Firing 'normal' ATR vs Infantry/Guns TH

Will Fleming

Active Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
4,030
Likes
269
Points
83
Location
Singapore
#1
I and at least one of my opponents have been occasionally firing ATR vs Infantry TH in hopes of a CH or perhaps to avoid a DRM on the roll. Say +2 hinderance, take the shot for a 6 to hit infantry in hopes of getting a one flat vs the squad instead of a 1 (+2 shot), with possible cowering.

I have also fired them in similar situations against guns/crews in hopes of a CH.

My opponent last night pointed out a section that may make that N/A unless the ATR is 20mm. It is the footnote to C8.31 (HE Equivalency)

1: No AP-type attack can leave Residual FP. ATR can use AP HE Equivalency only if it is 20mm.

Is this correct? Are ATR (non 20mm) shots vs the ITT basically worthless? Probably makes sense, but I certainly have been playing it wrong for a while if so.
 

klasmalmstrom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
14,916
Likes
1,657
Points
163
Location
Sweden
#2
Yes, that is correct.

Old official Q&A:
C8.31 & C13.24 May an ATR use the Infantry Target Type to attack Infantry using AP HE
equivalent? Could it thus achieve a CH?
A. Only if it is a 20L (i.e., 20 mm) ATR. [An93a; An95w; An96]

I believe this Q&A lead to the changes in the 2nd Edition.
 

Mister T

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
3,531
Likes
682
Points
113
Location
Bruxelles
#3
However to my recollection it is still possible to fire a non-20L ATR at a Gun in an attempt to destroy it.
 

klasmalmstrom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
14,916
Likes
1,657
Points
163
Location
Sweden
#4
However to my recollection it is still possible to fire a non-20L ATR at a Gun in an attempt to destroy it.
I don't think so - since per C11.52 "AP/APCR/APDS/ATR hits vs a Gun are resolved using the same mechanics as HE hits, but using HE Equivalency (8.31)...." - but a non-20L ATR has no HE Equivalency.
 

von Marwitz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
8,929
Likes
1,997
Points
163
Location
Kraut Corner
#5
I am with Klas here (easy that, ain't it?).

However, I was not aware of it before I read the nice article on Guns in BFP's 'Poland in Flames'. A recommendable read.

von Marwitz
 

Mister T

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
3,531
Likes
682
Points
113
Location
Bruxelles
#7
I don't think so - since per C11.52 "AP/APCR/APDS/ATR hits vs a Gun are resolved using the same mechanics as HE hits, but using HE Equivalency (8.31)...." - but a non-20L ATR has no HE Equivalency.
Two things:
First i kinda remember the article from Chas Smith in BFP PiF which advocated the use of ATR in this role. Maybe someone can correct me if i have a wrong recollection.

Second, C13.23 states that "an ATR can be used vs Guns with gunshields as per 11.52 without using the AP To Kill Table".

If there is no TK for a Gun with gunshield, there is no need for HE equivalency. Essentially you aim to the Gun with a view to a CH (only result you can get).
 

klasmalmstrom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
14,916
Likes
1,657
Points
163
Location
Sweden
#8
Second, C13.23 states that "an ATR can be used vs Guns with gunshields as per 11.52 without using the AP To Kill Table".
The "with gunshields" part was removed with the ASL Journal 11 errata:
C13.23 Errata: line 1, delete “with gunshields”.

If there is no TK for a Gun with gunshield, there is no need for HE equivalency. Essentially you aim to the Gun with a view to a CH (only result you can get).
The rule says "as per 11.52".

C11.52 says:
"AP/APCR/APDS/ATR hits vs a Gun are resolved using the same mechanics as HE hits, but using HE Equivalency (8.31)."

C8.31 says in the HE equivalecy table, footnote 1:
"1. No AP-type attack can leave Residual FP. ATR can use AP HE Equivalency only if it is 20mm."

Also C13.24:
"...Only 20L (i.e., 20mm) ATR may use the Infantry Target Type and AP HE equivalency."
 

Mister T

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
3,531
Likes
682
Points
113
Location
Bruxelles
#10
With the erratum in Journal 11, C13.23 becomes meaningless, or, rather, it brings nothing additional compared to C11.52.

Now it becomes almost impossible to destroy a Gun with a regular ATR.

Since it is assumed that an ATR can defeat the armor of a light tank, i don't see why it could not penetrate a Gunshield (and kill its crew just behind it), unless Gunshields were thicker than (light) tank armor, which is probably unlikely for maneuvrability purposes.
 

jrv

Vare, legiones redde!
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,029
Likes
3,114
Points
163
Location
Teutoburger Wald
#11
Since it is assumed that an ATR can defeat the armor of a light tank, i don't see why it could not penetrate a Gunshield (and kill its crew just behind it), unless Gunshields were thicker than (light) tank armor, which is probably unlikely for maneuvrability purposes.
The ATR can still kill the crew. It has one FP, and just like any one FP attack it might eliminate the crew. What it can't do is destroy the Gun itself.

JR
 

klasmalmstrom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
14,916
Likes
1,657
Points
163
Location
Sweden
#12
Not sure I see why the presence of a Gunshield would make any difference - if anything it would slow the ATR projectile down I would think. I would imagine it woudl be just as easy/hard to kill gun crew behind a gun that does not have a gunshield.
 

jrv

Vare, legiones redde!
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,029
Likes
3,114
Points
163
Location
Teutoburger Wald
#13
Not sure I see why the presence of a Gunshield would make any difference - if anything it would slow the ATR projectile down I would think. I would imagine it woudl be just as easy/hard to kill gun crew behind a gun that does not have a gunshield.
If you compare against, say, a rifle, the rifle couldn't penetrate to someone behind the gunshield, while an ATR could penetrate and might hit someone (if it got lucky).

JR
 

klasmalmstrom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
14,916
Likes
1,657
Points
163
Location
Sweden
#14
If you compare against, say, a rifle, the rifle couldn't penetrate to someone behind the gunshield, while an ATR could penetrate and might hit someone (if it got lucky).
Agree - I just don't understand why C13.23 mentioned Gunshields (now removed by errata) in the first place. If I can attack a Gun with a gunshield per C11.52, I just don't see why I could not do that if it lacked a gunshield.
 

Mister T

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
3,531
Likes
682
Points
113
Location
Bruxelles
#15
Agree - I just don't understand why C13.23 mentioned Gunshields (now removed by errata) in the first place. If I can attack a Gun with a gunshield per C11.52, I just don't see why I could not do that if it lacked a gunshield.
Upon impact and penetration on the gunshield, the projectile shatters and a (small) cone of schrapnel is created. At least that how i see it. Behind the shield one is more protected against everything that fail to penetrate it, but when it is penetrated, it's more deadly.

I fail to grasp the difference between a 14.5 mm cartridge and a 20mm one. Both have 6 TK in ASL. It gives to Japanese, Swiss, Finnish ATRs an advantage not really warranted as far as can see.

(OT)
Finally, on this short 2014 footage, you'll see Donbass separatists shooting good old PTRDs. :cool:
(OFF OT)
 

Swiftandsure

Robin Reeve
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
15,874
Likes
1,365
Points
163
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Skype
tribureeve
Twitter
RobinMCReeve
#16
Would they be sniping with them, rather than firing at armoured targets?