Stuka Attack vs Fortified Building

[Yuri0352]

Attention RB/VotG aficionados, you could be a big help with answers and suggestions regarding my question.

I'm about to start a playing of BFP-96, Hotly Contested Town, and I am planning on making a Stuka point attack upon units in a fortified stone building (+4 TEM).
If I'm reading the rules correctly, there will be a +4 DRM to the Stuka's TH DR, which makes any chance of a bomb hit on those units highly unlikely using either the ITT or Area TT.

Am I missing anything (pardon the pun) which could allow for a higher hit probability, or should I just choose another target. Any suggestions based upon your experiences with Stukas in Stalingrad?

Thanks for reading.

 

[jrv]

I am planning on making a Stuka point attack upon units in a fortified stone building (+4 TEM).
If I'm reading the rules correctly, there will be a +4 DRM to the Stuka's TH DR, which makes any chance of a bomb hit on those units highly unlikely using either the ITT or Area TT.

The +4 TEM DRM will apply to the TH DRM for the ITT. It will not apply to the ATT TH DR, so your ATT TH# will typically be a seven unless there is something else, like concealment, target size for guns, or SMOKE for example. The effects will be at half FP; if you have a 200mm bomb that is 18 FP, with the +4 TEM DRM applying on the effects DR. That means a DR of six or better for a NMC+. If there are multiple Locations in the hex the ATT will attack them all, which may be a plus.

In many cases attacking the fortified building directly may not be your best option. Perhaps SMOKING the fortified building and attacking of its supporting positions might be better. But if you go for the ITT and you get the hit, you're a hero.

JR

 

[Mister T]

I remember a RB game in which a Stuka scored a ITT hit on an overstacked location. It was horrible (for me!).
But it was a roofless factory hex, which is somewhat easier to target.

 

[bendizoid]

Sometimes the auto pin is the best weapon. Usually, a stack of counterattacking Russians get stuck in a hex then blasted in Prepfire.

 

[jrv]

Sometimes the auto pin is the best weapon. Usually, a stack of counterattacking Russians get stuck in a hex then blasted in Prepfire.

A good point; that may be true here. The auto-pin allows enemy units to advance into the fortified building for CC regardless of the actual results of the attack.

JR

 

[Robin Reeve]

A good point; that may be true here. The auto-pin allows enemy units to advance into the fortified building for CC regardless of the actual results of the attack.

JR

Aren't air support attacks made during the opponent's turn, which would mean that the following APh would the opponent's one?

 

[bendizoid]

Yep, it's good a good idea for the wrong phase.

 

[jrv]

Yep, it's good a good idea for the wrong phase.

Yes, so it is. Back to Plan ß.

JR

 

[clubby]

Isn't the auto pin thing really useful for stripping concealment for the bomb attack?

 

[jrv]

Isn't the auto pin thing really useful for stripping concealment for the bomb attack?

Taking a PTC (or better) on an attack strips concealment [Concealment Loss/Gain Table case A], but a Stuka does not cause a PTC. Instead it Pins the unit, and I don't believe that becoming Pinned causes concealment loss. The Concealment Loss/Gain table also says a unit that "becomes broken/Reduced/Wounded/berserk/overstacked/captured" in LOS < 16 hexes loses concealment, but "becoming pinned" not present. I believe that merely being pinned by a Stuka per E7.403 does not strip concealment.

JR

 

[clubby]

Then I got worked in my last RB game.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Then I got worked in my last RB game.

Don't feel too bad, up until jrv's post I had always played it as a concealment loss 30+ years!:facepalm:

 

[Yuri0352]

The +4 TEM DRM will apply to the TH DRM for the ITT. It will not apply to the ATT TH DR, so your ATT TH# will typically be a seven unless there is something else, like concealment, target size for guns, or SMOKE for example. The effects will be at half FP; if you have a 200mm bomb that is 18 FP, with the +4 TEM DRM applying on the effects DR. That means a DR of six or better for a NMC+. If there are multiple Locations in the hex the ATT will attack them all, which may be a plus.

In many cases attacking the fortified building directly may not be your best option. Perhaps SMOKING the fortified building and attacking of its supporting positions might be better. But if you go for the ITT and you get the hit, you're a hero.

JR

Thanks for the clarification, I think I'm going to go with the Area Target Type.

The SBR (SSR) for this scenario mandates that the German air attack be made immediately after the Russian set up and before the wind change DR of turn 1. Also, the German aircraft are recalled after making their attack, with any DM or Pin counters remaining in place at the start of turn 1.

Thanks for for all the responses!

 

[Yuri0352]

Taking a PTC (or better) on an attack strips concealment [Concealment Loss/Gain Table case A], but a Stuka does not cause a PTC. Instead it Pins the unit, and I don't believe that becoming Pinned causes concealment loss. The Concealment Loss/Gain table also says a unit that "becomes broken/Reduced/Wounded/berserk/overstacked/captured" in LOS < 16 hexes loses concealment, but "becoming pinned" not present. I believe that merely being pinned by a Stuka per E7.403 does not strip concealment.

JR

Yet another of the many rules which I have misread.

 

[jrv]

I always wonder when I make or read one of these subtle arguments whether it is a deliberate consequence, or it was an overlooked case but it's good enough, or it's an overlooked case that would have been changed if it had been noticed.

JR

 

[von Marwitz]

Taking a PTC (or better) on an attack strips concealment [Concealment Loss/Gain Table case A], but a Stuka does not cause a PTC. Instead it Pins the unit, and I don't believe that becoming Pinned causes concealment loss. The Concealment Loss/Gain table also says a unit that "becomes broken/Reduced/Wounded/berserk/overstacked/captured" in LOS < 16 hexes loses concealment, but "becoming pinned" not present. I believe that merely being pinned by a Stuka per E7.403 does not strip concealment.

JR

I have not played much with Air Support. But I did play this wrong for sure. Very good point made about the difference of Pinning and taking a Pin TC in this context.

Don't feel too bad, up until jrv's post I had always played it as a concealment loss 30+ years!:facepalm:

Then I feel better - I seem to have played it wrong for maybe only 20 years...

von Marwitz

 

[von Marwitz]

I always wonder when I make or read one of these subtle arguments whether it is a deliberate consequence, or it was an overlooked case but it's good enough, or it's an overlooked case that would have been changed if it had been noticed.

JR

Venturing onto the hazy field of reality arguments one could say it might have been deliberate:
When they hear the Stuka, the crouch and stay low and thus become pinned. They don't move about scurrying for cover as when hit by IFE/Small-Arms/HE.

von Marwitz