Turret hits and the poor ole PZ-IV

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

It's interesting to me that 25% of hits on a hull-down tank are still hitting the upper hull. From this I deduce BFC is assuming only a partial hull-down configuration, otherwise these shots would be clean misses. I'm wondering if tanks and turretless AFVs haven't been lumped together in the mechanics of the game engine here. This could possibly have strange consequences for hit distribution on turreted vehicles too, depending on how this works.

Michael

I think it's because it's difficult to achieve a perfect hull-down position...</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

However, the amount that it will drop between the obstacle and the tank is minimal.

Like about one inch, for instance.

I think we can eliminate that from our concerns for the moment.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Tero:

The obtacle can be quite far away from the vehicle it is providing hull down cover for.

True, but I don't normally find that to be the case. Do you? I guess it depends on your playing style. I am normall looking for small crests in the ground and placing my armor immediately behind them. But I realize that chance may offer some intervening obstacle farther away.

Question is, is that truly hull down if you are arguing that projectile drop would be sufficient to hit the hull? All that is really being blocked is part of the LOS. I say that in this case the engine should not show it as hull down.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

If you consider my Sherman vs Mark IV at 400 meters matchup above, what would happen if 1000 rounds were fired with no increase in accuracy for each shot?

Hull Up Mark IV

It would be hit 620 times, 206 times on the turret

Hull Down Mark IV

It would be hit 400 times, 300 times on the turret.

Okay, those numbers don't feel right to me. I can see a possible very slight increase in turret hits on the hull-down tank, but that's nearly a 50% increase, and I find that hard to accept without some kind of empirical proof from the real world.

Just pulling numbers out of the air—not to prove anything at all but just to communicate my sense of things—if the numbers for hull-up are correct, what I would expect to see for hull-down would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 230 hits of which 215 are on the turret.

Michael

[Mr. Tittles]

If someone has CMBO/CMBB, can they check the following:

1. were stugs modeled with curved armor?

2. was curved armor a CMBB introduction?

Its obvious that the designers are modeling this StuGIII largely flat/multi-angled/varying thickness area (superstructure) with the curved armor abstraction. This allows all areas to be represented. Since this is already in the game, and would not need programming changes, I think it deserves some attention. Would having the Panzer IV turret front at 50mm curved (80 to 45 deg) be objectionable?

[flamingknives]

Curved armour is most definately a CMBB introduction.

Some Stugs had 80mm curved, some had something like 80mm at a 10 degree slope.

[Treeburst155]

Michael,

If we like 75% of hits on a hull down tank to be on the turret, and 33.3% of hits on a hull up tank to be on the turret, the thing to change would be the difference in basic Chance To Hit when going from hull up to hull down. In my Sherman example above, the difference is only 22% (35% reduction from hull up chances). Perhaps the formula that determines this difference in Chance to Hit needs to be changed so that it becomes more difficult to hit a hull down target compared to the same target at the same range when hull up.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Michael,

If we like 75% of hits on a hull down tank to be on the turret, and 33.3% of hits on a hull up tank to be on the turret, the thing to change would be the difference in basic Chance To Hit when going from hull up to hull down. In my Sherman example above, the difference is only 22% (35% reduction from hull up chances). Perhaps the formula that determines this difference in Chance to Hit needs to be changed so that it becomes more difficult to hit a hull down target compared to the same target at the same range when hull up.

Exactly. That been one of my main points of contention all along, but maybe in all the back and forth that didn't come through too clearly.

As has been mentioned earlier, a hull-down tank should be much harder to spot. Two-thirds (roughly) of its frontal area will be out of sight and the remainder is more easily obscured by vegetation. For that reason it will also be harder to identify and to make an accurate range estimation. Since two-thirds of its frontal area is behind cover, it is a smaller target to hit even once the range is known.

Now, I don't know how much harder it would be to hit, but just taking a wild guess I'd say a bit harder than CM is presently showing it. I believe your test showed only a reduction of somewhere in the vicinity of 33%, and that was first round effectiveness, right? So that is without range corrections. Again, just taking a very conservative guess, I would have expected at least, at least, a reduction of 50%. A freer guess would have placed it more into the range of 60-70% reduction and even that might be on the low side.

Now, until somebody comes up with some good evidence to the contrary, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

Michael

[MikeyD]

In old threads people have discussed a trained gunner's ability to pinpoint particular spots on a tank (aim for the driver's vision slit!). If targeting can be that particular a hull-down tank masking 50% of its front, for example, would not necessarily imply a 50% reduction in hit probability. It would just mean the gunner would have fewer aim points to choose from (We can't see the driver's vision slit so aim for the cupola!) but he'd still retain about the same probability of hitting the small spot he was aiming at.

It may not be til longer ranges where projectile ballistics and the quality of optics come into play (aiming at a spot on the horizon) that hull-down would begin make a significant "hit/no hit" difference.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

In old threads people have discussed a trained gunner's ability to pinpoint particular spots on a tank (aim for the driver's vision slit!).

I strongly suspect that such stories do not represent the norm.

If targeting can be that particular a hull-down tank masking 50% of its front, for example, would not necessarily imply a 50% reduction in hit probability.

Well that depends on what the CEP of the gun is, how good the sight and its registration with the gun is, lighting, windage, and god knows what else.

It would just mean the gunner would have fewer aim points to choose from (We can't see the driver's vision slit so aim for the cupola!) but he'd still retain about the same probability of hitting the small spot he was aiming at.

But we haven't established yet how good that was. From the anecdotes I've come across in my own readings, for the average gunner just being able to hit a tank anywhere was a near miracle. Some were better shots than others and they're the ones that lived to come back and tell their stories.

It may not be til longer ranges where projectile ballistics and the quality of optics come into play (aiming at a spot on the horizon) that hull-down would begin make a significant "hit/no hit" difference.

I'm sure that statement is true. The problem is where does that begin to be critical? 500 meters? 750? 1000? I think it depends on many variables aside from the physical properties of the weapon itself. There are environmental variables, such as lighting, atmospheric obscuration, wind, vegetation or lack thereof. There are operator variables such as, training and experience; is the crew especially tired or anxious, are they distracted, hungry, or just idiots?

To be a playable game, that mélange of variables has to get cooked down to a managable set of abstractions that the computer can digest and that will cover most game events most of the time. I guess Charles works for his pay.

Michael

[Treeburst155]

We're into the realm of tank gunnery to the point where we would need experts who have actually fired WW II tanks, or at least an M60 era tank. Still, the fact remains that the Mark IV, and any others with a weaker turret than hull, are better off avoiding hull down at any range greater than x, where x is determined by the specific matchup. I can live with it. I just hope I'm hull up when I discover your Sherman at 700 meters with my Mark IV.

[Michael Emrys]

And I hope my Sherman has lots of buddies to help him out. There's strength in numbers.

Michael

[gunnergoz]

To Heck with all this hull-down distance shooting...real Shermans manouver. So here's hoping my Sherman engages your PzIV from behind, up close and personal...

[ February 04, 2004, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: gunnergoz ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

True, but I don't normally find that to be the case. Do you? I guess it depends on your playing style. I am normall looking for small crests in the ground and placing my armor immediately behind them. But I realize that chance may offer some intervening obstacle farther away.

I would think the chosen terrain tile dimensions in the game would have some kind of an effect.

Question is, is that truly hull down if you are arguing that projectile drop would be sufficient to hit the hull? All that is really being blocked is part of the LOS. I say that in this case the engine should not show it as hull down.

Indeed. If you can not actually see it it does not necessarily mean you can not hit it.

Furthermore, if the angle of attack of the plummeting projectile is, say, 2 degrees from the horizontal at the time of the impact and given the imperfections of the aiming the point of impact could differ by several meters.

[Treeburst155]

Actually, looking things over in the editor, here are the ranges a Mark IV would start to want to be hull up against various American weapons which don't have tungsten. These are judgment calls based on the in-game tables:

57mm AT gun - 1,000 meters

37mm AT gun - 400 meters

75mm/L38 - 900 meters

76.2mm/L52 - over 2,000

So, it's not until the range gets fairly long, except in the case of light guns. BTW, at very long ranges, I'm getting the Chance to Hit to drop by 50% when going hull down. I've never seen it drop more than that however.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Actually, looking things over in the editor, here are the ranges a Mark IV would start to want to be hull up against various American weapons which don't have tungsten. These are judgment calls based on the in-game tables:

57mm AT gun - 1,000 meters

37mm AT gun - 400 meters

75mm/L38 - 900 meters

76.2mm/L52 - over 2,000

So, it's not until the range gets fairly long, except in the case of light guns. BTW, at very long ranges, I'm getting the Chance to Hit to drop by 50% when going hull down. I've never seen it drop more than that however.

Two remarks:

1) yes, the issue is more pressing again small guns. But these small guns are very common - Stuart, M3 turret, Greyhound (to be picked up int he vehicle category if we are talking Quickbattles here).

And then it only starts with everything British equipped with the 2-pounder, and again there is an armored car (Daimler AC) which exposes the problem

2) even against the bigger gun it makes a huge difference because the after-penetration effect is a lot less on the 80mm armor. In particular, the very common 75mm Sherman round uses up most of its energy in the penetration, dropping on the floor in the tank.

[Treeburst155]

Yes, the hull up situation will not be rare, just less common than I originally thought. I don't think I'd want my Mark IV hull up against a Sherman 75 at much less than 900 meters, though some might chance it at 700. I'm temtped to test that. Generally, the red flag for possible hull up preference will be when you encounter the lighter guns with your Mark IV.

[Abteilung]

If nearly every vehicle with something bigger than a .50 cal or 20mm can engage and kill it frontally at normal combat ranges, it is not a tank. It is a mobile gun with protection against small arms. I treat the Pz.IV as a Marder with more ammo and a real turret.

[Mr. Tittles]

Notice how a small a target the panzer IV turret frontal area is in this angled shot. The earlier vehicle does not have any turret shurzen spaced armor and the rather small turret (overall) and vulnerable turret frontal area (50mm) is evident.

I think the dollars to donuts guy is starting to make sense. This wont be addressed.

[ February 05, 2004, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]