markshot Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 Would a tank reduce its exposure if parked in a crater? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 That would have to be one hell of a crater. I'm talking aircraft bomb here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 I believe it does to a degree, at the least maybe harder to spot. It probably won't be the same as a good 'ol hull down position. However, I haven't tried recently with test scenarios. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redrobin Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 I have managed to get a halftrack stuck in a crater. :confused: I did not notice any improved cover benifits. Spent the next 5 turns trying to get it out only to have it knocked out by 105mm artillery. RR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 I tried it out last night on a QB..set the damage level to massive and had about 10 tanks on either side, manouevered mine into the biggest shell holes i could find but either bogged or noticed no difference i.e no hull down. I had a swarm of T34 M42's against Panzer IV D, needless to say it was a blast-fest, good fun but did not seem to benefit me being in the craters nor did it seem to make my shooting worse. Conditions were clear, warm, dry and breeze. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishu Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 You DONT want to go into a craters with tank 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterGoodale Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Then why does the game come with the "Dug-In - Including Vehicles" option? :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Because you can then dig vehicles in, immobilising them but making them hull down from all angles. Get back to your thread Goodale. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerDog Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 We were trained to stay out of craters in our Shermans. The primary reason was that they often caused lateral (horizontal axis) angular offset with the sighting telescope. In other words, the tank would be sitting slightly tilted one way or another. You simply couldn't hit much beyond bore sight (800 yards) range because the reticule pattern in the scope was tilted. I don’t think this is modeled in CMBB, as I've had tanks sitting on the side of slopes (look like Swiss cows... ) and they seem to sight and fire at long ranges as if they were on flat ground. A good driver would work really hard to try and take up a fire position that would keep the master weapon platform as level as possible. Regards, Badger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 That basically sums up the results I got with my potato field tank test. No difference apart from bogging more frequently. badgerdog, questions if I may? How many tanks were there in your battalion and how was the division structured i.e two tank regiments and a mech infy regiment or was it structured into brigades? I don't suppose you know if the german army used brigades for there units or was it the regiment the core fighting unit? Any info would be really appreciated and it is a bit off topic but seeing as you were at the buisness end of a tank unit I might as well be cheeky and ask. Thanks in advance. Meach. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishu Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Actually, dug in vehicles means theres been either built something around the vehicle or digged a hole for it, complete with a ramp. It doesnt immobilize the vehicles at all. Just needs a bigger hole than for a man :> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerDog Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Hi Meach... I answered a similar question in another thread. Tank Brigade Sizes Originally posted by BadgerDog: Don't know about a brigade, but here's what my Regiment looked like. Circa 1960-68 Sherman Tank Regiment (Canada) 4 Tanks per Troop (5 man crews) 4 Troops per Squadron 3 Squadrons per Regiment plus an "A" and "B" echlon consisting of everything from jeeps to 3/4 ton trucks to deuce-and-one-halfs to support fighting elements. All in all, about 50-60 Shermans (with maint tanks, plus their support cadre. Hope this helps a bit... Regards, Badger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Badgerdog, that's something that I've always been wondering. I mean, does a tank need to be on level surface to shoot precisely. I served in the crew of an anti-tank recoilless rifle (but I come in peace). It was on a 2-wheel tripod mount that had a level. When we moved it to a new position, we'd dig up ground from underneath the thing until the thing known as level was in a state known as level. Since tanks seldom have a chance to stop for the crew to jump out and shovel some dirt from underneath the left track to flatten the ground during an engagement, I always thought that tank guns have some kind of special gyroscopic stabilizers. But I guess gunnery in combat is more difficult than practising on a shooting range from prepared positions, unless that combat takes place from a prepared position. Should this then mean that units that haven't been moved or that are dug-in, should have a better long range accuracy than tanks that have moved? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerDog Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Originally posted by Sergei: Badgerdog, that's something that I've always been wondering. I mean, does a tank need to be on level surface to shoot precisely.Our M4A2E8 Sherman had gyro-stabilization for elevation on 76mm master weapon only. It was primarily designed for firing on the move. All firing on the ranges was done level while sitting on concrete pads and stationary. MTR (mechanical target range) fire and movement was on regular ground, but it was often just flat terrain and "hull downs" on even ground. Anytime the driver got us into a more then a few degree tilt (I can't remember the exact amount), it was a really tough to use the horizontal reticule lines in the sighting telescope for setting longer ranges. Often we'd have to get him to "jockey" back and forth to get the gun platform (and sighting pattern) level for longer range shots. Up close and personal was easier as we would be using the bore sight "+" in the scope and it would be pretty accurate regardless of what angle we were leaning on. Dug in units would have taken the time to level their gun platform using the "bubble" and certainly would have sighted in pre-registered targets, recording them on what we used to call a "Range Card". Does this help? Regards, Badger [ May 12, 2003, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Thank you ever so much Badger, really appreciate the time you took to post. I will look over all the info. Thanks again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.