Aerial attack vs AFVs

PabloGS

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
673
Reaction score
123
Location
Santiago de Chile
Country
llChile
Hi. The situation is as follows. Stukas are considering making a Point attack on a group of moving, concealed, French AFVs.

E.72 states that "A unit moving in Open Ground would not be considered concealed to the aircraft,...."

Does this imply that the Aircraft is allowed to use the -2 drm for the Sighting TC due to the target being "not entirely concealed/HIP" ? And assuming the Stuka passes the Sighting TC, Case K (+2 TH drm vs Concealed target) would not apply in the TH process?

If the Stukas decide to wait until the DPh to make their Point attack, and the AFVs remained in Motion, it would be the same situation?

But if the AFVs stopped, I imagine now the -2 for the Sighting TC would not apply, and if still concealed the +2 on the TH would apply in the DPh?

Thanks.
 

aneil1234

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
282
Reaction score
70
Location
Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire
Country
llUnited Kingdom
A vehicle in motion is not stopped, and considered moving
so in my opinion

Does this imply that the Aircraft is allowed to use the -2 drm for the Sighting TC due to the target being "not entirely concealed/HIP" ? And assuming the Stuka passes the Sighting TC, Case K (+2 TH drm vs Concealed target) would not apply in the TH process?

yes, and the -1 for entry of a new hex if it did

If the Stukas decide to wait until the DPh to make their Point attack, and the AFVs remained in Motion, it would be the same situation?
yup, cause its "Moving/non-stopped" at that time

But if the AFVs stopped, I imagine now the -2 for the Sighting TC would not apply, and if still concealed the +2 on the TH would apply in the DPh?
Have to agree as written, So attack in the MPh
(Which is what I do 99% of the time with aircraft)
Leaves lots of residual around for a bonus


Thanks.
Hope it helps
 

PabloGS

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
673
Reaction score
123
Location
Santiago de Chile
Country
llChile
It does. I also recalled that in Dftb 42 ad 43 Carl Nogueira penned some pretty good pieces on this.
 
Top