AFV PFPh attack on a melee unit

[PaulS]

I sure this is addressed all the time in the forum but I can't remember. If a tank is in melee with a squad at the start of its own PFPh can it fire then at the squad? If yes, including all types of available MG with TPBF and the MA (with the Case E for firing in own hex). I know that a vehicle is not locked in melee but unsure what its options are besides just driving out of there.

 

[Mr Incredible]

It can fire in the PFPh.

What I'm not sure of if it was immobilised, as it would be locked in Melee. I think the answer is that it could not.

On a related question. If it decided to move in the MPh, as so as it started up with 1MP, could the tank be attacked by the unit?

 

[Vinnie]

It can fire with all weapons that can bear. This would normally be everything but if immobilised, the BMG could not be used.
An AFV is never held in melee even if immobile.
On spending a start up MP, the melee ceases and the enemy unit can use reaction fire. A paatc is needed unless otherwise exempt.

 

[PaulS]

Thanks for the responses. Wasn't sure about all the MGs. I think that squad is going to end up Swiss cheese (tangling with a T-34/85).
I have another AFV question while I'm here: can a vehicle fire both its primary and secondary MA during the same PFPh? I'm assuming it would be MP/MF-dependent in the DFPh.

 

[jrv]

I have another AFV question while I'm here: can a vehicle fire both its primary and secondary MA during the same PFPh? I'm assuming it would be MP/MF-dependent in the DFPh.

The terms "primary MA" and "secondary MA" aren't used in in either ASL or ASLSK, AFAIK. There is only MA (main armament). In ASL some vehicles have a MA & a SA (two guns), e.g. the American M3 Medium. I don't believe ASLSK has any vehicles that are so equipped. As a general answer to your question most vehicles can fire all their weapons in the PFPh, which would include the American M3 Medium firing both its MA & SA. There are a few odd exceptions. Vehicles can't fire their MA & RMG in the same player turn, and some RST/1MT turret vehicles have AAMGs, where the AAMG would require being CE and firing the MA would require being BU.

JR

 

[bendizoid]

The Grant tank can also fire the *2 AAMG even if BU (non aerial).

 

[jrv]

The Grant tank can also fire the *2 AAMG even if BU (non aerial).

It's actually the Lee that has the American-style turret like the M3 Medium and that can do this. The Grant has the British-style turret. The way I remember which is which is that the British nomenclature is reverse of what I expect: I expect that the Grant would have the American- (Union-) style turret, and that is wrong.

JR

 

[bendizoid]

Hmmm, Mandela effect, well one of them has a remote AAMG that is handy sometimes.

 

[PaulS]

Thanks JR and Bendizoid,
My last question would have been more suitable for ASL. For the life of me, I have never found the specific rule in the ASL RB on firing both the MA and SA during the same fire phase. Maybe it was assumed and I'm a little slow on the draw. All that weaponry gives these vehicles potent firepower.

 

[jrv]

For the life of me, I have never found the specific rule in the ASL RB on firing both the MA and SA during the same fire phase. Maybe it was assumed and I'm a little slow on the draw.

I think the flow of assumptions is in the opposite direction: any weapon may be fired (a somewhat implicit axiom) unless you find a rule that says it can't. So for instance Personnel may possess any number of Guns/SW [A4.43], but a squad can only fire a maximum of two per phase [A7.351], and halfsquads/single SMC/team of two SMC may fire only one. As I said, vehicles can fire all their weapons unless you can find a reason they can't.

Really, a chain of reasoning showing that a vehicle may fire its MA is a bit elusive. Perhaps you might start with D3, "Most of the mechanics for AFV combat are covered by the rules of ordnance in Chapter C," and proceed from there. You might include C2.1, then C3.1, but there's really not a clear line of logic that says, "an attack may be made against enemy units by firing ordnance, including ordnance mounted on vehicles." To a certain extent it's assumed that that is why you are here, and you know that. Now perhaps there are other rules I have missed that make the logic clearer, but the rules are not written so that a space alien which uses only telepathic attacks and has nothing even slightly related to ordnance will understand. There is a certain amount of assumed knowledge built in.

All that weaponry gives these vehicles potent firepower.

I think the value of placing additional weapons on vehicles falls off fairly quickly. Experience proved that a vehicle with one major weapon system was a better use of resources than one with many independent systems (as with the T-35). I don't think ASL goes to any lengths to simulate this aspect directly, as the vehicles in question have enough other weaknesses that it's not worth the effort to add more debilitations. The American M3 Medium was not designed with the land-battleship prototype in mind. It was more a kludge to get a 75mm gun into the field even if it couldn't be mounted on a turret yet, i.e. it was of a different class from the land battleships of the inter-war years.

JR

 

[Vinnie]

The Grant tank can also fire the *2 AAMG even if BU (non aerial).

And a riding hero can use the aamg despite being on the outside of the Lee.

 

[von Marwitz]

Hmmm, Mandela effect, well one of them has a remote AAMG that is handy sometimes.

I like those beasts vs. the Japanese especially - no serious armored opposition usually and the tank is able to produce a sh**load of RFP.

von Marwitz

 

[von Marwitz]

Now perhaps there are other rules I have missed that make the logic clearer, but the rules are not written so that a space alien which uses only telepathic attacks and has nothing even slightly related to ordnance will understand.

I believe you precisely describe RSD's issue...

von Marwitz

 

[von Marwitz]

And a riding hero can use the aamg despite being on the outside of the Lee.

One piece of fluff that no one ever wastes a Hero on. For Hollywood-effects, they should have left throwing DCs off of moving ht's and Motorcycles legal...

von Marwitz

 

[Vinnie]

You can throw a DC from a moving ht. I don't think a rider can use a DC.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

You can throw a DC from a moving ht. I don't think a rider can use a DC.

A motorcycle Rider can use a Thrown DC.
D15.6:
"...The only SW use allowed on sidecars is LMG/Thrown DC..."

However, they can't Throw it (and neither can ht Passengers) as Bounding First Fire (i.e., in their MPh), since A23.6 only allows it "during any friendly fire phase (or Defensive First Fire)".

 

[von Marwitz]

However, they can't Throw it (and neither can ht Passengers) as Bounding First Fire (i.e., in their MPh),

This was exactly what I meant - I should have been more precise. The drive-by bombing. It ain't no more... :fingerwag:

von Marwitz

 

[klasmalmstrom]

This was exactly what I meant - I should have been more precise. The drive-by bombing. It ain't no more... :fingerwag:

If it ever was....

 

[von Marwitz]

If it ever was....

Just so.

And the HIP THH Heroes that were able - with a bit of luck - to wield their sword in a deathly dance to the demise of a carelessly CX squad of GIs that ended their MPh in the THH's location for one last rude surprise in the CCPh... :fingerwag:

At least I did that 'legally' before a Journal Debriefing put a cruel end to it.
Those were the days...

von Marwitz

 

[ThePrimeMover]

It can fire with all weapons that can bear. This would normally be everything but if immobilised, the BMG could not be used.
An AFV is never held in melee even if immobile.
On spending a start up MP, the melee ceases and the enemy unit can use reaction fire. A paatc is needed unless otherwise exempt.

Does that include a PAATC if the squad/s are already in the same hex? I thought the PAATC was a test to move into the same hex as the AFV?