The High Ground

[Head Mahone]

We all understand the tactical advantages of possessing the high ground on the battlefield. What I don’t know is (like in many other strategy games) if C.M. gives your units a greater chance of hitting their targets while shooting down on their enemy from the higher ground. I know your LOS is greater from up high. I also know that in most cases its much easer to shoot down onto something then it is to shoot up at it. I don’t remember reading any reference to this at all anywhere for C.M.. Anybody out there have the answer?

Thanks fellas,

Head

[Head Mahone]

Hhhmmmm, no takers this morning?...

[aka_tom_w]

Somewhere in the world is still VERY early this morning

I have always figured my units in the upper stories of buildings "Should" have some form of fire power advantage while shooting from an elevated position, but, I have never really tested it out.

anyone else?

-tom w

[imported_WARHAMMER]

Yes, but watch out for their tanks los, in the

second story, you are a sitting duck!!

just my 2c worth

Kurt

[psklenar]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I have always figured my units in the upper stories of buildings "Should" have some form of fire power advantage while shooting from an elevated position, but, I have never really tested it out.<hr></blockquote>

I had an intreesting experience last weekend. I had a US Bazooka team and HMG team "hiding" in the second floor of a house. A King Tiger came around the corner (I think the LOS line measured maybe 5 meters?) and somehow they managed a KO!

Of course, that same KT managed to kill six of my Shermans (short barrelled 75's) first. And they (the Shermans) had been firing at it from as close as 20 meters to either side!

So, yeah, I'd say that elevation can make a difference.

[Redwolf]

I don't think CMBO models this. On the contrary, since CMBO does not model top hits, destroying a tank with vertical armour can actually be harder from high ground.

See the "hull down - is it worth it?" thread running right now.

CMBO's support for upward, downward and potential energy is rather limited, e.g. to make a tank running up a hill slower.

[Head Mahone]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

I don't think CMBO models this. On the contrary, since CMBO does not model top hits, destroying a tank with vertical armour can actually be harder from high ground.<hr></blockquote>

Redwolf,

CM does model top hits.

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

Pat Sklenar,

Thanks for posting but hitting a tank from 5m away isn't a good test wither your up high or not.

-Head

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Head Mahone ]</p>

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Head Mahone:

Redwolf,

CM does model top hits.

<hr></blockquote>

CMBO does not CMBB will. See the hull down thread.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Pat Sklenar,

Thanks for posting but hitting a tank from 5m away isn't a good test wither your up high or not.

<hr></blockquote>

And that is why if he is in the second story and a tank in front of him?

[psklenar]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Head Mahone:

Thanks for posting but hitting a tank from 5m away isn't a good test wither your up high or not.<hr></blockquote>

Head,

Remember, that's 5m away and in the second story - so they were certainly above the KT. Can you explain how else a US Bazooka & HMG could possibly manage to KO a King Tiger?

[Head Mahone]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

And that is why if he is in the second story and a tank in front of him?<hr></blockquote>

Don't understand what you mean there Redwolf.?>?..

As far as top hits, I saw the thread and posted my commit.

Head

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Head Mahone:

Don't understand what you mean there Redwolf.?>?..

As far as top hits, I saw the thread and posted my commit.

Head<hr></blockquote>

You were claiming he couldn't tell that his Bazooka was above the KT because it was just 5 meters away. That claim doesn't make sense to me, if I am in the second story and a tank is 5 meters away from me, it is certainly below me. Also remember that CMBO abstracts buildings, second level means 3rd or 4th real-life level (starting counting from one).

But the King Tiger was not killed by a top hit nontheless because CMBo does not model them. However, the Bazooka can get through any of the side armour of a KT (see armour quality), so the hit from the second story was probably a side -not top- hit (it would have told you, didn't it?), although the shooter was certainly above the KT. However, being above the KT helped by countering the slope of thE KT side armour.

[Head Mahone]

HHhhmmmm, I see. But given into that same account we don't know the exact distance and angle the troops were to the tank. With the CM engine they very well could have been on the second floor being 10 or 12 feet off the ground. It is always a general area and never exact.

As far as penetration goes, I thought the bazooka's "C" round would penetrate?....

Head

[psklenar]

okay, so Top Attacks aren't modeled. Based on all I've read on here and in books elsewhere, I'd never expect a Bazooka, nor an HMG to be able to KO a Kign Tiger ... no matter how close (if not from above). So how did they manage to do it in that game?

Unfortunately, I was so shocked to see the Bazooka kill the KT, I don't recall what type of hit it was.

[Juju]

One advantage of having a firing unit on a higher elevation than the (infantry foot unit) target is that it negates the cover bonus they get for being behind walls and hedges!

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Pat Sklenar:

okay, so Top Attacks aren't modeled. Based on all I've read on here and in books elsewhere, I'd never expect a Bazooka, nor an HMG to be able to KO a Kign Tiger ... no matter how close (if not from above). So how did they manage to do it in that game?

Unfortunately, I was so shocked to see the Bazooka kill the KT, I don't recall what type of hit it was. <hr></blockquote>

We had a very long thread on King Tigers *this* week, besides King Tiger losses in the west. Just say "show articles from last 10 days" and browse for subjects with King Tiger.

[psklenar]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

... Just say "show articles from last 10 days" and browse for subjects with King Tiger.<hr></blockquote>

Redwolf, I had been following that thread since shortly after it started. I guess I should have read the bottom of the first page where it's mentioned that the KT is weak vs Bazooka's in CM. Sorry, I had missed that.

I guess I just couldn't figure out how a Bazooka coule take out a KT, even is only from 5m, when six Shermans (short barrel 75's) fired over a dozen rounds at it at ranges of 20 to 40m and mostly from the sides (I had three to either side, the AI had driven into a "kill trap" ... unfortunately, my six Shermans were what was killed).

Thanks,

[Redwolf]

I should mention that we didn't agree on whether the King Tiger is too vulnerable to the Bazooka in CMBO.

It is certain that it could penetrate the sides, I just found a photo and documentation of test shootings.

The question is whether the variety of angles where it did this is too big in CMBO. Some people say it should only penetrate when shooting exactly from the side (right angle). In current CMBO, you only have a very narrow amount of angles where it does not penetrate.

The low quality steel rating in CMBO is mainly responsible, and there are too possible issues:

- it may be that the low quality rating should apply only to the front plate

- and armour quality in CMBO models several different manufracturing errors in steel. While all of these quality losses raise AP penetration, some might not lower the resistence against HC

In addition, there are questions around the Bazooka:

- ricochet of HC rounds seems not to be modeled in CMBO, whereas it appears that this happend in real life

- likewise for hitting features of the vehicle that an AP round would ignore, it seems the real bazooka round got irritated pretty easily

- on penetration, what kind of knockout or abadonation chance is appropriate. It is very high in CMBO 1.12

Again: this is not a list of bugs, people agreed to disagree. But it illustrates how much stuff needs to be considered.

[CombinedArms]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

But the King Tiger was not killed by a top hit nontheless because CMBo does not model them.<hr></blockquote>

I don't understand the claim that CMBO does not model top hits. I've seen many HTs killed by mortar fire which give as the kill message something like: "Top penetration, vehicle knocked out." Mortars are unable to make any other kind of penetration, so, one would think that top penetration would have to be modelled, and why would the kill message be such if it were not modelled?

Moreover, all armored vehicles have very specific top armor stats listed among their data. If the vehicle is open or partially open at the top, that is specifically listed. It seems to me that all the evidence points to top hits being modelled for all armored vehicles.

At the same time, I've managed several KT kills through side and rear armor with close range zooks. I don't know if this is accurate or not in real life terms, but it's definitely possible on the CM battle field. I'm at work and can't check the penetration stats, but I would bet that, at short range, a zook has better penetrating power than a Sherm 75 AP round, so, either from top or rear, a zook is a better weapon against a KT than a Sherman 75. My philosophy is to keep Sherm 75s as far away from KTs as possible. Try to get the kill with a flank or rear shot from a zook, a 76 or 90mm gun, or a 17 pounder. Sherm75s are just going to die, so save them for other duties.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CombinedArms:

I don't understand the claim that CMBO does not model top hits. I've seen many HTs killed by mortar fire which give as the kill message something like: "Top penetration, vehicle knocked out."

<hr></blockquote>

This was just discussed in another thread, with contribution by Charles. Top hits are modeled for motars and artillery, but nothing else. CMBB will have direct-fire top hits.

[Galatine]

Jumping in here with my 2 cents worth (some might say it's overpriced at that )...

I think it would be more accurate to say that CM does not model top hits from guns using direct (relatively straight, flat trajectory) fire rather than long curved arc's that indicating a high long trajectory.

It's been pointed out before that many of the weapons used as direct fire units in CM were actually intended only for use as long range artillery. Their line-of-sight battlefield use would have occured only as a emergency ad-lib defensive procedure (if at all).

To have a close support tank who's crew and gun's have been trained, prep'ed and pre-battle briefed for close range combat, is likely roughly analogous to having a mortar team under fire try to use their weapon as direct-fire rocket launcher. (Forgive the hyperboly for the point!) It could be done but likely only with tremendous skill and heroic effort.

On-field equipment as a rule is limited to flat tragectory, direct fire with the sole exeption of mortars and hand grenades. Every other 'shell lobbing' - 'death from above'- type of shell fire is dealt with abstractly with FOO's and off-map fire missions.

Unfortunately every rule has exceptions, one being direct fire from high ground into a tank top. I guess it's effect would be similar that of the shot trap effect, who's exception has been has been programmed in. But combat events that are not commmon or likely are not in the current version of the game.

Neither could they model in vehicles sliding down steep hills, rolling over into ditches, or doing 'Dukes of Hazard' style leaps over the tops of hills. We'll just have to wait for CM version: Infinity for that...

I believe this simulation covers the majority and most common combat situations in the theatre/timeframe, but not the uncommon or rare. (Let alone the fabled or legendary -"My great grandfather said..." one's.)

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Galatine ]

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Galatine ]</p>

[jgdpzr]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CombinedArms:

I'm at work and can't check the penetration stats, but I would bet that, at short range, a zook has better penetrating power than a Sherm 75 AP round, so, either from top or rear, a zook is a better weapon against a KT than a Sherman 75. <hr></blockquote>

Actually, HEAT weapons' penetration is completely independent of range. So, a bazooka at 150m has just as much chance of penetrating as one at 15m. This is because HEAT weapons do not rely on kinetic energy to penetrate.

[Galatine]

...Which means that according to the charts I use a US 75 AP at close range (100m) has a pretty comparable penitration (depending on slope: 97 @ O deg/ 76 @ 30) to a bazooka (90 @ 0 deg/ 77 @ 30).

And it's not as if that the difference is of tremedous significe. Eitehr are going to be hard pressed to penetrate anywhere on a KT but on the side lower hull where the slope is O.

[Galatine]

Correction: After a quick field test it seems to me the bazooka can penitrate the side turret armour of a King Tiger (80/21 deg?) with regularity at close range.