It's just struck me - Assault Guns and Hull Down...

[Ex Bellator]

It's Saturday night and I haven't been actually been struck which is unusual for where I live, but this has just occured to me after a TCP-IP game.

In CMBO how come Stugs/Jagdwhatevers etc can fire from Hull Down? Surely the gun is in the hull so the gun should be 'down' as well? If the whole hull isn't actually 'down' and half remains in view then is the Assault Gun still getting a bonus for being Hull Down? I'm only asking 'cause a Stug toasted 3 of my Shermies from what was reported as a Hull Down position.

I've probably missed something as usual but I feel like asking a dumb question.

[Snake Eyes]

The lower hull and tracks are down and the upper hull and gun are exposed.

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: Snake Eyes ]

[Mr. Johnson--]

You ever stood next to a tank? They are quite a bit bigger than a car, even Assault guns.

[Mattias]

The hull is down.. The superstructure is up..

M.

[Ex Bellator]

Blimey you guys are quick!

Ok, so the Stug was either 'LOWER hull down' or there is another variant between Hull and Turret called Superstructure which obviously must be 'Up'.

Just to be extra argumentative, when you buy a Stug etc. and check it's statistics there is a Lower hull and an Upper Hull, no sign of a 'Superstructure'.

Also, if it really is 'LOWER hull down' why doesn't it say so, and is the full 'Hull Down' to hit penalty still applying etc...

[Guest Babra]

It's just a descriptive term to indicate that the lower portion of the vehicle is behind a terrain feature, thus presenting a smaller target to the enemy, while still maintaining the ability to fire over that terrain feature. There's no measuring science to it. It's not X feet.

[Vanir Ausf B]

"Hull down" simply means that whatever part of the AFV that houses the gun is the only part exposed. Depending on the vehicle this may be the turret, superstructure or upper hull.

[Mattias]

BTS choose to call it upper hull. Some, me included, call it superstructure.

Picture a Pz III and a StuG III standing next to each other. Remove the turret from the Pz III and you have a hull, that you might divide into upper and lower hull.

The main gun of the StuG, on the other hand, is not mounted in a turret but in a “superstructure” put on top of the hull. It is fastened to the hull, but it is not really part of the hull.

To further clarify the distinction: Take the StuG IV, it is really a StuG III superstructure mounted on a Pz IV hull (plus modifications).

You know Rex, now that you mention it, I see that the StuG superstructure is not rated separately from the “hulls”, I’m not sure why BTS choose to leave it out as the StuG front certainly has “surfaces” enough to warrant it’s inclusion. However if you check the JgPz IV’s you will find the “superstr” rating.

M.

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[Paco QNS]

Even wilder!

I have been able to place a Pillbox-gun in a hull-down position (and confirmed against a Sherman -who was in hull-down also!-).

The duel was won by my gun.(against AI),

After all, the "Hull-downology" is a really weird science (more an art!, in fact).

If you are interested, consult this related page -I posted it before, but was lost in the collapse-; it is quite interesting, though is modern-and NTC oriented (a bit Gamey, even! ):

Categorization of Intervisibility Lines

Regards,

[Stalin's Organ]

Hull down really just means that everything below the gun is covered, so I guess technically it could apply to a bunker.

But since bunkers usually get killed through their firing slits it'd make sweet FA difference to their survival!

[Username]

Another consideration that has been discussed is gun depression. Being hull down (or weapons up) is great but your weapon must depress enough to engage targets on the other side of the terrain. The lower the vehicles weapon height (like a stug) the less importance is the depression (but being low and having a decent gun depression IS a big advantage in my opinion).

BTS hasnt addressed this very much but maybe it will get a CM4 rating.

Since the exciting news is that CM2 is going to have a HD command, I hope they put some kind of abstract into gun depression. It would basically just make it harder for AFV with high weapons/small gun depression to get a HD status. Since tank guns can presently shoot down the sides of dams, it would be a nice touch.

Its also been discussed to have shades of HD. Such as, vehicle up, track down, hull down, turret down and out-of-LOS. Things like bow MG usage and such are affected.

Back when the search function worked, I would have suggested doing a search. But those were the days. Anyway.

Lewis

[Guest Babra]

Yes, gun depression specificlly, and vehicle layout generally, are important factors. An AFV with minimal capability for gun depression must expose much more of its hull in order to shoot below the horizontal. An AFV with more gun depression can sit further back and keep its hull in defilade to take the same shot.

[Username]

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

Yes, gun depression specificlly, and vehicle layout generally, are important factors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That reminds me. The stug had a driver who was almost at the same level as the gun. The crew also was in very close proximity of each other and could act with precision teamwork (i.e. kick in the shoulder means stop).

The later model stugs had a coax MG that actually was higher than the gun barrel (like an eye on one side of the saukopf). The later stugs could almost be barrel down and graze the coax MG with minimal exposure.

The stug was a very good weapons system. The fact that an artillery school was devoted to stugs and that throughout the war artillerymen manned these weapons with prior experience from other weapon systems guaranteed defensive results.

Lewis

Maybe I think about stugs too much.

[WWB]

What about 'Turret Down' position. For those unfamilliar with this state, not simulated in CMBO, it is the time when the commander looking out of the top could see over the rise, but none of the vehicle is exposed.

It allowed the commander to spot without exposing the vehicle to fire. Not to mention one man is alot harder to spot than a turret or superstructure, making it a way to observe without being ovserved.

WWB

WWB

[offtaskagain]

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

That reminds me. The stug had a driver who was almost at the same level as the gun. The crew also was in very close proximity of each other and could act with precision teamwork (i.e. kick in the shoulder means stop).

The later model stugs had a coax MG that actually was higher than the gun barrel (like an eye on one side of the saukopf). The later stugs could almost be barrel down and graze the coax MG with minimal exposure.

The stug was a very good weapons system. The fact that an artillery school was devoted to stugs and that throughout the war artillerymen manned these weapons with prior experience from other weapon systems guaranteed defensive results.

Lewis

Maybe I think about stugs too much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw a reenactment a few years ago that showed why Stugs were such useful little vehicles. The German guys had a Stug with a fully functional main gun that hid in some tall grass to watch a road. The grass was tall enough that I could barely see the thing from 100 yards even though I watched it drive there. The stereotypically green Americans drove a Ronson down the road that really stuck out above the grass quite badly compared to the Stug. The gun blast from the Stug was really impressive for a reduced charge blank. I had a good laugh when the Sherman started spewing black smoke and the crew bailed.

[Ex Bellator]

Good replies, it's prompted me to look further into the whole 'Superstructure' thingy which I did this morning and I now wish I hadn't.

The only two Assault/Self Propelled Guns I found in my quick examination with a Superstructure rating were the Jadgtiger and the JpzIV.

Stugs/Marders/Nashorns/Wespes/Hetzers and others all are rated as having an Upper Hull and a Lower Hull only.

I found this even more confusing, a JpzIV is a low sleek tank hunter yet apparently does have Superstructure. A Nashorn/Marder and others have high sided gun shield type enclosures on their hulls and yet are not rated as having Superstructure :confused: Can anyone help here, as a layman I would be more inclined to say that the JPzIV's should be hull only type and SPGs like the Nashorn should be hull/superstructure types.

Finally I do accept that Hull Down could actually and confusingly still mean that part of the Hull is Up, but I do have reservations that the 'to hit penalty' is being calculated on a pro-rata basis accordingly.

As I'm daring to question part of everyones faviourite game, I have flame extinguishers on standby

[Username]

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

Good replies, it's prompted me to look further into the whole 'Superstructure' thingy which I did this morning and I now wish I hadn't.

The only two Assault/Self Propelled Guns I found in my quick examination with a Superstructure rating were the Jadgtiger and the JpzIV.

Stugs/Marders/Nashorns/Wespes/Hetzers and others all are rated as having an Upper Hull and a Lower Hull only.

I found this even more confusing, a JpzIV is a low sleek tank hunter yet apparently does have Superstructure. A Nashorn/Marder and others have high sided gun shield type enclosures on their hulls and yet are not rated as having Superstructure :confused: Can anyone help here, as a layman I would be more inclined to say that the JPzIV's should be hull only type and SPGs like the Nashorn should be hull/superstructure types.

Finally I do accept that Hull Down could actually and confusingly still mean that part of the Hull is Up, but I do have reservations that the 'to hit penalty' is being calculated on a pro-rata basis accordingly.

As I'm daring to question part of everyones faviourite game, I have flame extinguishers on standby <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I mentioned this to BTS and they dont feel its an issue. The problem is that certain vehicles get the 'funhouse mirror' effect and are distorted.

The stug had pretty good protection up top. The sloping 'upper superstructure' deflected rounds. The saukopf cast gun armor also gave good protection. The lower parts were about the same as a pnzIV and the crews often had tracks as extra armor. So a good stug crew kept the vehicle close to the earth and behind cover. The tracks were a lifeline in that when they got shot off, the vehicle was about useless.

A stug is not that much smaller than a PIII in height BTW.

Lewis

[Dirtweasle]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paco QNS:

...After all, the "Hull-downology" is a really weird science (more an art!, in fact).

If you are interested, consult this related page -I posted it before, but was lost in the collapse-; it is quite interesting, though is modern-and NTC oriented (a bit Gamey, even! ):

Categorization of Intervisibility Lines

Regards,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for posting that link.

[Stacheldraht]

Fwiw, the StuG III Ausf G was 2.16m high, which is quite low compared to many AFV's, but you can see in pictures how they could clearly get the lower part of the hull behind a hill or obstacle while still exposing the gun.