Wasp Portage Capacity D6.81

[BattleSchool]

Anyone explain to me why a Wasp has "4 PP" on the counter, which appears contrary to D6.81?

 

[WuWei]

D6.81 PP: "... has a Passenger capacity of four PP..."
What's the discrepancy?

 

[BattleSchool]

D6.81 PP: "... has a Passenger capacity of four PP..."
What's the discrepancy?

D6.81 PP:

A Carrier is a fully-tracked OT AFV. A Carrier without a mortar, FT, or 6 FP AAMG listed as MA on its counter has a Passenger capacity of four PP (as per 6.1) for SMC/SW/ammo (C10.13).

 

[ScottRomanowski]

Because D6.81 says "A Carrier without a mortar, FT, or 6 FP AAMG listed as MA on its counter has a Passenger capacity of four PP", and teh Wasp has a FT MA.

Beaten to the post by @BattleSchool

The 4PP on the counter may signify an exception to D6.81.

 

[BattleSchool]

Thanks Scott.

Klas has already replied by other means. He confirms that the counter is incorrect.

Andy Hershey is sending a Q&A to formalize need for errata.

Cheers,

Chris

 

[klasmalmstrom]

For the record, I did not actually say the counter is incorrect. I just said it has been like that since WoA.

 

[Larry]

British note 72:

Two different types were used in action: the Mk II, which carried the flame-fuel and propellant tanks inside the vehicle; and the Canadian designed Mk IIC, which had only a single flame-fuel tank that was mounted on the rear exterior, thus allowing an extra crewman to be carried.

I did not see another carrier with an FT. Given the explicit exception in the vehicle note, striking the FT reference might be the easiest fix.

 

[BattleSchool]

For the record, I did not actually say the counter is incorrect. I just said it has been like that since WoA.

Well I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.

I was paraphrasing someone else:

Re:Wasps...the 4PP is error. Confirmed via Klas.

 

[BattleSchool]

British note 72:

I did not see another carrier with an FT. Given the explicit exception in the vehicle note, striking the FT reference might be the easiest fix.

Compare the Wasp with a Carrier MMG B, which has a 6 FP AAMG and only 1 PP capacity, or a Carrier 3-in Mortar, which has the same PP capacity. The PP capacity of these two vehicles is in line with D6.81 in not having a 4 PP capacity.

Only the Wasp and the 2-in Mortar Carrier have 4 PP listed on the counter.

It's possible that the exception in D6.81 was only intended to apply to the 3-in Mortar. However, the rule as currently written makes no such distinction regarding the calibre of the weapon.

 

[BattleSchool]

The Wasp is only the latest in a number of counter discrepancies I've stumbled across in the past few years, as summarized here.

 

[william.stoppel]

The Wasp is only the latest in a number of counter discrepancies I've stumbled across in the past few years, as summarized here.

Excellent article Chris. I’d rather see Chapter H cleaned up per your notes than more rules tweaks!

 

[BattleSchool]

Excellent article Chris. I’d rather see Chapter H cleaned up per your notes than more rules tweaks!

Thanks for reading.

The ironic thing about the Wasp query is that I discovered it during the course of deliberating over the VC for a Korean War scenario I recently designed. In other words, the error in WoA and FKaC is perpetuated in FW.

In 2 RCR in the Rain, the Canadians have two Wasps, as they did in May 1951 when Able Company was tasked to secure a bridge outside a North Korean village in the Hant'an valley. Normally, an AFV is Recalled when its MA becomes Disabled. However, because the Wasp has a portage capacity, it could conceivably remain on board and therefore continue to be a nuisance for the Chinese. The ongoing question was whether to allow or prohibit this. A counter fix would eliminate both the question and the need for any added verbiage.

Play testing of 2 RCR in the Rain v5.x is set to begin next week. It uses boards 87 and 89, along with two stream overlays. Apologies for the latter, but IMO it works better with them. Unless you're allergic to Heavy Rain and Irrigated paddies too, the VP "wild" card ought to make up for any inconvenience. Props to Andy Hershey for suggesting it.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

The ironic thing about the Wasp query is that I discovered it during the course of deliberating over the VC for a Korean War scenario I recently designed. In other words, the error in WoA and FKaC is perpetuated in FW.

It could also be that the rule text (same in 1st Edition) is in error. Like something was changed late in the development of WoA, and the counters were changed but the rule wasn't.....

 

[BattleSchool]

It could also be that the rule text (same in 1st Edition) is in error. Like something was changed late in the development of WoA, and the counters were changed but the rule wasn't.....

Ah, I think we may be getting to the bottom of this. Thanks for pushing back.

I'm conflating the British Mk II Wasp with the Canadian Mk IIC version. The former had two fuel tanks mounted inside the carrier, hence the lack of any portage capacity, which D6.81 points to.

However, the counter version represents both types. In that case, an SSR would be required to distinguish the 0 PP (Mk II) version from the counter (Mk IIC) version.

The Mk IIC has a tank on the rear of the vehicle with the remainder of the apparatus occupying the port side of the carrier. For some reason, I've always read extra crewman as second crewman.

I should have known better, having been up close and personal with a Mk IIC in the past. Instead, I've been relying on WW2, CWM, and KW photographs of the Mk IIC that don't show starboard interior, as seen in the scale model below.

To recap then, the counter version of the Wasp with 4 PP is correct when used to represent the Canadian version in WW2. It isn't for the British version, which was in service prior to 1945.

Currently, there's no reason to suspect that the Wasp used in Korea didn't retain the rear-mounted tank, leaving room for a (SMC) Passenger/SW. (I may need a Wasp-B-Gon SSR after all.)

That leaves us with the text of D6.81.

If we agree that the counter version of the Wasp is correct, as I believe we now should, then the reference to FT in D6.81 is confusing and ought to be removed. Something in the vehicle note stating that the British version be treated as having 0 PP wouldn't hurt though. But wait, there's more!

The 1 PP capacity of the Carrier MMG B (AAMG MA) and Carrier 3-in Mortar jive with D6.81 as currently written. The Carrier 2-in. Mortar, which has 4 PP, does not. It seems that either one of two things needs to happen. Amend the PP capacity of the Carrier 2-in. Mortar, or preface MTR in D6.61 with 3-in.

Bottom line. I was wrong about the Canadian version of the Wasp. But that doesn't mean D6.81 doesn't deserve attention.

D6.81 ...A Carrier without a mortar, FT, or 6 FP AAMG listed as MA on its counter has a Passenger capacity of four PP (as per 6.1) for SMC/SW/ammo (C10.13).

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I too did some research, and found that there were two versions of the Wasp....

On theory I have is that the text in D6.81 - "A Carrier without a mortar, FT, or 6 FP AAMG listed as MA on its counter has a Passenger capacity of four PP (as per 6.1) for SMC/SW/ammo (C10.13)." - was written in 1985 (this text was present in the 1st Edition), in the anticipation that Carriers would be added at some ppint. But when WoA was published in 1988 (IIRC), they made some counters - seemingly in conflict with this text - because some Carriers with MTR/FT should indeed have 4 PP. They just forgot to update the text in the rule.

But again, just a theory/wild-guess/etc.

 

[william.stoppel]

That tank on the back would make a big boom!

 

[ScottRomanowski]

They just forgot to update the text in the rule.

There may not need to be an update. Shouldn't the "later rule" -- the 4PP listed in Chapter H --take precedence over the earlier D6.81 as usual? Rather than trying to update D6.81 with every exception, which means it needs to be revised every time there's an exception, just let the guideline in the Introduction do its job.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

There may not need to be an update. Shouldn't the "later rule" -- the 4PP listed in Chapter H --take precedence over the earlier D6.81 as usual?

Technically yes.....

Rather than trying to update D6.81 with every exception, which means it needs to be revised every time there's an exception, just let the guideline in the Introduction do its job.

I am not saying I think it needs a change....that would be up to MMP anyway..

 

[BattleSchool]

There may not need to be an update. Shouldn't the "later rule" -- the 4PP listed in Chapter H --take precedence over the earlier D6.81 as usual? Rather than trying to update D6.81 with every exception, which means it needs to be revised every time there's an exception, just let the guideline in the Introduction do its job.

Alternatively, delete the entire second sentence of D6.81. Who doesn't like less text?

D6.1 already addresses PP and all Carriers in the current counter mix have a PP value on them anyway. (Any outliers--variants not included in the mix--can be addressed with SSR.) And as Klas has noted, the second sentence may well be a pre-WoA remnant that became (largely or wholly) redundant after the carrier counters were released in WoA three years later.

 

[STAVKA]

Leaflet House Rule used in the CG Op Veritable or for scenarios as The Good Shepherd:

A WASP is Recalled if its MA is Disabled (contrary to D3.7).