There has got to be ( "a morning after") a better way- Roadblocks and AFV

[Oberst Hausser]

I am going to explain this pretty simply because IT SEEMS SO OBVIOUS. ( allow inf target type to acq )

This is an actual VASL game.

There are 3 AFV 3, 4 , 5 hexes from a pesky roadblock. Don't ya hate those???

T34 at 5, T 34 85 at 4 T 34 85 at 3... they are all in a line and all a clear LOS to the yup you guessed it- the roadblock.

No enemy units are in the LOS of the above. ( the enemy are not stupid).

Now according to the ASL rules, these highly motivated Russians can only AREA target the roadblock.

Now/ but the main thing they want to do is GET RID of this roadblock by HE ( highest 85mm).

PLEASE tell me that there is some better way than having 85mm / 2 as THE BEST way to remove this RB.

1. maybe -2 acq and hope for a CH ?
2. Get out the tank and dismantle it
3. Burn the bloody thing (necessitating fuel load parameters for RB)
4. Get 10 prisoners and " get to work"
5. Dig a tunnel
6. What about 1 tank going full speed, let's say 25% less roadbloack as a result with JSU's being 50%. If they can do it at Kursk they can do it here.

anything?

Truly, I really wanna know-and it must be in the rules somewhere.

Please, anyone who has "experience" in this per modern armed conflicts, I am "all ears".

Thanks

 

[jrv]

No enemy units are in the LOS of the above. ( the enemy are not stupid).

Now according to the ASL rules, these highly motivated Russians can only AREA target the roadblock.

Why do you say this? Per B29.5, "A Direct Fire ordnance attack vs a roadblock must use the Infantry (Other) Target Type." Per C3.41 the ITT can be used even when there are no enemy units. It's still not a very good shot. You have to pay the case K DRM (concealed) as well as the +2 TEM for the roadblock, and you can't gain acquisition.

Now/ but the main thing they want to do is GET RID of this roadblock by HE ( highest 85mm).

PLEASE tell me that there is some better way than having 85mm / 2 as THE BEST way to remove this RB.

1. maybe -2 acq and hope for a CH ?
2. Get out the tank and dismantle it
3. Burn the bloody thing (necessitating fuel load parameters for RB)
4. Get 10 prisoners and " get to work"
5. Dig a tunnel
6. What about 1 tank going full speed, let's say 25% less roadbloack as a result with JSU's being 50%. If they can do it at Kursk they can do it here.

Per B29.5, a roadblock can only be eliminated when using the ITT. An ATT attack, even with a CH, will not work.

anything?

Truly, I really wanna know-and it must be in the rules somewhere.

Please, anyone who has "experience" in this per modern armed conflicts, I am "all ears".

If you don't want to use the ITT, how about driving around the unguarded roadblock? You're not playing starter kit, right? So bypass, or drive through obstacles if necessary.

JR

 

[hongkongwargamer]

 

[Russ Isaia]

Why do you say this? Per B29.5, "A Direct Fire ordnance attack vs a roadblock must use the Infantry (Other) Target Type." Per C3.41 the ITT can be used even when there are no enemy units. It's still not a very good shot. You have to pay the case K DRM (concealed) as well as the +2 TEM for the roadblock, and you can't gain acquisition.



Per B29.5, a roadblock can only be eliminated when using the ITT. An ATT attack, even with a CH, will not work.



If you don't want to use the ITT, how about driving around the unguarded roadblock? You're not playing starter kit, right? So bypass, or drive through obstacles if necessary.

JR

Why case K DRM in addition to the +2 TEM?

 

[jrv]

Why case K DRM in addition to the +2 TEM?

I base this loosely off some q&a:

C3. & C6.2
Assume the following situation: A Mortar is 6 hexes away from a building hex that contains a concealed enemy unit. No To Hit DRM apply, so the Basic To Hit Number for the Area Target Type is 7 and vs. the concealed unit Case K (+2) applies. So I need a 5 or less to hit the concealed unit. If I roll a 6 or 7 I miss the concealed unit but do I still “hit” the building so I can roll an effects DR vs. it to possibly rubble it ?
A. No.

The same situation but the building hex is empty and I want to try and rubble it. Do I have to add Case K in this case as well (hitting a potential HIP unit) before I can make an effects DR?, or do I “hit” building in this case with a TH DR <= 7 ?
A. You have to add Case K. {2}​

My extension of this is that a hex/location/target that is devoid of KEU must use case k even if there is an object listed as a potential target in C3.41 and/or elsewhere in the RB. This has never been tested in q&a AFAIK, so feel free to disagree and/or submit a q&a. I have not gotten around to submitting such a q&a.

My "justification" for this is my theory that case K is both reflects actual concealment *and also* a unit's presence of mind to direct fire at things that are not threats, such as buildings and other inanimate things. This isn't a rule, but it does make me feel better about paying case K to fire at things that really can't be concealed like buildings.

JR

 

[Eagle4ty]

I base this loosely off some q&a:

C3. & C6.2​

Assume the following situation: A Mortar is 6 hexes away from a building hex that contains a concealed enemy unit. No To Hit DRM apply, so the Basic To Hit Number for the Area Target Type is 7 and vs. the concealed unit Case K (+2) applies. So I need a 5 or less to hit the concealed unit. If I roll a 6 or 7 I miss the concealed unit but do I still “hit” the building so I can roll an effects DR vs. it to possibly rubble it ?​

A. No.​

​

The same situation but the building hex is empty and I want to try and rubble it. Do I have to add Case K in this case as well (hitting a potential HIP unit) before I can make an effects DR?, or do I “hit” building in this case with a TH DR <= 7 ?​

A. You have to add Case K. {2}​

My extension of this is that a hex/location/target that is devoid of KEU must use case k even if there is an object listed as a potential target in C3.41 and/or elsewhere in the RB. This has never been tested in q&a AFAIK, so feel free to disagree and/or submit a q&a. I have not gotten around to submitting such a q&a.

My "justification" for this is my theory that case K is both reflects actual concealment *and also* a unit's presence of mind to direct fire at things that are not threats, such as buildings and other inanimate things. This isn't a rule, but it does make me feel better about paying case K to fire at things that really can't be concealed like buildings.

JR

Often wondered if that applies to firing on a bridge as well? One would certainly think so even if you are capable of gaining/maintaining acquisition on that "target". C3.41 coupled with that Q&A really leaves one in a somewhat of a quandary as to what is a "valid" target and when to invoke the Case K TH DRM. There certainly doesn't seem to be a consistency with the rule here.

 

[jrv]

Often wondered if that applies to firing on a bridge as well? One would certainly think so even if you are capable of gaining/maintaining acquisition on that "target". C3.41 coupled with that Q&A really leaves one in a somewhat of a quandary as to what is a "valid" target and when to invoke the Case K TH DRM. There certainly doesn't seem to be a consistency with the rule here.

Bridge, roadblock, pillbox, wreck, cave, un-manned gun(/sw), wall/hedge/seawall (for an AVRE) & "hex devoid of such" (perhaps to set a fire and/or to place shellholes). My guess is that an (apparently) empty cave and pillbox is targeted without case K. The AVRE explicitly says it fires on a wall/hedge/seawall as if there were a Known unit there. I believe that all the others require case K.

JR

 

[Eagle4ty]

Bridge, roadblock, pillbox, wreck, cave, un-manned gun(/sw), wall/hedge/seawall (for an AVRE) & "hex devoid of such" (perhaps to set a fire and/or to place shellholes). My guess is that an (apparently) empty cave and pillbox is targeted without case K. The AVRE explicitly says it fires on a wall/hedge/seawall as if there were a Known unit there. I believe that all the others require case K.

JR

Pretty good list there, AVRE targets surely wouldn't have come to my mind as I think I've only used them once (and then probably not to their fullest advantage, or very well for that fact).

 

[jrv]

Pretty good list there, AVRE targets surely wouldn't have come to my mind as I think I've only used them once (and then probably not to their fullest advantage, or very well for that fact).

There's actually more items, and a lot more aspects to consider. For instance what if there is infantry and an unpossessed gun is in a different location (multi-level building with ATT) and the gun has a large target size? Is it possible to hit the gun but not the infantry? What if they are in the same location? Because of all the possibilities it is taking some effort to compose a question. That plus it hardly ever matters.

JR

 

[Larry]

B29.5 in part:

A roadblock can be removed by Clearance (24.76); however, such attempts made by separate stacks must use separate DR. A roadblock can also be removed by any HE attack (including DC; see below) that results in a KIA against the roadblock. A Direct Fire ordnance attack vs a roadblock must use the Infantry (Other) Target Type or a SCW TH Table, adding the roadblock's +2 TEM to the TH DR normally (although Infantry targets in the same Location may have different DRM);

Because infantry are separately targeted, case K does not apply.

Indirect Fire vs a Location containing a roadblock hexside is resolved vs the roadblock using only its +2 TEM, and vs all other targets in the Location with the same Original DR and all applicable DRM (including a +1 TEM for the roadblock).

This permits the use of the ATT by weapons using indirect fire, again no case K, using only the TEM.

 

[Jacometti]

Thing is though you are firing at something that is a threat, i.e. the Roadblock

If you consider a roadblock a threat you must be terrified of a HIP AT gun....

 

[jrv]

Thing is though you are firing at something that is a threat, i.e. the Roadblock

I have never been threatened by a roadblock. Perhaps you have encountered roadblocks that are more aggressive than the ones I have come across.

I will say that the rules here are not clear, and that it has been my intention to get a q&a. It's fairly obvious that a building or a roadblock is hard to conceal, so the application of case K to them has to be from treating that attack as if the attack has a concealed unit as its target. It might be the case that roadblock and building are treated differently too, i.e. that a roadblock is a full "military" target while a building is not, and so case K applies to the building but not the roadblock.

Even if case K does not apply to the shot it's still not necessarily the best way to clear a roadblock because you have to get a KIA result. With a T34/85 that's rolling a two or a three. The TH# could be as high as eight at range one (+2 TEM, -2 range, acqusition not gained if there isn't an enemy unit/bridge I think), which means each shot has around a 6% chance of destroying the roadblock. With T34/85s you would have to make around twelve shots to have a > 50% chance of destroying the roadblock. And that would not be a lot > 50%.

JR

 

[Eagle4ty]

B29.5 in part:
A roadblock can be removed by Clearance (24.76); however, such attempts made by separate stacks must use separate DR. A roadblock can also be removed by any HE attack (including DC; see below) that results in a KIA against the roadblock. A Direct Fire ordnance attack vs a roadblock must use the Infantry (Other) Target Type or a SCW TH Table, adding the roadblock's +2 TEM to the TH DR normally (although Infantry targets in the same Location may have different DRM);

Because infantry are separately targeted, case K does not apply.

Indirect Fire vs a Location containing a roadblock hexside is resolved vs the roadblock using only its +2 TEM, and vs all other targets in the Location with the same Original DR and all applicable DRM (including a +1 TEM for the roadblock)

This permits the use of the ATT by weapons using indirect fire, again no case K, using only the TEM.

In your first reply a Case K (+2 TH DRM) wouldn't apply only because there is infantry in the location and this is OK. However, if there were no infantry in the location and one was to target only the Rd Blk you must add case K to your TH DR as it states the TH attempt would be made normally which includes adding case K as there is no valid infantry (or manned vehicle) target. Validation for this is per C3.41 types of fires and targets, and Perry's response to a Q&A indicating a +2 case K would apply in similar circumstances vs an "empty" building hex/location normally.

As for your 2nd statement, the OBA has already been put down with all/any penalties applied to placing the SR/FFE and only the resolution of the FFE is discussed thus it is true that case K doews not apply in that circumstance. It stands to reason no case K is involved as the resolution on the IFT never includes case K anyway. It does not automatically mean the TH is/cannot be effected by case K and lacking a valid target it will most certainly be as the TH is resolved normally.

 

[Larry]

The difference is that Chapter B does not spell out how to shoot at buildings but does spell out the process for shooting at roadblocks. The analogy of a building does not fit for that reason.

 

[turlusiflu]

Why do you say this? Per B29.5, "A Direct Fire ordnance attack vs a roadblock must use the Infantry (Other) Target Type.

By the way, what does this “(Other)” mean? It appears also in the rules for pillbox, and I don’t get the meaning

 

[ScottRomanowski]

If you look at the C3 To Hit Table, the target types are listed "Vehicle", "Infantry (Other)", and "Area". The 'other' must mean "not a vehicle".

 

[turlusiflu]

If you look at the C3 To Hit Table, the target types are listed "Vehicle", "Infantry (Other)", and "Area". The 'other' must mean "not a vehicle".

I hadn't realized that it was also in the TH Table. So would it refer to Cavalry, PRC, animals,...?

 

[Eagle4ty]

By the way, what does this “(Other)” mean? It appears also in the rules for pillbox, and I don’t get the meaning

Both C3.32 & C3.41 intimate what "other" could be:
C3.32 "...other than that resulting from damage to terrain (B24.121)."
3.41 "The Infantry, as well as the Area, Target Type may be used to attack an unarmored-target/unmanned-Gun/building/bridge/vehicle, and may also attack a hex devoid of such. [EXC: The Infantry Target Type (3.32) attacks a specific Location rather than an entire hex, and cannot be used to attack an AFV.] "

Note that though the ITT may be used to attack "other" items it does not mean it will always be able to acquire them.

 

[ScottRomanowski]

Yes, VTT can only be selected when firing at a specific vehicle, ATT affects an entire hex, and ITT is for everything else. It does seem odd using the ITT to target Cavalry, but C3.32 says "All other in-LOS enemy units", which may also be the origin of the "(other)" usage.

 

[Larry]

In ASL, it is harder to hit the broad side of a barn than a jeep.