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

[MikeyD]

The PzIV in the screenshot above looks to have its gun depressed about 15 degrees, judging from the bend in the sight line. That may be a couple degrees more than actual max depression for the gun but it's not that far off. For a better hull-down position a tanker would'a probably backed the tank a bit further down the slope so the gun tube's almost kissing the crest of the hill.

[Hans]

In reply to Michael Emrys

""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.""

Tank did carry a gunners quandrant, with the help of an artillery survey team it would be possible to "lay" your tank and fire it just like artillery. You would need a distant reference aiming point etc.

It was done a lot, you can even lay in an MG for indirect fire.

[MikeyD]

A good deal of the M10 TD's function in Italy was indirect fire, basically because there were so few enemy tanks to fight and SOMETHING useful had to be done with them! M10s, Shermans (and up through M60A1s) had gunner's quadrant for indirect fire and their manuals also gave instruction on basic artillery technique. I don't believe German or Russian tanks used them though.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by 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?

If it happened like that, I'd, too, like to hear an explanation from the powers that be.

[ October 07, 2002, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[Chad Harrison]

Didnt the Chaffee have a lower depression capability than the Mark IV? I really dont know.

Does anyone know if CM has a limit to how low guns can depress? I have had King Tigers in similar positions and they have always depressed with no problems.

Chad

[SenorBeef]

Originally posted by Brightblade:

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.

EXTREMELY unlikely.

[Earl]

Still works today. IIRC Iraqi 2nd Rep Gds lost a bunch of hull down tanks. USMC crews were instructed to aim for the rampart below the muzzle flash.

[MikeyD]

Remember, there's a difference between concealed behind a plowed-up rampart, berm or dike wall, and being hull down behind a proper terrain feature. That grassy knoll may just be solid granite beneath the couple inches of topsoil! If you're peaking over the edge of a round hill the shell is likely to skip on the almost horizontal terrain in front of you.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by 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.

I recall reading that the same thing was done in Italy using AT guns. Don't remember where or what guns or other details though.

Michael

[Woofers]

I guess another way of looking at it is that in RL, there is unlikely to be such a sharp "corner" at the top of the hill i.e. a bit of a transition will exist between a 30 deg slope and level ground. Depending on how abrupt this change is, there still may be a good hull down position which requires a less severe barrel depression.

[Quinxi]

Originally posted by Hans:

In reply to Michael Emrys

""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.""

Tank did carry a gunners quandrant, with the help of an artillery survey team it would be possible to "lay" your tank and fire it just like artillery. You would need a distant reference aiming point etc.

It was done a lot, you can even lay in an MG for indirect fire.

[Quinxi]

Originally posted by Hans:

In reply to Michael Emrys

""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.""

Tank did carry a gunners quandrant, with the help of an artillery survey team it would be possible to "lay" your tank and fire it just like artillery. You would need a distant reference aiming point etc.

It was done a lot, you can even lay in an MG for indirect fire.

I have also read about it being done.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Quinxi:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hans:

In reply to Michael Emrys

""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.""

Tank did carry a gunners quandrant, with the help of an artillery survey team it would be possible to "lay" your tank and fire it just like artillery. You would need a distant reference aiming point etc.

It was done a lot, you can even lay in an MG for indirect fire.

I have also read about it being done.</font>

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by dgaad:

Using a machine gun as artillery? Wouldn't that have about as much effect as throwing small pebbles? Please provide some reference for this story, I'm interested if it is in fact true (which, frankly, I doubt).

The plunging fire in the diagram above could be done against a target out of LOS of the MG. The beaten zone would be a lethal area. It's not just like falling pebbles. This technique goes back to archery, and I believe it's even been tried with massed rifles.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by dgaad:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Quinxi:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hans:

In reply to Michael Emrys

""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.""

Tank did carry a gunners quandrant, with the help of an artillery survey team it would be possible to "lay" your tank and fire it just like artillery. You would need a distant reference aiming point etc.

It was done a lot, you can even lay in an MG for indirect fire.

I have also read about it being done.</font>

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

The PzIV in the screenshot above looks to have its gun depressed about 15 degrees, judging from the bend in the sight line. That may be a couple degrees more than actual max depression for the gun but it's not that far off. For a better hull-down position a tanker would'a probably backed the tank a bit further down the slope so the gun tube's almost kissing the crest of the hill.

15 degrees seems like too much, although my reference works don't tell me what the gun depression on a Pz IV was. The gun on a Panther could depress 4 degrees, on a Tiger I 6.5 degrees, and on a Tiger 2 8 degrees.