1 PAATC

Barking Monkey

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
246
Reaction score
329
Location
Virginia
First name
John
Country
llUnited States
Would an SSR requiring MMC in units that historically didn't carry anti-tank grenades (e.g. 1942 Philippine army or Gebirgsjager) to pass a 1PAATC rather than a straight PAATC be appropriate? Or is that overemphasizing the importance of these weapons?
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
A 1PAATC would be more appropriate to represent troops that aren't comfortable with fighting AFVs, e.g. they had little or no training for it, and tended to shy away from it . If the units are lacking a significant weapon, I would suggest lowering their CCV and/or adding a CC DRM. Otherwise if the side with tanks initiates CC, the infantry are just as good as anyone else because they don't have to take a PAATC during the CCPh if a tank drives into their hex.

That said, CC vs AFVs seems to be fairly independent of the weapons that the nationality had available, with the EXC of the German & Japanese ATMM. It's probably too much to change the CCV and/or add a DRM. The difference in ASL terms is probably marginal.

JR
 

Barking Monkey

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
246
Reaction score
329
Location
Virginia
First name
John
Country
llUnited States
Thanks for the input. The CC DRM makes a lot more sense than a 1PAATC, although I'm leaning toward you're idea that it's too much for what's being represented.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Please excuse me for a late reply, I pondered this question whilst doing other things.

Let us consider what the standard 5 CCV means. Given that Germans can get ATMM by standard rules, some British/US get Gammon Bombs by SSR, AE a -1 DRM and anybody can get MOL by SSR, I would consider 5 CCV to be infantry with little more than grenades, improvised charges or even lengths of steel to jam tracks, IE nothing specifically to deal with AFV. I would be disinclined to reduce CCV except in unusual cases, eg Ammo Shortage.

1 PAATC would be appropriate where a unit/nation was inclined to "Tank Panic". So the 1942 PA would seem to good candidates for a 1PAATC, if the historical accounts suggest that. Gebirgsjager? In most circumstances I would say no, they were fairly elite troops. There were instances where German troops panicked, like during the British 1940 Arras counter attack, but other than on occasions in '39/'40 or '45 Volkssturm I would be disinclined to subject them to a 1 PAATC. Mid war Luftwaffe Field Divisions might be candidates on occasion, they seem to have been quite fragile when faced by AFV. I see it as less being regularly used to facing tanks as having the training or doctrine (or not) in facing tanks with standard infantry weapons.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Many nations had special grenades for attacking tanks, and many did not. The Soviets had the RPG-43, which ASL does not think merits including. The Germans had the Panzerwurfmine, and the Americans had the M9A1 anti-tank rifle grenade. None of these make it into ASL. The German anti-tank magnetic mine (Haftholladung) does make it in. One could imagine an SSR where one or more of these weapons is modeled, but apparently the designers felt that in general these weapons added only marginally to the anti-tank capabilities of infantry. Occasionally SSRs feature Gammon Bombs, but these were more like mini-satchel charges than anti-tank grenades.

JR
 
Last edited:

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,204
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
Many nations had special grenades for attacking tanks, and many did not. The Soviets had the RPG-43, which ASL does not think merits including. The Germans had the Panzerwurfmine, and the Americans had the M9A1 anti-tank rifle grenade. None of these make it into ASL. The German anti-tank magnetic mine (Haftholladung) does make it in. One could imagine an SSR where one or more of these weapons is modeled, but apparently the designers felt that in general these weapons added only marginally to the anti-tank capabilities of infantry. Occasionally SSRs feature Gammon Bombs, but these were more like mini-satchel charges than anti-tank grenades.
JR
Or possibly the CCV of 5 for a squad represent the generic use of such weapons, as i don't see how a tank can be destroyed with just rifles and regular grenades.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Or possibly the CCV of 5 for a squad represent the generic use of such weapons, as i don't see how a tank can be destroyed with just rifles and regular grenades.
Grenade bundles, grenades under the tracks, jamming logs into the tracks, toss a grenade into a momentarily-open hatch, shoot through vision slits (early war) or destroy/blind periscopes/glass in vision slits, smoke bombs or burning material on ventilators. All have a small chance of either destroying the vehicle or convincing it that staying around isn't a good idea.

JR
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,204
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
Grenade bundles, grenades under the tracks, jamming logs into the tracks, toss a grenade into a momentarily-open hatch, shoot through vision slits (early war) or destroy/blind periscopes/glass in vision slits, smoke bombs or burning material on ventilators. All have a small chance of either destroying the vehicle or convincing it that staying around isn't a good idea.

JR
As you say, they have a small chance. To reach the 28% destruction/immo implied by a CCV of 5, there should be more tools available.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
As you say, they have a small chance. To reach the 28% destruction/immo implied by a CCV of 5, there should be more tools available.
It may be a game mechanic to reflect the reluctance of tankers to get in close with enemy infantry without their own supporting infantry as much as anything else. And the 28% only applies if the tank stops. Who stops a tank when doing VBM freeze sleaze?

JR
 

wrongway149

Forum Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,403
Reaction score
2,099
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
It may be a game mechanic to reflect the reluctance of tankers to get in close with enemy infantry without their own supporting infantry as much as anything else. And the 28% only applies if the tank stops. Who stops a tank when doing VBM freeze sleaze?

JR
Even a vehicle that is 'killed' in ASL terms might just be 'in capacitated' for the duration of the scenario. Crew has buttoned up, and is afraid to go anywhere, not knowing the situation. Things blow over (scenario ends) and they are fully functional, not a stastical loss.
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
Grenade bundles, grenades under the tracks, jamming logs into the tracks, toss a grenade into a momentarily-open hatch, shoot through vision slits (early war) or destroy/blind periscopes/glass in vision slits, smoke bombs or burning material on ventilators. All have a small chance of either destroying the vehicle or convincing it that staying around isn't a good idea.

JR
true, molotov cocktails are more effective and much more readily available to pretty much anyone with a wine bottle a match and some fuel. They do tend to scare AFV crews a bit. - not surprising, flaming pools of death tend to send me running the other way, too.

:)
 
Top