:USERNAME: Posted February 11, 2001 Share Posted February 11, 2001 I am still finding that the vehicle size silhouttes are not comparable to vehicle sizes. If you take the stug and look at it head on and compare it to a kangaroo (basically a sherman sans turret) you will see what I mean. The roo is 73 and the stug is 82. The two vehicles are almost identically sized when viewed from the front. I know that the Panzer IV was recently downsized awhile ago. Can someone from BTS address how the silhouttes are generated and how they affect hit chances? Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patboivin Posted February 11, 2001 Share Posted February 11, 2001 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tero Posted February 11, 2001 Share Posted February 11, 2001 >Can someone from BTS address how the silhouttes are generated and how they affect hit chances? I'm not BTS but I hear the silhouettes figure in in the cross section targeting and hit chance formulae. The bigger the sihouette the greater the chance the opponent scores a first shot hit (among other things). Are the German vehicles made too big overall, compared to the similarly sized Allied vehicles ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illo Posted February 11, 2001 Share Posted February 11, 2001 I just compared 3 vehicles. Kangaroo(73), JPz-IV(72) and StugIIIg(82). Jpz-IV and Kangaroo are identical in size. Nearly same height, width and lenght. StugIIIg is little higher than both. So IMHO silhouette 82 seems reasonable compared to 73 of kangaroo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordfluffers Posted February 11, 2001 Share Posted February 11, 2001 The 'Roo' is not a turretless Sherman, its a Canadian Ram w/o the turret. On the point Put a Tiger and a Sherman together (drive a Tiger past a knocked out Shermie or summink), and the Tiger has a lower profile than the Sherman, despite it being bigger in real life and having a larger silhouette in the info screen. Another of those strange anomolies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted February 12, 2001 Share Posted February 12, 2001 I don't know exactly how the silhouette value is calculated, but it's definately weighted towards height being most important, which is correct. Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illo Posted February 12, 2001 Share Posted February 12, 2001 I thought in RL sherman is higher than Tiger and Panther. So i dont see anything wrong there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 12, 2001 Share Posted February 12, 2001 Yes, the Sherman is about a foot taller if I remember correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 12, 2001 Share Posted February 12, 2001 Yes, the Sherman is about a foot taller than the Tiger if I remember correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illo Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 Olle, Sherman 75 silhouette 100, Jumbo silhouette 105, Tiger silhouette 120. Panther 118. So height can not weight most in silhouettes. Both shermans are clearly higher than Panther and even Tiger. Tiger is VERY broad though. Panther is longer than Shermans so that seems to be big factor. From other angles than side Panther doesnt look any bigger than Sherman. Sherman has more height. Panther is more wide. From front wiev 118vs105/100 doesnt look very reasonable. Side wiev its ok..but Panthers rarely engage with their sides exposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted February 13, 2001 Author Share Posted February 13, 2001 I think the issue is that there is a LxWxH formula. The formula might not use roof height, etc so that cupolas and MG mounts might skew these numbers for silhoutte. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 Many historical sources state that HEIGHT is the key value when considering how large target a tank is. The Sherman tanks were largely criticized for their relatively high silhouette which made them easy to spot and hit. It seems that the current silhouette values doesn't correlate well with those statements. Jentz, for instance, states in his "Germany's Tiger Tanks - VK45.02 to Tiger II" that size comparison between 76mm Sherman and King Tiger was unfavorable for the Sherman. It was TALLER and therefore presented an easier target (there are size-comparison photos in the book). Ari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 A little clarification: I'm not saying that the Sherman76's silhouette should be bigger than KT's, but the current difference for KT's disadvantage seems to be too large. Same for the Tiger and Panther. At least in the light of my current knowledge Ari ps. Some time ago I read that the Zimmerit coating on most German tanks had an interesting secondary effect. It reduced glares from armor surfaces and helped to "break" the tank's shape thus adding camouflage. [This message has been edited by Ari Maenpaa (edited 02-13-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 According to Concord Publications' Armor At War Series: Panther by Thomas Anderson and Vincent Wai, Major H. K. Lorance, commanding officer of 899 T.D. battalion reported in his "Lessons Learned on Mk. V tanks": Camouflage: The German has outdone himself here. The tanks observed were covered with linoleum-like surface glued to the hull and turret. This had a rippled surface to reduce glare and is painted in shades of green much as an American parachute...The result is as perfect a camouflage in this green hedgerow country as can be obtained..." It seems that the Zimmerit coating had a major impact on how easily the tank could be spotted. So it's not only the size of the silhouette which affected spotting and very possibly also the hitting changes. Ari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts