@Der:
I’m trying to stress out that a bar gunner and garand both have the same attack vs vehicles at medium range. Rolling “2”. Both units would have an equal chance to score a hit on a disrupted/damaged german tank from the rear having a defense of 5/3. However, add side skirts and the garand no longer has the ability to do any damage from medium range because it’s basically penalized for have close assault.
I’m confused here…
Doesn’t a Garand roll 0 dice at med range against vehicles, maybe 1 dice with stars and stripes.
I’m thinking M1 Garand rolls 2/0/0 or 3/1/0 with SnS.
Bar would stay as you mentioned above at 2/2/0
Corrected, its short range
Bar
2/2/0
Garand 2/0/0
Schurzen “side skirts” were added to protect against hollow or shaped charges. I would think the schurzen would be a help to an infantryman doing a close assault. If mounting the tank were necessary or preferred having the side as another angle of attack would be a plus. Without schurzen between me and the tread… f that. I’ve always been an anti - me getting mashed into a fine paste type of person. Besides what soldier carries around a shaped charge on his person.
BTW the Germans discovered late in the war using a heavy guage wire mesh worked as well as the steel plate they had been using.
my personally opinion is that the sideskirts ability should only work when the unit is using the close assault ability, which is the logical, if not explicity stated interpretation, and was likely the original intent. Basically, that sideskirt keeps a soldier who is right next to the tank from putting a charge or sticky bomb (I believe anything that Tom Hanks says in a movie) right onto the vulnerable treads. It really wouldnt protect the same way against a bazooka or panzershrecht attacking from far away, or in a building.
I will grant the fact that sometimes the “official” ruling is based on the explicity stated wording, though it seems just as often, the “official” ruling is NOT based on the explicity stated wording. Has someone yet figured out why it says in the ruleback that a unit attacking a tank directly from the side is, i quote “neither in front of nor behind” the tank. What does that mean? It doesnt help anyone! Yet the official ruling states that attacking a tank from the side counts as attacking the rear. The people writing the text for these cards are not infalllible and might not anticipate the extent to which gamers will dissect the minutia of the rules to gain any advantage. Additionally, they might not anticipate every single possible combination of other existing cards and abilities, or cards and abilities that dont exist at the time, in order to include every imaginable scenario to their rule text. (For example, the trucks that can carry 2 units essentially breaking the hex stacking rule everytime they do so).
Regardless, the only way to actually find the actual answer to the sideskirts question would be to ask Avalon Hill. Anything else would just be our opinions, and a waste of mental energy.
my personally opinion is that the sideskirts ability should only work when the unit is using the close assault ability, which is the logical, if not explicity stated interpretation, and was likely the original intent. Basically, that sideskirt keeps a soldier who is right next to the tank from putting a charge or sticky bomb (I believe anything that Tom Hanks says in a movie) right onto the vulnerable treads. It really wouldnt protect the same way against a bazooka or panzershrecht attacking from far away, or in a building.
I disagree. From what I understand of “shaped charges” and the like, the use of offset armour (like side-skirts or wire mess) is to force the detonation to happen farther away from the surface to defuse the plasma. I think the intent of the “Side-skirts” ability (in game terms) is to increase the vehicles armour VS non-artillery soldiers. And it acheives that just fine.
I will grant the fact that sometimes the “official” ruling is based on the explicity stated wording, though it seems just as often, the “official” ruling is NOT based on the explicity stated wording.
Mostly disagree. Whne the wording is present, they follow it. The problem is when the wording isn’t there…then it gets down to interpretations and opinions, which is trouble!
Has someone yet figured out why it says in the ruleback that a unit attacking a tank directly from the side is, i quote “neither in front of nor behind” the tank. What does that mean? It doesnt help anyone!
It matters for units with fixed guns, and I blame the Archer, which has a fixed rear gun for making it even more confusion to people. A siG cannot target units in its own hex becasue it has a fixed gun and it can therefore only target units “in front”. So it indeed does have a practical effect.
Yet the official ruling states that attacking a tank from the side counts as attacking the rear.
In the rules, you front armour and rear armour. Attacks from the front are versus front armour, and the big bucket of “everything else” goes against rear armour.
If I wrote the game, I’d have done Front, Side, and Rear or Front, Rear, Close. And I’d have had the “facing” be a hex corner, not a hex side, yeilding a front arc of two hex sides, a rear arc of two hex sides, and a side arc of one hex on the left and one on the right.
But I can see why they tried to simplify the system…
The people writing the text for these cards are not infalllible and might not anticipate the extent to which gamers will dissect the minutia of the rules to gain any advantage. Additionally, they might not anticipate every single possible combination of other existing cards and abilities, or cards and abilities that dont exist at the time, in order to include every imaginable scenario to their rule text. (For example, the trucks that can carry 2 units essentially breaking the hex stacking rule everytime they do so).
I’m sure they noticed that a vehicle that carries two units always break the stacking limit. But thats OK because they do have written rules to handle that situtaion. The trouble comes when you dont have written rules!
Regardless, the only way to actually find the actual answer to the sideskirts question would be to ask Avalon Hill. Anything else would just be our opinions, and a waste of mental energy.
If you say so. Its not an opinion that a Mauser has an Attack-score of 8 or that a Granad next to a commander gets a +1. Its clearly printed on the card. While you could double-check every printed word on every card, I usually reserve my efforts to things that are ambiguous. And I don’t see any ambiguity on side-skirts. It’s very explicit.
Mot
PS - I checked the rules forum/faq and there has not (yet) been any clarification/question on the topic.
“I disagree. From what I understand of “shaped charges” and the like, the use of offset armour (like side-skirts or wire mess) is to force the detonation to happen farther away from the surface to defuse the plasma. I think the intent of the “Side-skirts” ability (in game terms) is to increase the vehicles armour VS non-artillery soldiers. And it acheives that just fine.”
Possibly, but why specify the close assault rule, instead of saying “non artillery soldiers”. Also, while you might be right about the mechanism of the function of side skirts (I wikipedia’ed side skirts, and it confirmed your statement), why would it only work against a Bazooka and not an anti tank artillery, or a tank, or a mortar? If the purpose is ONLY to get the detonation to occur farther away, any munition with an explosive charge would be affected. I think they intended the rule to specifically affect units using Close Assault for this reason, also implying that they would be using the close assault ability when the sideskirt ability would have its affect. But… whatever… no game can be perfectly realistic, except for Risk, which accurately portrays the overwhelming dominance of a V when it attacks an I, but also its vulnerability when attacked in turn by the tougher X.
“It matters for units with fixed guns, and I blame the Archer, which has a fixed rear gun for making it even more confusion to people. A siG cannot target units in its own hex becasue it has a fixed gun and it can therefore only target units “in front”. So it indeed does have a practical effect.”
Is this true? Specifically, can tanks without turrets (or fixed turrents) NOT shoot at any targets in their own hex?
Regardless of those answers, here’s another unrelated question.
Can a tank with Overrun (I think thats the name of the ability, the one that disrupts an infantry unit when it enters its hex) disrupt a unit in a transport?
And before anyone starts mentioning hex stacking limits, a tank can move through a hex with a vehicle and temporarily break the rule, as long as it continues onward and ends its turn in another hex.
Upon re-reading my message, I feel it comes across a bit harsh and dismissive.
For that I apologize.
Mot
Upon re-reading my message, I feel it comes across a bit harsh and dismissive.
For that I apologize.
Mot
Damn, you posted while I was typing!
“I disagree. From what I understand of “shaped charges” and the like, the use of offset armour (like side-skirts or wire mess) is to force the detonation to happen farther away from the surface to defuse the plasma. I think the intent of the “Side-skirts” ability (in game terms) is to increase the vehicles armour VS non-artillery soldiers. And it acheives that just fine.”
Possibly, but why specify the close assault rule, instead of saying “non artillery soldiers”. Also, while you might be right about the mechanism of the function of side skirts (I wikipedia’ed side skirts, and it confirmed your statement), why would it only work against a Bazooka and not an anti tank artillery, or a tank, or a mortar? If the purpose is ONLY to get the detonation to occur farther away, any munition with an explosive charge would be affected.
I think Artillery and Tank shells work for based upon kinetics, with velocity being more important. I hope some current or ex-military guys can comment more.
Still, real-world VS game-mechanocs are only tacitly related.
“It matters for units with fixed guns, and I blame the Archer, which has a fixed rear gun for making it even more confusion to people. A siG cannot target units in its own hex becasue it has a fixed gun and it can therefore only target units “in front”. So it indeed does have a practical effect.”
Is this true? Specifically, can tanks without turrets (or fixed turrents) NOT shoot at any targets in their own hex?
It depends on how its worded. The siG cannot attack within its own hex, which is good because it would blow itself up!
Regardless of those answers, here’s another unrelated question.
Can a tank with Overrun (I think thats the name of the ability, the one that disrupts an infantry unit when it enters its hex) disrupt a unit in a transport?
Yes it can. Probably wouldn’t happen very much but sure. If think if I was in a half-track with a Bazooka and a Tiger rolled straight at me I’d be dumping in my shorts just as much as if I was on foot. Hell, probably more so!
The question of why “+1/+1 defense VS units with Close Assault” instead of “+1/+1 defense VS non-artillery Soldiers” is a good one.
The prior does NOT grant extra defense VS units like:
BAR & BREN
Mortars
Flamethrowers
Etc
Under the latter version of rule, those units get penalized, and real-world, the types of attacks they make do not interact with a side-skirt at all.
Just a theory…
Bazookas, and panzer schreks and fausts, are shape charges. Skirts are specifically designed to defend against them. Mot is correct an AT gun fires a high velocity solid round designed to penetrate armor, this type of round is too heavy for a hand held weapon, but it is more effective and side skirts don’t make much difference against Armor piercers.
Think of a shape charge as a headlight. The beam is focused at a specific point. That point is the tip of the nose cone. The blast is focused and super heats that spot forming plasma from the armor itself making a hole and pushing through. Side skirts create an air space and make that plasma jet less effective. And the mesh Idea is actually more effective in this. In fact that’s what we use on strikers today to defeat RPGs, which are modern panzer fausts.
So in short, the effect of skirts on close assault would be a bonus. The reality is that the only defense against close assault is machineguns and infantry accompaniment.
Also btw the only real difference between a Garand and a BAR is ammo capasity and rate of fire. BAR hold more and shoots faster. Same bullet though.
Bazookas, and panzer schreks and fausts, are shape charges. Skirts are specifically designed to defend against them. Mot is correct an AT gun fires a high velocity solid round designed to penetrate armor, this type of round is too heavy for a hand held weapon, but it is more effective and side skirts don’t make much difference against Armor piercers.
Think of a shape charge as a headlight. The beam is focused at a specific point. That point is the tip of the nose cone. The blast is focused and super heats that spot forming plasma from the armor itself making a hole and pushing through. Side skirts create an air space and make that plasma jet less effective. And the mesh Idea is actually more effective in this. In fact that’s what we use on strikers today to defeat RPGs, which are modern panzer fausts.
So in short, the effect of skirts on close assault would be a bonus. The reality is that the only defense against close assault is machineguns and infantry accompaniment.
Also btw the only real difference between a Garand and a BAR is ammo capasity and rate of fire. BAR hold more and shoots faster. Same bullet though.
Correct me if I’m saying something stupid but the Bar gun also fired a higher velocity and higher impact shot.
Nope both are .30-06. same bullet. BAR has a 20 round detachable box magazine. The Garand has an 8 round clip that is inserted into the internal magazine. I own a Garand. Both are gas opperated, which means that the 1903 springfields that was used for snipers actualy has a bit more power than both of them. It is also .30-06 (that’s 7.62x63mm I believe)
There is something to be said for sheer rate-of-fire, I imagine!
Sidenote:
I watched a History Channel thing on Bonnie and Clyde. Clyde used a BAR instead of Tommy, completely outgunning everyone. They showed a demo of the Tommy & BAR VS a car (recall they actually made them out of metal back then). The Tommy peppered through the door but didn’t enter the cabin. The BAR entered and exited BOTH sides!
Yeah, there were stories that Bonnie Parker carried a sawed off BAR with a stock cut to a pistol grip. Whether it’s true or not I don’t know, but it’s an awesome picture.
DF described the shaped charg/plasma jet perfectly. The space between the schurtzen and the tank did dissipate the plasme jet to the point of ineffectiveness. When in the air it becomes a cone and quickly losses it’s energy. In steel it remains focused and powers on. Certain ceramics sap it’s heat so fast it begins to solidify. That’s where Chobham armor got it’s start. Too bad for us the Brits didn’t invent it until the war had been over for 20 - 25 years.
