Hawkmek Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 I know units firing from a higher elevation are more likely to hit the top armor of a vehicle, but I was wondering if the firepower of the attacker is numerically increased when they have a height advantage. I know some of you guys will be able to quote from the Squad Leader manuals, but I seem to remember that if an elevation difference of two or more contours exists, then the firepower was significantly increased. I am trying to remember this from '82-'83 so forgive me if I am off. Bottom line -- how advantageous is an attack from a hillside, cliff, second story, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkmek Posted January 23, 2001 Author Share Posted January 23, 2001 Gosh! No 'do a search' no replies, no nothing!! Does ANYONE have any input? At least getting flamed doesn't make me feel invisible. Is this thing on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Space Thing Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Originally posted by Hawkmek: Gosh! Is this thing on? Hawkmek, Um, I ain't the expert but, here is my slant on this. Its a disadvantage of sorts in that the lower units may be easier to spot. Also, the tops of tanks usually don't have thick armor. I had a Tiger I taken out by a relatively small AT gun (on top of a hill)through the top of it's turret while going down another hill once. So, I'd guess that it's more disadvantageous to attacked from above rather than it being advantageous to attack from above. I hope that this helps ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annalist Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Its on. I don't remember any specifics about firepower increasing due to height advantage from my time in the infantry. Its always advantageous to defend/attack from higher ground because: 1. It slows an attacker coming up the slope causing more time in the open. 2. It decreases the cover and concealment available to the one going uphill. 3. Its harder to fire uphill than vice versa 4. You have greater observation ranges and fields of fire from higher elevation allowing you to effectively engage at longer ranges. 5. For AT/AV teams, it allows targeting of the thinner top armor and turrets for greater chances at a kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Originally posted by Hawkmek: I know units firing from a higher elevation are more likely to hit the top armor of a vehicle, but I was wondering if the firepower of the attacker is numerically increased when they have a height advantage. I know some of you guys will be able to quote from the Squad Leader manuals, but I seem to remember that if an elevation difference of two or more contours exists, then the firepower was significantly increased. I am trying to remember this from '82-'83 so forgive me if I am off. Bottom line -- how advantageous is an attack from a hillside, cliff, second story, etc? I think your memory may not have it 100% correct. As I recall, troops firing down over a cliff against an adjacent hex are doubled like normal, but units firing up over a cliff to an adjacent hex have their firepower halved since they can't throw grenades up the cliff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkmek Posted January 23, 2001 Author Share Posted January 23, 2001 Ahh, I remember now, thanks for the correction ASL Vet. That would make sense about the grenades. I was watching Thin Red Line again last night and thinking how running up any incline is no fun. Never mind the fact you are carrying 40 pounds or so of gear and being shot at. Tanks to all for the responses. I am not Hollowman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts