-
Let's not forget the other employments of the BT-7:
namely at Nomonhan (Khalkhin Gol) in Mongolia in 1939 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol), and the Manchurian campaign (not the candidate) of 1945. In this last campaign, the soviets used the speed of the BT-7 (4 years after the beginning of Barbarossa, you guys can imagine the imagination needed!) to cross a desert and attack the Japanese forces where they least expected.
In Mongolia, Zhukov practiced a double-envelopment of the pinned Japanese forces and significantly defeated them. About 500 BT-5 and BT-7 tanks where used in this case. (http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/resources/csi/drea2/dr...). I can hardly imagine lumbering T-26s doing that.
During exercises in the late 30s, I remember that foreign observers where in complete awe of the mobility of the BT series. It influenced the British with their late cruiser designs too. One thing of notice, the BT was going so fast that it tended to bend its chassis and running gear if pushed too hard.
-
Marcin Woźniak
Poland
Bydgoszcz
-
exactly. Pavlos. Thanks for the input. Had Germans those instead of their puny Pz35(t), 38(t) and PzIs (in numbers one to one) they would fare much better in Barbarossa.
Most of Soviet tank early Barbarossa losses were due to running away and lack of supplies for that.
-
Jesse LeBreton
United States
Kingsford
Michigan
-
I would support the BT-7 getting 3 speed along with a slight drop in DR if for no other reason than to give players one extra combat vehicle of speed 3 to play with.
Speaking of comparing the siloete of halftracks and armored cars to these light tanks, I did take that into account when I suggested 14/12 DR for the BT-7. I still do not think you could justify 13/12 for the BT-7 without causing a ripple effect on all other DR's. Take for instance this one. The BA-10 looks like a rather tall siloete to me and look at it's very high DR compared to other lightly armored vehicles. A 15 frontal DR? Common. It has a trucks front end for pete's sake. 14DR is as high as that one should be. The BA-6 has a 13DR frontal and it has a trucks front end too. Frontal profile should be nearly the same between these two, yet the BA-10 is 2 points tougher there. That's to great of a spread imo. If the BT-7 frontal gets dropped to 14DR, then surely the BA-10 would have to drop to 14DR as well. In no way should a converted trucks front end be any tougher than any tanks.
-
-
Lebatron wrote: I would support the BT-7 getting 3 speed along with a slight drop in DR if for no other reason than to give players one extra combat vehicle of speed 3 to play with.
Speaking of comparing the siloete of halftracks and armored cars to these light tanks, I did take that into account when I suggested 14/12 DR for the BT-7. I still do not think you could justify 13/12 for the BT-7 without causing a ripple effect on all other DR's. Take for instance this one. The BA-10 looks like a rather tall siloete to me and look at it's very high DR compared to other lightly armored vehicles. A 15 frontal DR? Common. It has a trucks front end for pete's sake. 14DR is as high as that one should be. The BA-6 has a 13DR frontal and it has a trucks front end too. Frontal profile should be nearly the same between these two, yet the BA-10 is 2 points tougher there. That's to great of a spread imo. If the BT-7 frontal gets dropped to 14DR, then surely the BA-10 would have to drop to 14DR as well. In no way should a converted trucks front end be any tougher than any tanks.
These values have been corrected already in the new sheet. When needed, the exact mark of the vehicle has been added, so as to illustrate what state the armor of the tank is in. You will probably know that armies added armor at will on their vehicles -it's hard to track the "late PzIVC" or the "early PzIIIG" etc... All values have been double-checked and slightly adjusted when needed. No biggies but complete coherence and historicity (ahem, I hope).
-
Marcin Woźniak
Poland
Bydgoszcz
-
Maybe, if I was not clear with this, I admire Your hard work with counters, Pavlos. This is a tough task, and probably there was no better person than You to do that.
Those babies are beautiful!
I saw them before PoH release and back then just did not think about statistics. Too beautiful.
Right now, after several PoH games, I could live with frontal 14 of BT series, as long as BT7has 2 dots.
And as long as 1 CAP in addition (or no cost at all) is enough to fire during vehicle or cavalry bonus movement - so ambusher after revealing can react to 'attacker', preferably against flank - depending on within-move-facing. (vide Uwe's statement about vigilant gunner card proposition)
-
Marcin Woźniak
Poland
Bydgoszcz
-
PavlosG wrote: Let's not forget the other employments of the BT-7:
During exercises in the late 30s, I remember that foreign observers where in complete awe of the mobility of the BT series. It influenced the British with their late cruiser designs too. One thing of notice, the BT was going so fast that it tended to bend its chassis and running gear if pushed too hard.
Same was about quality of outstanding and agile fighters and dive bombers that Soviets produced prewar in unimaginable quantities. And abandoned most on airfields during grand escape. of late Spring 1941
Germans erred burning them.
-
Jesse LeBreton
United States
Kingsford
Michigan
-
MarcinW wrote: And as long as 1 CAP in addition (or no cost at all) is enough to fire during vehicle or cavalry bonus movement
The way you worded this convinces me that most players conceptualize bonus movement as the extra moves right after the first move. Not extra moves tacked onto at the end. Which is why I think everyone would not have an issue with the wording of the card as I proposed it. That this special shot can take place during bonus movement. I think that is the most clear way to say it. Uwe does not conceptualize bonus movement they way I do, and it seems most everyone else. Heck even Dean and Pavlos didn't see a problem with it being worded that the shot takes place during bonus movement. I think going with any other wording is just going to create more confusion. I had asked in the Vigilant Gunner thread whether or not conceptualizing bonus moves my way vs Uwe's way made any difference in actual play. So I'll ask again, does it? Any game examples where it actually turns out any different? If it does not, then perhaps just rewording bonus moves in the rulebook to reflect the way most actually perceive it is the best move, then the card can keep the simplest way of wording it. Which is to say the shot can take place during bonus movement. Anything else just begs for confusion imo.
-
Marcin Woźniak
Poland
Bydgoszcz
-
I hope I understood you correctly.
The way it is now in the rules, tank can move (1st hex of movement) and get within 2 hexes distance to AT gun. Afterwards it is revealed and placed with SOME facing.
Tank or car with 2 bonus movement can than move 2 more hexes before gun reacts. (after the end of opponents action). Sometimes that means exactly bypassing the gun, moving out of its arc of fire. Which is dreadful, keeping in mind how fast were these guns, especially light AT's.
In such understanding of the rules, AT's are next to helpless, and hey gain more chances being able to react to any monus movement enemy takes.
Also problematic for me is timing: tank moves, reveals hidden which is placed AND reveals its own facing or revealed unit FACES after tank?
This may be crucial, and some of my boldest moves both as defender and attacker were abusing these little gamey tricks here.
-
Jesse LeBreton
United States
Kingsford
Michigan
-
MarcinW wrote:
Also problematic for me is timing: tank moves, reveals hidden which is placed AND reveals its own facing or revealed unit FACES after tank?
We are actually talking about two different things. I was simply discussing the concept of perception of when bonus moves take place. Most I believe see them as middle moves and I think doing so has no effect on gameplay whatsoever. What you want to discuss is bonus moves in relation to revealing AT's. Well to answer your question I force the player to choose his AT's facing right away at the time of reveal hidden, then I finish the vehicles movement. Yes it does have an effect on outcome as you observed. Because if the AT gun can wait until after the vehicle finishes its move the AT gun can always choose to face it no matter which way the vehicle moved. I believe the way I play it is official. Now the card I proposed allows a shot right away so facing during or after vehicles move is a moot point.
-
Marcin Woźniak
Poland
Bydgoszcz
-
The card you proposed is really good, as it makes tank reconnaissance more costly (potentially). After each of subsequent hexes tank moves it should now have some facing. And only after that the gun becomes revealed.
If this card is not in the deck, one should always remind to 'tank moving player' about facing - and if one does so only in hot area (i.e. area that contains some hidden units), that might make attacker more careful.
My question according to that, because as for sure can be seen, English's not my native language, is: Do offical rules state that after moving into new hex (even before movement is completed) :
1) The one who moved shows its facing
2) Opponent has to reveal a unit and show where it faces
...or is it opposite (first2 then1)
-
Jesse LeBreton
United States
Kingsford
Michigan
-
It's 1 then 2 as you first guessed. I also take it as a given that the player who moves his vehicle always makes clear what the facing is in each hex moved into during the entire movement.
-
Marcin Woźniak
Poland
Bydgoszcz
-
Thank you very much, Jesse, for your patience with non-native speaker.
And the card (as an action card) is going to be a very important improvement, making AT guns and tanks on the defensive much more valuable.
As for now, I will be playing as if all my "move to hexes" "defuse land mine" and "lay land mine" cards were vigilant gunners.
-
Jesse LeBreton
United States
Kingsford
Michigan
-
MarcinW wrote: As for now, I will be playing as if all my "move to hexes" "defuse land mine" and "lay land mine" cards were vigilant gunners.
That's a good idea to substitute high number cards that are normally out of play and pretend they are the new card. Clearly you can't wait to begin using it
-
Marcin Woźniak
Poland
Bydgoszcz
-
True. That was a great idea, Jesse, and thank You for that.
-
|
|
