Sherman size

[enric]

I observed that usually a Sherman is hit more frequently that a STUG when firing one to each other.
Looking at the code and at the squads.csv and seen that Sherman is considered a bigger target (targetSize 100) than a STUG (targetSize 75) when the later was larger, wider, and heavier.

Why?

When firing to a Stug it is considered a "small target" for BA, a 25% smaller than a Sherman which is considered equal to a Panther (targetSize 100) which was one meter larger and 30 cm wider and also more heighten.

Am I missing something?, why is made like this?

[dickesKind]

The Sherman is larger than the StuG.So at least this seems "realistic".
But as you said, it is still smaller thant a Panther. So the target size should be between those both.

[enric]

The Sherman is larger than the StuG.So at least this seems "realistic".
But as you said, it is still smaller thant a Panther. So the target size should be between those both.

Sherman

Weight 66,800 pounds (30.3 tonnes; 29.8 long tons; 33.4 short tons)
Length 19 ft 2 in (5.84 m)
Width 8 ft 7 in (2.62 m)
Height 9 ft (2.74 m)
Crew 5 (Commander, gunner, loader, driver, co-driver)

Stug g

Weight 23.9 tonnes (52,690 lbs)
Length 6.85 m (22 ft 6 in)
Width 2.95 m (9 ft 8 in)
Height 2.16 m (7 ft 1 in)
Crew 4

So it seems the Sherman is smaller, no?

[dickesKind]

The crucial factor is the height. In literature and memories of veterans concerning the Sturmartillerie it is always mentioned, that the StuG was harder to detect and to hit due to its lack of a turret. BA takes account of this by making the StuG a small target.

[enric]

The crucial factor is the height. In literature and memories of veterans concerning the Sturmartillerie it is always mentioned, that the StuG was harder to detect and to hit due to its lack of a turret. BA takes account of this by making the StuG a small target.

Yes, it was harder to detect but once detected also easier to hit because it's larger and wider.
In BA having a targetSize of 100 or 75 makes a BIG difference receiving fire.

The target size it's proportional value in BA.
targetSize < 100 = small
targetSize > 100 = big
When a STUG fires to a Sherman (or the opposite) there are 75% to hit the STUG for the Sherman than vice versa.

[dickesKind]

Yes, it was harder to detect but once detected also easier to hit because it's larger and wider.

I am doing research on the Sturmartillerie for years now. But this is the first time I heard something like this.
It's not as easy as you say.

Nevertheless I see, that Shermans should not be considered as beeing as big as a Panther.

[Ranger]

Yes, it was harder to detect but once detected also easier to hit because it's larger and wider.

I am doing research on the Sturmartillerie for years now. But this is the first time I heard something like this.
It's not as easy as you say.

Nevertheless I see, that Shermans should not be considered as beeing as big as a Panther.

dickesKind is 100% correct.

In most situations it is easier to hit a taller target than it is to hit a shorter one. The Israelis removed the commander copula from the turret tops of their M-60 tanks for this very reason. Also it is usually preferable to have a shorter silhouette rather than a taller one. Short is usually easier to hide. This is an advantage turret-less tanks have over taller turreted tanks.

Here's one reason why...
It is much harder to estimate distance or range to a target than it is to determine the direction to a target. Simply lining up the sights on the target, or pointing your finger, will give you the correct direction to the target. However, even with the flatter trajectory of high velocity anti tank rounds, determining the range is still necessary to know how to adjust the angle of the tank's gun in order to achieve the trajectory required to hit the target. The farther the distance to the target, the more precise the angle of elevation must be in order to hit the target etc. (Unlike mortars and artillery, the amount of propellant charge could not be modified.) The taller the target, the less precise the range estimation needs to be to achieve a hit.

Range finding wasn't an easy thing until laser range finders came out. That is one of the reasons WW2 tanks usually stopped to fire thier main guns at medium to long range targets. The tank commander/gunner would have to estimate the range to the target the "hard way".
Depending on the situation, experience of the tank crew, or the technology available, there were a number of ways they could try to do this. Map/terrain association to determine thier location and the targets (fine when you are setting up an ambush or in defense, but much more challenging when mobile)... and/or by firing a round to see if it fell over or short of the target (and then bracket the shots similarly to adjusting artillery fire), and/or using an optical range finder, and/or by using a range finding gun that fired a tracer round (not sure if WW2 tanks had this).

As you can problably guess, one of the reasons an experienced tank crew was worth its weight in gold was because they had become highly proficient at estimating target ranges. This proficiency directly impacted the amount of time it took them to identify, then engage a target, and achieve hits/kills with their first shot, and their ability to quickly identify, engage and kill a target had a direct impact of their survivability.

Cheers,

Thomas