German tank vulnerability

[Sergei]

Aren't you all a bit too focused on the "aim" bit, when it's not even close to "hit"? You can aim your shot down the enemy gun barrel, but in all likelihood you'll miss. When you aim at the center of the mass, you will very likely still miss, but at least there is a greater chance that it hits something in the vicinity.

[ChrisND]

This is just a general comment concerning anecdotes, not directed at any one particular post.

Anecdotes are very often just about useless, unless corroborated with supporting evidence. The subjective human factor is in them is just too high for the information to be reliable. There is pride, lying, unclear wording, faulty memory, confirmation bias, cherry picking of data, etc to be considered. I could with five minutes Googling ring you up anecdotal evidence that the Pyramids were built by aliens, that Elvis still lives hidden in the Vatican, and that Bigfoot is an inter-dimensional alien visitor. (I'm not kidding about that last one).

Then there's the historian/author angle. Did he vet this information? Did he corroborate it with other sources? Or is he just re-telling exactly what was told to him by the primary source or referencing another secondary source? Just because the guy who wrote the book is a historian, does not make it authoritative. The evidence itself should do that.

So when you read about some particular subject in a historical book or some other account, it is not necessarily a common occurance, or even the truth; just because it was written in a book does not make it so. If I got ten dollars for every time someone came to the forum with an opinion on a game feature based solely on one or two anecdotes they read from a book, I could buy myself a new car to replace my crappy old 1990 Camry.

Now, none of this means that everything to be read on WW2 is crap that isn't true or not worth your time. It just means that you should gather/demand more information before making important decisions based on that information.

[Vark]

So worthless, the Germans invented Schutzern plates to help protect their vehicles from these rifles.

[Rocky Balboa]

Elvis isn't living in a Vatican basement

[Michael Emrys]

There was a thread awhile back about the fighters bouncing 50 cals off the pavement in front of German tanks and bouncing them into the soft underbelly too.

Quite a while back, say seven or eight years ago if it's the one I'm thinking of. It was a long discussion and IIRC the conclusion was that while it might have been attempted, it was unlikely to succeed.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Aren't you thinking of Allied planes strafing targets? That's how I remember it.

There was also something about firing HE with a fuse delay at the ground in front of dug in personnel in the hopes of getting a ricochet airburst above the intended targets. No idea how often this was attempted or what the success rate would have been.

Michael

[zukkov]

remember the scene in SPR, when they used the mortar shells by hitting the base on the ground and then then throwing them like grenades? now i could see using that technique to hit the top armor of tanks. :-p

[Redwolf]

Can somebody summarize? This thread got too messy. Does CMBN do anything about the problem with the thin turret and hulldown?

[Michael Emrys]

I would contend that, in general, tankers could correctly identify their opponents tanks (I've taught my three year old how to identify t-34's and Shermans and my wife can identify which German variants are built on the Pz38t chassis).

But there is a HUGE difference between correctly identifying types and models when presented as clearly drawn silhouettes or in photographs when one is studying them calmly and at one's leisure in a book, and trying to do the same on a battlefield under dodgy atmospheric conditions and lighting while looking at a vehicle partly or mostly obscured by vegetation and either parked at an angle to you or moving at an unknown speed over possibly uneven ground. Add in as previously mentioned that you may be under some pressure to get a shot off quickly. A prudent gunner is going to just shoot at the center of mass and work out all the fiddly bits after the battle is over. If he is still alive.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Same goes for 88mm AT Guns. Based on anecdotes, you'd think the Germans had one hiding around every corner. In actuality, based on actual German deployment records, and what is known about captured/destroyed German equipment, many of the "88s" must have been other guns, like 75mm PaKs.

Or if it is infantry doing the reporting, 105 mm howitzers.

Michael

[stikkypixie]

Can somebody summarize? This thread got too messy. Does CMBN do anything about the problem with the thin turret and hulldown?

Hull-down is not abstracted any more, so that should take care of itself naturally.

[Redwolf]

Hull-down is not abstracted any more, so that should take care of itself naturally.

Why? Doesn't do anything about the problem if the shooter is still shooting at the visible center of mass.

[YankeeDog]

Can somebody summarize? This thread got too messy. Does CMBN do anything about the problem with the thin turret and hulldown?

We'll have to see, but I think so. Steve explicitly stated that Gunners in game now aim for "center of mass", which I interpret to mean that the gunner is aiming for the centerpoint of the exposed target silhouette. As also explained, there is no longer any "to hit roll" per se, either -- the shot now "goes where it goes," based on the game's calculations of the gun's inherent accuracy, the gunner's skill, environmental interferences like wind, etc.

So we definitely no longer get CMx1's situation, where the relative size of various armor plates has no effect on hit distribution, and the PzIV's relatively small turret front surface area is of no benefit. My guess is that going hull down with a PzIV will be of net benefit the majority of the time -- going hull down may result in a somewhat higher percentage of turret front hits per shot (as it should, since enemy gunner will now be specifically aiming for the turret since that's the only available target), but this should be more than outweighed by the much lower overall number of hits on such a small target.

One possible exception I can think of would be point-blank matchups, where the chances of a hit are very high no matter how small the exposed area. But at this point, most weapons are going to easily penetrate any part of the PzIV's frontal armor (hull or turret), so this may not be important.

Also worth remembering that hull down is no longer binary in CMx2.

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Emrys]

This is just a general comment concerning anecdotes...

One thing about anecdotes, especially in memoirs, seldom gets mentioned. And that is that people tend to remark on particular things because they find them remarkable, which is to say out of the ordinary. So when Harry the trooper says that he saw his mate Alf put a Mills bomb right into the hatch of a Panther, we shouldn't take it as common practice easily accomplished on any and every occasion. Harry is reporting it because it was the only time he ever saw it and it was enormously gratifying to see.

Michael

[Redwolf]

So we definitely no longer get CMx1's situation, where the relative size of various armor plates has no effect on hit distribution, and the PzIV's relatively small turret front surface area is of no benefit. My guess is that going hull down with a PzIV will be of net benefit the majority of the time -- going hull down may result in a somewhat higher percentage of turret front hits per shot (as it should, since enemy gunner will now be specifically aiming for the turret since that's the only available target), but this should be more than outweighed by the much lower overall number of hits on such a small target.

Right, in the new model the smaller turret gives back some protection by being -well- smaller. In CMx1 that could have been solved with a "small turrent" bit in the unit data and now it's "automatic".

To really solve this I think you need a modifier for unit experience on part of the shooter. If the target has a weak spot large enough to be practical for targeting (assuming the whole front is visible), then it is a question of whether the shooter's crews knows about it. First this requires to identify the target unit type, which is also experience driven, then it depends on whether they know about the weaker turret than hull issue, then they could shift the aim point upwards.

I would do it like this:

• Does the target expose large areas of more and less vulnerable armour to the shooter, right now?
  
• If yes, did the shooter crew identify the target vehicle type (experience driven)?
  
• If yes, does the shooter's crew know about the weakness? This would be heavily experience driven with like 5% for green and maybe 80% for elite, probabilities.
  
• If yes, shift aim point towards weaker armour.
  

That would take care of the problem with a minimum of mess.

The new situation is better but based on the overall scatter graph you still can end up in a situation where covering the hull lowers your survival chances.

One possible exception I can think of would be point-blank matchups, where the chances of a hit are very high no matter how small the exposed area. But at this point, most weapons are going to easily penetrate any part of the PzIV's frontal armor (hull or turret), so this may not be important.

The 75mm should actually be exposed to this problem very commonly, typical combat ranges see it penetrate 50mm but not 80mm.

[JonS]

... To really solve this I think you need a modifier for unit experience on part of the shooter. ... I would do it like this: ...

Have you just been pretending to read this thread?

[YankeeDog]

The new situation is better but based on the overall scatter graph you still can end up in a situation where covering the hull lowers your survival chances.

Yes; in the new CMx2 system it is certainly possible for there to be specific situations where the variables line up (overall accuracy of shooter and range probably being the most important) to produce a situation where going hull down is a net negative. But this isn't necessarily unrealistic... Totally a SWAG on my part, but my guess is that these will be limited to very close range engagements.

The 75mm should actually be exposed to this problem very commonly, typical combat ranges see it penetrate 50mm but not 80mm.

As I see it, "typical combat range" is a critical qualifier here. It's also worth keeping in mind that CMx2 models progressive damage from successive nonlethal hits very well -- much more so than CMx1. So even though the 80mm upper hull plate can bounce 75mm APBC at longer ranges, the margin of safety is not huge, and I really don't think it will be in the PzIV's interest to test this too much -- you can see this right now with M1 Abrams in CMSF -- just because your frontal armor in theory is more than enough to bounce T72 shots, doesn't mean you want to be in the habit of proving this too often... basically, even if you've got the upper hand in the Armor vs. Gun matchup, a miss is still significantly better than a non-penetrating hit.

At any rate, we may well find out that there is a specific range band where, in PzIV vs. a Sherman 75, it's a net negative to the PzIV to go hull down. Again, though, I'm not sure this is entirely unrealistic.

[Battlefront.com]

To really solve this I think you need a modifier for unit experience on part of the shooter. If the target has a weak spot large enough to be practical for targeting (assuming the whole front is visible), then it is a question of whether the shooter's crews knows about it. First this requires to identify the target unit type, which is also experience driven, then it depends on whether they know about the weaker turret than hull issue, then they could shift the aim point upwards.

It also would depend on a bunch of other factors, such as the perception of time available, the surrounding environmental conditions (poor lighting, for example), and a host of other factors. It could also come down to a simple feeling of "do I feel lucky?".

That would take care of the problem with a minimum of mess.

But it's not enough to keep the results within realistic bounds, IMHO. There would have to be other fudge factors in there and so you're just pretty much down to blind estimation of the chances a particular crew would even attempt to move the aim point away from center mass.

And yes, as clarification, center mass is always considered the same as "visible mass". There's no point in aiming at a portion of the vehicle you can't see.

The new situation is better but based on the overall scatter graph you still can end up in a situation where covering the hull lowers your survival chances.

How so? If you reduce the size of your center mass by obscuring a portion of your profile, be it angling or hull down, then you decrease the chance of being hit. The results of being hit on the portion that is a separate matter and it's one that is whatever it is. If you only give the enemy a chance of hitting your turret, and he can penetrate it, then you're screwed if he lands a hit.

CMx1 and CMx2 are no different in this respect. The difference is CMx1 was rather rough in terms of how it determined the "hit chance" while CMx2 doesn't use "hit chance" at all. Which means if you have 10% of your vehicle exposed, the gunner is going to have to either get in a very well aimed shot or a very lucky shot. In CMx1 the minimum exposed might have been 25% so no matter what you'd never have 10% exposure.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Have you just been pretending to read this thread?

Actually, he isn't pretending since he said he basically skipped over the last x number of pages Redwolf, I encourage you to go back and reread them because they are completely germane to the question you're asking.

At any rate, we may well find out that there is a specific range band where, in PzIV vs. a Sherman 75, it's a net negative to the PzIV to go hull down. Again, though, I'm not sure this is entirely unrealistic.

Of course it is realistic if the firing unit's gun is accurately modeled. It's like those two morons that robbed the Bank of America a while back. They had full body armor and were standing right out in the open with a massive shootout with police. They were struck many times and didn't go down. Finally of the hundreds of shots fired at them the police managed to hit them enough that they were "non-functional". They went down and stayed down, with one shooting himself in the head. If they had managed to break the engagement early they would have walked away, but instead they kept playing the odds and eventually they came up on the losing end.

The lesson here is not that minimizing your exposure is a bad thing, it is to keep in mind that isn't the same thing as eliminating your exposure. Whatever can be seen can be hit.

Steve

[Peregrine]

Actually, he isn't pretending since he said he basically skipped over the last x number of pages Redwolf, I encourage you to go back and reread them because they are completely germane to the question you're asking.

Of course it is realistic if the firing unit's gun is accurately modeled. It's like those two morons that robbed the Bank of America a while back. They had full body armor and were standing right out in the open with a massive shootout with police. They were probably struck many times and didn't go down. Finally of the hundreds of shots fired at them the police managed to get two head shots where their helmets weren't protecting them. They went down and stayed down. If they had managed to break the engagement early they would have walked away, but instead they kept playing the odds and eventually they came up on the losing end.

The lesson here is not that minimizing your exposure is a bad thing, it is to keep in mind that isn't the same thing as eliminating your exposure. Whatever can be seen can be hit.

Steve

I am so so sorry but I simply can't help myself.

Shouldn't all those well trained police familiar with their weapons have been going for head shots the whole time?

[JonS]

... going for head shots ...

make that 'vision slits' and I'll give you a cookie

[MikeyD]

The most accurate gun with the best optics in the American arsenal was the T15E1 gun on the SuperPershing. If there was any gun that would've been able to pick its aim point it would've been that gun. Still, all descriptions of its much-reported shoot-out against a Tiger involved the gunner centering on 'something' in the distance and spotting smoke coming from that 'something' after he had fired. Somebody had to eventually drive out to the target location to see what exactly had been hit. Germans, especially in Normandy, were said to have been specialists at camouflage. Much of the time your target was a tank-sized bush shooting at you. I suppose if you're manning a roadblock and an unwary Panther rounds the corner you'd have the opportunity to pick your aim point. But in the cut-and-thrust of attack and counter-attack (most CM QB games) that sounds like something of a dangerous luxury.

[Battlefront.com]

NOTE... I refreshed my memory about the robbery and corrected some stuff in my previous post.

I am so so sorry but I simply can't help myself.

Shouldn't all those well trained police familiar with their weapons have been going for head shots the whole time?

This is yet more evidence that well trained shooter still go for center mass because center mass is more likely to yield results.

One of the guys had been hit 29 times!

From the Wiki article:

In this case, approximately 650 rounds were fired at two very heavily armored men, who had fired 1,101 rounds.[2] The responding police officers directed their fire at the "center of mass," or torsos, of Mătăsăreanu and Phillips. Each man was shot and penetrated by at least ten bullets, yet both continued to attack officers.

Their hits eventually did what they needed to do, but it took a while for it to be effective because the guys had taken drugs before hand. Had these guys not been so hardcore, the center mass effect would have done what it needed to do much sooner.

Steve

[Redwolf]

How so? If you reduce the size of your center mass by obscuring a portion of your profile, be it angling or hull down, then you decrease the chance of being hit. The results of being hit on the portion that is a separate matter and it's one that is whatever it is. If you only give the enemy a chance of hitting your turret, and he can penetrate it, then you're screwed if he lands a hit.

I'm just pointing out that this isn't constant. The quality of the shots is a variable here and has an impact on the question.

Whether your overall probability or surviving a confrontation gets better or worse from going hulldown (partial or full) with the small size but thinner turret depends on a lot of factors. Leaving the obvious ones aside such as the shooter needs to have difficulty with 80mm and not with 50mm the distribution of the potential hits also plays a role. There will be a bell curve circle centered around the aim point, which is the visual center of visible mass. The smaller the bell curve (the better the shots) the more your thin turret comes into play.

This is easier to illustrate with an example:

Let's say your shooter isn't some wimpy "veteran" or "elite", it's "master of the known universe" and he shoots handpolished dagnatium rounds out of an Audi gun or somefink. Let's say this shooter can place 99% of the shots within 2 inches of the aim point. And of course he's using a gun that generally penetrates 50mm but not 80mm.

That means if you expose the full front he will practically always hit the hull. And although the turret is small in this case it will be reliably hit if you only expose the turret and hence the turret is the aim point. So very clearly going hulldown is a huge disadvantage for survivability against this shooter.

Now you need to get back to reality from the 99% hit chance but keep the math in mind: fact is that whether your survivability improves from going hulldown or not is a question that is dependent on the quality of the shooter. Because a lousy shot will randomly hit nothing and the turrent even if aiming for the hull. Covering the hull to a certain degree will lower the number of hits, any hits, considerably.

So you cannot answer the question without knowing what kind of distribution you have.

[Battlefront.com]

OK, I see your point... but it's not relevant. Nobody has that sort of accuracy in WW2 terms under normal battle conditions most of the time. So what you're identifying as a theoretical issue that isn't likely relevant.

A hull down tank stands a better chance of not getting struck, even by a really good crew with a good gun in good circumstances, simply because it's exposure is generally smaller than the range of error.

Steve