Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Can someone explain hull down to me?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Can someone explain hull down to me? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Can someone explain hull down to me? - 10/6/2002 5:55:27 AM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6793
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline 		I never have quite goten the concept of this totaly.


Can anyone explain?

_____________________________
Post #: 1
Here's the military definition.. - 10/6/2002 6:28:46 AM   
Orzel Bialy


Posts: 2664
Joined: 4/4/2002
From: Wisconsin USA
Status: offline 		it is when your hull and tracks are behind cover but your turret and main weapons are clear to fire. If your gunner can see the enemy through his main gunsight, but your driver's vision is still blocked by the cover, you're in Hull Down. Therefore you're taking the least risk possible being exposed to enemy fire when you're getting ready to engage a target.

Hope this helps paint a better picture of this tactic. :)

_____________________________


(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 2
- 10/6/2002 7:45:33 AM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6793
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline 		So more or less your finding a geographical foxhole for your tank?

_____________________________


(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 3
- 10/6/2002 8:20:27 AM   
Supervisor

 

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline 		Exactly, a tatic that works very well unless you have superior Air support as proven in Desert Storm, by the number of hull down destroyed tanks in the Iraq army curtousy of Allied air strikes.

_____________________________


(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 4
- 10/6/2002 8:22:34 AM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6793
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline 		I was just about to say that.


With the advent of modern air power those wouldnt be that usefull anymore.



I thought the Iraqis built their own "hull down" postions with a little spade work?

_____________________________


(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 5
You are correct.... - 10/6/2002 9:02:32 PM   
Orzel Bialy


Posts: 2664
Joined: 4/4/2002
From: Wisconsin USA
Status: offline 		the Iraqi's created their hull down positions with sand bags and berms (think that's the correct term?) that they shovelled or bulldozed into "U" shaped firing positions.

And, as Gmenfan eluded to, that was fine to ward off frontal strikes from the level/lower ground infront of these firing positions...but were useless against ATM's / laser guided weapons launched from aircraft and attack helicopters that were coming in from higher elevations to the rear or from the sides...or directly above! :D

_____________________________


(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 6
- 10/6/2002 10:48:05 PM   
tracer


Posts: 1865
Joined: 11/22/2000
From: New Smyrna Beach, FL USA
Status: offline 		Another advantage is that almost every tank has its strongest armor in its turret...except the roof.

_____________________________

Jim NSB

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 7
- 10/7/2002 3:39:26 AM   
Randy

 

Posts: 1172
Joined: 8/22/2000
From: Torrance, Calif. USA
Status: offline 		Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't some of the M1A1 rounds go right through of the Iraqi sand berms?

_____________________________

Semper Fi
Randy

The United States Marines: America's 911 Force-The Tip of the Spear

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 8
I thought I read that too... - 10/7/2002 3:51:57 AM   
Orzel Bialy


Posts: 2664
Joined: 4/4/2002
From: Wisconsin USA
Status: offline 		I think it was in an issue of TIME when the fighting had just ended. If that story is true, then those 120 smoothbores packed a bigger wallop than I thought! :eek:

_____________________________


(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 9
- 10/7/2002 3:56:00 AM   
Voriax

 

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Randy
[B]Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't some of the M1A1 rounds go right through of the Iraqi sand berms? [/B][/QUOTE]

I've always considered this a fable...that penetrator would most likely deform and deflect quite a lot when it hits that sand berm and thuse lose most of it's effectiveness.

Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 10
- 10/7/2002 10:19:04 AM   
stevemk1a


Posts: 855
Joined: 3/30/2002
From: Penticton B.C.
Status: offline 		In Tom Clancy's book [U]Armoured Cav[/U] there is a description of A M1 killing a T-72 with a 120mm shell [B]through[/B] a berm.[QUOTE]Back in the M1, the crew saw through their Thermal Imaging Sight (TIS) the hot plume of the T-72's engine exhaust spewing up from behind the berm. Aiming carefully through the TIS, the M1's crew fired a third 120mm round through the berm, into the tank, destroying it.[/QUOTE]
The incident is occured during Desert Storm when a M1 from the 24th Mech Inf Division got stuck in a mud hole and was assaulted by three Iraqi T-72's while waiting for a recovery vehicle.
P.S. final score M1 -3 T-72 - 0 :D
True or not? :confused:

_____________________________


(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 11
- 10/7/2002 10:27:28 AM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6793
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]If that story is true, then those 120 smoothbores packed a bigger wallop than I thought! [/QUOTE]


Smoothbore?

Those arnt rifled at all?

well.....I also thought the gun was 128mm too.......:o



[QUOTE]In Tom Clancy's book Armoured Cav there is a description of A M1 killing a T-72 with a 120mm shell through a berm.[/QUOTE]


Tom clancy probaly didnt write it............:rolleyes:

_____________________________


(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 12
Truth or legend? - 10/7/2002 11:03:08 AM   
stevemk1a


Posts: 855
Joined: 3/30/2002
From: Penticton B.C.
Status: offline 		Just to clarify ... [U]Armoured Cav[/U] is a non fiction book, so the incident described is purported to be a true story. I'm just wondering if anyone out there can verify or support this tale ... (Larry Bond nonwithstanding) :)

_____________________________


(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 13
- 10/7/2002 3:51:42 PM   
Voriax

 

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline 		that's the problem..only source for that incident is Tom Clancy, which immediately lowers credibility value somewhere around zero or below.

Back when Tanker's Forum was still alive this subject came up now and then and if my memory serves me right no-one was able to comfirm this..including those M1 crew members that resided in that Forum...they posted many great pics though, like pics taken through the thermal imager of the M1 :)

Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 14
- 10/7/2002 9:25:24 PM   
Jim1954

 

Posts: 1393
Joined: 5/15/2002
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		Fallschimrjager, this might clarify.

The main armament is the 120 mm M256 smoothbore gun, developed by Rheinmetall GmbH of Germany. The 120 mm gun fires the following ammunition: the M865 TPCSDS-T and M831 TP-T training rounds, the M8300 HEAT-MP-T and the M829 APFSDS-T which includes a depleted uranium penetrator. Textron Systems provides the Cadillac Gage gun turret drive stabilisation system.

The commander has a 12.7 mm Browning M2 machine gun and the loader has a 7.62 mm M240 machine gun. A 7.62 mm M240 machine gun is also mounted coaxially on the right hand side of the main armament.

:D

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 15
- 10/8/2002 1:44:27 AM   
rbrunsman


Posts: 1837
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline 		Why smoothbore for the 120mm Gun? Wouldn't rifling be better?

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 16
- 10/8/2002 2:07:03 AM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by rbrunsman
[B]Why smoothbore for the 120mm Gun? Wouldn't rifling be better? [/B][/QUOTE]

May be FUD on my part, but I think almost every (western?) tank today sports smoothbores. Come to think of it, doesn't the M1 and Leopard2 carry the same gun? Why I can only guess, but modern tank ammunition isn't exactly what you'd call a "shell". They got their own stabilizers and are more like small rockets.

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 17
- 10/8/2002 2:22:08 AM   
Voriax

 

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline 		About the only 120mm rifled tank guns in use today are the one in British Challenger 2 and the other in the Indian Arjun MBT's. Both use is because they feel the need for the HESH (high explosive squash head) round. Apparently it won't work well if fired from a smoothbore.
Then the 105mm L7 gun that was the previous main gun in western MBT's is also rifled.
As for why smoothbores...well HEAT round doesn't work well if you give it spin and fire it from rifled gun...for example french had tank ammo that had an inner HEAT core that was separated from the outer shell with ball bearings..thus outer shell spinned but the HEAT part didn't. Obviously a complex and costly ammo and perhaps not that effective system anyways. And afaik you can get higher velocities from a smoothbore which is a bonus as present day antitank rounds tend to be fin-stabilized kinetic energy penetrators.

Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 18
- 10/8/2002 2:22:52 AM   
Akmatov

 

Posts: 495
Joined: 7/26/2000
From: Tucson, AZ, USA
Status: offline 		If I recall correctly the move to smooth-bore main guns was started by the Soviets. I'm at the office so I can't pinpoint just which tank they started with. Hmm, or was it the Brits?

The reason for the smooth-bore relates, I think, to the more sophesticated new AT rounds. I believe most rounds used today, like sabot, have their own aerodynamic characteristics builtin which would be screwed up by spinning rapidly. Also I believe the Brits have long favored large smooth bores to deliver HEAT and HESH type warheads, neither one of which benefits by impacting the target while spinning.

BTB, how is hull-down modeled in SPWAW? I've tried to set tanks up in a hull-down position, but never succdeded. Is there some trick to it or is it not simulated?

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 19
- 10/8/2002 2:31:51 AM   
Jim1954

 

Posts: 1393
Joined: 5/15/2002
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		I believe the 1st Soviet smooth bore was the 115mm in the T-62.

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 20
- 10/8/2002 2:34:41 AM   
Voriax

 

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Akmatov
[B]If I recall correctly the move to smooth-bore main guns was started by the Soviets. I'm at the office so I can't pinpoint just which tank they started with. Hmm, or was it the Brits?

[/B][/QUOTE]

Soviet T-62, service entry 1963. 115mm smoothbore is my offer for the first. I wonder if Brits have ever used smoothbores...

Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 21
- 10/8/2002 2:49:20 AM   
Akmatov

 

Posts: 495
Joined: 7/26/2000
From: Tucson, AZ, USA
Status: offline 		T-62 115mm sound VERY right. I do 'think' the Brits had a smoothbore 120 before us, but not sure. Will check.

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 22
- 10/8/2002 4:06:29 AM   
rbrunsman


Posts: 1837
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Akmatov
[B]BTB, how is hull-down modeled in SPWAW? I've tried to set tanks up in a hull-down position, but never succdeded. Is there some trick to it or is it not simulated? [/B][/QUOTE]

I think you get the hull down bonus (ie only your turret can be hit and you are harder to hit) if you are at a higher elevation than the shooter and the shot is coming at your front. The caveat is that if the shooter is adjacent to you, then he can get a "bottom hit" on your AFV, which is not such a good thing. As the shooter at higher elevation, you also get the added bonus of reducing the effects of sloped armor deflections (ie greater armor penetration from your shots) and the chance of a top hit. The bottom line is: High Ground is Good. IMHO, that's how hull down is modeled in SPWAW.

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 23
- 10/8/2002 2:17:12 PM   
john g

 

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by rbrunsman
[B]

I think you get the hull down bonus (ie only your turret can be hit and you are harder to hit) if you are at a higher elevation than the shooter and the shot is coming at your front. The caveat is that if the shooter is adjacent to you, then he can get a "bottom hit" on your AFV, which is not such a good thing. As the shooter at higher elevation, you also get the added bonus of reducing the effects of sloped armor deflections (ie greater armor penetration from your shots) and the chance of a top hit. The bottom line is: High Ground is Good. IMHO, that's how hull down is modeled in SPWAW. [/B][/QUOTE]

As I recall (and since this is 2am right now I might be wrong for once) you also get hull down if in improved positions or entrenched and taking fire from the front. Which would be the sandbag berm sort of postion.
thanks, John.

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 24
- 10/8/2002 9:53:01 PM   
Irinami

 

Posts: 746
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Florida, USA
Status: offline 		In that "other" WWII game, the 3D one, I remember reading a long topic on hull-down. Some things to consider.

1.) Hull-down will present a smaller target to enemy tankers.

2.) Tankers are trained to fire like soldiers are--at center mass of the target.

3.) Some tanks have heavier front hull armour than front turret armour, and vice-versa.

4.) Some tanks have better front hull slope than front turret slope, and vice-versa.

5.) In the end, what this means is that with some tanks, hull-down turns them into uberbunkers. Superheavy turrets with ideal sloping means any hits will probably bounce off.

6.) In the other end (ewwwwwwwwwww... ;)), what this means is that some tanks are sitting ducks in hull-down positions. Light or moderate armoured turrets and/or with little consideration for slope means any hit will put the vehicle out of action. A lot of these tanks are ones which would benefit more from moving fast than from a hull-down position.

What's it all mean?!?!

Know your tanks, that's what. :cool:

_____________________________



Newbies!!
Wild Bill's Tanks at Munda Mini-Campaign. The training campaign for comb

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 25
- 10/11/2002 7:35:08 AM   
AmmoSgt

 

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline 		A couple of thoughts on smoothbore v rifled bore.
Rifleing in a gun can only optimally stabalize bullet weights within a certain weight range .. now days, tank, ammo is so specialized and uses such different mechanisms to defeat armor that keeping all ammo types within that range would not allow for the specialzation needed .. The other major reason is Velocity .. rifling can really eat up velocity( slow the bullet down by creating friction and converting some of the energy into spin) .. or the ultra high velocity on APFSDS type ammo would really eat up the rifling , quickly making the gun inaccurate. It is much easier technology wise to just use a smoothbore and design the ammo to use other stabilazation methods the "FS" in APFSDS stands for "fin stabilized" . As noted above spin does reduce the effectiveness of HEAT ammo by the centrifical force pulling outward on the Monroe effect jet that is the penetrator action of HEAT Ammo. HESH is not effected that much by spin as I understand the action of that warhead.. and if you notice many rifled cannons have HESH , but I don't think many smoothbores have HESH.
A long slender APFSDS round out of a 120mm smoothbore is designed to be very light( in comparison to a HE round of the same caliber) .. maybe 30 pounds , often less, so you can achieve the ultra high velocites , approaching 6000 fps to take maximum advantage of the Force= mass x velocity squared equation, pure kenetic energy does the work. With chemical energy bullets that use High Explosive to do the work on the target HEAT, HESH, HE and the like you want the maximum weight of explosive .. with a 120mm Gun you can squeeze 60-90 lbs of explosive in a bullet .. However if you tried to fire a 60-90 lb solid shot ( like APFSDS) at 6000 fps the chamber pressure would be so high that the breech and barrel would have to be so thick and strong to contain it it would be hard to fit it all in a tank weighting twice what a M-1 weighs. So .. what you do is fire really "light", in comparison, solid shot at very high speeds and chemical energy rounds that are much heavier at lower speeds .. chamber pressures stay within bounds .. and each type of ammo gets to do the job using different methods to the best advantage. And your barrel lasts longer.

_____________________________

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 26
- 10/14/2002 7:28:52 AM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		Think about your annoying auntie, then think your annoying auntie wants to give you one of those dreadful smooches.

Now think while you are in a tank hehe.

If your auntie is really that bad, the cringe alone will put your tank into hull down position heheh.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 27
- 10/14/2002 7:30:01 AM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		Ok I was in a wierd mood and there was nothing else anywhere to post about heheh.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 28
- 10/14/2002 9:35:11 AM   
Ograbme

 

Posts: 127
Joined: 5/6/2002
From: California
Status: offline 		In a semi-related question, how big is the actual armor-piercing dart of a 120mm round?

_____________________________

D--n it, how he nicks 'em
Oh! This cursed Ograbme

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 29
- 10/14/2002 1:15:31 PM   
Voriax

 

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ograbme
[B]In a semi-related question, how big is the actual armor-piercing dart of a 120mm round? [/B][/QUOTE]

Probably classified information :) Those darts are 2,5-3cm thick and the length/thickness ratio is about 20:1 in the current types of apfsds rounds...so 50-60cm long. Weight is 5-6 kilos for steel/tungsten penetrators.

This site has some pics/dimensions of rounds for 125mm and 100mm tank guns: http://www.prvipartizan.com/en/milapfsds.htm

Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Can someone explain hull down to me? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984