Extreme example of hull down ( screenie inside) Was this possible in RL ??

[Monty]

I ordered a Panzer IV to move up a steep hill and go in hull down position.

Was this kind of steep hill position possible in RL ?? :

Monty aka Moose

[busboy]

Such a position is possible, but the possible depression of the gun might not make it useful. (as it seems you have there...)

That would be a great place to have your tank if you were using it to supplement artillery...on a target 5 miles away.

[Monty]

Actually, it could easily depress the gun and he took out 1 Sherman, a half-track and some infantery at about 800 meters.

Is this gun depression "bug?" also in CMBB ??

[MrNoobie]

ah so thats how its done...thnx for the pic...are you using a grass mod?

[busboy]

Well, thats one great position to have a Mark IV in then. I'd like to see a IS-II try that!

But Ivan, da gun will nyet depress that far!

Do it Comrad!

(clunk)

(top turret penetration, knocked out)

edit: "<" and ">" didn't show up, put in parenthises.

[ October 06, 2002, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: busboy ]

[Michael Emrys]

Great looking clouds. Is that a mod?

I think the maximum depression among tank and other AFV guns runs to something like -15°. Many, especially the Soviet tanks, wouldn't get down that far.

But then again, I don't know how far we should trust the graphic on the screen to portray the actual gradient that the tank is resting on. In your screen shot it looks like about 30°, but inside the calculations might be a lot less. Alternatively, I guess it could be more too. I'd be willing to bet that it is something that the program simply doesn't worry about too much.

Michael

[U8led]

Is the unit set to 'realistic size'?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by busboy:

That would be a great place to have your tank if you were using it to supplement artillery...on a target 5 miles away.

Interesting observation. Perhaps you know this was done in practice? I have read of at least one specific instance in the Italian campaign where Shermans were positioned on bulldozer-created ramps in order to be used as indirect fire artillery. Not sure how they managed to sight them in, but it seems to have worked.

Michael

[karch]

I don't think so in RL because I don't think guns could depress far enough. I think most German tanks could depress further than Soviet tanks, but nothing like that.

lucky for you CM doesn't model gun elevation/depression limitations. Thanks for the pic.

[kump]

Is that a mod? Don't you guys recognize CMBO anymore! I recognize almost every mod in that CMBO shot. (of course the interface is a dead give away)

Hey, wait a minute. What is that screen shot doing here? Heretic!!!

Must be getting lonely over at the CMBO Forum...

[ October 06, 2002, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: kump ]

[dalem]

Neither gun depression nor elevation limitations are currently able to be modelled in CM:BO or :BB. In BO I had situations far more extreme than the one posted above occur. It's just something we have to live with until CM2 and the engine rewrite.

-dale

[busboy]

Yes that was indeed done, especially in theaters where tanks were not too operationally effective. (Italy, for example, M10s were used for artillery, sometimes direct line of sight, sometimes not.)

In particular, the later stages of the Korean war tanks were used in this way. The trick to get the most range is to get the gun at a 45 degree angle, and most tank guns can't aim that high, so they had to build a ramp.

Exactly how common this was in WW2? I get the impression that it wasn't that common. For example, in the Western Front, you have M7 Priests for SP artillery, why tie up armored assets that could be on the front? Besides, tank guns are generally inferior artillery weapons due to the smaller size of their HE rounds.

[dalem]

Originally posted by busboy:

Exactly how common this was in WW2? I get the impression that it wasn't that common. For example, in the Western Front, you have M7 Priests for SP artillery, why tie up armored assets that could be on the front? Besides, tank guns are generally inferior artillery weapons due to the smaller size of their HE rounds.

Actually it was closer to "not uncommon". Plenty of times when conditions weren't right for armored maneuver OR regular artillery units in the area were extremely short of shells (yes, the Allies had big supply issues too ).

-dale

[offtaskagain]

IIRC the whole of 3rd armored was used for artillery prep on at least 2 occasions, Operation Cobra and one in '45. It was in "Death Traps" somewhere.

[busboy]

Hmm, I don't recall that. I do remember that Mr. Cooper constantly praised the M7 Priest. One of these days I'll need to reread that.

[Lee_DiSantis]

All I have to say is that the sky in that screenie looks downright awesome. :cool:

[CMplayer]

Here's a Chaffee doing it in Korea. Not sure of the exact depression there, compared to in your pic.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

IMHO the problem here is that the tank, even if it can depress gun, shows its underbelly to enemy fire, and that's NOT a very good idea... :eek:

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO:

IMHO the problem here is that the tank, even if it can depress gun, shows its underbelly to enemy fire, and that's NOT a very good idea... :eek:

If it's designated 'hull down' by the engine, then that's not the case, even if it looks like it is in the picture.

[Brightblade]

So a lower hull penetration when the tank is hull down should be impossible. But it isn´t as I had to learn (a friend of mine had to experience the same).

[CMplayer]

'Hull down' is always relative to a certain direction. Fire from another angle might be able to hit the lower hull.

[CMplayer]

[must have used the 'back' button off the posting page]

[ October 07, 2002, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

'Hull down' is always relative to a certain direction. Fire from another angle might be able to hit the lower hull.

Hull down is also a binary, it's either on or off unfortunatly there is no modeling of degrees of hull down e.g. only 10% of the hull showing or 67%.

[Brightblade]

Of course is hull down only valid for a certain direction, but when you aim at a target and your vehicle displays "Hull down" relative to the target, everything should be OK. Then this specified target fires and you get a lower hull penetration (which is especially annoying if you have a Hetzer, whose upper hull is very hard to penetrate, much harder than its lower hull). Why?

OK, there is a possible explanation. Modern tank shells are able to easily penetrate a few meters of dirt and have still enough power to penetrate the tank behind the dirt. I guess some of WWII tank shells had similar abilities, but I´m not sure if that´s in the engine of CMBO.

[ October 07, 2002, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: Brightblade ]

[MikeyD]

I recall an anecdote (in Hunnicutt's PERSHING?) where Pershings successfully fired across the Rhine THROUGH the earthworks on the far side. So it has been done before.