Hull Down vs. Turret Down vs. Full Defilade

[YankeeDog]

My apologies if this topic has been discussed in a previous thread. I did several searches, and turned up some very interesting reading but nothing that really answered my questions.

Since I started playing CM, I've been doing more reading on 'real world' tactics and how they compare to what I see in the game. One area where I am a little bit confused is LOS as it relates to AFVs using terrain features for cover. Wisdom from those more familiar with the game and 'real world' tactics would be greatly appreciated.

First, a summary of what I've come to understand so far about this topic. Sorry for the length - this question is rather involved and wouldn't make much sense without an explanation of where I am coming from.

Take the textbook case: an AFV (for simplicity, hereafter we'll assume it's a turreted tank) with a terrain feature (a small rise) that is between it and an area of ground that it wishes to observe and potentially fire upon (hereafter, the "target area").

As I understand it, the tank has four basic positions to choose from relative to the terrain feature and the target area in question, each one having distinct advantages and disadvantages:

1. Full Defilade: The terrain feature fully blocks LOS between the AFV and the target area, and the AFV is far enough behind the terrain feature that even an unbuttoned TC in the turret hatch or standing on the turret cannot see over the terrain feature to the target area. Conversely, the tank cannot be seen at all by any enemy units in the target area.

Advantages: 100% cover and concealment.

Disadvantages: no observation of target area possible.

2. Turret Down: The terrain feature fully blocks LOS between any point on the hull or turret of the tank and the target area, but the unbuttoned TC, by standing in the turret hatch, or on the turret itself, can see over the terrain feature.

Advantages: nearly 100% cover and concealment - only the TCs head and maybe part of his upper body are exposed. None of the vehicle itself is exposed. Some observation (by the TC only) of the target area is possible.

Disadvantages: It is not possible to fire any of the tank's weapons into the target area. TC is the only one who can see the target - the tank loses the spotting benefit of multiple pairs of eyes. Also, this position is only possible for an unbuttoned tank.

3. Hull Down: Tank is positioned such that the main gun and main gun sight have LOS to the target area over the terrain feature, but LOS between the target area and all, or nearly all, of the hull is blocked by the terrain feature.

Advantages: Very good cover and concealment - only the turret of the tank is exposed. Main gun and any turret-mounted MGs can fire on target area. Spotting ability improved over position 2 - assuming tank is unbuttoned, both TC and gunner (through the gunsight) can observe target area.

Disadvantages: Not as good cover and concealment as 1 or 2. Hull mounted MGs or other weapons cannot fire on target area. Spotting ability still less than maximum - driver's and bow MG gunner's (if the Tank has one) view of Target area is still blocked.

4. Full exposure: Tank is more or less completely clear of terrain feature; there is LOS between all, or nearly all of the Tank to the Target area.

Advantages: Maximum spotting and firepower. All forward firing weapons can fire on target area. All members of crew with a view out of the tank can observe target area.

Disadvantages: Virtually no cover or concealment.

Obviously, each of these positions has their own time and place, depending on the tactical situation and what you are trying to do. The questions of when to go hull down etc. have been asked and discussed before, though, so that is not my query.

My question is as follows: To what extent are the above 4 positions modelled in CM?

It seems clear to me that positions 1 (full defilade) and 4 (full exposure)exist in the game and are pretty much as described above.

Position 3 (hull down) exists, and from the "bow MG blocked" message you get when your tank is hull down, it is clear that CM at least models the reduction in firepower associated with being hull down. Does it also model the reduction in spotting ability associated with being hull down?

I haven't figured out yet whether position 2 (turret down) exists at all in CM. I have figured out that the LOS tool seems to show LOS from the main gunsight (i.e. if you can see it, you can hit it), but there should be an area in front of a tank that is behind a rise that the (unbuttoned) TC can see, but the gun cannot fire upon owing to the fact that the TC's eyes are at least 3' above the gun (and more if he stands on the turret). I don't think the CM LOS model reflects this, but I'm not absoutely sure - it's a difficult thing to come up with a definitive test for.

The reason I bring it up is that in a recent PBEM, I had a bunch of Armoured Cars and no other armour. I would have liked to put them into turret down positions behind terrain so they could observe the open ground of the other side, but not expose their rather thin armour to fire. Normally, I would have used infantry in the rise to observe and kept the ACs in full defilade, but in this particular scenario I did not have the infantry to spare.

[Snarker]

The short answer is I have never seen a turret down position while playing. The other three aspects are modeled.

[Silvio Manuel]

I'm quite sure that while playing Valley of Trouble on the Demo (version 1.02 or something?) that my Sherman went turret-down (was listed on the vehicle graphic just like hull down) and something else couldn't fire...main gun maybe? More than just the bow MG.

Perhaps they changed this for later versions?

[gibsonm]

YankeeDog,

I'm not sure if it is modelled in CMBO but just a slight refinement to your definitions.

In "Turret down" the AFV can still engage targets using a technique called "Semi Indirect". This is where the commander can see the target (and apply corrections) but the gunner can't. This is normally used for HE and Smoke shooting. It also lets the commander engage targets with indirect fire without exposing his vehicle (similar to what you may have been trying with your Armoured Cars).

The three techniques are:

Indirect: Where the commander and gunner can't see the target and rely on corrections from a 3rd party (just like Arty). This is used for HE.

Semi Indirect: as above.

Direct: Commander and gunner can see the target and is used for all natures of ammunition. It is needed for the flat trajectory of anti armour rounds.

Hope that helps,

[Redwolf]

When CMBO's tanks are computed to be a target for a shot, they are points in space, they have no weight or width. It is either fully hittable or not at all.

The only exception is that the extra hull-down coding, which reduces the tank size and only allows hit to turret or superstructure or whatever is the top part. But even in that case, it is still a point in space and no further variations are taken into account.

Personally, I especially miss the turret-down positions which allows the TC to spot while nothing of the tank is visible, this is not possible in CMBO.

And I also miss the depth of the vehicle represented. If you approach a tank from the side which is in cover behind a house, you would be able to hit it in the bum without exposing you to either the sights of the crew, nor to the turret with the gun. In CMBO, you are immediately and always exposed to the vehicle's gun when you see one bit of the tank.

[YankeeDog]

Thanks for your answers, all. It would appear, then, that the CMBO model is not capable of simulating Turret Down positions. Something to look forward to for the model rewrite, I guess!!

gibsonm - thanks for your additional info. The text I was reading dealt mostly with armour vs. armour tactics, which is probably why it didn't go into the aspects of indirect and semi-indirect fire you explained.

An intersting follow-up question would be just how much the lack of turret down affects CM tactics. My guess it is most missed in armour heavy and infantry light engagements where AFVs must do their own spotting. I would think turret down would be especially useful for the allied player - you're generally out-armoured, so getting into a hull down vs. hull down slugging match is a bad idea, but being able to observe enemy armour movements and maneuver accordingly would be very useful.

As well, if the model rewrite manages to implement some kind of relative spotting, I think having a turret down position simulated becomes more necessary - the tank will then have to do its own spotting and won't get help from infantry units unless they are very nearby.

[Ex Bellator]

Just to muddy the waters, Hull Down in CMBO is not actually full Hull Down as you might think. In fact only the Lower Hull is protected, and you can still be hit on the Upper Hull.

This enables AFVs with guns mounted in the hull to fire from a Hull Down position, but I suppose it penalises turreted AFVs by enabling them still to be hit on part of the hull, rather than just the turret.

Also I'm not sure about Bow MG's being blocked if the Upper Hull is exposed, but the whole Hull Down routine of CMBO seems to be a bit of a grey area which I haven't seen fully explained to date.

Your ideas regarding Turret Down seem very good to me & I hope we see them eventually.