Dug-In Tank...

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
542
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Does placing a tank beneath a trench counter make it a "Dig-In" tank?

Are "Dug-In" tanks only allowed by SSR?
 

EagleIV

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
1,641
Reaction score
843
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
Dug-In tanks are by SSR only. In some ways an AFV in (under) a Trench is better in that it can leave the location if needed. It however is not automatically small.
 

FrankH.

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
954
Reaction score
168
Location
New Mexico York
Does placing a tank beneath a trench counter make it a "Dig-In" tank?

Are "Dug-In" tanks only allowed by SSR?
H'mm.. Interesting.

Both Dug-In tanks (AFV), and tanks (AFVs) setup under a trench counter (but see below?!) would be hull down (HD) to direct fire. In neither case may the AFV turn its VCA. The Dug In AFV gets to be a small target. The one under a trench does not.

Apparently no SSR is required to have a Dug-In Tank, though Red Barricades has some special rules for this. No rule I can see allows an AFV to be Dug In during play.

Apparently any vehicle, as long as it has any armor whatsoever (and therefore is an AFV), may be Dug-in. That includes an armored truck or something like that German Adler armored touring car, the Kdz. 13 (German vehicle #58)! Or the partially armored SdKfz. 10/5 (German vehicle #88.1). And any vehicle, even if not an AFV, may start under a trench counter. Not sure if an unarmored vehicle gets any benefit from being HD, at least if attacked on the IFT. But there is the +2 for the TEM of the trench.

In neither case (of being under a trench or Dug In) may such a vehicle move during play. Exc.! Any vehicle represented by a 1/2" counter under a trench counter?!? The Goliath?

Apparently an AFV may also be setup under, or even on top of, an A-T Ditch...?!

It seems I may have learned a few things I did not know. Let's see what other people say.

Next questions.... Can a Pillbox and/or Wire and/or mines (?!), and/or a DC, be placed (i.e., setup) under a Trench counter!? If so, what happens? (No need to answer these questions here, just yet at least.)
 

FrankH.

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
954
Reaction score
168
Location
New Mexico York
In some ways an AFV in (under) a Trench is better in that it can leave the location if needed.
I don't think so. Please see B27.52 which clearly states no vehicle under a trench may expend a start MP, or change its VCA. I suppose if set up "in Motion" it may exit the trench as long as it does not change its VCA in the trench. But that is a bit weird.

It is unclear to me whether a Motion Attempt (D2.401) might be a loophole allowing a vehicle to gain motion statis without expending a Start MP!? But that would be even more weird.

Also, I see no requirement that a SSR is needed for an AFV to be Dug-in (at least during setup).
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I don't think so. Please see B27.52 which clearly states no vehicle under a trench may expend a start MP, or change its VCA. I suppose if set up "in Motion" it may exit the trench as long as it does not change its VCA in the trench. But that is a bit weird.

It is unclear to me whether a Motion Attempt (D2.401) might be a loophole allowing a vehicle to gain motion statis without expending a Start MP!? But that would be even more weird.

Also, I see no requirement that a SSR is needed for an AFV to be Dug-in (at least during setup).
I am very doubtful that the intent of the rules is that players can “dig in” their tanks without a SSR. There is nothing in the rules to say that they can. AFVs can’t set up in HD status on a hill without a successful HD dr and I don’t think that this requirement can be evaded by setting up “dug in” instead. I agree that this isn’t specifically spelt out in the rules but the alternative would mean that scenario designers have to insert a “no dug in tanks” SSR as a matter of course.
 
Last edited:

FrankH.

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
954
Reaction score
168
Location
New Mexico York
I don't think so. Please see B27.52 which clearly states no vehicle under a trench may expend a start MP, or change its VCA. I suppose if set up "in Motion" it may exit the trench as long as it does not change its VCA in the trench. But that is a bit weird.

It is unclear to me whether a Motion Attempt (D2.401) might be a loophole allowing a vehicle to gain motion statis without expending a Start MP!? But that would be even more weird.
Correction/addition to the above: B27.51 states that no 5/8" vehicle (actually no 5/8" counter) may be removed from beneath a trench counter during play (with one exception, a dm 5/8" mortar). So only a vehicle represented by a 1/2" counter could move from there.
 

semenza

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
961
Reaction score
432
Location
Poplar Ridge , NY
Country
llUnited States
So a Goliath could be lurking in a Trench waiting to pounce. :) Sounds like an ASL bucket list item. 👍

Note- I did not read through the Goliath rules so maybe not?


Seth
 

ScottRomanowski

Forum Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
1,616
Reaction score
2,087
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
Also, I see no requirement that a SSR is needed for an AFV to be Dug-in (at least during setup).
D9.54 is part of the D9.5 Armored Cupola rules, and also it refers to Dug-In tanks a type of Armored Cupola ("A Dug-In AFV ... unlike other Armored Cupolas"), and D9.5 says "A corresponding SSR is necessary to define [an Armored Cupola's] armament, turret type, and AF." That makes me think you do need a SSR.
 

FrankH.

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
954
Reaction score
168
Location
New Mexico York
D9.54 is part of the D9.5 Armored Cupola rules, and also it refers to Dug-In tanks a type of Armored Cupola ("A Dug-In AFV ... unlike other Armored Cupolas"), and D9.5 says "A corresponding SSR is necessary to define [an Armored Cupola's] armament, turret type, and AF." That makes me think you do need a SSR.
Sure. I thought of that. But a Dug In AFV's armament, turret type, and AF are (as far as I know) defined not by any SSR, but by the AFV's counter and special vehicle notes. So, h'mm. Not sure.

I think may scenarios give AFV's as reinforcements rather than in the at start OB. Maybe to preclude the AFVs from being DI at setup?
 

ScottRomanowski

Forum Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
1,616
Reaction score
2,087
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
Sure. I thought of that. But a Dug In AFV's armament, turret type, and AF are (as far as I know) defined not by any SSR, but by the AFV's counter and special vehicle notes. So, h'mm. Not sure.
The SSR (or rule like O11.6194c) can specify that the armament, turret type, and AF are those of the counter.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
... I suppose if set up "in Motion" it may exit the trench as long as it does not change its VCA in the trench....

It is unclear to me whether a Motion Attempt (D2.401) might be a loophole allowing a vehicle to gain motion statis without expending a Start MP!? But that would be even more weird.
...
The one thing that would prevent such a tactic from being contemplated is that vehicles set up on-board cannot be set up "in-Motion" barring an SSR to allow it (D2.52). You have provided the answer to your 2nd question though I do believe a one could conceivably go into motion beneath a trench counter to nullify the "non-stopped" case "L" TH modifier.
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
The one thing that would prevent such a tactic from being contemplated is that vehicles set up on-board cannot be set up "in-Motion" barring an SSR to allow it (D2.52). You have provided the answer to your 2nd question though I do believe a one could conceivably go into motion beneath a trench counter to nullify the "non-stopped" case "L" TH modifier.
I don't think that this is correct.

9.5 ARMOURED CUPOLA: An Armored Cupola represents a Dug-In AFV (9.54) or ground-mounted turret or specially constructed bunker with a rotating turret, and is represented in a scenario OB by a BU TCA counter. A corresponding SSR is necessary to define its armament, turret type, and AF. The TCA counter is used to define its CA and any To Hit/IFT DRM penalties for fire outside it (3.12 & 3.52). CC vs an Armored Cupola requires the use of PAATC and CCV in the usual manner. An Armored Cupola is considered the equivalent of an Immobile tank in every way except as modified below or by SSR.


9.54 DUG-IN AFV: A Dug-In AFV is treated as an Armored Cupola except as stated otherwise. A Dug-In AFV is HD to all Direct Fire attacks [EXC: vs Aerial AF], has a +1 Target Size [EXC: if the AFV actually has a +2 Target Size], and does not create a Hindrance. A Dug-In AFV has a vehicular (not Infantry) crew (and therefore, unlike other Armored Cupolas, cannot place a Fire Lane), can be CE, does have a CS#, and will leave a scroungeable (or burning) wreck which does not leave a wreck Hindrance (9.4). Place a Vehicle Crest counter (from WEST OF ALAMEIN) on the AFV to show its Dug-In status.


Both an armoured cupola and a dug in AFV are considered the equivalent of an immobile tank and cannot therefore make a motion attempt.
 

FrankH.

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
954
Reaction score
168
Location
New Mexico York
The original question was about placing a tank (I thought not necessarily an immobile one) under a trench, compared to Digging in a tank (making it immobile). In an attempt to answer that question a hornet's nest was opened, raising all the various considerations of this question, of this potentially theoretical choice (and if and when such a choice even is allowed). One is what happens to a tank setup under a trench. Can it gain motion during play? Not according to B27.52. But what if using D24.01? It is not clear a "loophole" exists.

By the way one other advantage of placing a tank under a trench, vs. Digging it in, is that it would not be considered immobile (even if may not be able to move). Thus the -1 DRM in CC vs immobile (A11.61) would not apply.

On the other hand there has been no follow up from the original poster if his question is being answered.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
It is unclear to me whether a Motion Attempt (D2.401) might be a loophole allowing a vehicle to gain motion statis without expending a Start MP!? But that would be even more weird.
Q&A:

B27.52 & D2.401
Can a vehicle that is under a Trench counter (B27.52) make a Motion Attempt (D.2.401)?
A. No.
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
There is a Q&A which confirms that an AFV under a trench counter cannot make a motion attempt.

B27.52 & D2.401
Can a vehicle that is under a Trench counter (B27.52) make a Motion Attempt (D2.401)?

A. No.


While it might not be specifically spelt out, my view is that a vehicle under a trench counter is to all and intents and purposes immobile.

8.1 IMMOBILIZATION: An immobilized vehicle cannot expend a Start MP, leave its current Location nor change its VCA, but may change its TCA if otherwise able to.
 
Last edited:

FrankH.

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
954
Reaction score
168
Location
New Mexico York
The SSR (or rule like O11.6194c) can specify that the armament, turret type, and AF are those of the counter.
Let me rephrase what I was trying to explain. An SSR is not needed to define an AFV's armament, turret type, and AF. It certainly could define and/or modify those already given by the OB-given counter and the vehicle notes, and the various other setup requirements typical given on a scenario card. But not really needed and potentially redundant. And therefore, by extension, it is not 100% necessary to use an SSR just to define an AFV as Dug In, or as allowed to be Dug In.

And that is my argument that (it seems) a SSR is not necessarily required for an OB-given AFV to be setup Dug In at scenario start.
 

ScottRomanowski

Forum Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
1,616
Reaction score
2,087
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
And that is my argument that (it seems) a SSR is not necessarily required for an OB-given AFV to be setup Dug In at scenario start.
I must disagree. I think D9.54 is a sub-case of D9.5, D9.54 says Dug-In AFVs are treated as an Armored Cupuloa, and Armored Cupolas require a SSR defining what it is. So I think a SSR is 100% necessary since D9.5 say it is. Unless there is a SSR or rule (like the one in RF) saying that some AFVs can be Dug-In AFVs (thereby defining the "Armored Cupola's" armament, etc.), I don't think you can set up an OB-given AFV as a Dug-In AFV.
 

FrankH.

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
954
Reaction score
168
Location
New Mexico York
So a Goliath could be lurking in a Trench waiting to pounce. :) Sounds like an ASL bucket list item. 👍

Note- I did not read through the Goliath rules so maybe not?


Seth
From what we know now (see below), the above is possible but the Goliath would first have to be manhandled out from under the trench before it could be moved under its own movement capability.
 
Top