Why is a Sherman a +1 target but a Jagdpanther is not?

[Gordon]

Yep. Designed as an anti-tank gun, best used in ambush situations, it 'feels' like it should be harder to hit.

Yes except that's not how players necessarily use them, so what good is "design for effect?" It's a similar bitch I have about the Nahverteidigungswaffe. It launched a grenade but hits like an 81mm mortar because the designers didn't want people stalking their precious King Tigers. So the KTs become infantry stalking machines.

 

[The Purist]

The biggest problem is with the rules involving tank combat. A tank with a bow, coax, aa machine gun along with a MA could conceivably change its VCA five times (including intensive fire if allowed) as it is approached by the enemy tanks. So a Pz V could kill two approaching tanks and deny three more a flank or rear shot.

In the case of JgPz V, StuG III, etc., with one MG and its MA, it can still flop around like grounded salmon three times to deny flank or rear shots with a potential kill of two targets and blocking a third. The attacker can mitigate this somewhat but a machine gun should not be able to be used as a means to change VCA unless it has the ability to do damage the target, be it a TK# or the possibility to shock/Stun the crew.

Design for effect has its uses in smoothing out a rule but in so doing creates a number of abuses that make no sense.

 

[Gordon]

flop around like grounded salmon

The perfect mental image.

 

[The Purist]

Being non-turreted was recognised as a serious disadvantage in tactical combat and the Germans realised this. This is why they tried to use such vehicles from 'ambush'. When the Germans tried using StuGs as substitute replacements for tanks in the Soviet Union in early 43 as they rebuilt their battered panzer divisions, they found it did not work and that the assault guns could not compete in mobile situations. The StuGs were removed as soon as possible and sent to the AT battalions or to the independent assault gun battalions.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Can't use an AAMG to change VCA, but four possible VCA changes is pretty good as well.

 

[The Purist]

Can't use an AAMG to change VCA, but four possible VCA changes is pretty good as well.

Hmmm,.... does this include the fixed/remote AAMG on the StuG IIIG? It can only be used in the VCA (an exception, of course).

 

[klasmalmstrom]

NRBH, so I can't check.

 

[The Purist]

NRBH, so I can't check.

D1.83 does give an EXC for fixed AAMGs, noting the StuG IIIG and H-35 as examples. These vehicles would need to change their VCA in order to use the AAMG against a target (with the usual TH modifiers).

 

[BattleSchool]

Yes except that's not how players necessarily use them, so what good is "design for effect?" It's a similar bitch I have about the Nahverteidigungswaffe. It launched a grenade but hits like an 81mm mortar because the designers didn't want people stalking their precious King Tigers. So the KTs become infantry stalking machines.

I suspect that the authors didn't examine the system closely enough. IIRC, the "calibre" represented the size of the smoke canisters, while a modified flare pistol was used to fire fragmentation grenades through the same aperture. IOW, there were no 92mm HE grenades on board.

In IFT terms, 92mm translates into 16 FP. If the flare pistol explanation is correct, the FP ought to be a lot less, perhaps as little as 6 FP (with no DRM).

As for King Tigers, they're Street-Fighting fodder.

Cue Paul...

16.

11.622 CLOSE DEFENSE WEAPON SYSTEM: The 92 mm grenade projector...

 

[The Purist]

... In IFT terms, 92mm translates into 16 FP. If the flare pistol explanation is correct, the FP ought to be a lot less, perhaps as little as 6 FP (with no DRM).

As for King Tigers, they're Street-Fighting fodder.

I would suggest that even if the tank can get more than one grenade off in CC that 6FP would be too high. Perhaps 4 FP.

After all, an American 12 man rifle squads with plenty of grenades, semi and automatic weapons only rates 6 FP in CC vs Infantry and just 5 CCV vs tanks.

 

[BattleSchool]

I would suggest that even if the tank can get more than one grenade off in CC that 6FP would be too high. Perhaps 4 FP.

After all, an American 12 man rifle squads with plenty of grenades, semi and automatic weapons only rates 6 FP in CC vs Infantry and just 5 CCV vs tanks.

I'd tend to agree. My initial thought was 4 FP, same as a MOL. However, I thought it possible that either the crew would get more than one grenade off and/or the proximity of enemy infantry to the vehicle would make them more vulnerable than infantry spread across a "40-metre" space.

 

[Old Noob]

If you are trying to take out a tank, and the crew puts a grenade right at your feet, it will not matter if it's 4FP or 6FP,
it still leaves a mark!

 

[von Marwitz]

It launched a grenade but hits like an 81mm mortar because the designers didn't want people stalking their precious King Tigers. So the KTs become infantry stalking machines.

If you come stalking my infantry with your King Tiger, you are welcome. Chances of killing that beast with any squad might not be excellent - but they ain't that bad either. And CC vs. vehicles is always sequential, i.e. my grunts will attack first (if they pass their PAATC that is...).

What most people don't realize:
If your grunts forfeit their attack against an AFV equipped with a Nahverteidigungswaffe, it cannot be used to attack you - unless in the highly unlikely event that the AFV manages to Ambush your infantry. So you can somewhat control the danger of it. Here's the rules quote.

A11.622 ... It can be used to make a HE attack on the IFT if the AFV is BU, but only during the CCPh after the AFV or its Personnel Escort has been attacked in that CCPh (11.31) [EXC: an AFV may fire a Nahverteidigungswaffe before being attacked if it qualifies as the Ambusher; 11.4].

On top of that, if your squad forfeits its attack and survives the King Tiger's CC attack with normal MGs, then the King Tiger will be bound by target selection limits the next turn unless it moves out of your hex - which again means that probably your grunts will not be killed by it.

von Marwitz

 

[The Purist]

I'd tend to agree. My initial thought was 4 FP, same as a MOL. However, I thought it possible that either the crew would get more than one grenade off and/or the proximity of enemy infantry to the vehicle would make them more vulnerable than infantry spread across a "40-metre" space.

Perhaps but at the same time the bulk of the tank will also block the blast/shrapnel from affecting others.

 

[von Marwitz]

In IFT terms, 92mm translates into 16 FP. If the flare pistol explanation is correct, the FP ought to be a lot less, perhaps as little as 6 FP (with no DRM).

This is how it looks like:



Not quite a flare pistol... It's more like lobbing 92mm mortar bombs out as hand grenades.
If open, you could fire a flare pistol through the sN, though.

Edit:
the 92mm were only needed to fire Smoke (Nebelkerzen). Flares and explosive shells were indeed fired by a flare pistol through the open tube of the sN.

von Marwitz

 

[Gordon]

The Tiger B manual calls for this round to be Sprenggranatpatrone 326 Lp. This must be in error as that particular round came only with an impact fuze and would be incompatible with the close defense concept. The Panther turret manual calls it the "2,6cm Sprenggranatpatrone mit Zeitzünder Lp" (explosive round with time fuze). This was a high explosive round that had a range of 7-10 meters and with the timed fuze of 1 second would normally explode 0.5 to 2 meters above the ground. This round was fired from a normal Leuchtpistole (flare gun) or Kampfpistole (rifled flare gun) using the Nahverteidigungswaffe tube as a large pistol port. It was used to combat close assaulting infantry in the "dead zone" around the tank.

So the sN was just an upward-facing "pistol port" through which the leuchtpistole fired the round.

 

[von Marwitz]

So the sN was just an upward-facing "pistol port" through which the leuchtpistole fired the round.

Actually we are both wrong and right:

The sN was more than a pistol port. It fired 92mm smoke grenades (Nebelkerzen), which are in ASL terms the equivalent of an sD. The advantage of the device was that it could be reloaded from under armor protection and was not prone to be damaged or to go off by shrapnel hitting the tank.

The explosive rounds, though, were not 92mm but smaller and fired by a flare pistol through the open tube of the Nahverteidigungswaffe. Flares could be fired by the flare pistol in the same manner.

von Marwitz

 

[Gordon]

Actually we are both wrong and right:

The sN was more than a pistol port. It fired 92mm smoke grenades (Nebelkerzen), which are in ASL terms the equivalent of an sD. The advantage of the device was that it could be reloaded from under armor protection and was not prone to be damaged or to go off by shrapnel hitting the tank.

The explosive rounds, though, were not 92mm but smaller and fired by a flare pistol through the open tube of the Nahverteidigungswaffe. Flares could be fired by the flare pistol in the same manner.

von Marwitz

Agreed!