Tank Hits

[Warmonger]

See the attached save.

AT rifle units L0, L1 and L2 got 15 hits between them on the tank in hex 59, 40. Every one of the hits was a turret hit, either front or side. It seems like at least some of them should have been hull hits, after all the hull is larger than the turret.

[DRG]

On the list.......I'll look into it......

Don

[Mobhack]

See the attached save.

AT rifle units L0, L1 and L2 got 15 hits between them on the tank in hex 59, 40. Every one of the hits was a turret hit, either front or side. It seems like at least some of them should have been hull hits, after all the hull is larger than the turret.

I haven't loaded the save but:

If the target is dug in, then few if any hull hits will occur.

If the target is higher than the firer then hits to the turret will tend to predominate, until very high when hull hits will be infinitesimal (hull down target).

Andy

[Warmonger]

Ah, I just checked and the tank is dug in. Too bad there isn't some visual way to show that, like the foxholes for infantry.

I didn't understand the second comment. It seems if the target is higher than the firer, then there would be more hull hits since the hull would block the lower angle shots from hitting the turret.

[DRG]

Depending on where the vehicle is on the hill the hill itself would block a shot to the hull. Think of seeing a tank start to crest a hill.. the highest point of the tank would be the first thing you would see from a lower elevation ...not the hull.

Don

[Warmonger]

Unless you view the turret as being at the forward edge of the tank, the hull will potentially block hitting the turret from a lower elevation. If the distance from the front of the turret to the front edge of the hull is equal to the height of the turret, then the turret can't be hit by a vertical angle greater than 45 degrees. Between 0 and 45 degrees some angles will be unavailable because of the height differences between firer and target, e.g. for 0 degrees to be available firer and target would have to be the same height. The larger the height difference between them, the smaller the available range of angles. But in any case where the turret can be be hit, the hull can be hit as well.

[Cross]

You may be looking at it a little too scientifically. I think giving AFVs 'hull down' status when on higher elevations is a way to abstract the ability of tank commanders to use the protection that slopes offer. They'd move tanks into a postion where less of the hull was exposed. In addition, units firing from higher elevations may get top hits.

Therefore hills offer a defensive and offensive advantage. In this way the game makes hills important.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Hull_down_tank_diagram.png


Cross

[Cross]

Here's some other possibilites for 'hull-down' on the forward side of a slope:

http://i47.tinypic.com/2j121pv.png

I guess it's important that we remember that being 'hull down' doesn't make the hull invulnerable, but just makes it less likely to get hit.

SP gives the tank on the higher elevation cover advantage.
Which helps model the value of hills.

Cross

[gila]

Good points on long range, but still a tank cresting a hill with a enemy unit waiting (with FOF) just on the reverse slope:doh:

I've taken out tigers with stuarts this way.

This may be where the confusion lies.