Talk:Hull down: Difference between revisions

Wouldn't this article be better titled something like "Tank Tactics", since it's a fair bit broader than just an explanation of "Hull-down"?

Danny Yee 14:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that it's grown, but so far everything touches on the topic. I'm thinking a lot of this material can be used in a bigger article on tactical movement, armoured tactics, or mechanized tactics, since it applies to reconnaissance, combined arms, etc., and not just tanks. —Michael Z. 2005-03-29 17:01 Z

I like armoured tactics or tank tactics best - "tactical movement" could apply to infantry and what you have so far doesn't really apply even to mechanized infantry. -- Danny Yee 22:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think tank and other armoured vehicle employment is treated far too much in isolation in many of the wikipedia articles (and in much of the popular literature). It's naturally easy to write about the individual vehicles and equipment. But it leads to a comic-book or TV image of events on the battlefield.

It's the organizations, their taskings, the people in them, and how they get the job done that are more important. And none of it happens in isolation. There are lots of different things that happen on the battlefield, but the crux is the combined infantry and armour attack. The infantry is the only arm that can accomplish the chief objective in ground warfare: to take and hold ground, and it is most effective in combined-arms employment, with the support of reconnaissance, armour, artillery, engineers, etc., etc.

Anyway, this article did grow up from a little stub about the hull-down position, and it's about as big as it can get (although it desperately needs some good photos or a diagram; any illustrators out there?). I think I'll expend some energy on the existing articles on tank, armoured warfare, etc., for a while before starting any new ones. —Michael Z. 2005-03-31 04:24 Z

I'm removing the following discussion of turretless AFVs and the history of tank design.

1. Turretless AFVs can go hull-down: just replace the word turret with superstructure.
2. Multi-gun tanks have two hull-down positions, depending whether engagement with the hull or lower-turret gun is desired.
3. Regarding history, it would be great to know when/where hull-down and other armoured tactics were developed. Anyone have a reference? —Michael Z. 2006-07-28 01:39 Z

Deleted text:

WWI-era tank designs, for instance, Germany's A7V or Britain's Mark I tank, had hull-mounted guns. As armoured tactics evolved, the need for an elevated turret was soon recognized. By WWII, most tank designs included seperate, fully-rotating turrets, allowing engagements from hull-down positions. However, some notable early-war tanks, such as the french Char B1, the U.S. M3 Lee, and the Soviet T-35, included secondary hull-mounted cannons to reduce costs, despite recognition that this would result in reduced performance. Late-war tanks rejected dual-gun designs, focusing on a single turret.

A common distinction between Tanks, and Tank destroyers is the lack of a rotating turret in a tank destroyer, reducing cost, but also removing its ability to fire from a hull-down position (or change the direction of fire without redirecting the hull, as well).

My copy-edit of the addition:

Most First World War tank designs, for example Britain's Mark I tank and Germany's A7V, had hull-mounted guns. As armoured tactics evolved, the advantages of a rotating turret were soon recognized. Some inter-war tanks, such as the French Char B1, the U.S. M3 Lee, and the Soviet T-35, also had hull-mounted guns or secondary turrets. By World War II, most tanks had turrets, allowing better use of a hull-down position.

Nothing left of my addition:

There is nothing left of my edit. That simply isn't acceptable. It would be acceptable if you put in the copy-edit, but instead, you deleted everything. The whole intent of a elevated turret is to fire from a hull-down position. I agree - any tank can go hull down. But if the gun is in mounted in the middle of the hull, and you leave the gun clear to fire, then part of the hull is exposed, and so the tank is clearly not hull-down. Not sure why that's not clear to you. I guess you could invent a new term "tracks down", or "belly down", but when you get cooked by a shell coming in through the exposed hull, that's not going to help you very much.

I don't mind edits - but simply removing everything I wrote because you have problems with a few words is not appropriate. If you want to have your own website, please do so. If you want to work on a collaborative effort, stay at wikipedia. I will be putting my edits back in, I think they add far more value and relevance to the term hull down, than the random armoured tactics that also appear in the article. If you have issues with the text I put back in, perhaps we can have a wider debate before you hack and slash. That, after all, is the intent of the discussion section, isn't it? -- —User:Warthog32 2006-07-28 9:41 PST