Da Paul Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.

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
Thanks for the feedback Paul.

Would BFF be okay with this vehicle? Or should there have been a restriction on such fire?
Sorry, I quite don't understand intent of the question. I assume BFP are OK with it as they produced it. As for my comments on the vehicle notes/rules, just that they need careful wording and more importantly very careful reading on the player's part.
Any info on whether used a trailer?
I'd be surprised if it couldn't tow an ammo trailer on long, behind the front marches. However most photos I have seen show no trailer. This http://www.wehrmacht-history.com/heer/halftracks/8.8-cm-flak-18-sf-auf-fgst-zgkw-12t-sd.kfz.8.htm states that it carried 40 rounds on board, so B(#) (IE low ammo) would not apply, the break point being 36 rounds. While I could conceive that it would have some extra rounds in a trailer as well as additional dedicated ammo vehicles, I would imagine that a having trailer behind an already pretty heavily loaded vehicle might be a problem when getting into firing position. The 8.8cm FlaK 18 was quite a lump of metal for even the biggest German halftrack. I see no need for trailer and trailerless counters.
 

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
What would be interesting, would to know at what ranged it was used.
One can imagine placing it further than the reach of most MGs and pounding at bunkers from a comfortable distance...
The intent was to have them fire from a decent distance, a km or so. The FlaK 18 was particularly accurate, proving itself capable of taking on bunkers at fairly long range. Most anti-bunker work by 88s was done by towed (and unarmoured) guns. However the Germans realised that it would not always be possible to stand off and fire at bunkers as intervening terrain would often be a problem so did the self propelled and lightly armoured version to permit them to get within a (few) hundred meters. The Maginot line was their intended target.

So anything from 100m-200m to a km or two.
 

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,111
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
Sorry, I quite don't understand intent of the question. I assume BFP are OK with it as they produced it.
I was referring to Bounding First Fire/Bounding Fire, but have since concluded that it would be permitted. No circled B# was my other question, which you answered by confirming the ammo load.

Thanks for that. -cd
 

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 was referring to Bounding First Fire/Bounding Fire, but have since concluded that it would be permitted. No circled B# was my other question, which you answered by confirming the ammo load.

Thanks for that. -cd
Sorry for that, I should have not have read "BFF" as "BFP", (extra) Duh, my bad :hush:!

As supplied there is no restriction on B(F)F. Considering the size of the 88, ammo and crew, I might have restricted BFF but likely not BF. However the 20L and 37L AA soft halftracks don't have any such restriction. The more I think of it, despite the greater awkwardness, I have no real issue with allowing both BF and BFF. As the vehicles were pre-war and the crews would have had plenty of time to sort their routines out, the greater awkwardness would be less of an issue.

I confess that your attention to the minutiae impresses, you would have made a good programmer. :laugh:
 

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,111
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
Sorry for that, I should have not have read "BFF" as "BFP", (extra) Duh, my bad :hush:!

As supplied there is no restriction on B(F)F. Considering the size of the 88, ammo and crew, I might have restricted BFF but likely not BF. However the 20L and 37L AA soft halftracks don't have any such restriction. The more I think of it, despite the greater awkwardness, I have no real issue with allowing both BF and BFF. As the vehicles were pre-war and the crews would have had plenty of time to sort their routines out, the greater awkwardness would be less of an issue.

I confess that your attention to the minutiae impresses, you would have made a good programmer. :laugh:
No biggie. I should not have used an unofficial, if common, acronym. [The official abbreviation is: Bnd (F)F.]

My attention to minutiae was self-serving, which is all I can say at the moment. I wanted to see what a counter released by MMP would look like, specifically, the game relevant aspects, including rule-specific artwork.

To sum up then, no restriction on Bounding First Fire despite the "greater awkwardness," as you put it, of laying the gun and firing "on the move," which also would permit Motion Fire (D2.42).
 

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
To sum up then, no restriction on Bounding First Fire despite the "greater awkwardness," as you put it, of laying the gun and firing "on the move," which also would permit Motion Fire (D2.42).
For such a beast, I could hardly see them truly firing on the move. I would envision a very quick stop, fire, move again approach. In ASL that could be considered Motion Fire or at "least good enough for Government work".
 

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,111
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
For such a beast, I could hardly see them truly firing on the move. I would envision a very quick stop, fire, move again approach. In ASL that could be considered Motion Fire or at "least good enough for Government work".
Would it be fair to compare the IAG-10 AA truck with the Bufla in this regard?

View attachment 54475

I forgot to ask earlier, but I take it that the reason the SdKfz 8 is considered to have an armored side hull is that small arms would be unable to immobilize or destroy the AFV through this target facing (although small arms fire could effect the crew). Is this correct?

(Per the BFP vehicles notes, the vehicle is otherwise treated as unarmored vs mine attacks.)
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Would it be fair to compare the IAG-10 AA truck with the Bufla in this regard?

View attachment 54475

I forgot to ask earlier, but I take it that the reason the SdKfz 8 is considered to have an armored side hull is that small arms would be unable to immobilize or destroy the AFV through this target facing (although small arms fire could effect the crew). Is this correct?

(Per the BFP vehicles notes, the vehicle is otherwise treated as unarmored vs mine attacks.)
Per the corrected vehicle note, if the attack is through both the turret and hull side/rear, the crew is considered as if in an unarmored vehicle. The FlaK 18 had a huge gunshield, so when the turret was pointed at the firing unit, it would apply for CE DRM. The crew cabin on the hull front was also pretty high, so the crew benefits from the CE DRM for shots through the hull front even if the turret is pointed in another direction.

JR
 

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,111
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
Per the corrected vehicle note, if the attack is through both the turret and hull side/rear, the crew is considered as if in an unarmored vehicle. The FlaK 18 had a huge gunshield, so when the turret was pointed at the firing unit, it would apply for CE DRM. The crew cabin on the hull front was also pretty high, so the crew benefits from the CE DRM for shots through the hull front even if the turret is pointed in another direction.

JR
Understood re TCA. I should have been more clear. I was referring to the vehicle side target facing when the turret is pointed either to the front or to the other side, thereby leaving the crew exposed per D5.311.

My question is what makes the side/rear hull of the SdKfz 8 FlaK 18 different from the SdKfz 7 hull, which is unarmored, or the SdKfz 10/5, for that matter?

View attachment 54478View attachment 54479
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Understood re TCA. I should have been more clear. I was referring to the vehicle side target facing when the turret is pointed either to the front or to the other side, thereby leaving the crew exposed per D5.311.

My question is what makes the side/rear hull of the SdKfz 8 FlaK 18 different from the SdKfz 7 hull, which is unarmored, or the SdKfz 10/5, for that matter?

View attachment 54478View attachment 54479
I believe the former had armor plate all around (at least around the crew compartment) while the latter two had no armor and an armor plate only on the front respectively. A brief search showed me some SdKfz 10/5 vehicles that had armor on the cab side, so perhaps those might be treated like the SdKfz 8 FlaK 18.

Perhaps a question to consider is why a Gun which would not get Gunshield DRM when not mounted on a vehicle (because it is not AT/INF) suddenly has a +3 CE DRM (by vehicle note) when mounted on a vehicle.

JR
 
Last edited:

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,111
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
I believe the former had armor plate all around (at least around the crew compartment) while the latter two had no armor and an armor plate only on the front respectively. A brief search showed me some SdKfz 10/5 vehicles that had armor on the cab side, so perhaps those might be treated like the SdKfz 8 FlaK 18.

Perhaps a question to consider is why a Gun which would not get Gunshield DRM when not mounted on a vehicle (because it is not AT/INF) suddenly has a +3 CE DRM (by vehicle note) when mounted on a vehicle.

JR
Which brings us back to my original question. What would an MMP counter for the Bufla look like?

View attachment 54481View attachment 54482
 

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
Perhaps a question to consider is why a Gun which would not get Gunshield DRM when not mounted on a vehicle (because it is not AT/INF) suddenly has a +3 CE DRM (by vehicle note) when mounted on a vehicle.
I will make a stab at that. A towed 88, as a FlaK gun had a large crew for it's calibre. That would include range taker and extra loaders. The 88, though firing a large shell, could gobble shells like Chris Christie in a candy store, so needed the extra manpower, unlike a 37L or 50L with much lighter shells. As it's a great lump of metal, it's hard to hide and the crew would be spread out more, ammo handlers moving ammo, etc. The BuFla mounted all its crew on the vehicle, so all would get the benefit.

It's hard to explain concisely, but the early ASL developers/designers likely contrasted a smallish AT or INF gun that could be manhandled up to a firing position and also had a small crew, to a standard artillery piece that when emplaced would have pre positioned ammo supplies spread out (to reduce the chance of a single detonation of all your ammo) and a larger crew. That's fine for the majority of cases but there were a few outliers.

An example is the Soviet ZiS-3 76mm (76L ART) (and it's predecessors). If that gun was exclusively or even mainly used as an artillery gun, that would be fine. However historically it was just as likely to be used as an AT gun. The Soviet ZiS-2 (57LL AT) used the exact same chassis/mount, only the gun and sights differ from the ZiS-3. Indeed the ZiS-2 (57mm) was bigger and heavier (1.25 tonne) than the ZiS-3 (76mm, 1.11 tonne) due to its much longer gun. Yet the ZiS-2 gets a small size (+1 DRM) and AT designation (with its lower setup restrictions) and the ZiS-3 gets normal size (0) and ART type setup restrictions. For ZiS-3 guns that were used primarily as AT guns in the historical setting that forms the basis of a scenario, a SSR giving the ZiS-3 a small size (+1) and AT type would be justified.
 

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
Would it be fair to compare the IAG-10 AA truck with the Bufla in this regard?

View attachment 54475
Close but not quite there, I think. Something rattling around the back of my brain insists that the IAG setup would be different. The IAG had semi-circular side panels that folded down when halted to give the crew more space. In addition, to fire to the side, outriggers had to be deployed to stop the thing going arse over tit from sideways recoil. The BuFla apparently didn't have the same problem, while quite "lively" when firing to the side, it wasn't quite so unstable. Of course you had to be a lot more careful about the ground you were firing from than, say, a Tiger I.

A later ('43) idea on the same lines were more in line with the IAG-10. A dozen or so 8.8cm Flak 37 Selbstfahrlafette auf 18 ton Zugkraftwagen (SdKfz 9 chassis) were built in '43. Like the SdKfz 7/1 and 7/2, it had mesh folding side panels but also had stabilising outriggers for firing to the side. A photo of that is at http://www.achtungpanzer.com/88cm-flak-37-selbstfahrlafette-auf-18-ton-zugkraftwagen.htm, though the gun looks more like a trial fitting of a FlaK 18 than a FlaK 37.
 

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,111
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
I will make a stab at that. A towed 88, as a FlaK gun had a large crew for it's calibre. That would include range taker and extra loaders. The 88, though firing a large shell, could gobble shells like Chris Christie in a candy store, so needed the extra manpower, unlike a 37L or 50L with much lighter shells. As it's a great lump of metal, it's hard to hide and the crew would be spread out more, ammo handlers moving ammo, etc. The BuFla mounted all its crew on the vehicle, so all would get the benefit.

It's hard to explain concisely, but the early ASL developers/designers likely contrasted a smallish AT or INF gun that could be manhandled up to a firing position and also had a small crew, to a standard artillery piece that when emplaced would have pre positioned ammo supplies spread out (to reduce the chance of a single detonation of all your ammo) and a larger crew. That's fine for the majority of cases but there were a few outliers.

An example is the Soviet ZiS-3 76mm (76L ART) (and it's predecessors). If that gun was exclusively or even mainly used as an artillery gun, that would be fine. However historically it was just as likely to be used as an AT gun. The Soviet ZiS-2 (57LL AT) used the exact same chassis/mount, only the gun and sights differ from the ZiS-3. Indeed the ZiS-2 (57mm) was bigger and heavier (1.25 tonne) than the ZiS-3 (76mm, 1.11 tonne) due to its much longer gun. Yet the ZiS-2 gets a small size (+1 DRM) and AT designation (with its lower setup restrictions) and the ZiS-3 gets normal size (0) and ART type setup restrictions. For ZiS-3 guns that were used primarily as AT guns in the historical setting that forms the basis of a scenario, a SSR giving the ZiS-3 a small size (+1) and AT type would be justified.
But does the (large) crew of a Bufla merit a +3 CE DRM like the (smaller) crew of a sIG IB does?
 
Last edited:

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
But does the (large) crew of a Bufla merit a +3 CE DRM like the (smaller) crew of a sIG IB does?
I think it's less a question of crew size than how much cover the superstructure/shields gives. IE can everyone hide behind the shield? Most AFV give a +2 to their PC. Looking at the historical vehicles, that means their heads and shoulders are exposed. If you look at a M3/M3A1 halftrack, the walls might completely cover a very, very short person when sitting down, but most would have their helmets or even faces exposed when sitting down. The M3 75mm GMC, based upon the same M3 APC, gets a +3 from the front because the gun shield goes higher and even has a little bit of overhead cover. Now you could argue that the M3 GMC crew should be treated as BU always from the front, but it's still open topped and either a rifle grenade drops in or some brave/foolish crew member pops his head for a better look around and gets it in the face. So a +3 seems a reasonable and plausible compromise.

As anyone can see from the photos, the FlaK 18 shield is BIG! So baring a sniper shot through the gun sight port, the only thing possibly visible of the crew behind the shield would be their feet and even then only from a VCA side/rear.
 

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
BTW congratulations Paul on getting a credit in the latest Leaping Horeseman book.
Thank you for that. The only thing I did was interpret a single photo as there was a question over the basic truth of a crew's tale. While it sounded strange, my opinion was that the tale was quite consistent with the photo and likely true. As that was just a single photo from 74 years ago, I was basically chancing my arm and said quite strongly so, but still the author must have been happy.
 

daniel zucker

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
439
Location
new jersey
Country
llUnited States
I don't know where this would even be used??

Image may contain: strange and dangerous vehicles Image

So Paul what do you think are the Armor values? and MF/MP??

daniel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top