AAMG as MA vs. Vehicles?

KenH

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
66
Reaction score
65
Location
Houston, TX
Country
llUnited States
Quick few questions regarding the Russian GAZ-4M-AA:

This unit has a 16 FP AAMG as it's MA. There is a special note for this unit stating that the 4 MGs (the 16 FP must be a compilation of 4 MGs) each have 8 hex range and cannot be removed or scrounged. Also, the user rolls 4 TK rolls and chooses which one to use (the lowest...).

So, when shooting at an AFV:

1. The user only rolls ONE To Hit DR, right?

2. I understand that the roll on the TH table uses the VTT black numbers. However, do I use all Cases for DRM? And do I include both < 57mm and <40mm range modifiers?

3. On the AP To Kill Table, which MG column do I use, the "MG" (with Basic TK#4) or the 12.7 column (with Basic TK#5)? Do all MGs that are vehicle MA use one or the other of these two columns, or how do I know which to use?

4. Again, on the AP To Kill Table, do I include the range modifiers (<25mm, etc.) and, if so, how do I know which one fits to the MA MG on each vehicle (in this case, the AAMG, which I think is a .50 (12.7mm) caliber?

Thanks in advance.
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,426
Reaction score
3,365
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
  1. Yes onky one roll.
  2. Yes all apply but since you can onky do a to hit out to range 8it will make no difference.
3.MG. If 12.7 is to be used it will say on the counter or the notes (e.g.. US M3A1)
4.yes. the calibre of both is less than 25mm
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
801
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
  1. Yes
  2. Yes, but AAMG has a range of 8 and any MG can only attack armor within normal range.
  3. MG column, unless something on the counter/Notes says .50 or 12.7.
  4. Yes.
[Yikes! I was way too slow! Vinnie beat be to it. Glad we agree, though ?]
 

KenH

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
66
Reaction score
65
Location
Houston, TX
Country
llUnited States
  1. Yes onky one roll.
  2. Yes all apply but since you can onky do a to hit out to range 8it will make no difference.
3.MG. If 12.7 is to be used it will say on the counter or the notes (e.g.. US M3A1)
4.yes. the calibre of both is less than 25mm
Thank you!
 

KenH

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
66
Reaction score
65
Location
Houston, TX
Country
llUnited States
  1. Yes
  2. Yes, but AAMG has a range of 8 and any MG can only attack armor within normal range.
  3. MG column, unless something on the counter/Notes says .50 or 12.7.
  4. Yes.
[Yikes! I was way too slow! Vinnie beat be to it. Glad we agree, though ?]
Thank you!
 

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
287
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
Also, the user rolls 4 TK rolls and chooses which one to use (the lowest...).
Just a footnote... You don't have to choose the lowest... which could be worth remembering if choosing between a wreck, and a burning wreck.... as there are definitely times you dont want the smoke, spreading fire etc.
 

KenH

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
66
Reaction score
65
Location
Houston, TX
Country
llUnited States
Thanks for the quick responses.

But, I have more questions that I cannot figure out regarding this particular unit (GAS-4M-AA):

Ok, so the target is an AFV. Basic TH#10 at range 3-6.

1. If hit, Basic TK#4 +1 (Range) = 5. However, I noticed that there is a mention of "Unarmored Target" below the table which lists MG resolution to be the star on the IFT... which list a 3 under the header for FP<20mm. This doesn't look right. 3 is less than 5. It is more difficult to Kill an AFV than an Unarmored vehicle?

2. Then, I get to thinking... if the target was Unarmored, why would I have rolled a TH in the first place? Wouldn't I have rolled on the IFT using the 1 column (FP<20mm)? Now am very confused.

Sorry for the newbie questions.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Chapter C footnote 14 answers your question (i.e. nothing is wrong).
14. 7.311vs UNARMORED: It is interesting to note that the TK# for unarmored vehicles is often < that of an AFV. This is due to the fact that, although an unarmored vehicle is always penetrated by a hit, the projectile may pass entirely through the vehicle without detonating or striking anything vital. On the other hand, a projectile which has penetrated an AFV often explodes, or loses too much velocity to punch its way out the other side and therefore ricochets inside with murderous effect—in both cases in addition to causing potentially lethal fragmentation as it penetrates the armor.
 

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
287
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
You are using the FP as if the MG's were a single fire mm weapon [<---edit, eh not really, you can disregard that]...., but look on the counter, those AA MGs have FP 16 [edit -- which I realize you knew when you wrote the OP, it just got lost while thinking about firing as Ordnance].... the star line is 9. Even when an MA MG is listed by mm (eg 12.7) there's usually (probably always but I haven't checked so I'll say usually) an IFE value that can be used more effectively against unarmored.
 
Last edited:

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
287
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
Edited my first post substantially! And in fact you've got me scratching my head.... I said you "can" insist on firing the MGs as Ordnance but I was working too quickly and have other things going on. I'm not actually sure that the way you resolved the Ordnance MG attack vs unarmored is correct at all. It's breaking my mind thinking about it. I don't think you can fire MG as Ordnance against unarmored at all...nor can I think of reason why you'd want to.
 

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
287
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
Edit. A9.6 is the rule I should have been checking. And there's a very direct Q&A: may a player make a TH attempt with an MG versus an unarmored vehicle?

No.
 

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
I'd be inclined to agree with Pyth's post #10 in that you must use the IFT when using a MG against an unarmoured vehicle. If it was something like a 20L (6) then you would have the option but not if something like a AAMG -/-/6 with a 12.7 TK on the counter back. See the bottom of C7.31 Table, "UNARMOURED TARGET: FINAL TK# IFE/MG-15mm: * Vehicle line on IFT"

So for your GAZ-4M-AA against an unarmoured vehicle you must use the * line on the IFT, 1 IFT DR only.
0 hexes (TPBF, 48 FP): * Vehicle = 13
1 hex (PBF, 32 FP): * Vehicle = 12
2-8 hexes (16 FP): * Vehicle = 9
9-16 hexes (8 FP): * Vehicle = 7

The above does not apply to fire against an armoured vehicle when you must use the TH and TK and are limited to 8 hexes, 1 TH DR and 4 TK DR.
0 hexes: TH = 8 (C5 case E), TK = 6
1 hex: TH = 12 (C5 case L), TK =6
2 hex: TH = 11 (C5 case L), TK =5
3-6 hexes: TH =10, TK = 5
7-8 hexes: TH = 9, TK = 4
 

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
287
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
Paul, this is very reminiscent of the discussion of "when is a MA machine gun in the vehicle notes also a machine gun for in game Deliberate Immobilization shots?"... the consenus there was that it depended on whether the listing on the front of the counter was an MG (eg.BMG, CMG, or AAMG) or if it was given by the barrel bore such as 12.7.

And I think the answer here will differ from what the consensus was in the Deliberate Immob conversation, or at least it should. In this case the bore number does NOT (in my opinion) allow a TH attempt against an unarmored vehicle facing. The Q&A to 9.6 suports this, but even more persuasively IMO is the fact there is no sensible way to resolve the attack nor any practical reason to do it.

Take the US Quad 50 (the M16 MGMC....) it is much like the Gaz AA queried here in the OP except the MA on the Quad50 counter isnt "AAMGs" but is given as "12.7" which are of course .50cal MGs....

So, if the listing on the counter of 12.7 meant it could fire as Ordnance against an unarmored vehicle facing.... well, how is that resolved? You can't use the AFV AP TK#s, those are numbers for AP vs AFVs! And our target isnt an AFV... but you have to use VTT... which means AP or HE... the 50cals dont have HE so you are firing your Quad 12.7 mg VTT using it with AP as HE Equivalent of a 12.7mm shell. How can this make sense? (Its IFE is 24!)

IMO MGs, whether listed on the counter by bore size or as MGs just can't fire as "HE equivalent" it produces a nonsensically low number. The Quad 50 shoots at an unarmored vehicle/facing with 1fp on the star line? (and four tk rolls) Doesnt that sound ridiculous!?

MA MGs will have a FP listed on the lower right, or if the MG is given on the counter by bore size then that MA MG will have an IFE value on the counter (always, right? Is there a counter-example?) ( <--- Pun acknowleged :D) so that they may target unarmored vehicles/facings/infantry with appropriate lethality.
 
Last edited:

KenH

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
66
Reaction score
65
Location
Houston, TX
Country
llUnited States
You all are awesome. Thank you for your responses.

So, when rolling MA MG vs. unarmored vehicles, one must roll IFT using the FP, not barrel diameter (e.g. 12.7mm) - which would always use the 1 column. By using the 16 FP on the case of the GAZ-4M-AA, the TK# listed on the * row gets much better!

I guess that if one shoots at an AFV, but hit an unarmored section, then rather rolling a TK, one would then roll on the IFT as above?

(I will stop asking questions... for now... ?)
 

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
Pyth, OK you got me :), I didn't cover partially armoured vehicles.

I think we can agree with must use IFT against unarmoured and must use TH/TK against a full armoured vehicle or through the armoured facets of a partly armoured vehicle when using "IFE/MG-15mm" weapons.

I agree that the RB does not sufficiently clearly cover fire through an unarmoured facet of a partly armoured vehicle. The RB (D5.311) does cover PC vulnerability to such fire. The C7.31 table line "UNARMORED TARGET: FINAL TK# IFE/MG-15mm: * Vehicle line on IFT" uses "UNARMORED TARGET" not "UNARMORED VEHICLE", so I am inclined to think that you must use the IFT when firing a "IFE/MG-15mm" through an unarmoured facet. This is regardless of whether it is a 12.7 (4) or a AAMG -/-/4 with 12.7 TK on the reverse. A 20L (4) would be a different matter.

I must warn that I am a solo player so am more likely to get things wrong, but my reading is that the C7.31 table forces the use of the IFT for "IFE/MG-15mm", regardless. In the very rare such cases that have come up I was more concentrating on killing/breaking the crew. I can't remember whether I killed the vehicle in such cases.

As for DI on a partly armoured vehicle through an unarmoured facet, why bother when you have a better chance of nailing it or its crew?
 

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
287
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
@ KENH ... Your summary was good, but two caveats: That 1 fp resolution was done for a number which imo doesn't legally exist so who knows if it's "right" or not. Secondly, the distinctions between MG MA on the counter and MG given by bore size is a topic that remains in some debate (at least for me). But anyway... folks round here aren't shy about correcting each other's mistakes... I don't think this forum, as a collective, will let you go away steered wrong if I (or anyone) makes a significant goof.

@Paul M. Weir...

I think we can agree with must use IFT against unarmoured and must use TH/TK against a full armoured vehicle or through the armoured facets of a partly armoured vehicle when using "IFE/MG-15mm" weapons.
Yes. Agree. Although "IFE/MG-15mm" is a mildly troublesome category to me (see below).

The C7.31 table line "UNARMORED TARGET: FINAL TK# IFE/MG-15mm: * Vehicle line on IFT" uses "UNARMORED TARGET" not "UNARMORED VEHICLE", so I am inclined to think that you must use the IFT when firing a "IFE/MG-15mm" through an unarmoured facet This is regardless of whether it is a 12.7 (4) or a AAMG -/-/4 with 12.7 TK on the reverse. A 20L (4) would be a different matter.
Yes 99%. I'm only wondering a little about that 20L (4) ... is it really a different matter or not? Does its having an IFE value put it in the category of "IFE/MG-15mm" or does "IFE/MG-15" refer only to MA MGs as follows: (Bore name)IFE/MG(or FP MG)-15(up to 15mm) --- the second version seems peculiar as hell to me, but I think it is the correct one.

So, with the 20L (4) as found on say the PzKpfw II for example, since the 20L Gun isn't underscored -- it can fire HE -- and as the HE TK chart starts at 20mm there is a meaningful HE value to use (unlike with MGs). The chart gives the 20mm HE a final TK number of 6 vs unarmored. For comparison, firing at 4fp on the IFT star line is 5 -- these kill values line up with each other, they make sense... which is to say depending on considerations like range, ROF vs Conditional ROF, etc. there could be a meaningful decision to be made about which way to target the vehicle.

I must warn that I am a solo player so am more likely to get things wrong, but my reading is that the C7.31 table forces the use of the IFT for "IFE/MG-15mm", regardless.
Yes. That's what I was saying just now about the HE TK chart 'starting at 20mm'.... Now I see you got there first :).

As for DI on a partly armoured vehicle through an unarmoured facet, why bother when you have a better chance of nailing it or its crew?
Agree. DI is a desperation tactic for pop-guns versus monsters... the very opposite of a mouth-watering IFE/FP shot against an unarmored facing:p!
 

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
Yes 99%. I'm only wondering a little about that 20L (4) ... is it really a different matter or not? Does its having an IFE value put it in the category of "IFE/MG-15mm" or does "IFE/MG-15" refer only to MA MGs as follows: (Bore name)IFE/MG(or FP MG)-15(up to 15mm) --- the second version seems peculiar as hell to me, but I think it is the correct one.
The way I read that is you have to use the IFT * TK if you use IFE OR if you are firing a MG or weapon with calibre up to 15mm. The C7.31 table uses Unarmored Target (I'll use UAT here) which means both unarmoured vehicles and fire on a partly armoured vehicle through an unarmoured facet. I'll use AFV for fully armoured vehicles or fire against an armoured facet of a partly armoured vehicle.

So if you have a LMG/MMG/HMG/BMG/CMG/AAMG or marked as a 12.7 or a 15 then you must always use the IFT against UAT. Even Infantry inherent FP can kill an UAT. Note that a non-MA CMG/BMG/AAMG can affect UATs but not AFV. A MA CMG/BMG/AAMG of course can be use against both AFV and UAT. Check out A7.308.

For IFE capable weapons >= 20 then you have a choice. A high IFE value will give you a good TK on the IFT and will attack infantry in the same location. However it reduces your RoF by 1.

Take the example of a Bofors 40L (8) [3]. Using the (8) IFE you get a TK = 7 on the IFT (and get to hit infantry in same location) and average 1.5 shots, but using AP and assuming a hit you have TK = 8 and an average of 2.0 shots. So if you have 1 threatening vehicle with infantry the IFE might be the best choice, but with 2 threatening vehicles AP might be the best.

20L (4) [3]: Using IFE you get TK = 5, 1.5 shots but AP gives you TK = 7, 2 shots. The quad 20L (20) [3] is another matter, IFE TK = 10, 1.5 shots, AP TK =7, 2 shots (unchanged) but you get 4 TK rolls.

Of course with IFE/FP you can't miss (no TH DR) and you blast everything in the Location (A7.308). With IFE capable 20+ you get the luxury of choosing IFE or AP. I've ignored HE as the TK is less than AP. EDIT: Wrong, duh!
 
Last edited:

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
287
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
The way I read that is you have to use the IFT * TK if you use IFE OR if you are firing a MG or weapon with calibre up to 15mm.
Ahhh, that IFE/MG-15 finally makes sense. Of course that's what it means. I'm not sure what my cognitive malfunction was in this but I couldn't come up with it correctly myself. .
 
Last edited:

Pyth

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
287
Location
Brooklyn NY
Country
llUnited States
Take the example of a Bofors 40L (8) [3]. Using the (8) IFE you get a TK = 7 on the IFT (and get to hit infantry in same location) and average 1.5 shots, but using AP and.....
Oh jesus shows what I know... up to this point (in your post and in my ASL life) I thought AP was NA versus unarmored.... (i hope kenH is paying attention! As I demonstrate (again) the art of being wrong.) I thought you had to use HE or HE equivalent! I was mentally missing the bottom line of C7.31 -- which I now realize with deepening chagrin is the AP Kill chart! ( when you mentioned C7.31 earlier -- I just assumed you meant the C7.34 chart) And for the sake of completeness the IFE/MG-15 stuff occurs in the RB -- allowing me to miss it on C7.31.

Well Paul... if HE is available you should use it for VTT vs unarmored -- not AP, it's better vs unarmored! Which is probably why I lost track of the AP possibility in the first place.) Why would the Bofors 40L be firing AP VTT at the vehicle instead of firing HE VTT and if it scores a hit would get a final TK of 9? You might know the rules better but I'm gonna kill the vehicle a little more often... (Just trying to save a wee bit of face here...?)
 
Last edited:

KenH

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
66
Reaction score
65
Location
Houston, TX
Country
llUnited States
.... (i hope kenH is paying attention! ...
I am! Wow, did I stir up a juicy topic. I guess that I am pleased that I asked a good question - not something too newbie-ish.

Though the entire thread was enlightening, Paul's post directly above really summed it up nicely for me. Admittedly, I have read it several times and need to do so again. Hopefully, it will sink in.

Paul, Pyth: Thanks.
 
Top