spotting when turning around your units

[Cross]

Sorry if we've gone a bit off topic Francois. I'm sure someone will answer you.


Test

I did a quick test with StuG III's and Panzer IV's with identical 7.5cm gun.

I lined up a row of StuGs and panzers, alternating the SP guns and the tanks.

I had them all turned 90 deg away from the enemy, and then advanced enemy tanks until the German AFVs op-fired.

Then I reset those that fired at 90 deg again, and advanced enemy tanks until the Germans op-fired, then reset them at 90 deg etc.

The StuGs and panzers had an average experience of 68.8 and 69.2 respectively.

Results

The StuGs fired 56 times
The Panzers fired 59 times

The StuGs hit 10 times
The panzers hit 8 times

Conclusion

Based on my brief test there appears to be no difference between a StuG or panzers ability to op-fire, or to hit.

One - perhaps obvious - difference worth pointing out, is that the panzers only turned their turret towards to enemy, but the StuG obviously turned the whole vehicle towards the enemy. Therefore, if the enemy had returned fire, the panzer is disadvantaged over a StuG because the panzer is exposing it's weaker side armour.


Cross

[RERomine]

Keep in mind the main point to my post was not oriented towards the accuracy of non-turreted gun or whether turret traverse or vehicle pivot/turn could be performed within the length of the turn. The question revolves around what was the actual practice used.

Undoubtedly, there were advantages to turreted vehicles. One of those advantages was the ability to engage a target without having to turn the vehicle. In most cases, this would be the preferred option. Turrets from roughly 1942 on were roomier, making the reloading process easier, increasing the rate of fire; a significant advantage over non-turreted vehicles and nicely reflected within the game. Andy brought up a nice point. Tanks can still engage targets if they have suffered a mobility kill. And as previously mentioned, a turret allows engaging from a hull down position.

Back to the question at hand, "What was the actual practice when an enemy threat appeared in a rear quadrant?" Presumably, such events didn't occur often, but they undoubtedly did once in a while. During the war, turret traverse was performed one of three ways that I know of: hand crank, electric motor and hydraulics. The method employed, plus the gear ratio and in some cases engine speed, determines how quickly a turret can be turned. Here are some speed values I've found for a 360 degree traverse:

Tiger I - 25 to 60 seconds
Tiger II - 19 seconds
Panther A - 15 seconds
Panther D - 60 seconds
Panther G - 18 seconds
T34/76 M1941 - 14 seconds
Sherman (most models) - 15 seconds
M10 GMC - ~120 seconds (hand crank)
M-26 - 24 seconds
Matilda II - 14 seconds

Most of these are late war models with higher turret traverse speeds. Tanks such as all Pz.Kpfw III versions don't list turret traverse speeds as they are listed as "manual", i.e. hand crank. Traverse speed is going to depend on the person working the crank, but this method is going to be much slower than electric or hydraulic traverse. Many early war vehicles only used hand cranks to traverse the turrets.

I'm not debating whether a turret can be brought on target during the course of a turn. During a turn, one could probably exit the tank, check the oil level and get back in the tank if they wanted to do so. The debate is related to the actual practice used. If an enemy vehicle appears in a rear quadrant and they are capable of destroying your tank, what do you do? Even with the fastest traverse time listed, waiting roughly 5 seconds for your turret to traverse 120 degrees might be too long if the enemy already is aiming in your direction.

This is why I said it would require research. Possibly, the situation was addressed in period training or documentation. Maybe information is only available through anecdotes. To me, it would seem possible that you could pivot/turn the vehicle quicker in some or most cases than it takes to turn your turret. Current US doctrine with respect to tank orientation from FM 17-15:

Action drill with enemy contact. Following a contact report alerting the platoon that enemy contact involves antitank weapon systems, the platoon leader can direct an action drill to orient his platoon's frontal armor toward the antitank fire while moving to cover and concealment. If the platoon cannot reach a covered and concealed position or achieve weapon standoff, the platoon leader directs 36 through 3-38, illustrate examples of action drills in reaction to enemy contact.

The word "can" in this situation is used because options are mission dependent. Under certain circumstances where you are advancing, you may not want to alter your axis of approach.

Anyhow, if changes to the op-fire routine are considered, some research will be required as a "one size fits all solution" isn't likely to be realistic.

Below are the sources I found referencing turret traverse speeds. They may or may not be accurate. I was able to confirm a 24 second traverse time for the Tiger I from video footage.

http://www.alanhamby.com/technical.shtml
http://www.wwiivehicles.com
http://afvdb.50megs.com/germany/pz5.html

[Cross]

Originally Posted by RERomine

Keep in mind the main point to my post was not oriented towards the accuracy of non-turreted gun or whether turret traverse or vehicle pivot/turn could be performed within the length of the turn. The question revolves around what was the actual practice used.

I think SP guns were often used as mobile ATk guns, so were placed in defensive or ambush situations.

Another problem with moving a hull to aim – that I didn’t mention earlier - is that it more easily gives away your position. I like Andy’s idea that hull swivels could result in op-fire.

SP guns (and ATk guns) could have op-fire reactions reduced, but only if it’s possible to reduce op-fire ability for flank and rear targets, as they should clearly not have to suffer reduced op-fire ability for frontal targets.

Another possibility is to not allow any hull direction (or ATk gun facing) changes during your opponents turn. It will change the game-play somewhat, but it may well be a good change.

This will leave SP-guns (turretless AFVs) and ATk guns far more vulnerable, and it will also make tanks more valuable, so it will have the desired effect. But it would probably mean the cost of ATk guns and SP-guns would have to be reduced. You’d get more ATk guns on the SPWW2 battlefield, but they’d be less effective. It also may cause SP-guns to be used in a more historic role as mobile ATk guns hidden in brush towards the rear.

EDIT: But this would only make them less powerful defensively (during your opponents turn) so I'd still make AFVs and ATk guns use MPs to change direction, and have facing changes prompt op-fire.

Just brainstorming...


Cross

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by Cross

Another problem with moving a hull to aim – that I didn’t mention earlier - is that it more easily gives away your position. I like Andy’s idea that hull swivels could result in op-fire.

Big time on this one. If it is wet, you will throw a lot of mud. On the other hand, if conditions are very dry, it is unlikely you will be able to see out of the cloud of dust you kick up. This is more of an issue with a pivot (neutral steer) verses a turn (where you physically change position).

One thing about hull swivels triggering op-fire, if that occurs you almost have to provide a separate ability to do sector searches without a pivot/turn. This brings us back to the thread topic, more or less. Even as a separate ability, searching around will still be a tedious task.

In general, if an enemy unit ends up on your flank or rear, there are some tactical failures involved. If you are advancing, you've left your flanks/rear exposed by either out running supporting units of they have just been destroyed. On the defense, flank units have either been destroyed or even worse, the flank has been left open. In all such cases, you should be aware of the risk and adjust appropriately.

One final thought. If an enemy unit is seen on your flank or rear during your movement phase, what do you typically do if you decide to fire at it? Personally, I orient my front armor to the threat (well, about 15 degrees off straight on) and then fire. This is in case I miss and it returns fire. If this is what we do during our movement phase, why would we do something different during op-fire?

[Cross]

Originally Posted by RERomine

One thing about hull swivels triggering op-fire, if that occurs you almost have to provide a separate ability to do sector searches without a pivot/turn. This brings us back to the thread topic, more or less. Even as a separate ability, searching around will still be a tedious task.

You wouldn't have to provide a separate search. Not having a separate search may model the limited search ability of a single man with his head above the turret, or men peering through slits/periscopes. Forcing armour to rely more on infantry for spotting may not be a bad thing.

Originally Posted by RERomine

One final thought. If an enemy unit is seen on your flank or rear during your movement phase, what do you typically do if you decide to fire at it? Personally, I orient my front armor to the threat (well, about 15 degrees off straight on) and then fire. This is in case I miss and it returns fire. If this is what we do during our movement phase, why would we do something different during op-fire?

I agree. Well if nothing else changes, perhaps tanks should also be turning their hulls when shooting op-fire so they at least get the same benefit that the 'lesser' sp-guns currently get.

However, if hull swivels were to trigger op-fire, then one advantage of a tank is that you could choose to skip the hull swivel, just turn the turret and fire. Your shot may itself cause op-fire, but at least you get a shot in first, with a hull swivel triggered op-fire, the enemy gets a shot before you.


Cross

[RERomine]

Update

Neutral steering wasn't as common in WWII AFVs as I expected. For the Germans, Tigers and maybe Panthers and that was about it. It could be fairly common with British build AFVs and maybe not even used by US AFVs during WWII.

This means for those unfortunates without a transmission that allows one track to go forward and the other to go backwards at the same time, to do a 180 degree change in direction they have to physically move.

Given this information, any change in the code might want to classify any change in hull facing as a move, unless the vehicle was capable of neutral steering. It would require another column in the database, however