Hull down - is it worth it?

[Pud]

Just doing some tests on being hull down.

Scenario 2 tigers, 2 pumas, 2 PzII. allies have 2 40mm AA.

One of each vehicle is on the far side crest of a hill, being hull down to AA. The other 3 are in open terrain to the 2nd AA. (Range 100m, not that that really matters)

the relative advantage of being hull down was

tigers = 10% (ie 87% compared to 97%)

puma = 15%

PzII = 23%

Does this mean the body of the tiger represents only 10% of the complete vehicle? Or does this mean the "target" is 10% harder to hit and any hit which"would" have hit the body now plows into the ground? I have had jumbo Shermans before and often wondered (after they died hull down) if just being entirely visible would have been a better choice, to take advantage of that front hull armour?

Im sorry if this is a rehash (search didnt bring anything up but this must have been discussed) as it certainly seems that being hull down for thick skinned vehicles is not advantageous and if this is the case other people (newbies) need to know this. :confused:

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Pud ]</p>

[Pud]

Just doing some tests on being hull down.

Scenario 2 tigers, 2 pumas, 2 PzII. allies have 2 40mm AA.

One of each vehicle is on the far side crest of a hill, being hull down to AA. The other 3 are in open terrain to the 2nd AA. (Range 100m, not that that really matters)

the relative advantage of being hull down was

tigers = 10% (ie 87% compared to 97%)

puma = 15%

PzII = 23%

Does this mean the body of the tiger represents only 10% of the complete vehicle? Or does this mean the "target" is 10% harder to hit and any hit which"would" have hit the body now plows into the ground? I have had jumbo Shermans before and often wondered (after they died hull down) if just being entirely visible would have been a better choice, to take advantage of that front hull armour?

Im sorry if this is a rehash (search didnt bring anything up but this must have been discussed) as it certainly seems that being hull down for thick skinned vehicles is not advantageous and if this is the case other people (newbies) need to know this. :confused:

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Pud ]</p>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

i think that all the tests i have seen players take and evaluate still are not a good way to judge thing. instead of getting all scientific about it, you need to learn to just figure out what your going to due in the game, what your willing to lose for the risk and simply roll the dice and hope for the best. this is my formula for the game and it one of the many reasons i think this game rocks, it captures the chaos of war and that anyhting can happen, even a seemingly hopless situation has a chance of turning around, put down your calcualtor, boot up the game, and have a blast, i'll play you in an ip if you want, it's alot more fun

[Iron Chef Sakai]

i think that all the tests i have seen players take and evaluate still are not a good way to judge thing. instead of getting all scientific about it, you need to learn to just figure out what your going to due in the game, what your willing to lose for the risk and simply roll the dice and hope for the best. this is my formula for the game and it one of the many reasons i think this game rocks, it captures the chaos of war and that anyhting can happen, even a seemingly hopless situation has a chance of turning around, put down your calcualtor, boot up the game, and have a blast, i'll play you in an ip if you want, it's alot more fun

[Tanaka]

Sorry, going for a fast answer...

- Hull down always reduces the chance of an enemy hitting the shot (10% less , is not anything to dump away)

- Hull down prevents lower hull to be hit,this is good for almost all vehicles, but for the Sherman is not...

If I can, even with a Sherman, I normally prefer to go hull down, due to the reduced chance of enemy hit

[Tanaka]

Sorry, going for a fast answer...

- Hull down always reduces the chance of an enemy hitting the shot (10% less , is not anything to dump away)

- Hull down prevents lower hull to be hit,this is good for almost all vehicles, but for the Sherman is not...

If I can, even with a Sherman, I normally prefer to go hull down, due to the reduced chance of enemy hit

[russellmz]

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

Just doing some tests on being hull down.

Scenario 2 tigers, 2 pumas, 2 PzII. allies have 2 40mm AA.

One of each vehicle is on the far side crest of a hill, being hull down to AA. The other 3 are in open terrain to the 2nd AA. (Range 100m, not that that really matters)

the relative advantage of being hull down was

tigers = 10% (ie 87% compared to 97%)

puma = 15%

PzII = 23%

Does this mean the body of the tiger represents only 10% of the complete vehicle? Or does this mean the "target" is 10% harder to hit and any hit which"would" have hit the body now plows into the ground? I have had jumbo Shermans before and often wondered (after they died hull down) if just being entirely visible would have been a better choice, to take advantage of that front hull armour?

Im sorry if this is a rehash (search didnt bring anything up but this must have been discussed) as it certainly seems that being hull down for thick skinned vehicles is not advantageous and if this is the case other people (newbies) need to know this. :confused:

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Pud ]<hr></blockquote>

here is a massive massive multi page lin on the subject:

basics: if you are thin skinned, then use hull down as it minimizes the size of yr target profile. but you're still screwed if you just sit there istead of popping up and down behind the hill/crest. if you are thick skinned IT MAY not be worth it, if your turrent armor is thinner than yr hull armor(all shots are aimed at yr turrent when u are hull down, but the same shot may hit yr hull and not kill you)

so to sum up the summation, it depends.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/013585.html

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: russellmz ]</p>

[russellmz]

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

Just doing some tests on being hull down.

Scenario 2 tigers, 2 pumas, 2 PzII. allies have 2 40mm AA.

One of each vehicle is on the far side crest of a hill, being hull down to AA. The other 3 are in open terrain to the 2nd AA. (Range 100m, not that that really matters)

the relative advantage of being hull down was

tigers = 10% (ie 87% compared to 97%)

puma = 15%

PzII = 23%

Does this mean the body of the tiger represents only 10% of the complete vehicle? Or does this mean the "target" is 10% harder to hit and any hit which"would" have hit the body now plows into the ground? I have had jumbo Shermans before and often wondered (after they died hull down) if just being entirely visible would have been a better choice, to take advantage of that front hull armour?

Im sorry if this is a rehash (search didnt bring anything up but this must have been discussed) as it certainly seems that being hull down for thick skinned vehicles is not advantageous and if this is the case other people (newbies) need to know this. :confused:

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Pud ]<hr></blockquote>

here is a massive massive multi page lin on the subject:

basics: if you are thin skinned, then use hull down as it minimizes the size of yr target profile. but you're still screwed if you just sit there istead of popping up and down behind the hill/crest. if you are thick skinned IT MAY not be worth it, if your turrent armor is thinner than yr hull armor(all shots are aimed at yr turrent when u are hull down, but the same shot may hit yr hull and not kill you)

so to sum up the summation, it depends.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/013585.html

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: russellmz ]</p>

[Pud]

Just that 10% is a small change given the change in the silhouette. Would think it would be a larger value.

[Pud]

Just that 10% is a small change given the change in the silhouette. Would think it would be a larger value.

[Dschugaschwili]

Have you noticed the distance? 100m is close enough to hit almost anything even if it's hull down. Try the same from farther away, say 1000m, and I'm sure things will look very different.

As for hull down being worth the effort or not, it depends on which part of your tank is vulnerable to enemy fire.

If it's only the lower hull, you should obviously go hull down.

If it's the turret, but not the upper hull, being hull down may be a disadvantage (PzIV vs. Greyhound is the most famous example).

If it's everything, go hull down of course.

And so on...

Dschugaschwili

[Dschugaschwili]

Have you noticed the distance? 100m is close enough to hit almost anything even if it's hull down. Try the same from farther away, say 1000m, and I'm sure things will look very different.

As for hull down being worth the effort or not, it depends on which part of your tank is vulnerable to enemy fire.

If it's only the lower hull, you should obviously go hull down.

If it's the turret, but not the upper hull, being hull down may be a disadvantage (PzIV vs. Greyhound is the most famous example).

If it's everything, go hull down of course.

And so on...

Dschugaschwili

[Mattias]

Pud,

Your numbers look unfamiliar to me. Have you tested this with different guns at different ranges? Does it yield results that are consistent?

M.

[Mattias]

Pud,

Your numbers look unfamiliar to me. Have you tested this with different guns at different ranges? Does it yield results that are consistent?

M.

[tone]

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

the relative advantage of being hull down was

tigers = 10% (ie 87% compared to 97%)

puma = 15%

PzII = 23%

<hr></blockquote>

I think you're thinking about this the wrong way.

The proportional size is not directly interesting. Rather, the size of the target that is unobscured should be the point of comparison.

Suppose the target is the Hoover Dam, and you have it 99% obscured at 100 yards. The result: a target still so huge it cannot be missed. A person at 100 yards will benefit somewhat from being 50% obscured. A gnat at 100 yards, on the other hand, really does not benefit from being hulldown as it is unhittable at full exposure. So size really does matter!

Hull down helps, but does not directly affect hit probability. It indirectly helps in cases where it produces an effective target size sufficiently harder to hit than the original.

Also.. the figures you cite (a 10% improvement) is not altogether a sufficient statistic for showing the advantages of being hull down (recall Twain's "There are two kinds of lies: little white lies and statistics"). An equally rational way to regard a difference in a 97% vs 87% enemy shot probability is that being hulldown has increased your chances of being missed by over 300% (3% chance vs 13% chance). I see this same misuse of data all the time in speech recognizer performance. A recognizer that has 99% accuracy is not really only 10% better than one that it 90% accuracy -- it is fully 10x less likely to screw up, and that is a profound advantage.

tone

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: tone ]</p>

[tone]

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

the relative advantage of being hull down was

tigers = 10% (ie 87% compared to 97%)

puma = 15%

PzII = 23%

<hr></blockquote>

I think you're thinking about this the wrong way.

The proportional size is not directly interesting. Rather, the size of the target that is unobscured should be the point of comparison.

Suppose the target is the Hoover Dam, and you have it 99% obscured at 100 yards. The result: a target still so huge it cannot be missed. A person at 100 yards will benefit somewhat from being 50% obscured. A gnat at 100 yards, on the other hand, really does not benefit from being hulldown as it is unhittable at full exposure. So size really does matter!

Hull down helps, but does not directly affect hit probability. It indirectly helps in cases where it produces an effective target size sufficiently harder to hit than the original.

Also.. the figures you cite (a 10% improvement) is not altogether a sufficient statistic for showing the advantages of being hull down (recall Twain's "There are two kinds of lies: little white lies and statistics"). An equally rational way to regard a difference in a 97% vs 87% enemy shot probability is that being hulldown has increased your chances of being missed by over 300% (3% chance vs 13% chance). I see this same misuse of data all the time in speech recognizer performance. A recognizer that has 99% accuracy is not really only 10% better than one that it 90% accuracy -- it is fully 10x less likely to screw up, and that is a profound advantage.

tone

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: tone ]</p>

[Pud]

Did another test. this time at 300m. A distance I would think is be a bit more likely in games (ones I play anyway) I couldnt see the point of doing one at 1000m as I have never played a game with those distance involved and unit identification at that range is not possible so the "chance to hit" would be incorrect anyway.

same setup as before tiger,puma and PzII this time with 76mmAT 40mmAA and 90mmAA

Some interesting results (did the test 5 times and the scores varied by +-%5)

These score are the median scores (yeh yeh sample too small, doing this as a point of interest not as a thesis)

Hulldown Puma/Tiger/PzII

76/90mm 31/38/27

40mm 70/80/65

Open

76/90mm 50/60/45

40mm 88/96/90

So change@300m is around 20%. Its interesting to see that the 40mmAA is exceptionally accurate, the 40mm would appear very leathal to light armour indeed.

The 76mmAT and 90mm AA both score around the same figure. (i found this surprising)

The is a large random factor given the exact same circumstances, talking around %20 reduction in hull down when the scores themselves can vary by 10%.

Take out of all this what you will. For me its food for thought.

[Pud]

Did another test. this time at 300m. A distance I would think is be a bit more likely in games (ones I play anyway) I couldnt see the point of doing one at 1000m as I have never played a game with those distance involved and unit identification at that range is not possible so the "chance to hit" would be incorrect anyway.

same setup as before tiger,puma and PzII this time with 76mmAT 40mmAA and 90mmAA

Some interesting results (did the test 5 times and the scores varied by +-%5)

These score are the median scores (yeh yeh sample too small, doing this as a point of interest not as a thesis)

Hulldown Puma/Tiger/PzII

76/90mm 31/38/27

40mm 70/80/65

Open

76/90mm 50/60/45

40mm 88/96/90

So change@300m is around 20%. Its interesting to see that the 40mmAA is exceptionally accurate, the 40mm would appear very leathal to light armour indeed.

The 76mmAT and 90mm AA both score around the same figure. (i found this surprising)

The is a large random factor given the exact same circumstances, talking around %20 reduction in hull down when the scores themselves can vary by 10%.

Take out of all this what you will. For me its food for thought.

[Fangorn]

I ran a few extra tests. The results of the 90 mm AA gun and the 76 mm and 57 mm gun are placed together due minimum variation of its results. Check this out:

600 m

Hull down Panzer IVG / Hetzer / Stug IV / Panther G

90/76/57 - 28 - 30 - 36 - 31

40 AA g -- 64 - 66 - 74 - 69

105 how. - 18 - 19 - 23 - 20

In the open:

90/76/57 - 44 - 38 - 43 - 52

40 AA g -- 82 - 75 - 81 - 88

105 how. - 30 - 25 - 29 - 36

Difference:

90/76/57 - 16 - 08 - 07 - 21

40 AA g -- 18 - 09 - 07 - 19

105 how. - 12 - 06 - 06 - 16

Now at 800 m

Hull down Panzer IVG / Hetzer / Stug IV / Panther G

90/76/57 - 21 - 22 - 26 - 23

40 AA g -- 51 - 53 - 61 - 56

105 how. - 12 - 12 - 15 - 13

In the open:

90/76/57 - 34 - 29 - 34 - 41

40 AA g -- 72 - 64 - 71 - 79

105 how. - 21 - 17 - 20 - 25

Difference:

90/76/57 - 13 - 07 - 08 - 18

40 AA g -- 21 - 11 - 10 - 23

105 how. - 09 - 05 - 05 - 12

Analysis of the chance of hitting a Panther G (90 mm gun):

In the open (600m): 52

Hull down position: 31

Difference: 21

Chance of hitting the hull: 40,38

In the open (800m): 41

Hull down position: 23

Difference: 18

Chance of hitting the hull: 43,9

I found the results odd. The chance of hitting the turret is too high, imho. And it should go down, not up, with the distance. [edit - it is going down, I took the chance of hitting the hull as the chance of hitting the turret - my bad]

With the Panzer IV G this happens, too, as the chance of hitting the hull goes from 36,36% (@600m) to 38,23 (@800m). I would like to know the percentage of the turret in the sillouette of the vehicles.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Fangorn ]</p>

[Fangorn]

I ran a few extra tests. The results of the 90 mm AA gun and the 76 mm and 57 mm gun are placed together due minimum variation of its results. Check this out:

600 m

Hull down Panzer IVG / Hetzer / Stug IV / Panther G

90/76/57 - 28 - 30 - 36 - 31

40 AA g -- 64 - 66 - 74 - 69

105 how. - 18 - 19 - 23 - 20

In the open:

90/76/57 - 44 - 38 - 43 - 52

40 AA g -- 82 - 75 - 81 - 88

105 how. - 30 - 25 - 29 - 36

Difference:

90/76/57 - 16 - 08 - 07 - 21

40 AA g -- 18 - 09 - 07 - 19

105 how. - 12 - 06 - 06 - 16

Now at 800 m

Hull down Panzer IVG / Hetzer / Stug IV / Panther G

90/76/57 - 21 - 22 - 26 - 23

40 AA g -- 51 - 53 - 61 - 56

105 how. - 12 - 12 - 15 - 13

In the open:

90/76/57 - 34 - 29 - 34 - 41

40 AA g -- 72 - 64 - 71 - 79

105 how. - 21 - 17 - 20 - 25

Difference:

90/76/57 - 13 - 07 - 08 - 18

40 AA g -- 21 - 11 - 10 - 23

105 how. - 09 - 05 - 05 - 12

Analysis of the chance of hitting a Panther G (90 mm gun):

In the open (600m): 52

Hull down position: 31

Difference: 21

Chance of hitting the hull: 40,38

In the open (800m): 41

Hull down position: 23

Difference: 18

Chance of hitting the hull: 43,9

I found the results odd. The chance of hitting the turret is too high, imho. And it should go down, not up, with the distance. [edit - it is going down, I took the chance of hitting the hull as the chance of hitting the turret - my bad]

With the Panzer IV G this happens, too, as the chance of hitting the hull goes from 36,36% (@600m) to 38,23 (@800m). I would like to know the percentage of the turret in the sillouette of the vehicles.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Fangorn ]</p>

[Sergei]

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

Its interesting to see that the 40mmAA is exceptionally accurate, the 40mm would appear very leathal to light armour indeed.<hr></blockquote>

I believe this is because it fires in bursts, while normal AT guns shoot their rounds one by one.

[Sergei]

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

Its interesting to see that the 40mmAA is exceptionally accurate, the 40mm would appear very leathal to light armour indeed.<hr></blockquote>

I believe this is because it fires in bursts, while normal AT guns shoot their rounds one by one.

[gredeker]

It's also important to realize the value of absolute vs. relative percentages. I'm sure any mathematicians or statisticians on the board can give a better example, but consider the following:

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

I ran a few extra tests. The results of the 90 mm AA gun and the 76 mm and 57 mm gun are placed together due minimum variation of its results. Check this out:

600 m

Hull down Panzer IVG / Hetzer / Stug IV / Panther G

90/76/57 - 28 - 30 - 36 - 31

40 AA g -- 64 - 66 - 74 - 69

105 how. - 18 - 19 - 23 - 20

In the open:

90/76/57 - 44 - 38 - 43 - 52

40 AA g -- 82 - 75 - 81 - 88

105 how. - 30 - 25 - 29 - 36

Difference:

90/76/57 - 16 - 08 - 07 - 21

40 AA g -- 18 - 09 - 07 - 19

105 how. - 12 - 06 - 06 - 16

<hr></blockquote>

According to these figures, a HD PanzerIV at 600 meters being shot at by a 90/76/57mm gun is going to be hit 28% of the time, whereas one that is not HD will be hit 44% of the time. The difference is 16%. However, the relative change in the hit percentage is going to be 16/44, or 36% - this is the true percentage reduction in the chance of being hit vs. not being hit. A PzIV being shot at by a 105 gains an even bigger advantage by being HD - 18% chance of being hit HD, 30% chance of being hit in the open, absolute difference of 12%, relative difference of 40%.

And as Fangorn's other figures show, the relative percentage in most cases increases as range increases.

That's my $0.02.

[gredeker]

It's also important to realize the value of absolute vs. relative percentages. I'm sure any mathematicians or statisticians on the board can give a better example, but consider the following:

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

I ran a few extra tests. The results of the 90 mm AA gun and the 76 mm and 57 mm gun are placed together due minimum variation of its results. Check this out:

600 m

Hull down Panzer IVG / Hetzer / Stug IV / Panther G

90/76/57 - 28 - 30 - 36 - 31

40 AA g -- 64 - 66 - 74 - 69

105 how. - 18 - 19 - 23 - 20

In the open:

90/76/57 - 44 - 38 - 43 - 52

40 AA g -- 82 - 75 - 81 - 88

105 how. - 30 - 25 - 29 - 36

Difference:

90/76/57 - 16 - 08 - 07 - 21

40 AA g -- 18 - 09 - 07 - 19

105 how. - 12 - 06 - 06 - 16

<hr></blockquote>

According to these figures, a HD PanzerIV at 600 meters being shot at by a 90/76/57mm gun is going to be hit 28% of the time, whereas one that is not HD will be hit 44% of the time. The difference is 16%. However, the relative change in the hit percentage is going to be 16/44, or 36% - this is the true percentage reduction in the chance of being hit vs. not being hit. A PzIV being shot at by a 105 gains an even bigger advantage by being HD - 18% chance of being hit HD, 30% chance of being hit in the open, absolute difference of 12%, relative difference of 40%.

And as Fangorn's other figures show, the relative percentage in most cases increases as range increases.

That's my $0.02.

[MikeyD]

This doesn't sound like my experience (with the right vehicles). If you've got a JpzIV hull-down on the back slife of a slope the combination of increased armor angle and reduced silhouette makes it just about unbeatable.

Then again, if you've got a light tank hull-down but so close to the enemy it'd be impossible to miss a turret penetration is still a turret penetration.