I'm trying to wrap my head around how often it is used. I've heard talk about battlers not liking the JS-2 because the barrel can't be depressed enough for slope defense. It is true, because of the recoil unit and the turret roof, the down angle is very limited, but in my battling, I've never even thought of using slope. Granted, my experience is limited, I've never been to Danville or really been exposed to hardcore fighting.

So, for the average IR battler, how important is slope? I know there are some of you out there that alter suspension to boost the nose a bit, but for the average guy who is in a club or battles with friends and family, do you use it?

The reason for the question is I've got the 45 degree defense solved as well as distance, etc in the apple design to match or exceed the TBU. I have matched the slope, which kicks in around 12-15 degrees from horizontal, but there are some really cool design options that wouldn't kick in until 40 degrees or so. Not really effective for tactical use of slope except in escape type scenarios.

its a problem with most soviet tanks designed after they came up with the idea of making tanks shorter so they were harder to hit...the back part of the gun would hit the turret roof...they do have good elevation so you can back onto things or angle the tank sideways so you can use your elevation to do slope defance...it just dosent look natural exposing the whole tank so you can angle the gun up.....since this is just rc tank lazertag...you could change the turret guts to change gun elevation. I have seen nore than a couple tanks modded for more gun movement...tiger 1's did not have a lot of gun depression but check out some of the vids of danville and some of those have a bunch of gun depression added that would have had the back part of the gun sticking through the roof of the turret....same with some panthers.

Slope defense is effective in real war and IR tank battle. Slope defense like hull defilade was used very effectively by the US tankers in Sicily and Italy against the Germans. The US Army Shermans & GMC Halftracks would rise toward the crest of the reverse slope of a hill and fire on the German tanks below. The would crest the hill just enough to fire the main gun and then reverse. The Germans would try and lay their guns but couldn't track the pop up tanks. If they hit a M4 most rounds would bounce off the hull slope which was exaggerated due to the hill angle. The German tanks were also more vulnerable if hit from the top. The fins on the IR apple duplicate that angle of defense. It is really one true on the back side of the hill but can be used on the front slope of a hill which would be very unrealistic. It is also avoided since you could be "Pinned Down" on the front of a hill. As soon as you try and move off the front you would be very vulnerable. That is why the better battle systems emulate the Tamiya fins. The fins also keep sunlight off the apple can effect IR range/vulnerability.

Thanks Scott.

But what I'm really asking is, do you use slope in battling?

Thanks Bob.

I have fins in my design as well as two IR pass filters so sunlight isn't an issue. The second filter is an 1/8 inch thick, completely opaque. Once assembled, the sensor will never see the light of day, only IR.

To emulate the Tamiya, the fins vs opening has to a certain length, which is fine, I have the dimensions worked out. But if I could shorten them just a bit, there's a different design that would be really cool. Problem is, it opens up the angle a bit wider.

I hadn't encountered significant slope defense until I started battling at Danville, but Danville is unique in the amount of terrain undulation it has plus it is indoors. Most other battlefields are quite flat, and outdoors. I think both the terrain and lack of sunlight makes slope defense a viable option at Danville.

From my observation, slope defense can be very effective when taken to about 45 degrees with respect to the firing tank - the zone where you are vulnerable from 360 degrees shrinks by about half. However, a tank that is cocked 45 degrees cannot elevate or depress its gun barrel to fire effectively, thus it would seem to be a defensive posture with very little offensive options. I don't employ slope defense for defensive purposes - usually I seek reverse slopes that allow me to fire with minimum exposure of my apple, essentially trying to put the apple in the shadow of my mantlet and hull.

I guess how significant slope defense is, does depend on your playing style - whether you're the patient sniper, or the cavalry bent on flanking and attacking. Or the opponent that you're up against.

Thanks Leong, that's a great help.

45 degrees is a lot, both of my designs will pull that off, I was more concerned about positions where you could fire from, which tend to be in the 10-30 range. Any apple shadowing wouldn't change.

Danville is a different animal, but the only responses I'm getting are from Danville vets.

That is probably because that is where it is used the most. Plenty of opportunities to use it also.

Herman

Hi ausf,

IMO, RC tanks on defilade on a reverse slope models that of realistic combat tactic and is ably provided for by the battle unit's fins.

What is comical is that sometimes during IR battles, tanks reverse towards the counterslope (with its turret trained on the enemy towards) its front to inhibit being shot at. I think this is unrealistic and gamey. I think the fins are essential in limiting shots realistically if combined with a "no top cover" policy (unless battling under direct sunlight can be demonstrated to significantly ruin gameplay).

What I find best to simulate realistic combat is to remove the IR battle receiver's top cover.
As I have observed here: (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-t...e-process.html)
the absence of a top cover allows for better sensitivity (even without a prism and with fins).

This translate to better realism such that RC tank battlers inhibit themselves from invoking slope defense in an improper way (i.e., unrealistic such as backing up towards a counterslope).

cheers,
Rey

Hey Rey,

I hear you regarding realism and you have been a great voice for change and I agree completely with you. There can be so much done to improve battling to get it beyond what Mustclime dubbed 'tank laser tag' (great description).

My concerns are more commercial. I just want to know if there's a market for a completely different apple that performs exactly like the TBU, except the slope angle is greater by about 25 degrees. If slope is important to a majority of tankers, it doesn't make sense to proceed with it.

With the issues getting hold of TBUS I would say there is a market, especially if you can get them priced lower than impacts offering.

Slope is important definitely. We use slope and fixed slope in our rules only if you are playing in command battles and you r defending.You are not allowed to use slope if you on the attack and on the enemy territory.

I use slop defance all the time.....when ever I can find something to drive up onto and angle the tank.

Depression is something I work hard on as hull defilade is one way to stay alive a wee bit longer in battle.
<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/68007800@N06/6822082498" title="M51 conversion on the field in Phoenix by Ethan Dunsford, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7048/6822082498_36597b88dc_s.jpg" width="75" height="75" alt="M51 conversion on the field in Phoenix"></a>

Very true,,,,very effective and VERY realistic.

I agree Rey. On the front slope it is unrealistic and it is very easy to be "pinned down" too. I rarely use it.... if ever.

Jeff, here's some combat footage from Danville with commentary - feel free to ask questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhY6sHJeqYo&amp;feature=youtu.be

That's great footage Leong, thanks.

The defense the Jagd uses in the beginning would be possible with my design, but in terms of realism, yikes.

Slope defense is definitely a tactic used at Danville, sometimes at local events too where rocks and hills are present.

It is an unrealistic battle tactic form the looks of it. A tanks muzzle could shoot point blank and "miss" because the apple fins are preventing a horizontal hit.

I have seen two or three tanks try to hit a sloped tank and it looks ridiculous.

The apple encourages horizontal gameplay.

The Tamiya fins can be removed to void the slope defense, so you may want to design the system with removable fins for that option (or every other fin for wider angle hit).

It could occur that it is unrealistic tactics... But on long range defense it looks like real missing...
+ we have also some tough discussions and experiment with this

ahhhh the cone shaped deflector that virtually eliminates the 45 degree defense. I know it well.

My observations and comments on this surround the "game aspect", 45 degree and slope defense are tactics that one must learn and is part of acquiring "skill" for IR tank battling. Both of them can be used in the most unprototypical ways though and look comical. So the drive to remove them is there from an aesthetics point of view, but the removal of both of these will also remove one of the skill aspects required in the IR tank game.

Supposed we remove both the slope and 45 degree defense, will the resulting game become less challenging to the point of it being boring??????? I don't know , I am just asking the question. So on one hand I would love to see these defenses removed to improve the way the battling looks, and on the other hand I wonder if it is the right thing to do to diminish the skill required to play the game

If I had my way, 45 and frontal (meanly front up, back lower in aspect) would be included as you mention for skill purposes, but would be in the hull, not the turret. That would take more skill in driving as well as being more realistic.

Of course that would be nearly impossible to pull off in any setting past a personal collection. So the apple is the best system for battle as we have it.

Good Video Leong.

I battled against my daughter Kim in the exact same spot in a similar scenario. At Denville we call that area the "Bowling Alley" She had a M4 behind the same hill as you and I had a JP in Dana's position in the Bowling Ally by the "butt crack" hill. The narrow space severely limited my JPs mobility. A team mate with a turreted tank had to take her out. I couldn't hit her. The M4 was small and easy to hide. She has learned too much. Her M4 being a medium was a great advantage for her. Only teamwork won the day for us. I kept her pinned until a teammate flanked her. She had us tied up for almost 10 minutes until I could get support. She did hit me 4 times at close range. It was very realistic from those standpoints.

Damn these kids learn fast.

I'm just guessing, but I think they had a great teacher

I imagine that the M4 put up such a volume of fire, DPM (damage per minute) in WOT-speak, that it becomes quite costly to engage Kim on her terms! With Danville featuring numerous choke points like bridges, foliage and topography, light and medium tanks can be much more effective that heavy tanks in holding these strategic positions. They make the opponents think twice about crossing an obstacle. Driving my Panther as a heavy, I often find that opponents take advantage of my reload time to penetrate the choke point that I'm trying to hold, 9 seconds is a really long time early in a battle when tanks are at full strength and speed. There's still much that I have to learn about different areas of the Danville battlefield like you guys who are so familiar with different areas you got names for them.

Jeff, I really do recommend a trip to Danville - it is definitely an eye-opener and you will be exposed to a range of IR battling styles, tactics and situations that you never knew existed. You've put in quite a lot of work into your tanks' IR systems and I think it would really be helpful for you to know how the equipment (in its current state) is being fought.

Agreed, I was critical of the Tamiya game play until I went to Danville. Seeing the teamwork and a skill used by the players to take advantage of what I had considered short comings of the Tamiya system, made me rethink my opinion. Simple to configure, and fun to play meant more time on the battle field. At an event like Danville with all the tankers present, you get a real feel of how hard it would be to manage IR game play if it was much more complex then what Tamiya presents . I love the Clark options as it is so customizable, but how on earth do you go about verifying settings to ensure everyone is on a level playing field???? I guess you could globally program tanks on the bench??? Not sure but would it be possible to line up 10 Shermans in a group and universally set all of them with one programming device??? If this is possible then maybe it wouldn't be so bad. I just don't know as I have never been exposed to a field full of Clark equipped tanks and the verification process used to ensure some consistency on the field?


Regardless going to Danville and seeing the tactics employed and the fun being had, caused me to form a new opinion of some of the things I was critical of.