Sniper 1 result against M3A1 Scout Car: lots of questions

[Houtje]

In the American AFPh, a hex with an American M3A1 Scout Car (Vehicle 39) with an 8-1 and a 346 HS (that comes with the Scout Car), in Motion and CE, is hit with a '1' Sniper; the Sniper chooses the Inherent Crew of the M3A1 as its target, placing it under STUN/Recall.
Now, according to D5.341, "If the AFV is carrying any Passenger(s)/Rider(s) it may Stop (or remain Stopped) long enough to unload them, but must unload them as soon as possible after the Recall occurs." Ok, the M3A1 has the 8-1 and 346 as Passengers and wants to use this rule. Some questions:

1. Both Inherent Crew and Passengers have to BU, right (D5.34)?
2. Is the Scout Car immediately Stopped? According to D5.34 STUN it is, but D5.341 RECALL says that Recall is treated like Stun, but "in addition that AFV and crew must attempt to exit the playing area along a Friendly Board Edge via the shortest route (in MP) using Motion status. " So does it Stop due to the STUN/Recall and then, at the start of the next American MPh, start again to move offboard due to being Recalled? Or does it stay in Motion, given that it is Recalled? I think the former, since Recall only kicks in at the end of the player turn (when the STUN has already caused the immediate Stop).
3. Can the 346 take the .50 HMG and MMG with them, in accordance with D6.631, when they Unload? I think so.
4. Are these MG dm when Removed by the 346 when Unloading? I think so (D6.631 again).
5. Since it's the AFPh, this Unloading has to wait until the next American MPh. Given my uncertainty about whether it is Stopped due to the STUN/Recall or not, which one of the following scenarios applies? (a) It starts the MPh Stopped, so the Unloading will be the first MP-spending of the Scout Car, after which it starts and moves offboard. (b) It is in Motion, so its first MP is spent to Stop, then it Unloads, then it starts again and moves offboard.
6. In the meantime (so before the next American Mph), both Inherent Crew and Passengers must remain BU (D5.34); therefore, nobody can fire either MG, right (since they're not Bow-mounted weapons (D5.3)? Can the 346 (possibly directed by 8-1) still fire IFP? D6.61 prevents BU Passengers from firing (unless against higher-level targets, NA here), but only in the case of Half-tracks; since the M3A1 is a Scout Car, I guess they are allowed Mounted fire?

Thanks for any help! This is some really complicated stuff, even when I'm really happy with my sniper

 

[EagleIV]

1. Yes
2. Yes an AFV immediately stops when a stun is placed on it. After the stun is flipped at the end of the turn, in it's next MPh the Scout Car has to start and try to exit.
3. D6.631refers to the crew, not the passenger, removing the MG. The German SPW251/sMG is an exception where the passenger can remove the MG. I don't see such a vehicle note for the Scout Car.
4. The HS can't take any MG's with it.
5. A is correct.
6. No fire is possible from the anyone on the Scout Car. The Scout Car is a sitting duck if the Germans can CC it.

 

[The Purist]

Eagle,

US Vehicle Note 39 and Note "I" applies to the M3a1 SC and this refers to D6.631 and treats the MGs in the same manner as the German SdKfz 251/sMG, the American M3(MMG) and (HMG) hts. Vehicle Note I actually applies to this US vehicles in use by other nations as well. Note that Veh Note O for the M20 SC, T8 Recce, DUKW and 1/4 Jeep allows the same Removal by Passengers in D6.631.

Veh Note I: ...Each MG may be Removed (D6.631) as this given type (ie., as a dm .50 cal or dm MMG respectively).

D6.631: ...Armament Removable by a Passenger (e.g., the German SPW251/sMG) is Removed as part of the normal unloading cost (D6.5)

Note that the SdKfz 251/sMG is used as an example but this rule is applicable to this vehicles in both Commonwealth and Red Army use (see veh note I for the White SC in FKaC used in both cases).

The M3a1 SC (et al.) was designed with this role in mind and is a handy scout vehicle even though it has Truck movement. ? Its use was superseded by jeeps carrying a scout section and either a 60* mtr or MMG.

 

[EagleIV]

Veh Note I: ...Each MG may be Removed (D6.631) as this given type (ie., as a dm .50 cal or dm MMG respectively).

My rules don't have this in US vehicle note I. Has this page been changed from the original Yanks?

 

[The Purist]

I have checked the Veh Notes from the original Yanks and Yanks 2.

It looks like they 'tightened' up the description and added the words "passenger" to both Veh Note 39 and Note I. I suspect this was a clarification to correct an omission from the original.

Both reference D6.631 but the addition of 'Passenger' does remove any possible doubt.

Note 39 specifically has the following text:

...its crew/Passenger may Remove its MG armament (D6.631),... (then some more about mounted fire not applying to passengers).

EDIT: I'll admit that I have always treated the M3a1 SC, M20 SC and Jeeps (w/ 346/227 & dm MMG/Mtr) the same as a ht since both notes I and O refer back to D6.631 (allowing Passengers to Remove/Replace weapons).

 

[bendizoid]

My rules don't have this in US vehicle note I. Has this page been changed from the original Yanks?

Don’t ya hate it when that happens.

 

[Houtje]

Thanks all for the detailed replies! Much more clear now. One last thing about BU preventing the 346 from firing IFP; is this due to rule D5.3, which says that "An OT AFV must be CE to use any weapon other than a bow-mounted MG/FT"? If so, firing IFP is regarded here as 'firing a Weapon', which seems a bit odd, since in the index 'Weapon' doesn't include IFP. So maybe I'm overlooking some other rule here?

 

[The Purist]

No Passenger fire at all if BU as per D6.61 and D6.62

 

[klasmalmstrom]

My rules don't have this in US vehicle note I. Has this page been changed from the original Yanks?

There was errata to U.S. MAVN I (from ASL Annual 96) that was incorporated into Yanks 2.

 

[Houtje]

No Passenger fire at all if BU as per D6.61 and D6.62

Right, I guess that makes sense; but I wondered about its applicability here, since the M3A1 is not an armoured halftrack (though many of the special rules suggest we should treat it like a halftrack on wheels).

 

[BattleSchool]

My rules don't have this in US vehicle note I. Has this page been changed from the original Yanks?

Yes. I had to check too.

The addition of "/Passengers" after "crew" means that the HMG can be unloaded at 1/4 FRU MP, as per D6.631 and D6.5. IAW the Ch. H notes that came with the original Yanks, SW Removal would be NA if the vehicle was under Recall (because the crew cannot Abandon the AFV unless it is Bogged/Immobilized).

As an aside, the RBF4 APC Player Aid v.2., based as it was on Yanks I, does not allow a Passenger to remove any MG.

 

[The Purist]

Cheer up, Gents!

This is definitely a needed clarification. These were APCs in all but 'tracks'. In any case, such vehicles would not be parked alongside the foxholes so the crew could use its weapons and it would make no sense to leave a 50 cal machine gun behind the line with the vehicle park and driver waiting to be called forward. Now a scenario or CG can use the M3a1 SC/White Scout Car, and Jeeps in their historical role when dismounted.

Perhaps the "APC Player Aid Card" can be updated to reflect these vehicles proper use.

Right, I guess that makes sense; but I wondered about its applicability here, since the M3A1 is not an armoured halftrack (though many of the special rules suggest we should treat it like a halftrack on wheels).

I would agree. Note that the LVT2(m) and other amphibs are not halftracks either but they use the same rules for (un)loading and weapons removal (D6.631) with a few variations for specific vehicles. This is where the vehicle notes really show their worth beyond a few historical points of interest.

 

[BattleSchool]

I'm curious.

I don't see a precedent for the addition of "Passenger." It isn't in the Annual Debriefings for '93a or '96.

Below is from '96. FWIW, p. H102 refers to the Lend Lease version used by the KMT.

U.S. Vehicle Note 39 The M3AI SC's MA is removed as a dm .50-cal. HMG and the other MG is removed as a dm MMG. {p.Hl02}

U.S. Vehicle Note 39 On the M3AI SC AFV Data card, the movement-type symbol should be that for truck-type movement. { '95w}

U.S. Vehicle Note I Change "See" to "Each MG may be removed as this given type (i.e., as a .50-cal. or MMG
respectively). See also''. {'93a}

Was there an errata in a Journal? Or was the "Passenger" amendment added during the proofing process for Yanks 3a?

Btw, the addition of "Passenger" makes sense, but I wonder if the designers originally intended that a player had to opt for a [second] crew in order to be able to remove the HMG.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Was there an errata in a Journal?

ASL Journal 8:
U.S. Vehicle Note 39: First †, last line, replace “crew” with “crew/Passenger”.

 

[BattleSchool]

ASL Journal 8:
U.S. Vehicle Note 39: First †, last line, replace “crew” with “crew/Passenger”.

Missed that. Tack!

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Missed that. Tack!

I think it might also have been as errata in Allied Minor Chapter H for the same vehicle.

 

[BattleSchool]

I think it might also have been as errata in Allied Minor Chapter H for the same vehicle.

Missed that too.

I see that now (under Allied Minor Vehicle Note 34), although Doomed Battalions [© 2009] is an unlikely place to go looking for errata on the U.S. M3A1 Scout Car. I suppose it's understandable given that the AH Yanks was in print for so long.

The question came up indirectly earlier this year when Pete Phillipps and I played SP259 Corridor To Extinction. There was a post-game moment where my removal of a .50 cal from a Scout Car by a 2-4-8 HS was questioned (by an observer).

Russian Vehicle Note 54 in BV [page H28F ©2000] provides no game detail, and invariably leads one back to the relevant US Note (which I had failed to update with errata). But upon further digging, I now see that the relevant info also appears in the expanded Russian Note published in 2014 (page H29E in HP). Kudos to MMP for fleshing out the Lend-Lease (American and British) vehicles in HP. ?

 

[Eagle4ty]

Missed that too.

I see that now (under Allied Minor Vehicle Note 34), although Doomed Battalions [© 2009] is an unlikely place to go looking for errata on the U.S. M3A1 Scout Car. I suppose it's understandable given that the AH Yanks was in print for so long.

The question came up indirectly earlier this year when Pete Phillipps and I played SP259 Corridor To Extinction. There was a post-game moment where my removal of a .50 cal from a Scout Car by a 2-4-8 HS was questioned (by an observer).

Russian Vehicle Note 54 in BV [page H28F ©2000] provides no game detail, and invariably leads one back to the relevant US Note (which I had failed to update with errata). But upon further digging, I now see that the relevant info also appears in the expanded Russian Note published in 2014 (page H29E in HP). Kudos to MMP for fleshing out the Lend-Lease (American and British) vehicles in HP. ?

If one reviews and then posts their errata at the time of receipt or notification there should be no need to go look for it in another place. {I always hated posting changes to regulations (or sometimes forgot to do so) and always got told the aforementioned whenever I got caught screwing something up because I forgot to post the "errata"}

 

[Stewart]

Seems like Journal 8 clarified a LOT of stuff...

WTF was happening at that time for Journal 8 to be so special?

 

[BattleSchool]

Seems like Journal 8 clarified a LOT of stuff...

WTF was happening at that time for Journal 8 to be so special?

All things considered, I think the "Debriefing" in J8 was quite reasonable given that much of it had to do with rewrites of bridge TEM, WA/bocage, as well as a lot of errata for the recently published VotG. Keep in mind too that there was a fairly lengthy gap between the publication of J7 and J8, at least three years, if I'm not mistaken.

As an aside, I don't like adding errata to my rule pages, preferring to wait for replacement pages to be released. I tend to rely instead on Klas' comprehensive Q&A and errata lists in the interim. But as you can see from my comments above, this has its downsides. Despite Klas' best efforts, there's no accounting for enduser ineptitude.