CA change in enemy MPh

[ScottRomanowski]

"Or" can be inclusive, e.g. tomorrow will be Tuesday or it will be rainy. Exclusive "or" is often indicated by including "but not both". I wish "xor" was commonly used. English is silly sometimes, when "and" and "or" can mean the same thing. At least formal logic, digital hardware design, and programming have unique meanings for their terms.

 

[DVexile]

It’s not 100% consistent, but the ASLRB appears to often use the wording “and/or” when being explicit about inclusive or. Thus when it uses “or” it makes it more likely that exclusive or is what is meant. For a rule book obtuse enough to have different meanings for “ADJACENT” and “adjacent” you’d think “xor” might be admissible

In addition to “xor” it’d be nice to see “iff” used more commonly (if and only if).

 

[Jazz]

In addition to “xor” it’d be nice to see “iff” used more commonly (if and only if).

A good idea and it would eliminate a lot of ambiguity for those of us who are familiar technical Mathematical concepts.

Alas, I don't think they qualify for standard conversational English which is the least common denominator in this case.

 

[Wayne]

[I agree but also need to say that for a technical reference manual =not= written by profession technical writers, the ASLRB is a mighty fine piece of work.]

OP's CA-change Q is a good one and prompted me to send a Q for A too. I see it as one instance of a broader issue, so I asked it this way:

D2.11, D3.12, D3.51, more?

For purposes of managing armor facings, say,

1. May an AFV make a non-required (one spine) CA change for D1F if the KEU target is already within CA?
2. May an AFV make a one-spine-larger-than-required CA change for a D1F shot?
3. May a turreted AFV making a required CA change for a D1F shot also make a non-required relative T/VCA change for that D1F shot?

Thank you

[20220904: above sent to asl_qa@multimanpublishing.com]

[I hope that email address is still good -- I've not sent a Q for A in a long while.]

 

[klasmalmstrom]

[I hope that email address is still good -- I've not sent a Q for A in over a decade.]

It is.

 

[von Marwitz]

A good idea and it would eliminate a lot of ambiguity for those of us who are familiar technical Mathematical concepts.

No good idea and it would create a lot of ambiguitiy for those of us who are unfamiliar with technical Mathematical concepts.

You guessed it, count me among the latter bunch.

von Marwitz

 

[Eagle4ty]

No good idea and it would create a lot of ambiguitiy for those of us who are unfamiliar with technical Mathematical concepts.

You guessed it, count me among the latter bunch.

von Marwitz

And you're still up on this old grunt by at least an order of 10:1.

 

[BattleSchool]

I believe D3.5 intimates that both the TCA and the VCA may change to fire irrespective of their initial CAs at a target as a FG (The FP of a vehicle's various MG/IFE armaments may all be added together for one attack (...assuming the target lies within their respective CA), or fired separately at different targets [Mandatory FG (A7.55) applies]. If fired together in one attack, the worst applicable CA DRM of any participating MG/IFE (3.52) applies to the total attack.).

I think this is key to answering the OP's Q.

If the Sherman wants to change its VCA and TCA so as to present only frontal aspects to the German tank, the US tank must fire its BMG and its CMG simultaneously. If the Sherman opts, for example, to change its VCA and fire its BMG, it would forfeit its ability to fire its CMG at the enemy tank (unless the Mk IV expends another MP, e.g. in Delay), because A7.55 would apply, and vice versa.

I seem to recall that Perry said to expect errata to A7.55, after answering a Q&A in 2021 or thereabouts: “If you can FG together, then you must. If you cannot FG together, then you can fire separately."

I take this to mean that the Sherman in the OP's EX would not have the option to change TCA without firing its CMG, because it would have to form a FG with its BMG, or forfeit the fire (and therefore the accompanying CA change) of one MG.

If I understand Perry's point re Mandatory FG, the Sherman only has three options with respect to its MG and potential CA changes when the Mk IV expends an MP to Stop:

1. Change VCA, and fire BMG;
2. Change TCA, and fire CMG; or
3. Change VCA and TCA, and FG BMG and CMG.

 

[Eagle4ty]

I think this is key to answering the OP's Q.

If the Sherman wants to change its VCA and TCA so as to present only frontal aspects to the German tank, the US tank must fire its BMG and its CMG simultaneously. If the Sherman opts, for example, to change its VCA and fire its BMG, it would forfeit its ability to fire its CMG at the enemy tank (unless the Mk IV expends another MP, e.g. in Delay), because A7.55 would apply, and vice versa.

I seem to recall that Perry said to expect errata to A7.55, after answering a Q&A in 2021 or thereabouts: “If you can FG together, then you must. If you cannot FG together, then you can fire separately."

I take this to mean that the Sherman in the OP's EX would not have the option to change TCA without firing its CMG, because it would have to form a FG with its BMG, or forfeit the fire (and therefore the accompanying CA change) of one MG.

If I understand Perry's point re Mandatory FG, the Sherman only has three options with respect to its MG and potential CA changes when the Mk IV expends an MP to Stop:

1. Change VCA, and fire BMG;
2. Change TCA, and fire CMG; or
3. Change VCA and TCA, and FG BMG and CMG.

I do wonder if the Sherman could change its TCA at the end of its DFPh without firing as per C3.22 & D3.51 even though it had fired its BMG to change its VCA as D1F per A.15? The D1F during the MPh and the DFPh are essentially considered a single fire phase or at least does not implement the limitation of firing in a single phase (I think).

 

[Jwil2020]

Interesting thread. I await the verdict from Mt. Olympus.