M20 firing BAZ

[Doug Leslie]

The definition of NT is found in D1.33 - "Any MA of the "NT" type is recognizable by having no MA Type white circle/square on the counter."

Rule D1.3 above it states that the T/ST/NT etc. restrictions apply only to the Main Armament. "The MA is either turret mounted....or bow mounted (i.e. non-turreted)." The BAZ in the M20 isn't bow mounted (if it was, it would be printed on the counter).

Case 3, C5.3 says "Vehicular (including Passenger) ordnance which fires during its MPH must use one of the Case C DRM (i.e. it must add the +2 DRM of Case B to the applicable Gun Type DRM of Case C)...."

This is saying the T, ST and NT DRM are "Gun Type" DRM. However, a BAZ isn't a Gun (per the Index definition), it is a SW. I would conclude the "NT" restriction, referred to as "Gun Type DRM", only applies to Guns and/or MA. There is no "applicable Gun Type DRM" since the BAZ isn't a Gun.

The Vehicle Note for the M20 lists the AAMG as the MA, and the BAZ only exists via US Multi-Applicable Vehicle Note Z. It isn't the MA, it isn't a Gun, and it isn't subject to Gun Type DRM (which is what the NT restriction is).

Sounds right to me. Compare and contrast with the British Carrier that sports an ATR as it’s MA. In that case, I think that the NT restriction would apply.

 

[Sparafucil3]

The Vehicle Note for the M20 lists the AAMG as the MA, and the BAZ only exists via US Multi-Applicable Vehicle Note Z. It isn't the MA, it isn't a Gun, and it isn't subject to Gun Type DRM (which is what the NT restriction is).

A CMG is subject to the +2 TCA/+3 VCA "Gun Type DRM" so I personally don't find this argument compelling.

You're free to seek clarification from Perry but I suggest you examine Case A before you do. A BAZ has no fixed CA. It is also not mounted in the 360 degree mount. That makes a BAZ NT when determining Case A. It can't be NT for Case A and something else for Case B. That way lays madness. Case C also says Case B PLUS. You have to add one of them and only NT makes any sort of sense in this context. -- jim

 

[Doug Leslie]

OMG !!

And how I fire in BFF the AAMG that its MA? As a T/ST? Where is that?

In your post before the previous one?

 

[Doug Leslie]

A CMG is subject to the +2 TCA/+3 VCA "Gun Type DRM" so I personally don't find this argument compelling.

You're free to seek clarification from Perry but I suggest you examine Case A before you do. A BAZ has no fixed CA. It is also not mounted in the 360 degree mount. That makes a BAZ NT when determining Case A. It can't be NT for Case A and something else for Case B. That way lays madness. Case C also says Case B PLUS. You have to add one of them and only NT makes any sort of sense in this context. -- jim

A CMG is turret mounted by definition. A SW carried by a vehicle isn’t. Why would Case A apply at all?

 

[Sparafucil3]

A CMG is turret mounted by definition. A SW carried by a vehicle isn’t. Why would Case A apply at all?

As I said, feel free to seek clarification. Perhaps you'll be vindicated. -- jim

 

[klasmalmstrom]

A CMG is turret mounted by definition.

Not sure the rules actually spell that out, and even so some versions of the StuG (NT vehicle) have a CMG.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Case C also says Case B PLUS. You have to add one of them and only NT makes any sort of sense in this context. -- jim

Plus any applicable Gun Type DRM. Key word is "applicable". If none apply, you don't add them. For a BAZ, not being a Gun/MA, none would apply.

From the dreaded "reality" standpoint, a NT gun (i.e. bolted to the vehicle hull) deserves a severe penalty for firing on the move.

Would a BAZ held by hand in an open-topped vehicle (as the M20 was) have as much problem adjusting to the target?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Sounds right to me. Compare and contrast with the British Carrier that sports an ATR as it’s MA. In that case, I think that the NT restriction would apply.

You are correct. The ATR was mounted in a weapons mount in the front compartment. It had limited traverse (and vision when using the gun's sight).

 

[Michael Dorosh]

It can't be NT for Case A and something else for Case B.

Case A doesn't apply to LATW, though, unless I've misunderstood you. It also specifically (per footnote S) does not apply to SW.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Plus any applicable Gun Type DRM. Key word is "applicable". If none apply, you don't add them. For a BAZ, not being a Gun/MA, none would apply.

Non-Turreted seems to apply. You clearly disagree. That's OK, that's what Perry is there for.

From the dreaded "reality" standpoint ...

From a "reality" standpoint, you have made the M20 more lethal than a tank, particularly in Bounding Fire, based on DRM's. The difference is even more in the favor of the M20 if the tanks has to chance TCA/VCA. I am sure the tankers of WWII would find that pretty amusing. "Hans, Forget the Firefly!!!! There's an M20 out there too!" -- jim

 

[Doug Leslie]

Case A doesn't apply to LATW, though, unless I've misunderstood you. It also specifically (per footnote S) does not apply to SW.

Back from the pub and rulebook now to hand

The problem is that the way the rules are framed, the bazooka might have metamorphosed from being a SW nto a gun. A "gun" is defined thus:

"Gun (for firing purposes, any weapon on a ⅝" counter currently firing as ordnance; for non-firing purposes, any non-vehicular weapon on a ⅝" counter): ...."

Arguably, the bazooka is a weapon on a 5/8 counter that is currently firing as ordnance which would make it subject to Case A penalties.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Back from the pub and rulebook now to hand

The problem is that the way the rules are framed, the bazooka might have metamorphosed from being a SW nto a gun. A "gun" is defined thus:

"Gun (for firing purposes, any weapon on a ⅝" counter currently firing as ordnance; for non-firing purposes, any non-vehicular weapon on a ⅝" counter): ...."

Arguably, the bazooka is a weapon on a 5/8 counter that is currently firing as ordnance which would make it subject to Case A penalties.

BAZ is on a 1/2" counter though.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

From a "reality" standpoint, you have made the M20 more lethal than a tank, particularly in Bounding Fire, based on DRM's.

The DRM are lower, but the BAZ has a lower base TH number (with the exception of being adjacent).

Lethality aside, the DRM of Case C are there to do one thing - reflect the impact of movement on particular weapons. A non-turreted (i.e. bolted to the frame) vehicular weapon fired by a moving vehicle would be much harder to bring to bear than a shoulder fired support weapon if for no other reason than you have to aim the entire vehicle to do it. If that makes the bazooka more "lethal" then I guess it probably was. If anyone thinks they can make a winning strategy out of charging German tanks with scout cars, they are welcome to try it.

Trooper Jacob Funk of Lord Strathcona's Horse received a Military Medal for a similar situation. He was a crewman of a similar vehicle (British vehicle note 44, the Stuart Recce) - at the Melfa River crossing he destroyed a Panther with a PIAT carried on board. I seem to recall he dismounted before engaging the Panther. I guess he was more "lethal" to the Germans that day than many of the Sherman tanks in his regiment.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

For Bounding (First) Fire purposes the rules/EX makes it clear that a BAZ fired by a Passenger is treated as an NT weapon. To me, it would be strange if for some reason it would not be treated the same if fired by the crew.

Of course, this whole thing is probably a little academic, since one rarely fires a BAZ out of a vehicle anyway - with the backblast and all.

 

[asloser]

Of course, this whole thing is probably a little academic, since one rarely fires a BAZ out of a vehicle anyway - with the backblast and all.

I think this is more relevant for PIAT and Carrier C. There is no Backbalst there.

 

[Sparafucil3]

BAZ is on a 1/2" counter though.

The BAZ is usually on a 1/2" counter but in this case, the BAZ will not take counter form.

Z. This vehicle starts each scenario carrying one BAZ of the latest model (signified by “BAZ” on the counter), which does apply to the vehicle’s PP capacity (D6.1) when it takes counter form. (Thus it must remain inherent if the vehicle currently has no unused PP capacity.) In a single Player Turn the Inherent crew may fire either the vehicle’s normal armament or the BAZ (as per C13.8-.81). Otherwise, the BAZ may only be Removed (D6.631) by the crew or a Passenger (who can claim possession of it automatically), or Scrounged (D10.5). These principles also apply to the inherent SW in the German SPW 251/10 (German Vehicle Note 65).

It only takes counter form when removed by the Passenger, the Crew, or Scrounged. If it is removed into counter form and loaded back into the M20, it then must be counted against the PP capacity of the AFV. Per the note, only the Crew can fire the BAZ inside the vehicle although either the Crew or the Passenger may take it and claim possession when removing it from the Vehicle. When reloading, unless the Passenger is an SMC (up to 4 I think) it would have to stow the BAZ as the M20 only has 5 PP capacity, the BAZ would count as 1 meaning a HS/Crew cannot load into the M20 and possess the BAZ. -- jim

 

[Michael Dorosh]

For Bounding (First) Fire purposes the rules/EX makes it clear that a BAZ fired by a Passenger is treated as an NT weapon.

It's not being fired by a Passenger, it's being fired by the inherent crew.

What is a "NT weapon"? My understanding is that NT is a Gun Type, and a BAZ is not a Gun. You can have a NT gun, but I don't see where the rules hint at the existence of a NT BAZ.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Of course, this whole thing is probably a little academic, since one rarely fires a BAZ out of a vehicle anyway - with the backblast and all.

Agreed, though you understate the case. Parsing the rulebook is entirely academic.

 

[Sparafucil3]

What is a "NT weapon"? My understanding is that NT is a Gun Type, and a BAZ is not a Gun. You can have a NT gun, but I don't see where the rules hint at the existence of a NT BAZ.

IMO, NT is the only type that makes sense when the BAZ is not in counter form and it is consistent with how the Passengers use it. It isn't turreted. It isn't in a 360 mount. -- jim

 

[klasmalmstrom]

It's not being fired by a Passenger, it's being fired by the inherent crew.

Yes, I know that - I am merely saying - to me - it doesn't make much sense that there should be a difference - it is still two guys inside the vehicle using the BAZ.

What is a "NT weapon"? My understanding is that NT is a Gun Type, and a BAZ is not a Gun. You can have a NT gun, but I don't see where the rules hint at the existence of a NT BAZ.

C5.3 EX:
EX: A Stabilized Gun (D11.11) firing in the AFPh after entering a new hex during that Player Turn must apply a +3 DRM (case B + C; 2 + 1) to its To Hit DR; a T or ST Gun Type must add a +4 DRM (2 + 2); a NT Gun Type or any Passenger must add a +5 DRM (2 + 3). MA AAMG would add +2 DRM (Case B only).

Sort of saying that something fired as ordnance by a Passenger is treated as a NT Gun (there's an old Q&A about this as well)....once again, to me, it make sense a Passengers and crew are treated the same way in this regard. YMMV.