that HD is great as part of a tactic, you shouldn't live there. It gives you more options than living up on high ground.

Because of the smaller likelyhood of a hit... and hence a definte kill, your IVs should last longer. I'm sure this will not make everyone agree, but it's a point that I don't recall seeing. BTW, I'm sitting up tonight waiting for my first son to be born. My wife started having contractions and the baby should be here by tomorrow. We'll be leaving for the hospital within a few hours..... I was trying to get her to name him Sherman.... No dice!

Looking forward to this thread.

scott karch

[karch]

One more thing...

I agree that the mkIV (and others, I'm sure) has a better chance of being killed if hit when HD... the key to that statement that everyone seems hung on is IF HIT.

Being HD DOES reduce then chance of a hit.. just look at the % when lining up the shot. Give a sherman 1 shell and fire it at the IV HD. Do this 100 times, then set up the same 1 shell scenario against a TU (tracks up - fully visible) IV and run it 100 times. I'll bet more HD tanks survive showing that it was harder to hit. There would have been more misses. Any hits would probably be fatal, but there would probably be far fewer of them.

This is not a great test because it does not show realistic fighting tactics, no tank would usually stay HD for a fight. If I get into a slugging match with any tank that has a good chance at taking me out, turret or frontal, I shoot a few and then move out ASAP. As with any tank, MOBILITY is the key to their use. If you topsky-lowsky a mkIV, you not only show less of your tank to hit (yes you die if you get hit, but you get hit less often) but you show that smaller amount of tank less often... and maybe not in the same place if you topsky-lowsky well. You seem to have a better chance surviving a hit by going from hiding to tracks up and back to hiding instead of HD. but you can't argue you have a better chance of not being hit AT ALL if you go from hiding to HD then back to hiding.

You are in a tank, you have to gamble... all battle decisions are gambling. Do you want to show more of yourself or less of yourself. Yes, you know that the less part you may show is more vulnerable (head for infantry analogy), but I'd bet you would take the odds that say they have less of a chance to hit me at all. I think mentally I would feel safer popping up to HD even knowing any hit would be deadly than giving them a bigger target to hit. oh well.. there are my 36x2 cents all in 2 emails. sorry to go on and on.

scott karch

[Lt Bull]

This thread (and a very intriguing one it is) should be retitled:

"Gee..It took CM to make me realize I hadn't fully understood the implications in some situations in placing a tank with a weaker turret in a hulldown position".

Get over it! It is NOT a game bug or an unusual CM modelling flaw or even an undesirable observation (if real life modelling is what you want!).

I can assure you that the kind of "phenomena" described by MichaelU (how is that August Bank PBEM going btw?) is NOT CM specific!

It is a totally realistic phenomena which can be easily demonstrated outside of CM.

Let me carefully DEFINE what "phenomena" I am talking about as I see room for much misinterpretation and generalization. It is very specific.

GIVEN THAT a tank has weaker* turret armour IN RELATION TO the rest of the tanks armour, more so the GREATER this weakness and the larger the size of the tank ), then at ranges typically LESS THAN 1000m, the SURVIVABILITY of that tank (at least) from a SINGLE AT SHOT targeted at it, if placed in a hull down position, WILL BE REDUCED than if it were not to place itself in a hull down position.

(*note: by weaker, I mean more prone to being penetrated IF HIT than if hit in the hull)

It is also worth reminding yourself of the key assumption made by CM which goes hand-in-hand with why we see/should expect this phenomena....that is that...

>> Tank gunners ALWAYS aim for the centre of area (CoA) of the tank target which is visible ie. the aim points will be different depending if the target tank is hull down or not as the tank is only partially visible to the gunner when hulldown <<

This goes hand-in-hand with the assumption that tank gunners DO NOT AIM FOR THE WEAKER ARMOUR on a tank either because they have no knowledge of it or because they just simply aim to MAXIMIZE their chances of simply HITTING the target ie. aim at CoA of the area presented to them.

I have modelled this statistically and have come to the same conclusions. I hope to release some graphs showing this apparently "unrealistic" phenomena being modelled. Queries welcome.

BTW, I think I have heard BTS mention somewhere before that tanks are either hulldown or not (you cant be any more or any less hulldown than just hulldown). My calcs correlate to a CM hulldown as meaning a 36-37% reduction in target area presented to the enemy.

More to come.

Lt Bull

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Now that same tank moves into Hull Down IN CM, and gains a small defensive penalty on the incoming fire. Bear in mind that this incoming fire would not be able to penetrate it's hull we're it in the open. The round is guaranteed to hit the turret and the tank will die.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statement would only be relevant if there were no turret hits when the tank is tracks-up. I have seen these, and since it is therefore possible for the OPFOR tank to kill the tank in question, regardless of whether it is HD or not, you are better off going HD, since it reduces the chance of a hit. If you want to squabble about the reduction in chance to hit when going from TU to HD - that is another question.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-16-2000).]

[Jarmo]

Some thoughts of the points currently debated.

Just trying to bring in some clarity, I don't have a strong opinion

either way, but the debate is interesting enough.

Suggestion: Hull down does not give enough protection.

What is being suggested, is that the chance to hit, is not reduced ENOUGH,

when the target is hull down. It seems the chance to hit hulldown is

some 70 percent of the chance to hit non-hulldown.

Maybe more, maybe less.

Looking at PzIV, it seems the tank is some 2/3 hull, and 1/3 turret.

So it's suggested the chance to hit hulldown PzIV should be less

than 50% of the chance to hit a nonhoulldown PzIV.

Nobody's asking for magic armor.

Suggestion: King Tigers should/shouldn't have ammo during the test:

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't it obvious, that the

Tigers surviving longest would also have a better chance of

killing their opponents and surviving instead?

Suggestion: hulldown should always be favourable.

The infantryman example: If the infantryman only shows his head,

all hits will hit the head.

If the whole infantryman is fully visible, the opponent will likely

aim for the torso.

Now let's suppose the infantryman has a bulletproof vest but

a no-good helmet.

From a bit longer range it's obvious you should remain down

and hope the opponent misses.

From a close range, where the enemy will hit anyway. It might be

better to show yourself and sucker the enemy to shoot at your chest,

and then pop him before he fires again.

[M Hofbauer]

People,

the KT ammo was removed totally intentionally.

Because, the question I was researching was NOT whether the KT or the M18 are the better tank.

The question I am looking at with this test is:

who has a higher survival rate, the hull-down KT or the out-in-the-open KT.

It is so plain obvious to me that I find it hard to coin it into words: since hull down does not affect the aiming/accuracy of the firing tank, there is no point in whether the KT has ammo or not. Since obviously all M18s are in the open, the chances for a KT to hit it are not influenced by the KT being hulldown or not. The M18 firing at the KT is the research object, not the killing power of the KT.

It seems that at least Jarmo understands the irrelevance of the KT having ammo or not.

I made this test so that everybody can easily see for himself (this is why I don't give you my numbers...run it a dozen or so times and bet your money on rouge ...erm...not hull-down...you will see that very very often the hull-downs will be gone first) that in this concrete situation indeed hulldown is unpreferrable. The results speak for themselves: hulldown dies, out in open survives. No arguing or whatever can remove that fact.

The soldier/foxhole example:

I get your point about the infantry man. But the situation should be modified to be comparable to our situation with tanks: If the soldier wore body armor that would make him invulnerable to any .22 cal rounds hitting him below the head, then do you think it is still better for him to stay in the foxhole and only expose his head? No, because then the enemy will only aim at his head, which is the only vulnerable part of him. If he stood erect in the open, the enemy will target the whole person, making most of the hits going to the center, where the hits are absorbed. That is what I think several people have been trying to point out.

And this is why I am not saying CM is at fault. All I am saying is that under certain circumstances (Just like in the soldier with body armor example above) it is unfavorable to be hulldown. And that is realistic or at least not totally off...I think.

And that is also why, sorry Steve, I will stand by my opinion that your (Steve's) statement "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." is wrong, because IF all other factors ARE ignored (as in my test) then indeed there ARE situations where it IS unfavorable to be hull down.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

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

"Im off to NZ police collage" (GAZ_NZ)

[RMC]

I think the debate can be summed up in a simple formula.

The probability TO KILL can be divided into two parts: TO HIT and TO PENETRATE.

If I have a 50% of hitting the target, but a 100% chance of penetration once a hit is achieved my TO KILL probability is

TK = TH x TP because both events must happen to get the kill.

= .5 x 1 = .5 = 50%

If on the other hand my TO HIT chance is 50% but the To Penetrate chance is only 33% based on the exposed armor of the tank target my To KILL is

TK = .5 x .33 = .165 = 16.5%

This simple formula explains why it will sometimes be better for tanks like the Kingtiger an Pz IV to not select hull down positions.

If the example from the intial post is used as a starting point then we can play with the variables to see when it is better for the KT to go hull down.

KT in the open.

TK = .59 x (Y) = ?

KT hulldown.

TK = .4 x (Y) =?

Making the asumption that all hits achieved against the hull down KT will penetrate because they will hit the turret we get(there are of course other things that can be hit but for the sake of argument we'll use 100%):

TK = .4 x 1 = .4 = 40% chance of a kill against the hull down KT.

So at what point does hull down begin to offer an advantage?

In the open again:

TK = .59% x (Y) =? what is the chance of penetration (ie a turret hit)? Let's start with 33% chance of the penetration (hit on turret). So we get:

TK = .59 x .33 = .1947 = 19.47%

So immediately we see that the KT has a better survival chance being in the open than in the hulldown position at this range. In order to make hulldown more attractive the either the turret would have to represent more of the total target area or the TO HIT chance in the open would have to get significantly bigger - in this case both would have to increase. A guaranteed hit would still not make it more desireable for the KT to go hull down at this range of 500m

TK = 1 x .33 = .33 = 33% which is still less than the guaranteed penetration with reduced to hit from being hull down.

The turret would have to represent 40% or more of the frontal target area to make hull down at 500m a good idea against a 76mm-armed opponent who has (and uses) tungsten.

This calculation changes for every range/threat combination. I suspect that as the range increases, the TO HIT drops enough to make the hull down position more desireable in the narrow sense of this discussion. Others have already pointed out some of the other advantages that tanks get from being hull down that can't be represented in these calculations.

And none of this means that the CM model wrong.

[M Hofbauer]

just to please the "target tank needs ammo" and "KT vs M18 is a wrong choice" - crowd:

I made the same scenario using ten Pz IVJ vs ten M5 Stuarts. everyone has normal ammo loadout, half ofthe PzIV are hull down. since PzIVJ has armor of turret 50, hull 80 and the Stuart's penetration capability at 500m is exactly between those two values, the predicted result is that the hull-down PzIV should be more likely to be killed than the ones in the open.

try it for yourself:

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

(again you need to RENAME the file into pzivjvsstuarttrial.cmb)

after 30 (thirty) runs, my final result for this setup is:

40 PzIVJ killed in the open vs. 52 PzVIJ killed hull down.

since in this result hulldown has a 30 % higher chance of being killed, I think it is a noteworthy tendency.

and for those people out of the "we-are-too-lazy-to-run-the-test-by-ourselves-but-we-won't-believe-this-until-we-see-the-whole-data" - corner here are the results of the individual battles

PzVJ killed in each battle (needless to say all Stuarts were killed except those who killed their respective PzIV-opponent in their firing lane)

PzIVJ killed in_open_: 0=3=3=1=0=1=1=1=1=0=3=1=1=2=2=1=2=2=1=1=1=1=1=1=2=1=4=1=0=1

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

PzIVJ killed hulldown: 1=2=3=1=2=1=1=2=1=1=0=3=2=2=3=2=3=1=0=2=2=3=2=2=2=1=2=2=1=2

[modified to rectify the display of the results]

[This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 12-16-2000).]

[Guest Rex_Bellator]

Well done and thanks for your effort guys - how much more proof will people need! I tried to explain but your calculations and tests will probably explain it better to some. Hull Down can often be more dangerous. That's all we've been trying to say.

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

"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"