Riders on Soviet SU-57(a), American M3 GMC?

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Riders are allowed on "tanks (not tankettes), TD, SPA, SPAA, Carriers (limited capacity; 6.81), and Assault Guns." The two vehicles are listed as TDht. Can they have (edit: MMC) riders? My first thought is that the "ht" is a secondary classification, and the primary classification is TD, meaning they can have riders. If the vehicle type string has to match the list in the rules exactly, including secondary classification, the Sherman DD—aMT—also can't have riders, and I would find that somewhat surprising.

JR
 
Last edited:

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
You can add SPW 251/21 and {edit: SPW 307(f)} to your Q....
(I think in both cases it is NA...but that is just my 1.5 cents)
 
Last edited:

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
You can add SPW 251/21 and /22 to your Q....
The 251/21 is listed as a ht in my vehicle listing [(c) 2000]. You may have mis-aligned the lines and meant the SPW251/22 & SPW S307(f). The mSPW S307(f) (vehicle note 67.2) is SPA and so can have riders, and it would be a bit of a surprise if it could have riders but the SPW S307 TDht (vehicle note 67.1) could not.

JR
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,209
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
You can add SPW 251/21 and /22 to your Q....
(I think in both cases it is NA...but that is just my 1.5 cents)
I agree. IMHO Riders should be NA* [EXC: the usual SMC allowed on any vehicle].

von Marwitz

*for the vehicles you probably meant as pointed out by JRV.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
The question could apply to the SPW 251/22 or the American M3 GMC too, for an example, which are listed TDht.
As "TD" only has some use for Riders - I don't think that it has any impact on another part of the rules - I would suggest that "TD" should be removed from all the "TDht" vehicles.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
The 251/21 is listed as a ht in my vehicle listing [(c) 2000]. You may have mis-aligned the lines and meant the SPW251/22 & SPW S307(f). The mSPW S307(f) (vehicle note 67.2) is SPA and so can have riders, and it would be a bit of a surprise if it could have riders but the SPW S307 TDht (vehicle note 67.1) could not.

JR
Yes I did misalign. I changed my post to reflect that.
I don't see the mortar version being allowed Riders either... but again that is my 1.5 cents.
You should compile and list and send in a Q and A, as it seems from where you sit you might get different Y/N answers...I see it that all will be ruled N.
 

Larry

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,383
Reaction score
1,735
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
37. SU-57(a):
The U.S. T48 GMC halftrack. 650 were Lend-Leased to the Soviet Union, where they were re-armed with the 57LL more powerful Soviet 57mm AT gun and used in special brigades of 60 SU-57 each. The "(a)" in the piece name stands for "American", for ESB purposes.


It is a halftrack that is converted to TD purposes. The TD designation does not change its ht configuration.
 

Larry

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,383
Reaction score
1,735
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
33. M3 GMC Halftrack:
This vehicle resulted from an urgent requirement to have some form of tank destroyer available until the M10 GMC could enter service. The M3 Gun Motor Carriage Halftrack used an M3 Halftrack modified to carry an M1897A4 field gun. Production began in late 1941, and in December of that year 50 arrived in the Philippines where they were used as SP artillery until the fall of Bataan. Altogether 2,202 were built, but 1,360 were later converted to M3Al Halftracks. In the PTO the M3 GMC was used successfully by the USMC (who often referred to it as the “SPM” [Self-Propelled Mount]) until the war’s end, with each infantry regiment in a Marine division having a platoon of two (four after April 1944) in its weapons company, and until that same date the divisional Special Weapons battalion also had three such platoons. The M3 GMC was the only type of halftrack employed in Marine divisions. In Tunisia the M3 GMC was used in the 601st, 70lst, 805th, 813th, and 894th TD Battalions (Heavy SP), with four per platoon. They met with mixed success in that campaign; their thin armor caused many to be knocked out, but when properly used in ambushes from HD positions they were effective vs Axis armor. M3 GMC were also used in Sicily by the 601st TD Battalion.
Same ... it is a halftrack.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
It is a halftrack that is converted to TD purposes. The TD designation does not change its ht configuration.
I am not sure how this helps. A ht is not forbidden from having (MMC; I forgot to say this) riders. D6.2 lists vehicles that are *allowed* to have riders, not those forbidden. Per D6.2 TD is allowed; that it is also a halftrack does not take away from it being a TD.

JR
 

Larry

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,383
Reaction score
1,735
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
I am not sure how this helps. A ht is not forbidden from having (MMC; I forgot to say this) riders. D6.2 lists vehicles that are *allowed* to have riders, not those forbidden. Per D6.2 TD is allowed; that it is also a halftrack does not take away from it being a TD.

JR
The rules don't have to forbid. COWTRA. The status as a TD does not take away from the status as a ht. Since it is an ht, it is not allowed under COWTRA.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
The rules don't have to forbid. COWTRA. The status as a TD does not take away from the status as a ht. Since it is an ht, it is not allowed under COWTRA.
You are mis-applying COWTRA. A TD is allowed. The two vehicles are TDs. They should be allowed. They are also OT (as are many TDs). D6.2 does not mention that OT vehicles are allowed to have riders, but that does not forbid them to have riders either either. Once a rule allows an ability to a category (a TD to have riders), in order for a subset to not have that ability some other rule would have to be specified. Neither OT vehicles nor halftracks are specifically allowed to have riders, but those that are TDs are a subset of all TDs, and by D6.2 would be allowed to have riders by my reading.

JR
 

Larry

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,383
Reaction score
1,735
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
D6.2 Can a German SPAA (FlaK PZ IV/20) carry riders just like a SPA? The index doesn't contain an entry for SPAA. Riders are allowed on a SPA. So is a SPAA just one kind of SPA?
A. Riders are allowed. SPAA is a subset of SPA. [See errata from ASL Journal 11]
That helps the SU-57 but it eliminates the M3 GMC. The latter's listing is ht, not TDht.
 

semenza

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
961
Reaction score
432
Location
Poplar Ridge , NY
Country
llUnited States
Other than Riders is there anything that the TD designation effects ? Or any of the other designation types? The 'ht' doesn't even indicate movement type. That is covered by the white symbology.


Seth
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Other than Riders is there anything that the TD designation effects ? Or any of the other designation types? The 'ht' doesn't even indicate movement type. That is covered by the white symbology.


Seth
You may have a point there as D1.14 does classify it as a ht, at least for movement purposes. The only reference to TD in the Index is denote that it means Tank Destroyer but otherwise leaves it undefined (thus intimating that the vehicle type may be determined by its other characteristics?) . D6.2 goes no further in defining a Tank Destroyer nor do any of the vehicle listings of D1.*, leaving us with simply the D1.14 to determine the vehicle type. Perhaps the designers thought this area was self evident but it does leave us with somewhat of a conundrum in determining the "actual" vehicle type as presented by the rules only.
 
Top