Why Cm tanks search always a 90° front against gun fire?

[massimorocca]

This is something I focused only after so many years of CMBO and CMBB. When a tank is targeted it rotate to have a 90 degree front against the menace. But is a "full frontal" the best angle? An 80° , i.e., don't improve the chance to get a ricochet? (exactly like happens with the vertical angled plate) and don't increase the "real" thickness, without exposing to much the flank?

Any hint?

Thanks

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by massimorocca:

This is something I focused only after so many years of CMBO and CMBB. When a tank is targeted it rotate to have a 90 degree front against the menace. But is a "full frontal" the best angle? An 80° , i.e., don't improve the chance to get a ricochet? (exactly like happens with the vertical angled plate) and don't increase the "real" thickness, without exposing to much the flank?

Any hint?

Thanks

I haven't got a clue on this line of reasoning but I hope someone will be along shortly to let us know. I can only guess that the less you rotate into the threat so as to leave the front plate angled to the shot the greater the chance of being struck in the thinner flank armour and risking a penetration there. Plus the fact that tanks have a smaller front profile than side so the danger is increased still further.

[Soddball]

I believe you can use the 'cover arc' function to keep the hull facing at an angle away from your target, thus improving the armour angle.

[Mattias]

You are correct Massimo. It was indeed SOP for at least some armoured forces to present your front armour with a slight angel towards the enemy. The Tiger crews, for example, was reminded of this in the "Tigerfiebel".

This way the front armour gained a few extra millimetres of effective armour at the, in this case, cost effective price of exposing the side armour at an extreme angle.

The matter has been brought up previously on this forum. Though I can not recall the exact wording from BFC I think it was a matter of too much micro management for/of the tacAI that prevented the inclusion of this feature.

M.

[ June 01, 2003, 06:32 AM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by massimorocca:

This is something I focused only after so many years of CMBO and CMBB. When a tank is targeted it rotate to have a 90 degree front against the menace. But is a "full frontal" the best angle? An 80° , i.e., don't improve the chance to get a ricochet? (exactly like happens with the vertical angled plate) and don't increase the "real" thickness, without exposing to much the flank?

Any hint?

That is correct, and I think at least Tiger commanders knew that it was beneficial to position their tanks in oblique, that way making that armour act a bit like sloped. For most other tanks it wouldn't matter so much, because eg. a Panther would try hard not to risk a flank shot, but for a tank like Tiger or KV it doesn't really matter that much, especially if the angle is something like 10-15 degrees off the bearing.

But that would cause obvious problems with the AI, considering all the screw-ups it does at the moment. This was the reason for not including it in the TacAI. The game does simulate the effect, though. If you immobilise a Tiger, it is better to move to a position from where you can fire so that your shell arrives at 90 degree angle to the armour plate.

[Michael Emrys]

I understand the Panzers in North Africa regularly used this technique, so I'd guess absent conclusive proof to the contrary that it was standard procedure througout the Panzerwaffe.

Michael

[Moon]

Actually it's not "screw-ups" by the AI, Sergei, but the fact that after investigating we found it difficult (read: very time intensive) to code the AI in a way which wouldn't yield too much precision in the positioning of tanks vs. incoming fire. Since so much was on the plate during CMBB development, the little gain in this respect was found to not be worth the effort (i.e. other features were found to be of higher priority), especially since tanks in CMBB will not automatically fully rotate by default anyway, leading to oblique angles often enough.

Martin

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Sergei:

That is correct, and I think at least Tiger commanders knew that it was beneficial to position their tanks in oblique, that way making that armour act a bit like sloped. For most other tanks it wouldn't matter so much, because eg. a Panther would try hard not to risk a flank shot, but for a tank like Tiger or KV it doesn't really matter that much, especially if the angle is something like 10-15 degrees off the bearing.

IMO this is not correct:

a deviation of 10 degree only, results in a front plate thickness, that is ~17% thicker: cos(10°)=0.17, while the side thickness seems almost 6 times thicker for the projectile (1/cos(10°)).

Taking additionally the poor effectiveness of penetration-depth against a 80° plate into account, let's me assume that this should be done by all tanks, also such ones, with paper thin side-plates (10mm x 6 -> ~60mm effective side thickness @ 10° deviation to target.

[ June 03, 2003, 03:35 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[MikeyD]

I somehow doubt most tank drivers in the heat of battle would be concentrating on anything more general than keeping the heavly armored part pointing forward, especially since it's unlikely they could see much of what was going on anyway.

Tiger I drivers were part of an elite corps and were trained as such (at least at the beginning). As for the rest of them, I recall someone on the forum mentioning an old Stug driver (his father?) had never been told what those little rear convoy lights on the back of the Stug was for! So much for precision training!

I recall an mid-production CMBO patch had tanks operating VERY aggressively to turn their hulls toward the enemy. It was toned-doen in subsequent patches but I had actually rather preferred it that way.

[ June 03, 2003, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[SFJaykey]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I somehow doubt most tank drivers in the heat of battle would be concentrating on anything more general than keeping the heavly armored part pointing forward, especially since it's unlikely they could seem much of what was going on anyway.....

Not to mention the gunner shouting: "Stop rotating the **** tank! I almost had him!"

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I think it is best left as it is now anyway. If my tank is focusing on a tank and directly poining the hull at that opponent there is less chance of being embarressed by another enemy showing up and getting you in the flank. I hate to have my Panther get a nice 30 degree angle on a target only for an enemy tank being presented with a flank shot wich it wouldn't have had, had my Pather faced the inital enemy tank dead on.

[MikeyD]

I recall one account in the classic desert war book "Brazen Chariots" by Crisp of what his Stuart driver was usually up to during an engagement. He'd usually be pressing himself hard into the corner as far from the vision slit and bow rivets (actually, screws and bolts in Stuarts) as possible, expecting any moment to have a shell bursting past him! Doesn't much sound like he was taking the time to judge whether he was 5 degrees or 10 degrees off-line with his opponent.

But then that was a Brit, not an uber-warrior German.

[ June 03, 2003, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[JasonC]

It was standard practice for all the turreted tanks. The angle used could be as high as 30 degrees, but 15 to 20 was typical. The gun sticks out over the same part of the front corner, so the driver gets used to the same angle to the direction of aim. It is an important benefit of having a turret.

It was especially important for the Germans because their front armor was mostly vertical, so the only angle they got was side angle. SP guns wouldn't try it because their traverse is limited, and they want to be able to track the target when it moves without turning the hull, if possible.

In CMBB, use a (vehicle, for tanks) covered arc to align the turret, and the direction of last move to align the hull. If the target is within the covered arc already the hull won't rotate. The turret returns to a default alignment of the centerline of the covered arc, instead of aligned with the hull (as happens with no arc).