German SPW 251/2

[John Bark]

The German SPW 251/2 is a halftrack that can't carry passengers since there is no PP #...but the notes say to treat it as an OT SP for TO HIT purposes, but it's a MTR...does that mean I don't have to use Area Target Type as normal MTRs do, but could use Infantry Target Type?

 

[Eagle4ty]

No, all rules that apply to Mtrs apply to the MA of this ht.

 

[John Bark]

No, all rules that apply to Mtrs apply to the MA of this ht.

so what's the point of the notes stating to treat it as an OT SP gun for TO HIT purposes, if you are to use the MTRs rules for it?

 

[BattleSchool]

Treat as a normal OT SP gun for To Hit purposes.

I think that this is in reference to the fact the crew must be CE to fire [D5.3].

(The vehicle listing makes it clear that the ht is NT, which restricts fire of the MA to the AFV's VCA. So I doubt that the note has anything to do with this.)

I'm less certain where Spotted Fire is concerned. But absent a note to the contrary, I believe that the crew would have to be CE even when using Spotted Fire.

 

[Larry]

Note that under D6.6 ... the 251/2 is half-tracked but is not an armored halftrack ...

6.6 ARMORED HALFTRACKS: An armored halftrack is unique in that it can carry Passengers who can either share the AFV's invulnerability to Small Arms Fire while BU, or can be CE.

 

[BattleSchool]

Note that under D6.6 ... the 251/2 is half-tracked but is not an armored halftrack ...

Is the SPW 251/2 not a fully armoured halftrack by virtue of having armor on all aspects?

Per D6.1, this vehicle may not carry any Passengers, even a SMC. But I don't think that D6.6 changes anything wrt this particular AFV. In fact, it would appear to be NA.

The (Infantry) crew is either BU or CE. IOW, if the driver is BU, so is the crew, as the driver is a member of the crew, and not a separate entity for game purposes. (Note that if the crew exits the vehicle, no one is left aboard.)

Maybe I missed your point.

 

[Larry]

I have a vague recollection of one scenario with VP dependent on "armored halftracks" and that these non-passenger half-tracked vehicles are not "armored halftracks" by virtue of D6.6. The application of the rule is arcane at best. Bill Cirillo, I believe, was the victim of the rule application.

 

[BattleSchool]

I have a vague recollection of one scenario with VP dependent on "armored halftracks" and that these non-passenger half-tracked vehicles are not "armored halftracks" by virtue of D6.6. The application of the rule is arcane at best. Bill Cirillo, I believe, was the victim of the rule application.

Hmmm. D6.6 does a poor job of defining what an "armoured halftrack" is. One interpretation could be that this section allows Passengers of an armored halftrack to be BU (or CE), sparing them from all Small Arms Fire while BU. The rule doesn't explicitly state that only halftracks with a PP capacity are deemed to be "armored halftracks" for the purposes of D6.6, and its subsections.

An armored halftrack is unique in that it can carry Passengers who can either share the AFV's invulnerability to Small Arms Fire while BU, or can be CE.

D6.64 is not airtight, and one could argue that a SPW 251/2 should be able to add its AAMG (CA permitting) to a FG composed of other (armored) halftracks/carriers/Infantry/Cavalry. For the purposes of participating in such a FG, is a SPW 251/2 halftrack fundamentally different than a carrier is from an "armored halftrack"?

The only vehicles (as opposed to Passengers/Riders) that may be part of a multi-unit FG are Carriers/armored halftracks, each of which must be CE and using its vehicular-mounted non-ordnance weapon(s) [EXC: FT, IFE] to qualify for that FG; such a FG may be composed of such Carriers/halftracks and/or Infantry/Cavalry. A Passenger may be part of a FG composed only of other Passengers/vehicular-mounted non-ordnance weapons, and only if all elements of that FG are on the same vehicle [EXC: CE halftrack Passengers may be part of a FG composed of other Carriers/halftracks (as above), and/or other Passengers of the same or another CE halftrack, and/or Infantry/Cavalry].

Granted, it might be a design for effect call based on training, doctrine, and armored/mechanized infantry tactics. (A footnote or some other explanation would have helped clarify this.) If this is indeed the case (as I suspect it may be), I would have to agree with your conclusion that any halfrack, armored or not, that cannot transport Passengers is not an armored halftrack for the purposes of D6.6, and its subsections.

 

[bprobst]

I have a vague recollection of one scenario with VP dependent on "armored halftracks" and that these non-passenger half-tracked vehicles are not "armored halftracks" by virtue of D6.6. The application of the rule is arcane at best. Bill Cirillo, I believe, was the victim of the rule application.

D6.6 is not the definition of "armoured half-track". It's merely describing their attributes.

The definition of "armoured half-track" is a vehicle that expends MP as a half-track, and that has armour. What that sentence of D6.6 is actually saying is that the Passengers need not be BU at the same time as the crew (and vice-versa).

 

[Russ Isaia]

D6.6 is not the definition of "armoured half-track". It's merely describing their attributes.

The definition of "armoured half-track" is a vehicle that expends MP as a half-track, and that has armour. What that sentence of D6.6 is actually saying is that the Passengers need not be BU at the same time as the crew (and vice-versa).

It may not present a full definition but it does state a "unique" attribute and therefore an attribute without which no vehicle for game purposes can qualify as an "armoured halftrack." That attribute is that the vehicle "can carry Passengers. . .." If the 251/2 can't carry passengers, it cannot be an "armoured halftrack," again for game purposes.

Anyway, that is how I read the words and there is no game definition of "armoured halftrack" (the index just refers to D6.6) or other gloss, errata, or Q&A that I can find to contradict the text of D6.6.

 

[bprobst]

It may not present a full definition but it does state a "unique" attribute and therefore an attribute without which no vehicle for game purposes can qualify as an "armoured halftrack."

Nope. That is absolutely not what that statement is saying.

"I am human, and only humans can eat ice cream." does not logically equal "You are only human if you can eat ice cream". It does not take into account humans that can't eat ice cream -- but are still humans, regardless.

The fact that armoured half-tracks are allowed to do something that things that aren't armoured half-tracks cannot do, is not the same as saying that vehicles that can't do that thing therefore cannot be armoured half-tracks.

You don't however need an understanding of the transitive properties of statements in logic to parse this. All you need to do is: a) be aware that there is no "formal" definition of armoured half-track in the rules; b) realise that without such a definition, the only way to know when a vehicle is an "armoured half-track" is to use normal English grammar and realise that the vehicle must therefore be a half-track that is armoured; c) look up the vehicle listing in Chapter H, consult the "type" column of the vehicle to determine the "type"; and then d) look at the "AF" column to see if there is a number there.

In this particular case, page H12, line "SPW251/2" gives us a "type" = "ht" and "AF" = "1". Therefore: it's a half-track, and it's armoured.

Compare and contrast with line "SdKfz 10/4" which has "type" = "AAht" and "AF" = "star". Therefore: it's a half-track, but it's not armoured.

The English phrase "armoured half-track" does not include the inherent concept "and can carry Passengers". Such a concept would require a formal definition, in the rules, that says "you are only an armoured half-track if you are an armoured half-track that can carry Passengers". No such formal definition exists, therefore it cannot be true. COWTRA!

 

[BattleSchool]

The English phrase "armoured half-track" does not include the inherent concept "and can carry Passengers". Such a concept would require a formal definition, in the rules, that says "you are only an armoured half-track if you are an armoured half-track that can carry Passengers". No such formal definition exists, therefore it cannot be true. COWTRA!

Be that as it may, there is a precedent of sorts that supports the contention that only halftracks that can transport Passengers are Armored halftracks for the purposes of D6.6, and its subsections. Why else would Valor of the Guards have to include the following SSR?

3 German SdKfz 10/5 AA halftracks using IFE (C2.29) may participate in a multiunit FG as if they were armored halftracks (D6.64).

3. VotG18. AA HALFTRACKS: The Germans used light FlaK units to directly support the Landsers in their assault on central Stalingrad. Allowing the AA half-tracks to participate in firegroups reflects the tactical application of working close with the infantry.

 

[Proff3RTR]

The German SPW 251/2 is a halftrack that can't carry passengers since there is no PP #...but the notes say to treat it as an OT SP for TO HIT purposes, but it's a MTR...does that mean I don't have to use Area Target Type as normal MTRs do, but could use Infantry Target Type?

This refers to the act of effects once the 251/2 is hit I.E it is effected same as an OT SP, I.E CE crew if firing etc, rules as stated for MTR are in force as it is a MTR carrying/Fire platform HT, easy.

 

[bprobst]

Be that as it may, there is a precedent of sorts that supports the contention that only halftracks that can transport Passengers are Armored halftracks for the purposes of D6.6, and its subsections. Why else would Valor of the Guards have to include the following SSR?

Is this a trick question? The Footnote gives you the reason. There is no "precedent" being set.

IIRC the 10/5 is only partially armoured? If I am remembering that correctly, then you can legitimately query whether it it truly is an "armoured half-track" (technically it is, in the sense that "it has some armour", but I can see someone trying to argue that it isn't really "armoured" in the same way that a typical armoured ht is). The SSR nips that problem in the bud. (It would be better to have it in the relevant vehicle note, mind you.)

If you have to stretch sideways and bend over backwards just to try and make something fit as a justification for the argument that you're trying to make about a rule (any rule) then your argument is almost certainly wrong. The ASL rules just don't require that level of extreme word-play. Take them at their face value and you will get the right answer in almost every case.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Why else would Valor of the Guards have to include the following SSR?

NRBH, but is it normally ok to use IFE in a FG with halftracks?

 

[jrv]

NRBH, but is it normally ok to use IFE in a FG with halftracks?

No, D6.64, "The only vehicles (as opposed to Passengers/Riders) that may be part of a multi-unit FG are Carriers/armored halftracks, each of which must be CE and using its vehicular-mounted non-ordnance weapon(s) [EXC: FT, IFE] to qualify for that FG."

JR

 

[klasmalmstrom]

No, D6.64, "The only vehicles (as opposed to Passengers/Riders) that may be part of a multi-unit FG are Carriers/armored halftracks, each of which must be CE and using its vehicular-mounted non-ordnance weapon(s) [EXC: FT, IFE] to qualify for that FG."

JR

So that is the reason for that SSR then I guess. The ht in question has IFE, IIRC.

 

[BattleSchool]

NRBH, but is it normally ok to use IFE in a FG with halftracks?

You hit the nail on the head. It's the IFE exception in D6.64 that the VotG SSR overrides.

 

[Russ Isaia]

Nope. That is absolutely not what that statement is saying.

"I am human, and only humans can eat ice cream." does not logically equal "You are only human if you can eat ice cream". It does not take into account humans that can't eat ice cream -- but are still humans, regardless.

The fact that armoured half-tracks are allowed to do something that things that aren't armoured half-tracks cannot do, is not the same as saying that vehicles that can't do that thing therefore cannot be armoured half-tracks.

You don't however need an understanding of the transitive properties of statements in logic to parse this. All you need to do is: a) be aware that there is no "formal" definition of armoured half-track in the rules; b) realise that without such a definition, the only way to know when a vehicle is an "armoured half-track" is to use normal English grammar and realise that the vehicle must therefore be a half-track that is armoured; c) look up the vehicle listing in Chapter H, consult the "type" column of the vehicle to determine the "type"; and then d) look at the "AF" column to see if there is a number there.

In this particular case, page H12, line "SPW251/2" gives us a "type" = "ht" and "AF" = "1". Therefore: it's a half-track, and it's armoured.

Compare and contrast with line "SdKfz 10/4" which has "type" = "AAht" and "AF" = "star". Therefore: it's a half-track, but it's not armoured.

The English phrase "armoured half-track" does not include the inherent concept "and can carry Passengers". Such a concept would require a formal definition, in the rules, that says "you are only an armoured half-track if you are an armoured half-track that can carry Passengers". No such formal definition exists, therefore it cannot be true. COWTRA!

D6.6 says armoured half-tracks can carry Passengers. You claim the SPW251/2 is an "armoured half-track." Therefore, you must believe that per D6.6 the SPW251/2 can carry Passengers. Yes?

I agree that "[t]he English phrase 'armoured half-track' does not include the inherent concept "and can carry Passengers'." The ASL Rulebook phrase "armoured half-track" does, however. D6.6 states that armoured half-tracks have such an ability. As the SPW251/2 can't, it isn't. QED, IMHO. And a simple logical proof easily derived from the words being interpreted alone and the counter (no passenger capacity for the SPW251/2).

Curious though, if the infantry crew of an SPW251/2 abandons ship and removes the mortar (and ammo), can the vehicle now be treated for game purposes as an SPW251/1 with 15 pp of capacity? If reoccupied by an infantry squad, can it drive off?

 

[BattleSchool]

Is this a trick question?

Nope. A tricky question perhaps, but not a rhetorical one.

The Footnote gives you the reason.

The footnote provides a historical justification for the use of this AA halftrack in a FG, contrary to the EXC for IFE in D6.64.

There is no "precedent" being set.

The "precedent of sorts" that I was referring to was the understanding that D6.6 (and its subsections) use the term "armored halftrack" to mean something different than a ht that is armored (partially or fully), and which expends MP as a ht. Note the last part of the SSR: "as if they were armored halftracks (D6.64)," emphasis added.

The VotG SSR does not say "as if they were fully armored halftracks." Instead, the clause (inadvertently?) supports the contention that an "armored halftrack" is a discrete subset of ht that have armor.

Larry and Russ have taken this one step further, arguing that any ht incapable of carrying Passengers is not an "armored halfrack" for the purposes of D6.6 (and its subsections). Like you, I do not believe that the text of D6.6 supports this conclusion. However, I can understand why, from a historical standpoint, this may have been the intent of D6.6 (and its subsections).

The AMC 29 (French VN 24) is a an armed, and armored ht. It has no PP capacity, but does have a CMG. Is it an "armored halftrack?"

May it participate in a FG per D6.64? This is a trick question.