Russian 50 cal HMGs

[BigAl737]

By the rules, I believe the Russian .50-cal (regardless of counter depiction) dismantles down to a 3-PP dm counter.

I agree. The 3pp dm version is official.

The 5pp dm version was offered due special request by @stuh42asl. I’m in discussion with the VASL dudes on the best way to port into VASL.

And it looks like it may get some use by SSR. I agree with @Jacometti that once mantled, it doesn’t make sense In VASL terms to dismantle.

 

[Yuri0352]

Is there a lend lease vehicle you can remove the US .50 cal? Then it should say (a).

There are a few U.S. Lend Lease vehicles within the ASL system which have 'removable' (in game terms) .50 caliber weapons.

M4/76 (a) Sherman
Sherman III (a) series
M4A2 (a) Sherman (included in BFP's OtO 2)
M3A1 Scout Car
M10 GMC (a) (included in BFP's OtO 2)

The case of the ASL portrayal of a 'dm-able' Russian Dshk .50 cal. HMG is one of those isolated examples where a designer may have made a mistake. As has been well explained up-thread by an actual user of this weapon, the large size and weight of this weapon clearly indicates the impracticality (in both game and real life terms) of dismantling, transporting on foot, and reassembling such a weapon. The article in View from the Trenches is correct in recommending "treat this counter as 'No DM' ". As related up-thread, the Dshk, even in its dismantled state, is still an approx. 350 lb. weapon plus ammunition. In ASL terms, it seems to be a bit of a stretch to consider this weapon to have the same portage value as an assembled U.S. M1919 MMG.

Considering the fact that in each subsequent reprinting of BV, MMP has not updated the Russian .50 HMG with a '(a)' designation, nor added examples with the Dshk artwork, I would not expect the rules to be changed to reflect the differences between these weapons. The issue of dismantling the Dshk .50 cal. HMG will probably have to be addressed by SSR's from individual designers.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

There are a few U.S. Lend Lease vehicles within the ASL system which have 'removable' (in game terms) .50 caliber weapons.

M4/76 (a) Sherman
Sherman III (a) series
M3A1 Scout Car

IIRC the standard ASL rules do not allow Removing the AAMG of a tank (M4/76 or any Shermans) - it can only be Scrounged as a LMG.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

IIRC the standard ASL rules do not allow Removing the AAMG of a tank (M4/76 or any Shermans) - it can only be Scrounged as a LMG.

Correct, and D10.52 notes that US AAMGs are scrounged as British LMG without captured use penalties. Which seems pretty generous since the Shermans probably didn't carry a ground mount for the .50 among its equipment.

 

[Jacometti]

Would you, as a wise and committed audience, feel that a "historical correction" for the Russian .50 Cal HMG is in order?

In my view, the most playable version would be a 4 PP dismantled .50 Cal HMG as the standard Russian weapon of this type.

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

Would you, as a wise and committed audience, feel that a "historical correction" for the Russian .50 Cal HMG is in order?

In my view, the most playable version would be a 4 PP dismantled .50 Cal HMG as the standard Russian weapon of this type.

Yeah, absolutely, let's change the rules on a piece 35 years later from fairly portable to absolute boat anchor. That won't have any adverse effects on previously published material.

 

[Jacometti]

eh sorry.....I should have been clearer......I am considering this only for DTF scenarios.....everyone else's HMG is their own business......

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

eh sorry.....I should have been clearer......I am considering this only for DTF scenarios.....everyone else's HMG is their own business......

Then whatever you want I guess, but it feels a bit grudge-y to me. Not as extreme as crew-served MGs, but heading that way.

Honestly, I'm not overly fond of the proliferation of MG types inf the last few years. I just don't feel like it passes the cost/benefit test in a game where infantry firepower is extremely abstract to begin with.

 

[Jacometti]

good points, Spencer.

I guess I will leave the historical debates to the historians and just keep on designing some wargame scenarios

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Yeah, absolutely, let's change the rules on a piece 35 years later from fairly portable to absolute boat anchor. That won't have any adverse effects on previously published material.

You mean the way the 3-inch mortar stats were corrected in FW? All for it.

 

[stuh42asl]

good points, Spencer.

I guess I will leave the historical debates to the historians and just keep on designing some wargame scenarios

If you are the designer for the DTF scenarios, you would want to show some historical correctness, like above, the weapon system is a brute to move, we needed a complete 4 man team to move everything.........two for the 50 cal, with the wheels on and the other for the ammunition boxes, and equipment. This was on a level surface , imagine over rough ground or into a building. It would be akin to saying the Sherman's gyrostabilizer is only a SSR. It is what it is, you cannot change the weight of the MG, but I do not have the skills and time to design and play test scenarios, that is where your specialty lies. Mine is researching battles and equipment as I like the history behind them. I wish I could playtest but travel for me is a no go now, that is what a quarter of a century of military service does to a human body. Don,t give up on the idea, the weapon adds flavor, remember the article on light tanks...."So you have a tin can" it made light on using a light tank to it's best..every weapon system has it's good and bad points..

 

[Yuri0352]

You mean the way the 3-inch mortar stats were corrected in FW? All for it.

An excellent example of an overdue and appropriate update to the game.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

Would you, as a wise and committed audience, feel that a "historical correction" for the Russian .50 Cal HMG is in order?

In my view, the most playable version would be a 4 PP dismantled .50 Cal HMG as the standard Russian weapon of this type.

I would agree with a 4pp dismantled .50, but would also allow the same for the MMG and HMG. I've seen a few photos of the M1910 dismantled, one carrying the gun, another carrying the wheeled carriage on their shoulders.

Given that all the above have wheeled carriages I would suggest that an infantry unit carrying a non-dismantled Soviet MMG, HMG or .50" on a road or trail crossing only road or trail hexsides throughout their MPh (as per B3.4) have the MG pp cost reduced to 4pp . All the B3.4 limitations like SMOKE, wire, mines, etc also apply and prevent the pp reduction.

The effect would be thus:
A 4-4-7 with a non-dm MMG/HMG/.50" only moving on a road would have 4 MF. 4 MF -1 for 4pp and +1 for road movement bonus = 4.
A 4-4-7 with a non-dm MMG/HMG/.50" moving only on a trail or only on any combination of road and trail would have 3 MF. 4 MF -1 for 4pp = 3 MF. No road movement bonus.

A leader with the 4-4-7 would allow 7 and 6 MF respectively.

That's just my take on the utility of the wheeled carriage, a bonus on suitable ground, extra weight elsewhere.

 

[T34]

I think that the DShK should not be dismantle-able, but 5pp is way too much for a wheeled MG--at least crossing open ground or roads. The 82mm mortar gets a benefit from wheels, which is, IMO, unjustified. But why are the Maxim and DShK not beneficiaries of the wheeled carriage? The tripod, as I understand it, was for AA mode only. However, it has to be remembered that the DShK's carriage was MASSIVE! Almost three times as heavy as an M2 Browning's. (155kg to 60kg.) It was far heavier than the 82mm BM 37. So if you are re-doing the counter, you might even make it ordinance. The DShK had an effective armor piercing round, which should give it an extra +1 BTK and an incendiary round which should give it a -1 or -2 on the star vehicle line. Keep in mind there are tens of thousands of these bastards still in service, but I have never seen, much less fired one, so there are many others who would know more about them than I. If you want to start messing about with SW, the PTRD/PTRS is far more messed up in ASL terms.

 

[Mister T]

My take on this is that the counter depictions are merely depictions. See for instance that the FT depiction changes from one nationality to another, but this has no consequence on the generic FT rules. Only rules and references to them on the counters matter. Unless there is a no dm on the counter, it can be dismantled. MMP is of course free to amend the rules if they see fit.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

MMP is of course free to amend the rules if they see fit.

So are scenario designers. ?

 

[Mister T]

So are scenario designers. ?

Scenario designers can change anything. The difference is, while we abide by the RB, we are not forced to play a scenario if we don't like it. This is sufficient for designers to experience market discipline.

 

[Jacometti]

I think all but a few scenario designers are well aware that their scenarios will get less play if

• there are too many SSR
• there are too many overlays
• the scenario has too many fortifications/other stuff to record during setup.
• the scenario uses rules which few players are fully "comfortable" with (assault boats, wagons, gliders, panjis, caves, night etc)

As a result, creating an SSR for a dismantled HMG is really not a smart option for most of us.

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

I think all but a few scenario designers are well aware that their scenarios will get less play if

• there are too many SSR
• there are too many overlays
• the scenario has too many fortifications/other stuff to record during setup.
• the scenario uses rules which few players are fully "comfortable" with (assault boats, wagons, gliders, panjis, caves, night etc)

As a result, creating an SSR for a dismantled HMG is really not a smart option for most of us.

Don't forget "no interesting SSRs." You really can't win.

 

[Jacometti]

Don't forget "no interesting SSRs." You really can't win.

You know Spencer, ASL games are just like sex.

If it is great fun, the participants will take all the credits.

If anything doesn't work, they will blame the Designer. Or each other.