Another Hull Down ?

[WEAPON42]

When I first started palying CM I didnt really understand the concept of hull-down untill my tanks were being destroyed at an alarming rate,then I quickly learned where and how to find good HD positions.Did real WW2 tank crews reguarly look for that perfect HD position like we do in the game?Or is this just a gamey thing?Was it tank crew doctrine?

[zukkov]

it seems to me if it weren't done on a regular basis, then the term wouldn't exist. it certainly wasn't always possible for tanks to gain a hull down status, but i'm sure if the time and situation allowed for it, they would look for one. experience no doubt would make a difference in attaining it.

[Redwolf]

I hope that doesn't sound inpolite or anfink, but this question is the same as asking whether infantrymen would use cover or prefer to stand in the open.

[K_Tiger]

If you ask me, its a matter of defense or attack. Wen you r the attacker, you you have no time for searching for a hd position. You get your orders and must fullfill those. As defender you have mostly more time to search for such a position and you nead to know the weakness of your tank. I think, for the germans the first choice would be to find good cover with one or two of the flanks be covered, then the line of fire. Then they can try to bring her armor in a hd position.

For the allies there isnt a must to bring her armor in a hd position. All german guns over 75mm will penetrate the shermans from all directions.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

If you ask me, its a matter of defense or attack.

Not entirely. As zukkov very astutely pointed out, it depends on time and the situation. Also, to a large degree it depended on the training and experience of the tankers, I suspect.

Even while advancing, a good crew will have its eyes peeled for two things: The first is likely locations from which the enemy is likely to open fire; the second is good ground on which to receive that fire and reply to it.

Naturally, a defending force is more likely to have surveyed the ground on which it intends to fight and to have selected good positions, but this isn't always true either, especially in instances of fluid combat where attacks, counter-attacks, and counter-counter-attacks are being traded off in quick succession.

All german guns over 75mm will penetrate the shermans from all directions.

Which is all the more reason for them to seek the most advantageous position.

BTW, the Sherman, despite its ubiquity, was not by any means the only tank employed by the Allies.

Michael

[ July 20, 2002, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[hank]

In the book _Brazen_Chariots_ the author (a Honey commander in North Africa) talks about going hull down quite often. From time to time he even mentions going 'turret down'; ie, he's unbuttoned and only his head is poking up above the contour. So I'd say yes, a WWII tank crew would try to minimize the profile of their huge metal boxes whenever possible.

[Olle Petersson]

I guess the main difference is that in real life there's little need for that "perfect" position.

CMBO has it binary; hull down or not. While moving slowly over a ridgeline from total cover to full exposure, there's only a very narrow band that offers hull down.

I real life there's almost always at least partial cover for the lower hull. It's not surprising that 90% of all hits on tanks are scored more than one meter above the ground. (According to a study done in preparation for what became the S-tank.)

Cheers

Olle

[Determinant]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

For the allies there isnt a must to bring her armor in a hd position. All german guns over 75mm will penetrate the shermans from all directions.

Ooohh but that's just the point. If you know that a hit will pentrate you then that's a very good reason to expose as little of yourself as possible.

The infantryman analogy is a good one.

North Africa, and fighting in the desert, is an extreme example of this (thus the turret-down head-up quote from the Stuart Commander above). I remember driving through the desert in Oman - even a small rise seemed to significantly increase your sightline. And of course - if you can be seen then you can be hit.

Hull Down forever must be the cry. Even on the attack. It's not as if tanks need to squish their prey 'neath their tracks like bugs. Good enough is to get to a good overlook position that's safe (HD?) then shoot the enemy to pieces. But I shall still be glad to see the advance to HD feature in CMBB because no matter how much I crawl around at level one I can't pick proper HD sites. Of course I blame the poor perspective rather than my own poor skills, but that's life isn't it?

[Lee]

Olle Petersson: Good point on hull down. Which just made me think of a great feature

that I hope either CM2 or CM3 (with the new CMII engine) will have... degrees of hull down.

It would be great if the engine could allow for maybe 3 states, once hull down is achieved.

Partial hull down (just some of the lower hull is protected), mostly hull down

(lower hull and some of upper hull covered) and full hull down (everything but turret

protected). With the corresponding reduction in hit chances and even spotting

(due to the much smaller effective profile of the tank (from the hull down angle only,

of course)) and with any hits only being allowed to strike uncovered portions.

That would make for some very realistic hull down simulation.

[zukkov]

Not entirely. As zukkov very astutely pointed out, it depends on time and the situation. Also, to a large degree it depended on the training and experience of the tankers, I suspect

i knew there was something about you i liked, ME. you are very wise and astute yourself. lol...

[Caesar]

Lee,

Are you sure that it doesn't already take restrict where the tank can be hit based on the cover it is under. The Hull Down indication that we see, may only be used to tell you that the entire hull is under cover. I was under the impression that the entire flight of the shell was plotted right on to the target so the hit couldn't be on a covered part. I thought that once a vehicle was indicated as hull down that the TacAI then targetted the turret. I could be completely wrong, but this was the impression I gained from reading several threads on how the this sort of stuff worked.

[aka_tom_w]

OK call me crazy here

BUT

the Tank Sim Panzer Elite highlites this very dramatically.

(ok, ok its ONLY a Game)

Looking throught the gunnery sights of a German tank and trying to spot and HIT a Sherman's turret when it just pops up on the horizon at about a KM out is REALLY tricky. The AI in Panzer Elite will get those enemy Sherms in Hull down positions EVERY time, (the AI will creep those sherms up so that just there turrets are visible at every possible opportunity) and they REALLY have an advantage if your own tank is NOT hull down.I think getting your own (and your wingman's) tank hull down in PE is HARDER than in CMBO (That's mostly because I lack practice in Panzer Elite).

Can anyone here say that hull down is not the most desireable position?

As a WWII tank sim (the only one) I have a lot of respect for Panzer Elite. If you haven't played it why not try it out while waiting for CMBB?

And just for fun choose the position of gunner and (using full REALISM gunnery settings) just try to hit ANYTHING at any distance with AP while moving, slow or fast it is virtually impossible.

Hull down is the way to go.

Creep up that hill, pop your turret over the top, stop the vechicle, AIM, take AIM again, and fire, then adjust or range, and fire again. Realistic determination of the accurate range before you fire the first shot is tricky and requires a great deal of skill and practice. But it is most certianly easier with the German optics. Accurate Range determination is CRITICAL to first shot hit accuracy.

Anyway you want to be Hull Down for sure before you open fire.

-tom w

[StellarRat]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Accurate Range determination is CRITICAL to first shot hit accuracy.

-tom w

Hull down is best. As far as the range determination being critical it really depends on whether you are far enough away for the drop of the round to make a difference. At close range it is far more important to get your gun pointed at the target and fire with a boresight elevation and get the first shot off. If I remember right, from my ROTC days, the tank that gets the first shot off is far more likely to win a gun duel, of course they were talking about modern tanks, however, I have a feeling that the same is true for WW II tanks.

[Redwolf]

I occurs to me that most people here miss the point.

Tankers seek for terrain cover anytime and everywhere, just as infantrymen do. It is as simple as that.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Caesar:

1) I was under the impression that the entire flight of the shell was plotted right on to the target so the hit couldn't be on a covered part.

2) I thought that once a vehicle was indicated as hull down that the TacAI then targetted the turret.

1) Not entirely correct.

When shooting at AFVs it's first determined if it's a hit or miss.

If it's a miss then the trajectory is plotted.

If it's a hit then hitpoint, penetration and effect is determined.

(This is why you can shoot straight through untargeted vehicles.)

2) That is correct.

The turret is smaller and more difficult to hit. No chance to hit the hull.

Cheers

Olle

[Jarmo]

Actually, in CMBO a hull down tank can still be hit in the upper hull. Only the lower hull is out.

[Tero]

IRL hull down is indeed where you want to be.

I wonder if the way cross section targeting and hit propabilities are implemented in CMBO affect this. AFAIK the cross section of the tank is calculated from the entire vehicle, not just the visible part.

The gunner aims at the center of the mass, which I take it is the visible mass. However, if the AI uses the cross section of the entire vehicle (silhouette) in its calculations (like hit propability) then going hull down is only partially helfull in denying killer shots from the enemy since there is not separate value for the turret and the hull silhouette. They are aiming at the turret center but the hit propability is calculated from the entire vehicle silhoutte, not just the turret silhoutte.

So in reality the hull down position in CMBO is akin to the emperors clothes as it were.

This would account for the phenomenal performance of the Allied assets armed with the 37mm gun and the Germans assets armed with the 20mm and 37mm FLAK guns. Because these vehicles are normally small silhouette vehicles they get the upper hand in the AI calcualtions.

Can anybody verify or shoot down my reasoning on this one ?

[ July 22, 2002, 05:12 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Redwolf]

tero,

the hit probablity on a hulldown tank is defintivly lower than for an exposed tank, you can see it in the LOS display.

Now, the chance to hit the turret is higher when the target is hulldown, because CMBO does not have code to aim for the weakest point. This is why it is in fact stupid to go hulldown with a Pz IV when the opponent is 37mm armed. The 37mm would shoot on anything, not aiming for the turret when the Pz IV is in the open, but the 37mm would aim for the turret when the Oz IV is hulldown.

I may have misunderstood the question.

[Redwolf]

In hulldown, the upper hull can be hit, but the chance is greatly reduced.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by tero:

The gunner aims at the center of the mass, which I take it is the visible mass. However, if the AI uses the cross section of the entire vehicle (silhouette) in its calculations (like hit propability) then going hull down is only partially helfull in denying killer shots from the enemy since there is not separate value for the turret and the hull silhouette. They are aiming at the turret center but the hit propability is calculated from the entire vehicle silhoutte, not just the turret silhoutte.

Even if your reasoning is correct here, Tero, the final results would be that all hits that would have struck the hull are subtracted. Only those that strike the turret are counted. Hull strikes are not magically moved to the turret. Instead they would hit whatever is providing cover to the hull. Or so it seems to me.

Michael

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Even if your reasoning is correct here, Tero, the final results would be that all hits that would have struck the hull are subtracted. Only those that strike the turret are counted. Hull strikes are not magically moved to the turret. Instead they would hit whatever is providing cover to the hull. Or so it seems to me.

This is not true. The overall chance to hit the turret in CMBO is bigger when the target is huldown.

Because the shooter will now target the center of the turret. But if the target is hull-visible it will target the center of the tank, even when he can penetrate the turret and not the hull.

[Tarquelne]

This is not true. The overall chance to hit the turret in CMBO is bigger when the target is huldown.

Do you mean that a odds that a Hit will strike the turret are higher than if the tank weren't hull down, but the odds that a Hit wil happen at all is lower?

That, in other words, the following is incorrect: "Look, he's hull down. Rather than a 30% chance to hit the tank, now we have a 40% chance to hit the turret."

[Redwolf]

It' like

Hull-exposed: 60% chance to hit at all, 25% to hit the turret.

Hull down: 35% to hit at all, 31% to hit the turret.

(All percentages absolute) So the overall chance to get a turret hit is higher in hulldown. That's what makes the Panzer IV versus Greyhound meetings unrealsiic, you gain from exposing your hull, which you wouldn't in reality.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Even if your reasoning is correct here, Tero, the final results would be that all hits that would have struck the hull are subtracted. Only those that strike the turret are counted. Hull strikes are not magically moved to the turret. Instead they would hit whatever is providing cover to the hull. Or so it seems to me.

No hull down = 100% of the tank is visible (say 65% hull, 35% turret). Hull down = 35% of the tank visible. Mass size reduced by 65% in hull down. Calculations are made for the 100% being visible in all instances.

The hull strikes are not moved. But the aim point being in the center of a reduced area while the calculation is being made as if the aim point is in the center of a bigger area the chance to hit the center reduced area are not correct. For it to be correct the aim point would have to be in the center of the entire vehicle. Of which 65% is not visible. Consequently the correct aim point would be in a location which is not visible to the gunner.

There is a logical trap involved here. You can hit the bulls eye in the center of the target. If the target is smaller it is harder to hit the bulls eye. (DUH ! )

If you model the chance to hit the bulls eye in variable size targets you can not use a constant value for the target size and just shift the aim point. The results you get will not be statistically valid, if you are hitting the bulls eye in variable sized targets. The results would be valid only if the target size was constant.

Modelling a hit chance in a given point in the constant sized target is not valid in this instance because the target size is not constant (relative to the AI gunner). The fact the gunner may know the type of tank he is engageing is irrelevant since he is aiming at the center of the visible mass of that tank, not the entire tank he knows parts of which are lurking behind cover. He could but he would not be hitting the intended target, ever.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Hull-exposed: 60% chance to hit ... Hull down: 35% ...

:eek:

Reduce the height and you'll reduce the hit chance considerably!

It should rather be: Hull exposed 65%, Hull down 20%. (Stationary target and gun, first shot.)

The reason is that sideways is no sweat to aim, as long as there are no strong winds.

Up-Down is where the range estimation plays a valid part, and make up for most of the error in aim.

Cheers

Olle