What's the rationale for why AFVs can't fire out?

[jtreu]

I understand why the attention of infantry faced with other infantry, or worse, an AFV, in their location (or even in bypass) is all on those opponents. But what is the rationale for why an armored behemoth, largely impregnable to infantry weaponry, especially early in the war, would not be able to fire out of the same location, but instead can only fire (assuming right facing) on those opponents? A bypassing AFV especially, being 15-20 meters or so from infantry holed up in woods or a building, would seem to have little inherent notice of or care about said infantry, and those infantry couldn't be blocking LOS or anything else it seems. What am I failing to consider? Or is the rationale largely in game terms, not simulation? That is, because VBM Freeze, already a high-powered tactic, would be dramatically unbalanced otherwise?

 

[Binchois]

I assume you are referring to Target Selection Limits (7.212) which is certainly a bit gamey.

ASL experience with Infantry in Close Combat vs a vehicle should quickly demonstrate that an AFV certainly does have something to fear even late in the war (thinner armor makes early-war AFVs more vulnerable not less - even MGs can take out lightly-armored tanks - though there are often more dangerous AT toys available to Infantry later...).

Just watch old episodes of Rat Patrol. Soldiers sneak up on enemy armor and... Blammo! It happens all the time.

 

[Jazz]

Because it is a game with abstractions and mechanisms that to different levels deviate from a reality that few if any of us have personally experienced.

 

[Eagle4ty]

When the bad guys are close by and you know it, your armor protection is never too great unless your a fool or stupid!

 

[Robin Reeve]

Most wargames prohibit ranged attack from a unit engaged in close or melee combat.
ASL follows that tradition.

 

[Robin Reeve]

ASL experience with Infantry in Close Combat vs a vehicle should quickly demonstrate that an AFV certainly does have something to fear even late in the war (thinner armor makes early-war AFVs more vulnerable not less - even MGs can take out lightly-armored tanks - though there are often more dangerous AT toys available to Infantry later...).

I would partially disagree.
Same hex Infantry will engage CC most of the time, and the thickness of armor is not a factor.
Late war comes with SCW weapons (ATMM, PF, PSK, BAZ and PIAT) which make closing quarters with infantry more dangerous than early in the war (where MG and ATR are indeed a threat, but only vs. very thin AF - i.e. 0 or 1).

 

[Binchois]

I would partially disagree.
Same hex Infantry will engage CC most of the time, and the thickness of armor is not a factor.
Late war comes with SCW weapons (ATMM, PF, PSK, BAZ and PIAT) which make closing quarters with infantry more dangerous than early in the war (where MG and ATR are indeed a threat, but only vs. very thin AF - i.e. 0 or 1).

Not sure I see your disagreement Robin - indeed I refer to the exact same points. Must be with my implication that AF matters during CC - that was unintended (though I suspect it did matter in reality). I was compressing thoughts a bit (while trying to debate an error in the OP regarding early-war). As usual, you write much more clearly!

 

[Philippe D.]

What I understand to be Binchois' point is that the "reality argument" that a BU AFV should feel safe when surrounded by enemy infantry, and thus be allowed to fire out, is really false - both early-war, thin-skinned, and late-war AFVs, are in danger from CC, and possibly MG fire.

(BTW, I am not sure - does the Case E TH DRM ("fire within hex") apply to MG firing as ordnance? the rule mentions "Gun", and the Index says that when firing as ordnance, a weapon has to be on a 5/8" counter to count as a Gun)

 

[klasmalmstrom]

(BTW, I am not sure - does the Case E TH DRM ("fire within hex") apply to MG firing as ordnance?

Not to a SW MG, no.


C5 FIRER-BASED HIT DETERMINATION DRM:

†S E. Fire within hex (×2 if in woods/building/rubble; Cases J³, J4, L, & M are NA)...........+2

S NA to SW

 

[jrv]

(BTW, I am not sure - does the Case E TH DRM ("fire within hex") apply to MG firing as ordnance? the rule mentions "Gun", and the Index says that when firing as ordnance, a weapon has to be on a 5/8" counter to count as a Gun)

As far as I know the rule means what it says. A ½-inch MG will not pay case e.

JR

 

[Philippe D.]

Thanks guys, the tables I had at hand didn't have the "not for SW" listing.

 

[Mister T]

Armor leaders may be trained to prioritise targets so i have a hard time imagining one that would dabble in firing at infantry nearby while there is a sufficiently-threatening tank in front of him. Maybe someone who knows first-hand the ropes of AFV day-to-day life can tell us more.

 

[jrv]

Armor leaders may be trained to prioritise targets so i have a hard time imagining one that would dabble in firing at infantry nearby while there is a sufficiently-threatening tank in front of him. Maybe someone who knows first-hand the ropes of AFV day-to-day life can tell us more.

They might be so focused on the near danger that they don't look around. Loss of situational awareness.

JR

 

[Steven Pleva]

Tankers did not like to go where the enemy infantry can get close. Enemy infantry in close proximity would be a priority target...
Steve

 

[hongkongwargamer]

"Some troops, if sufficiently desperate, will attack enemy armor with bare hands. When numerically few, desperate troops will fire rifles and pistols through vision slits, stuff grenades or swords through tanks hatches, or pour gasoline onto the vehicle, immolating self, and enemy, and subsequently martyr themselves in the destructive process.

In the Ethiopian campaign, Haile Selassie's troops got close enough to physically bend the tankette's guns a useless direction. There are even reports of tankettes being literally 'flipped over' .... "

CH Lion of Judah

 

[mgmasl]

Broken infantry around and a Panther at one hex and not worried at all about the Panther? I think this is referring the thread.. when the AFV is as minimum an equal thread there is no option to fire at the AFV? I still think it’s much better if selecting the target is a player decision.. mainly because the lot of gamey situations when applying target selection limit rules.. EX SMC, HS in a King Tiger hex with a JS I in the adjacent hex.. common sense and no tricks at all is only possible when the player decides.. Anyway rules says the opposite and I suppose reality arguments in both directions.. the main aspect is the hex border deciding if the unit must be or not dangerous and not the quality of the enemy weapon aiming..

 

[Philippe D.]

The rules force some things because of the omniscient player phenomenon. Some things would be beyond the control of any commander, either because he doesn't have all the information that the player has, or because some of his men don't always carry out his orders. I for one am happy that the system has this covered by the rules - but of course it means sometimes the rules, because they are written as rules, "force" something that is ahistorical and seems unrealistic, and of course players will play the rules and try to "exploit" them because, after all, this is a game and it must have victory conditions.

I mean, every game of every scenario out there has players acting weirdly at game end because the victory conditions dictate this or that.

 

[Mr Incredible]

Never been in the military, but I would think having the enemy lurking in the immediate vicinity and the tank occupants not knowing what they are up to (do they have a DC? a grenade bundle?) would make it a priority. If I was as a tank commander I would deal with the most pressing danger, the banging on the outside up to nefarious misdeeds.

 

[jtreu]

I understand quite well the point of being in middle of infantry--both sides are probably going to have their attention commanded for the moment. But if you're a T-34 bypassing a building, and it's long before the year PSK or PF arrive on the scene, you aren't worried about MGs or ATRs. You are a little worried that the infantry might charge out of the building, so you point your turret that way to allow your coaxial to blast away if need be (even though you probably stopped in an adjacent hex and blasted away at them with all your armament before starting up again to bypass). Whatever infantry you're freezing better be disposed of on your turn, however. If not, on the German's turn, you could see a Mk IV drive up behind you and stop. Even though it's by far the most dangerous and most pressing threat, you can't shoot at it because of A7.212. It will probably miss you, but will acquire an Acq. Whatever you then do in your turn will either be some wild bounding fire shot or some highly risky move to try to get away or in better firing position (including stopping).

In any case, such artificiality is not too disturbing, because those are the risks. I'm satisfied now that A7.212 in the main does what it's supposed to do and, despite some weirdness or gamey-ness, seems an acceptable rule even for AFVs.

 

[jrv]

I understand quite well the point of being in middle of infantry--both sides are probably going to have their attention commanded for the moment. But if you're a T-34 bypassing a building, and it's long before the year PSK or PF arrive on the scene, you aren't worried about MGs or ATRs. You are a little worried that the infantry might charge out of the building, so you point your turret that way to allow your coaxial to blast away if need be (even though you probably stopped in an adjacent hex and blasted away at them with all your armament before starting up again to bypass). Whatever infantry you're freezing better be disposed of on your turn, however. If not, on the German's turn, you could see a Mk IV drive up behind you and stop. Even though it's by far the most dangerous and most pressing threat, you can't shoot at it because of A7.212. It will probably miss you, but will acquire an Acq. Whatever you then do in your turn will either be some wild bounding fire shot or some highly risky move to try to get away or in better firing position (including stopping).

In any case, such artificiality is not too disturbing, because those are the risks. I'm satisfied now that A7.212 in the main does what it's supposed to do and, despite some weirdness or gamey-ness, seems an acceptable rule even for AFVs.

The your-turn, my-turn system also distorts what is happening. In theory all these events are happening simultaneously. The T-34 is attacking the building, trying to "distract"/"attack" the infantry (its not exactly clear how VBM freeze sleaze maps into the real world, but I would think the idea is that the T-34 is concentrating on the infantry for whatever reason). A Pz IV springs out of nowhere and catches the T-34 crew thinking about something else. They don't look around because they have something they are focused on. If you want to play a situation where the T-34 crew is not totally focused on the infantry, don't go into the hex with the infantry. Do you want the AFV to concentrate totally on the infantry, or should they be cautious of other risks? It's your choice, and you get benefits and costs for your decision.

JR