Another Hull Down ?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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</font>

[Tero]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

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.

Indeed.

Only, if I have understood this correctly, the CMBO engine does not use fractional values of the silhoutte in its calculations. A silhoutte of 40 is a silhoutte of 40, be it in a hull down or exposed position.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by tero:

A silhoutte of 40 is a silhoutte of 40, be it in a hull down or exposed position.

Correct. But the silhouette value is supposedly influenced mostly by height (as it should be), and it's in the calculations to hit no matter if it's a hull down situation or not. Now if they halve the silhouette and calculate to hit or first calculate to hit based on full silhouette and then halve gives the same result...

I don't see what your point is.

Cheers

Olle

[ July 23, 2002, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Olle Petersson ]

[Michael Emrys]

This whole discussion seems to me to be foundering on a lot of unproven assumptions. For instance:

1) Is it in fact known that a hull-down tank can still receive hits on the upper hull? In every case?

2) Is is known that the to-hit calculations are always and in every case based on the total size of the vehicle, or just the visible part?

Until these questions are positively settled, continued speculation is worthless, in my humble opinion.

Michael

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

1) Is it in fact known that a hull-down tank can still receive hits on the upper hull? In every case?

I assume you mean in CMBO.

I tested this. It's easy to do, just have a non-penegtrating gun shoot all its ammo at a hulldown tank. You see few upper hull hits, but you see them.

2) Is is known that the to-hit calculations are always and in every case based on the total size of the vehicle, or just the visible part?

The hit probablity display in the LOS or target tools is very clear about this. The post which stated that the overall hit probablity is the same in hulldown is BS.

Overall, the example numbers I posted earlier in this thread are in the right ballpark.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Correct. But the silhouette value is supposedly influenced mostly by height (as it should be), and it's in the calculations to hit no matter if it's a hull down situation or not.

And you see not a thing amiss here ? The height aspect is OK. But there is no distiction made as to the height of the turrets vs the height of the hulls of the respective vehicles. The height of the turret vs the height of the hull ratio is not modelled.

The silhoeutte of a Sherman is 100. A PzKw-IV is 92, a Tiger is 120. The Panther is 118. IRL the Sherman is as high as any of these vehicles. IIRC the turret of the Sherman is as high or higher than any of the German turrets, but not as wide. The turret of a hull down Sherman would present a a more symmetrical target than any of the German turrets. The center point of the Sherman turret would be in the center of the turret in height and width as it is essentially box shaped (as high as it is wide). The width of the German turrets is more than the height, making the aim point harder to place in the dead center of the mass IRL for one.

Now if they halve the silhouette and calculate to hit or first calculate to hit based on full silhouette and then halve gives the same result...

So it is, statistically, as easy to hit the center of a target size 20 as it is a target size 40 at any given range with 10 shots ? When was the last time you were on a rifle range ?

I don't see what your point is.

Lets say you have a PzKw-IV (silhouette 92) in a hull down duelling a Stuart (silhouette 73) in the open. Would you say the PzKw-IV turret is easier to hit than the Stuart (as now seems to be the case in CMBO) ?

[Tero]

Originally posted by redwolf:

The post which stated that the overall hit probablity is the same in hulldown is BS.

I never speculated anything about actual hit propabilities, only about how the the silhouette figure is used in its entirety and not in part in the calculations.

[Redwolf]

I not entirely sure what you mean, tero.

As for the size of the turret, I think you are complaining about the same thing I complained about a lot. If one tank has only 20% of its front in the turret, and another 30%, then the one with the smaller turret does not get its fair advantage since CMBO does not have a model for that.

In addition, hulldown makes the problem of too simple turret fronts worse. Pz IV turret has a large gun mantlet which is 30mm in front of the 50mm turret front, but CMBO treats it as a full 50mm front.

[Louie the Toad]

Just wait till we can play with the US Grant or Lee tank. Two armaments: 37 mm in a small turret and a 75 mm in a side sponson, big silhouette, dual fire using both guns, fire arc problems with the 75, and no use of the 75 in hull down situations.

There will probably have to be a forum just to discuss this tank.

Don't ya just love it !!! Toad

[Tero]

Originally posted by redwolf:

As for the size of the turret, I think you are complaining about the same thing I complained about a lot. If one tank has only 20% of its front in the turret, and another 30%, then the one with the smaller turret does not get its fair advantage since CMBO does not have a model for that.

Concur.

In addition, hulldown makes the problem of too simple turret fronts worse. Pz IV turret has a large gun mantlet which is 30mm in front of the 50mm turret front, but CMBO treats it as a full 50mm front.

When it should be 80mm ?

Can't wait to see the PzKw-III in CMBB with add on armour along the entire width of the turret taking on T-34's and KV-1's head on from a hull down position. And vice versa.

[Jarmo]

The turret hit probability is a more (or less) complicated issue than simple percentage reduction.

If the tank is close enough, you're virtually guaranteed a hit, target hulldown or not. In these cases there is a high chance of a turret hit. (seems natural to me)

Like, if you can hit a 2 square meter (hulldown) target 90% of the time, your hit chance is not much improved if you're given a 6 square meter (non hull down) target.

It's the longer ranges where hits are no longer considered "certain", that hulldown really starts to shine. For example a 30% hit chance (10% turret) for a non hull down target might become something like 10% hit (7% turret).

At what range does being hulldown start to decrease the chance of a turret hit, is unclear (to me). I'm sure it's beneficial at 1000 meters...

Of course, the value of hull down position is less great for the tanks whose hull is invulnerable anyway. That too seems perfectly natural to me.

The ONLY thing that might need "fixing" is that the lightly armed gunners dont always try to hit in the weakest part of the opposing tank. But that assumes the tankers know the "to hit" places of all enemy tanks and are capable of properly ID'ing them. A large assumption.

Might be good as an additional bonus for veteran+ gunners.

---------

edit. oh yeah, I agree the variable sized turrets should be a factor. But given that CMBO doesn't model true hulldown (only turret visible) anyway but lumps in a part of upper hull as well, the differences probably wouldn't be all that great.

[ July 24, 2002, 03:40 AM: Message edited by: Jarmo ]

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by 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.

Redwolf, do you think there's a chance that it is 60%/25% vs 30%/25%? (in the same order as your percentages above)

In other words, have you convinced yourself in tests that your turret is more likely to be hit when you're hull down? In your example above the difference would be 6% (31 - 25) which is pretty hard to test.

I don't know, but to me it seems a tank with an invincible hull would be as protected as a hull down tank, in CMBO (ignoring track hits etc...you know what i mean!). You suggest it would be worse off in the later case because a higher percentage of hits would strike the turret.

Anyway, I hope this thread continues. It is not just a waste of time. Well, OK it is.

[ July 24, 2002, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

[tecumseh]

Jarmo I don't understand how it can be harder to hit a hull down tank's turret than a non-hull down tank's turret. Surely not?!?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by tecumseh:

Jarmo I don't understand how it can be harder to hit a hull down tank's turret than a non-hull down tank's turret. Surely not?!?

In real life? Slightly to considerably harder due to receiving greater concealment from brush, tall grass, etc. From a distance it's easier to recognize and aim at the shape of the entire vehicle than just the turret. In the case of a hull-up vehicle, the turret may receive hits from rounds aimed at the hull.

Michael

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by tecumseh:

In other words, have you convinced yourself in tests that your turret is more likely to be hit when you're hull down? In your example above the difference would be 6% (31 - 25) which is pretty hard to test.

Yes I did when I became a fan of the Panzer IV and had to do something against Daimlers and Greyhounds. I now pair the Pz IV with a 250/9. Anyway, yes the overall turret hit chance is higher in hulldown, I tested this with enough samples to convince myself.

It is easy to test, just set up 10 panzer IV against Greyhound, one time hulldown and one hot, same distance. The hulldowners die faster.

I don't know, but to me it seems a tank with an invincible hull would be as protected as a hull down tank, in CMBO (ignoring track hits etc...you know what i mean!). You suggest it would be worse off in the later case because a higher percentage of hits would strike the turret.

What peole forget (or don't know) in this thread is that CMBO originally had TacAI that would shoot at known vulnerabilties, like the Stuart at the Pz IV turret. Charles had to take that out because it created outright killer bees and wasn't balancable. Since then there is always an even chance to hit an part of the visible surface.

Charles probably didn't think as far as that hulldown is now a disadvantage for the turret-weak tanks because it helps the weak-gun shooters in saying "look, better shoot at the center of the turret instead of the center of the vehicle", an idea which the weak-gun shooter doesn't have by itself anymore.

Another think that was thrown out on that occasion was shooting at tracks, which was useful and realistic and is said to make its way back into CM. I didn't notice anyone saying that would be CMBB, but since it's probably not hard to do, I guess it is in.

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

In the case of a hull-up vehicle, the turret may receive hits from rounds aimed at the hull.

But against a hull down tank, that shot that was aimed at the hull and happened to hit the turret would have been aimed at the turret all along! So the odds of getting a turret hit are higher against a hull down tank, not lower (as redwolf has pointed out)

As to real life, yes that makes sense. Sometimes i forget about that rl thing.

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I tested this with enough samples to convince myself.

Right thanks, I stand corrected. Now you've just gotta convince the others.