Mortar fire on moving tank with riders

[SSlunt]

During the movement phase a mortar wishes to fire at a moving tank with riders.
in order to hit either the tank and or the riders do you add Case J (+2 for moving target) and Case J1 J2

Or
Do you NOT add the Case J (J,J1,J2) for the riders thus making the infantry easier to hit than the Tank even though they are riders.

 

[Binchois]

Case J will apply. The AFV must be hit in order for the PRC to be affected at all (collaterally). See C1.55 and C3.332:

C3.332 An Area Target Type hit vs vehicles [EXC: motorcycle; D15.5] is resolved as per 1.55 (see also D5.311 for mortar Air Bursts). Vulnerable PRC are attacked Collaterally (D.8B) unless otherwise prohibited.​

​

See D.8 and the C3.332 Example as well.

 

[SSlunt]

Thank you.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Case J will apply. The AFV must be hit in order for the PRC to be affected at all (collaterally). See C1.55 and C3.332:

C3.332 An Area Target Type hit vs vehicles [EXC: motorcycle; D15.5] is resolved as per 1.55 (see also D5.311 for mortar Air Bursts). Vulnerable PRC are attacked Collaterally (D.8B) unless otherwise prohibited.​

​

See D.8 and the C3.332 Example as well.

Incorrect I believe. As D.8B points out "...When a vehicle is subjected to (but not destroyed, etc. by) FP which is not required to predesignate it as the target, any Vulnerable PRC in/on it are subject to a General Collateral Attack as per D.8 above, but modified normally for range, Hindrances, TEM/CE DRM, etc. — just as if the Vulnerable PRC were the only target being attacked." There is no indication that the vehicle must be hit, just that is was subject to an attack which did not require it having to be predesignated as the target (think of it as an infantry using its IFT IFP to attack a vehicle in a hex - it would effect any vulnerable PRC but would not effect the AFV nor even have to predesignate the AFV as the target). You seem to be mixing up a General Collateral Attack with a Specific Collateral Attack. Since Area Target Type does not have to predesignate the AFV as its target but can hit all targets within the hex (C3.33) the specifics of its results is that of C3.4 MULTIPLE TARGETS whereas the vehicle may not be hit but the area (the hex) still is and all vulnerable PRC would have to take a General Collateral Attack. Agreed Case J* would have to be applied to secure a Hit to have any effect upon the AFV and be resolved as C1.55.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I think you still have to hit the Vehicle to affect any Riders:

D.8B GENERAL: When a vehicle is subjected to (but not destroyed, etc., by) FP which is not required to pre-designate it as the target, any Vulnerable PRC in/on it are subject to a General Collateral Attack as per D.8 above,...

If the vehicle is not hit, it would not be "subjected to... FP"

 

[Eagle4ty]

I think you still have to hit the Vehicle to affect any Riders:

D.8B GENERAL: When a vehicle is subjected to (but not destroyed, etc., by) FP which is not required to pre-designate it as the target, any Vulnerable PRC in/on it are subject to a General Collateral Attack as per D.8 above,...

If the vehicle is not hit, it would not be "subjected to... FP"

Not so sure. If it is Hit, the units would be subject to a Specific Collateral Attack [See D.8A. All that is needed is that an ATT hit the target hex (...just as if the Vulnerable PRC were the only target being attacked.) to it be subjected to a FP attack. To expound upon this reasoning a bit further, let's take the opposite view - that one must attain a Hit on a Moving/Motion AFV in order to get a General Collateral Attack - to its illogical extreme:

​

If that were to be the case, if an ordnance using the ATT were to fire on a hex containing a Moving/Motion AFV with vulnerable PRC and also containing Infantry, it could miss the hex entirely just because the AFV was in Motion.​

Now we know that is not the case because the ATT could still hit the Infantry and if so would then the vulnerable PRC not be affected simply because the vehicle was Moving/In-Motion? No, That simply is not the case; all eligible targets in the hex would be effected even though the AFV may or may not have been hit.
I believe that D.8B clearly indicates that the TH is based upon having a valid target and that target can be considered the vulnerable PRC as if they were the only target being attacked. To consider otherwise is to totally confuse a Specific Collateral Attack and a General Collateral Attack, especially in regards to an Area Target Type Attack that does not have to specify its target other than the hex being fired upon.

​

 

[Vinnie]

If this is the case, and no other targets are in the hex, since you cannot target the PRC, do you add Case K to see if you affect the PRC?
Personally, I think you need to hit the vehicle to affect the PRC.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

One can't target the PRC without targeting the AFV, IIRC.

 

[Vinnie]

One can't target the PRC without targeting the AFV, IIRC.

Exactly, so if tgere is no one else in the hex and you miss the FAV, do you apply case K to the to hit roll to see if you hit the hex?

 

[jrv]

One can't target the PRC without targeting the AFV, IIRC.

Agree.

D.6 "PRC can never be fired on separately by ordnance [EXC: motorcyclists; 15.5], but if Vulnerable can still be affected Collaterally by such attacks (D.8)."

D.8B "GENERAL: When a vehicle is subject to (but not destroyed, etc. by) FP which is not required to predesignate it as the target, any Vulnerable PRC in/on it are subject to a General Collateral Attack."

If ordnance fires using ATT, the vehicle would not be subject to the attack if it missed the vehicle, and so vulnerable PRC would not be attacked collaterally.

JR

 

[jrv]

Exactly, so if tgere is no one else in the hex and you miss the FAV, do you apply case K to the to hit roll to see if you hit the hex?

I believe that if there is/are enemy target(s) in that hex, you have to hit an enemy target in order to hit the hex. For example if you fired at a brush hex with a Motion Bren Carrier in it (+4 TH DRM), there is no way to cause a flame in the hex (i.e. hit the terrain in the hex) without having hit the Bren Carrier. If no enemy units were present, you could hit the terrain by applying Case K. If an unconcealed enemy infantry unit were also present, you could hit the terrain without applying Case K or the Motion or the double-small target by hitting the unconcealed enemy infantry. If the vehicle were a double-large target that was not moving, you could hit the terrain (and potentially cause a flame) by hitting it even if you missed other enemy targets in the hex.

JR

 

[Binchois]

There is also the initial rule describing the To Hit Process, C3.3:

C3.3 TO HIT (TH) TABLE: The TH process is merely a matter of cross-indexing the "Target Type" classification with the "Range" to the target on the TH Table to obtain a Basic To Hit Number (TH#). Any Gun or Ammo modifications (C4) are added directly to the Basic TH# to achieve a Modified TH#. A Final DR ≤ this Modified TH# results in a hit vs the target, which is then resolved on the IFT vs Infantry/Cavalry/Motorcycle targets or on the appropriate To Kill Table vs non-motorcycle vehicular targets [EXC: Boats; E5.5-.52].​

​

So according to this rule, Infantry can be directly impacted by the results of a TH DR, but PRC are not included in the list of potential targets (so can only be affected collaterally). This is stated more clearly in D.6 (as cited above):

D.6 PRC can never be fired on separately by ordnance [EXC: motorcyclists; 15.5], but if Vulnerable can still be affected Collaterally by such attacks (D.8).​

​

Perhaps more confusing is the Infantry Target Type which carries an ambiguous exception allowing PRC be affected:

3.32 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).​

​

So if PRC cannot be directly attacked using any target type, what is this exception actually allowing? There is an existing Q&A which helps in this case:

Q. C3.32 & D5.32 According to C3.32, AFV are immune to the Infantry Target Type, but not their Vulnerable PRC. According to D5.32 & D.6, a CE crew cannot be targeted separately from its vehicle, but only affected Collaterally. Are these rules in conflict?​

A. No, an AFV may be hit via the Infantry Target Type; it (but not its Vulnerable PRC) is "immune to damage from such a hit." [J1; Mw]​

​

So in accordance with the C3.32 example, you may use the ITT to attack a Location that contains an AFV, Infantry, and PRC. Each might get differing TEM or DRM, but the PRC will only be hit if their vehicle is hit by the attack (so we must take into account any modifiers for vehicle size, motion status, etc...). Regardless, the AFV will not be affected unless it is hit through an unarmored facing.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Yes, all is understood. However all that is necessary for ATT to effect targets in a hex is to hit the hex (Area Target) not the vehicle and to have a valid target in the hex (i.e. the vehicle) so as not to pay Case K TH DRM. If you have to apply the vehicle's Moving/Motion-status/Target-size to the TH DR in order to hit the hex to effect the vulnerable PRC they would subsequently be affected by a Specific Collateral Attack, not a General Collateral Attack.

To take this a step further: If the opposite was true as expressed by the rationale that you must hit the vehicle in order to hit the hex, if the hex also included an infantry unit and was fired upon using the ATT TH process and a hit achieved vs the Infantry but not the vehicle, it would stand to reason any vulnerable PRC would not undergo a Collateral Attack as the Vehicle had not been hit owing to the fact that in order to effect the PRC one needs to hit the AFV first. To me it doesn't seem that a General Collateral Attack nor ATT hit was meant to operate in that fashion. As per C3.332 which states PRC are attacked collaterally per D.8B.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Still don't see that "hitting the hex" gets around D.8B's requirement that that vehicle needs to be subject to FP (which, IMO, when targetted by ordnance means "hit").

 

[Pyth]

If hitting the hex with ATT were all that was required to generate a collateral attack against all vulnerable PRC anywhere in a hex, then during Prep-fire wouldn't vulnerable but out-of-LOS PRC (of an AFV in bypass behind a building for example) be attacked by any ATT hit against the hex? -- They are not. An out-of-los AFV is hit (and the PRC subjected to General Collateral), only if the hardest to hit in-los target is hit by mortar fire (indirect fire ATT). [C3.33] Against direct fire ATT the out-of-LOS AFV and its PRC remain immune. I found the examples after C3.331 and 3.332 helpful.

I think C1.55, and C3.33-C3.4 taken together strongly favor JRV and Klas Malmstrom et al. You have to hit the vehicle with ATT or any other target type to generate a Collateral attack against PRC.

And I left off C3.41 -- allowing targetting of buildings, bridges, and hexes "devoid of such"-- for a reason! -- C3.41 could use additional rules and clarification imo, but I haven't even seen Q&A on it.