Location of small arms fire against unarmored aspects

[PresterJohn]

Found this Q&A:

D5.311 If the turret/upper superstructure of an AFV's rear Target Facing is unarmored but the hull of the rear Target Facing is armored, then in applying this rule is an attack versus the AFV's rear Target Facing treated as against an unarmored Target facing so that the crew is Vulnerable?

A. Yes. [Gen24.1]

This seems to remove the confounding aspect of D5.311, reinforces that Small Arms do not select an Aspect via something like C3.9, and that at least for the crew “partially armored facing“ is treated as unarmored.

Or it just says that the crew are vulnerable and dealt with via D5.311 but yes only half the answer.

 

[Actionjick]

Very interesting thread with great comments from both sides of the discussion. Good stuff! I haven't been this into a rules discussion for quite a while.

I very much appreciate the civility of all the respondents. It costs nothing to be polite.

 

[Sparafucil3]

I agree that D5.311 describes what happens to an unarmoured facing/aspect, but it also describes what happens to a vulnerable crew which is what you have for a *T partially armoured vehicle.

This is a start! We have identified the rule that controls the situation.

First D1.2 says the target aspect is partially armoured (specifically *T is not unarmoured).

Correct. But does the armor it has matter?

Second A7.307 says that small arms has no affect against armoured targets but that vulnerable crew are dealt with via D5.311.

Again, correct. We are getting there.

Third D5.311 describes what can happen to the vehicle (abandoned?) following the attack on the crew.

Also correct, but it also defines what makes a vehicle armored or unarmored. It does so using the term "unarmored Target Facing/Aspect". Both of these terms are defined in the Index. Aspect is governed by C3.9 is only applicable to Ordnance fire. Target Facing is governed by D3.2. So all we have to do to determine if we are attacking an unarmored Target Facing is to look and see if the LOF crossed an unarmored Target Facing, be that turret or hull. A *T vehicle usually doesn't have a turret. It has Hull Armor to the Rear Target Facing and generally has to Turret armor through the Rear Target Facing. As such, a Small Arms attack through a Rear Target Facing is an attack on an unarmored vehicle through an unarmored Target Facing. Now that you know you're attacking through an unarmored Target Facing, you can first flow to A7.308 to determine if the AFV is destroyed. If it is not, you can go back to D5.311 and determine the effect on the crew. Remember, if the AFV is destroyed, the crew would face Crew Survival and nothing more. If the AFV is unaffected, then the crew could break, Casualty Reduce, be Eliminated, or remain unaffected. -- jim

Edit to add an example: Suppose the *T vehicle is attacked by a 6FP IFT attack through the Rear Target Facing. This would be an attack through an unarmored Target Facing. Per A7.308 we attack on the * line. The * number on the 6 column is a 6. So a Final DR <= 3 would burn the AFV. A Final DR < 5 would Eliminate the AFV with a chance for Crew Survival. If the Crew survives there is no other adverse effect. If the Final DR == 6, the AFV is Immobilized and the vulnerable crew must take a 1 MC. If the Final DR == 7, the vulnerable crew must take a NMC. If the Final DR == 8, the vulnerable crew must take a PTC. On a Final DR >= 9 the attack has no effect. If the crew fails to pass its Morale Check, it is BROKEN and not Stunned. Were it attacked through an armored Target Facing, failure of a MC would be a stun and not a break. That's the power of armor.

 

[PresterJohn]

This is a start! We have identified the rule that controls the situation.

Correct. But does the armor it has matter?

Again, correct. We are getting there.

Also correct, but it also defines what makes a vehicle armored or unarmored. It does so using the term "unarmored Target Facing/Aspect". Both of these terms are defined in the Index. Aspect is governed by C3.9 is only applicable to Ordnance fire. Target Facing is governed by D3.2. So all we have to do to determine if we are attacking an unarmored Target Facing is look to see if the LOF crossed an unarmored Target Facing. A *T vehicle usually doesn't have a turret. It has Hull Armor to the Rear Target Facing and generally has to Turret armor through the Rear Target Facing. As such, a Small Arms attack through a Rear Target Facing is an attack on an unarmored vehicle. Now that you know you're attacking through an unarmored Target Facing, you can first flow to A7.308 to determine if the AFV is destroyed. If it is not, you can go back to D5.311 and determine the effect on the crew. Remember, if the AFV is destroyed, the crew would face Crew Survival and nothing more. If the AFV is unaffected, then the crew break, Casualty Reduce, or be Eliminated. -- jim

No I don't think so, Rule D5 is Inherent Crew. Rule D5.311 describes attacks against vulnerable crew. To put that in reverse and determine an IFT * vehicle attack you are quite literally putting the cart before the horse. This is not a game of Clue where you work in reverse back from the murdered body. I think you need to be clearer than that to say what the rules allow for an IFT vehicle attack on an AFV.

 

[Sparafucil3]

No I don't think so, Rule D5 is Inherent Crew. Rule D5.311 describes attacks against vulnerable crew. To put that in reverse and determine an IFT * vehicle attack you are quite literally putting the cart before the horse. This is not a game of Clue where you work in reverse back from the murdered body. I think you need to be clearer than that to say what the rules allow for an IFT vehicle attack on an AFV.

Well I cannot be more clear than that. At this point, you either find someone whose judgement you trust and ask them or submit a Q&A. I don't know how its possible to attack a crew through an unarmored Target Facing and not attack the same AFV through an unarmored Target Facing but perhaps there is something I am missing. Best of luck. -- jim

 

[PresterJohn]

From the index:
Vulnerable PRC (any PRC subject to a specified attack if their vehicle is not eliminated/shocked/stunned [Riders are still vulnerable]; all CE PRC are Vulnerable, as are all units conveyed by an unarmored vehicle and those in an AFV that for a particular reason is treated as unarmored [for that attack]):

Note that the AFV is treated as unarmoured only for the attack against the crew which is determined to be vulnerable and no CE modifier. It does not work in reverse (which is what you seem to be doing) and say that the crew being vulnerable makes the vehicle unarmoured.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Note that the AFV is treated as unarmoured only for the attack against the crew which is determined to be vulnerable and no CE modifier. It does not work in reverse (which is what you seem to be doing) and say that the crew being vulnerable makes the vehicle unarmoured.

Why are the crew Vulnerable? -- jim

 

[PresterJohn]

Well I cannot be more clear than that. At this point, you either find someone whose judgement you trust and ask them or submit a Q&A. I don't know how its possible to attack a crew through an unarmored Target Facing and not attack the same AFV through an unarmored Target Facing but perhaps there is something I am missing. Best of luck. -- jim

Why are the crew Vulnerable? -- jim

First Rule D1.2, then Rule A7.307, then rule D5.311. (plus the old General letter but that isn't essential).

Why do you say that a partially-armoured aspect is the same as an unarmoured aspect with respect to Small Arms?

 

[Bill Kohler]

Index:
"Partially Armored Vehicle (This unit is treated as an armored target unless specifically attacked through a non-armored Target Facing inclusive of Elevation Advantage that reduces its CE DRM to +1)..."

So if attacked thusly it is not treated as an armored target, so one would assume that it is treated as an unarmored target/vehicles then instead, and....

A7.308:
"All non-ordnance Direct Fire attacks vs unarmored vehicles/horse counters are resolved on the * Vehicle line of the IFT..."

Klas: so how would you treat the partially armored vehicles themselves, if in a Location that is hit with HE using the Infantry Target Type--as vulnerable to destruction, or as invulnerable to destruction?

A related question, though, is whether a partially armored vehicle, if in a Location attacked by the Infantry Target Type, can be destroyed, even if presenting an unarmored facing toward the fire.

C3.32 INFANTRY TARGET TYPE: The Infantry Target Type can be selected only when firing HE [EXC: AP or HEAT vs an unarmored target (8.31, 11.52)] and only against an unarmored target. All AFV (but not their Vulnerable PRC) in the target Location are immune to damage from a hit on this table, other than that resulting from damage to terrain (B24.121). All other in-LOS enemy units in that Location can be hit [EXC: those immune as per 3.4], and all that are hit are then attacked on the IFT with a single Effects DR; see 3.4.

C3.41 The Infantry, as well as the Area, Target Type may be used to attack a[n] unarmored-target/unmanned-Gun/building/bridge/vehicle, and may also attack a hex devoid of such. [EXC: The Infantry Target Type (3.32) attacks a specific Location rather than an entire hex, and cannot be used to attack an AFV.]

I believe the answer here is no.

My reality argument is that Small Arms fire is directional: the bullets are streaming in from one direction. With HE + ITT, though, the HE rounds are landing in the Location and scattering fragments in all directions from the point of impact, so even if the partially armored vehicle is presenting an unarmored facing toward the firer, when the HE rounds hit, the fragments may be impinging on a different facing of the vehicle. Vulnerable PRC, though, are still in jeopardy if the vehicle is hit.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Why do you say that a partially-armoured aspect is the same as an unarmoured aspect with respect to Small Arms?

Because the only way for the crew to be Vulnerable is for the AFV to be attacked through an unarmored Target Facing/Aspect. Otherwise, it isn't Vulnerable. you even said it (Note that the AFV is treated as unarmoured ...). You just haven't made that last step and accepted the AFV it's is treated as unarmored, instead limiting the unarmored to only the attack on the crew. -- jim

 

[PresterJohn]

Well I cannot be more clear than that. At this point, you either find someone whose judgement you trust and ask them or submit a Q&A. I don't know how its possible to attack a crew through an unarmored Target Facing and not attack the same AFV through an unarmored Target Facing but perhaps there is something I am missing. Best of luck. -- jim

I know you cannot be more clear, and that is why I think my reading of the rules is probably the correct one and that * and *T partially armoured AFVs are different. I will wait to hear what the intention of the rule is. Perhaps your reverse logic is correct but at this time it seems like a stretch. If your reverse logic is correct then we will know that * and *T are the same as far as the rules are concerned. Okay I can accept that even if it takes a little bit away from the differences of the AFVs.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Klas: so how would you treat the partially armored vehicles themselves, if in a Location that is hit with HE using the Infantry Target Type--as vulnerable to destruction, or as invulnerable to destruction?

I am not Klas, ITT does not harm an AFV but it can attack. Such an attack on Vulnerable PRC would be a General Collateral attack. No target Aspect would be determined. Now, if you fired VTT and the AFV was hit in an unarmored Aspect, then it would hit the unarmored Aspect and PRC could break/CR/Eliminate. If it hits the armored Aspect, then only a Specific Collateral attack would be applied. -- jim

 

[PresterJohn]

Because the only way for the crew to be Vulnerable is for the AFV to be attacked through an unarmored Target Facing/Aspect. Otherwise, it isn't Vulnerable. you even said it (Note that the AFV is treated as unarmoured ...). You just haven't made that last step and accepted the AFV it's is treated as unarmored, instead limiting the unarmored to only the attack on the crew. -- jim

See I can't make that fit with "consider what the rules allow". To use a few of your ideas (which I like) it is disappointing when the rules don't make sense and have to be determined by the sacrifice of a chicken and reading the giblets.

 

[Sparafucil3]

I know you cannot be more clear, and that is why I think my reading of the rules is probably the correct one and that * and *T partially armoured AFVs are different. I will wait to hear what the intention of the rule is. Perhaps your reverse logic is correct but at this time it seems like a stretch. If your reverse logic is correct then we will know that * and *T are the same as far as the rules are concerned. Okay I can accept that even if it takes a little bit away from the differences of the AFVs.

They are different, just not in this context. When speaking about "Target Facing", they are the same as long as the LOF crosses at least one unarmored Aspect. When speaking about Aspect, they are different such that is possible to either armored or unarmored depending on which Aspect is hit. Only Ordnance is concerned with which Aspect is hit. Small arms only cares about Target Facing. -- jim

 

[Bill Kohler]

I am not Klas, ITT does not harm an AFV but it can attack. Such an attack on Vulnerable PRC would be a General Collateral attack. No target Aspect would be determined. Now, if you fired VTT and the AFV was hit in an unarmored Aspect, then it would hit the unarmored Aspect and PRC could break/CR/Eliminate. If it hits the armored Aspect, then only a Specific Collateral attack would be applied. -- jim

That is my take as well. But I was wondering if Klas saw the "hit in an unarmored aspect" as effectively turning a partially armored vehicle into a non-AFV for the resolution of that shot, thus enabling ITT to destroy partially armored vehicles under certain conditions.

 

[Sparafucil3]

See I can't make that fit with "consider what the rules allow". To use a few of your ideas (which I like) it is disappointing when the rules don't make sense and have to be determined by the sacrifice of a chicken and reading the giblets.

The rules allow everything I am saying. Again, you accept the crew is Vulnerable because it is attacked through an unarmored Target Facing. The last step is to accept that this means the original attack on the AFV was against an unarmored vehicle. Its not like the crew is suddenly in Open Ground. If it breaks, it will be broken in the vehicle. -- jim

 

[Sparafucil3]

That is my take as well. But I was wondering if Klas saw the "hit in an unarmored aspect" as effectively turning a partially armored vehicle into a non-AFV for the resolution of that shot, thus enabling ITT to destroy partially armored vehicles under certain conditions.

I will leave it @klasmalmstrom to answer for himself but I find it highly unlikely he would. -- jim

 

[PresterJohn]

Because the only way for the crew to be Vulnerable is for the AFV to be attacked through an unarmored Target Facing/Aspect. Otherwise, it isn't Vulnerable. you even said it (Note that the AFV is treated as unarmoured ...). You just haven't made that last step and accepted the AFV it's is treated as unarmored, instead limiting the unarmored to only the attack on the crew. -- jim

Actually no, I said specifically or the rules said "those in an AFV that for a particular reason is treated as unarmored [for that attack]):". [For that attack] being the attack against the crew, not necessarily the AFV. This inserts into the logic quite straight forwardly that the attacks are not necessarily linked.

 

[Robin Reeve]

First D1.2 says the target aspect is partially armoured (specifically *T is not unarmoured).

Partially armoured means partially unarmoured, I would guess.

 

[PresterJohn]

N

The rules allow everything I am saying. Again, you accept the crew is Vulnerable because it is attacked through an unarmored Target Facing. The last step is to accept that this means the original attack on the AFV was against an unarmored vehicle. Its not like the crew is suddenly in Open Ground. If it breaks, it will be broken in the vehicle. -- jim

No absolutely not. I do not accept that at all. I accept that the crew is vulnerable because it is being attacked across a partially armored aspect (*T).