FrF16 Last Orders question: is captured T-35 radioless?

charlie

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
Messages
92
Reaction score
24
Location
Somerset
Country
ll
The Germans have a captured T-35 in their OOB, which is officially a radioless vehicle. As there is no SSR indicating the new owners have put a radio in it even though it's 1945, we are intending to play it as needing to be part of a platoon or take a NTC to move. This is a small scenario so if we're wrong it'll have a significant effect on how it plays. It'd be good to hear the thoughts of anyone who has experience of it. Maybe even the designer?
Thanks!
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
There's no rule that would give it a radio so I would say, in the absence of an SSR, you are playing it correctly. To be frank I don't think you should depend on the T-35 as the core of your defense anyway.

JR
 

Rock SgtDan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
2,579
Reaction score
125
Location
State of Confusion
First name
Dan
Country
llSlovenia
Seems to me that ANY captured vehicle is radioless to the side capturing it. Wrong crystals, not on your frequency net.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,918
Reaction score
5,102
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Seems to me that ANY captured vehicle is radioless to the side capturing it. Wrong crystals, not on your frequency net.
That would be a decent rule to employ during a scenario that a vehicle is captured. A good thought process, as the time to calibrate a captured radio to transmit/receive on a proper frequency (especially if not captured by a qualified AFV crew with some knowledge of the freqs being used by the friendly side) would be an extremely rare occurrence at best. Added to this is the fact that some radios employed in tanks were set to receive only or able to communicate by Morse Code or some other limiting procedure only. It's funny that this has not been addressed by at least an SSR (to the best of my knowledge) prior to this time.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
That would be a decent rule to employ during a scenario that a vehicle is captured. A good thought process, as the time to calibrate a captured radio to transmit/receive on a proper frequency (especially if not captured by a qualified AFV crew with some knowledge of the freqs being used by the friendly side) would be an extremely rare occurrence at best. Added to this is the fact that some radios employed in tanks were set to receive only or able to communicate by Morse Code or some other limiting procedure only. It's funny that this has not been addressed by at least an SSR (to the best of my knowledge) prior to this time.
Not having a radio (or having one that the temporary crew can't use) does not make a vehicle physically unable to move because it is not in a group. It is the training and doctrine of the crews that makes radioless AFVs move in platoons. And even moving in platoons is not a real thing. It is an ASL game mechanism to limit the flexibility of radioless AFVs in a way that is easy to play. A temporary crew that captured a radioless AFV would not be waiting for a platoon leader with a radio to show up in reality. In fact a captured, radioless AFV should probably be allowed to move freely. But all this is reality argument. As the rules stand, a radioless AFV remains a radioless AFV when captured, and a radio-ed one remains radio-ed.

JR
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,918
Reaction score
5,102
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Yeah, lots of good points there as well. I've only read a few accounts of captured or re-crewed by unqualified personnel "tanks", but I would think given my experience with AFVs, it would be very difficult to operate. I really have no problem with the rules as presented, but just thought it interesting that no scenario designer has thought to make using a captured vehicle (AFV at least) even more difficult to employ.
 

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 would agree with JRV that barring a SSR the T-35 would be radioless, as well as the SSRed inexperienced crew.

While the Germans had a policy of installing their own radios in captured tanks that were intended for their own service, it's clear that in this case it's a test vehicle that would have seen only the inside of a museum had things not got so bad for the Nazis.

As people would half expect from me, I would quibble about the radiolessness of the T-35 in ASL ;). In the pre and early war period when radios were uncommon, at best 1 per platoon or even company, heavy tanks were treated rather differently. Soviet policy was to have at least one officer in each heavy tank and have it radio equipped. With the T-35 that would not have been hard as there were only 60-65 of them built. That policy continued on to the KV heavies and indeed pre-war the T-28 medium was effectively was treated the same. That's not to say each and every T-35 and T-28 either was built with or had a working radio fitted by Barbarossa, but most would have had. They were show pieces of the great proletarian state, blah, blah and as such got the best available in terms of accessories and personnel. ASL correctly has the KVs with radios while the same period T-34s were without. By the time the IS-2 arrived radios were pretty common, if not totally universal, but I am less sure about the policy of having an officer in every IS-2 being practical at that stage. So if you want to reflect this then SSR T-35 and T-28 to have radios.

While the Germans put a radio in every tank, including the Pz I and refitted captured tanks, not every one had a transmitter. In the early war years a typical 5 tank platoon would have had a receiver in every tank but a transmitter in the platoon commander's and the two section commander's tanks for a total of 3 of 5. In an early Pz IV 4 tank platoon the platoon commander was also a section commander and thus a 4 tank platoon would have had 2 transmitters and 4 receivers. While this might have had a platoon situational awareness issue, it would have not had much of a command and control effect and is correctly ignored in ASL.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,636
Reaction score
5,613
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
If we are speaking "reality arguments", I have two questions :
- How could infantrymen who captured a tank simply be able to make it move, barring the use of its gun ?
- Why are radioless unarmed vehicles free to move, whilst armed ones need a TC to move independently.

I am quite sure that the main reason in answer to my questions is "design for effect".
And I can live with the slight frustration of such an answer.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,379
Reaction score
10,274
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
If we are speaking "reality arguments", I have two questions :
- How could infantrymen who captured a tank simply be able to make it move, barring the use of its gun ?
- Why are radioless unarmed vehicles free to move, whilst armed ones need a TC to move independently.

I am quite sure that the main reason in answer to my questions is "design for effect".
And I can live with the slight frustration of such an answer.
Being a civilian and having never sat in an AVF, I drove a BMP-1 after 1 minute of instruction. I guess if the instructor had not been there, I might have gotten it running after some time by trial & error. To reflect such unqualified use, maybe implementing a Stall on a DR of 10up, a positive modifier in case of Bog rolls, and halving of the MPs of the vehicle might be somewhat fitting.

As to the radioless AFVs: The crew surely knows how to drive it. But maybe it is usually "ordered" not to move idependently. So the TC does not really reflect the ability to move independently, but could possibly rather be a check to act against standing orders in favor of personal initiative.

For the "kids" in us that always wanted to try driving a tank, I reckon there are opportunities comparable to the link around:

https://www.panzerfun.de/panzer-fahren.php

If you want, you can even crash a car with an M48.

von Marwitz
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
2,144
Reaction score
1,216
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
Being a civilian and having never sat in an AVF, I drove a BMP-1 after 1 minute of instruction. I guess if the instructor had not been there, I might have gotten it running after some time by trial & error. To reflect such unqualified use, maybe implementing a Stall on a DR of 10up, a positive modifier in case of Bog rolls, and halving of the MPs of the vehicle might be somewhat fitting.

As to the radioless AFVs: The crew surely knows how to drive it. But maybe it is usually "ordered" not to move idependently. So the TC does not really reflect the ability to move independently, but could possibly rather be a check to act against standing orders in favor of personal initiative.

For the "kids" in us that always wanted to try driving a tank, I reckon there are opportunities comparable to the link around:

https://www.panzerfun.de/panzer-fahren.php

If you want, you can even crash a car with an M48.

von Marwitz
Interesting link...I was wondering how a civilian would be able to drive a BMP.
 

macrobo

King of Boxcars
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
623
Location
Geelong Melbourne
First name
Rob
Country
llAustralia
:cry:Hi

Its all academic - he just killed both elephants and the T35 in Turn 2 - a trap followed by merciless rolls - nobody got to even start an engine really

Rob
 
Top