Spotting and German Assualt Guns as Efficient Armor

[NBGB]

Hello,

First is spotting for night.  When you are at dusk -60 is it straight up 12 hexes or do you still get the height extra hex spotting range?

Next is AG's.  Their seems to be no advantage for turreted armor as efficient vs. AG's.  AG's could be brilliant in defense but face a real handicap in maneuver warfare.  I think the easiest way to handle this is they should not be efficient fire except in op fire.  This seems the easiest way to differentiate between defensive excellence and problems of adjusting fire in offensive mode without a turret.

[plloyd1010]

First is spotting for night.  When you are at dusk -60 is it straight up 12 hexes or do you still get the height extra hex spotting range?

I would think yes, because it is apparently still daylight. After that (like -45), no.

Next is AG's.  Their seems to be no advantage for turreted armor as efficient vs. AG's.  AG's could be brilliant in defense but face a real handicap in maneuver warfare.  I think the easiest way to handle this is they should not be efficient fire except in op fire.  This seems the easiest way to differentiate between defensive excellence and problems of adjusting fire in offensive mode without a turret.

I handled this with a rule I first saw on Yahoo groups years ago. It was  basically an extension of the cross-fire rule, which encompassed the direction a turretless vehicle fires. I can send them if you are interested. The rule also appears in my 4th Ed rewrite.

[OldPueblo]

I think that Peter has it right on both questions.

f the max visibility is only 8 hexes with the sun going down - or up - the elevation of the observer does not matter in terms of distance. The visibility is capped at 8, 4 or 2 hexes.

The damnable German & Soviet assault guns without turrets should face some kind of a penalty, as Peter indicated, in crossfire situations making them more vulnerable if they fire since they have to move the entire vehicle to aim their, limited travers, main gun at a given target. I think that NBGB is on the right track by suggesting that they should not be considered "efficient." After all, in both those WWII armies, they were typically crewed by artillerymen as supporting weapons, and did not have the higher levels of training and combat experience that seasoned tank crewmen received.

[treadasaurusrex]

Amen!

[Blackcloud6]

Guys, this is game where the counter represents a platoon of four or five vehicles.  And the turn is 20 minutes long.  "Efficiency" in this context does not mean just the ability of the tank commander to to employ his weapon by turning the turret or turning his vehicle or get off a number of shots but covers the ability of the platoon leader to properly employ his platoon over the course of the 20 minute turn.  So yes, the assault guns should have efficiency when taken in this context because it accounts for a better trained and able platoon leader and better trained and experienced crews in the platoon.

[plloyd1010]

Guys, this is game where the counter represents a platoon of four or five vehicles.  And the turn is 20 minutes long.  "Efficiency" in this context does not mean just the ability of the tank commander to to employ his weapon by turning the turret or turning his vehicle or get off a number of shots but covers the ability of the platoon leader to properly employ his platoon over the course of the 20 minute turn.  So yes, the assault guns should have efficiency when taken in this context because it accounts for a better trained and able platoon leader and better trained and experienced crews in the platoon.

Kinda sort of... mostly.
Wouldn't the real question then become: Why have a crossfire rule at all?

[Blackcloud6]

 Why have a crossfire rule at all?

It gives incentive to try to maneuver to fix by fire then outflank an enemy tank platoon, which was a real tactic especially by Sherman companies.    It promotes placing ATGs on flanks and setting up kill zones; this was a good part of US towed tank destroyer doctrine. It also, makes sticking your tanks too far out front a risk.

[Reconquista]

Guys, this is game where the counter represents a platoon of four or five vehicles.  And the turn is 20 minutes long.  "Efficiency" in this context does not mean just the ability of the tank commander to to employ his weapon by turning the turret or turning his vehicle or get off a number of shots but covers the ability of the platoon leader to properly employ his platoon over the course of the 20 minute turn.  So yes, the assault guns should have efficiency when taken in this context because it accounts for a better trained and able platoon leader and better trained and experienced crews in the platoon.

Except that at this scale the time is 15 minutes per turn, and there is no way that an unturreted AFV platoon would be as fast on the draw as a turreted tank platoon in combat. STG-IIIs, Hetzers and the like were often lethal as "ambush predators" of Allied AFVs -- when on defense in urban settings, and in prepared, covered & concealed positions with infantry support.

NBGB and Peter are on the right track on this topic, IMHO.

[treadasaurusrex]

Well said.

If one uses limited traverse AFVs as immobile pill boxes, on defense, the opposing force with turreted tanks, will be able to take advantage. Just ask the late, Saddam H about his experience Desert Storm & Saber experience in Kuwait . . .

Oh, and do you remember the myriad of knocked out, turretless, SU-100, SU-122 and SU-85s that the Israelis -- in fast moving, turreted tanks -- outmaneuvered & levered out of their prepared positions in 1956 and 1967 in both Syria and the Sinai.

[Blackcloud6]

Well said.

If one uses limited traverse AFVs as immobile pill boxes, on defense, the opposing force with turreted tanks, will be able to take advantage. Just ask the late, Saddam H about his experience Desert Storm & Saber experience in Kuwait . . .

Oh, and do you remember the myriad of knocked out, turretless, SU-100, SU-122 and SU-85s that the Israelis -- in fast moving, turreted tanks -- outmaneuvered & levered out of their prepared positions in 1956 and 1967 in both Syria and the Sinai.

Out of context, many, if not most tanks in WWII used hand cranks for turret traverse. This was one, of many reasons why the Sherman was a superior tank because of its electric drive turret.

But I'll bite.  Again, this goes back to crew training and leadership ability.  Saddam's crews and platoon leaders were not nearly as well trained as US and Brit crews and leaders.  In the game efficiency reflect crew training and leadership ability more than anything else.  Hint: that is why early US tanks don't get it but later ones do although they have the same tank design.