Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
23 Posts

Squad Leader» Forums » Rules

Subject: Can infantry manned MMG/HMG target an AFV? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Gordon G
United States
Bossier City
Louisiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Can infantry manning a MMG or HMG target/kill an AFV?

I would think yes since there's a MMG/HMG column on the AFV Kill Table.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean McNeely
United States
Hilo
Hawaii
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Yes but it only works on those early war tanks with 1or 2 armor factors. Love the early war scenarios with the tin cans.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
Yes.
Within Squad Leader itself, rules allow for attacks on "soft skinned vehicles" (Trucks, etc). See 51.4.

In COD they introduced immobilization attempts on early, lightly armored AFVs. That's in COD section 119.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gustavo Jornet
Spain
Valencia
Comunidad Valenciana
flag msg tools
The sword is the mind. If the mind is right, the sword is right.
Avatar
mb
Just immobilization? There was no way for a '50 cal to destroy a tank, although difficult?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

Actually, GI introduces AFV destruction in 143.4.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gordon G
United States
Bossier City
Louisiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Been doing a little more studying and I'm a bit confused now with what I've found and the above responses.

Specifically, I'm playing CoI scenario 13, Capture of Balta. Romanian infantry in the open with MMG would like to target a Russian T26 (-2 armor) that is about to overrun them. According to the responses above, I should be able to target the T26 before the overrun occurs.

However, para 36.1 says AFVs can only be attacked by infantry in non-open ground hexes, it needs to be adjacent and is only for immobilization.

So in my particular case, since open ground the inf/MMG can not defensive fire and are automatically overrun?

If MMG Fire is only for immobilization, then what is the MMG/HMG column for on the AFV kill table for?

If they survive the overrun can they attempt to kill the T26 during their Prep Fire phase? Para 36 only provides ways to kill an AFV during the Defensive Fire and Close Combat phases?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

GordoMG wrote:
Been doing a little more studying and I'm a bit confused now with what I've found and the above responses.

Specifically, I'm playing CoI scenario 13, Capture of Balta. Romanian infantry in the open with MMG would like to target a Russian T26 (-2 armor) that is about to overrun them. According to the responses above, I should be able to target the T26 before the overrun occurs.

According to strict adherence to the rules, you would not be able to use an infantry manned MG to attempt any kind of damage to an AFV until COD. Of course, you can choose to include any later rule that you both agree on.
GordoMG wrote:

However, para 36.1 says AFVs can only be attacked by infantry in non-open ground hexes, it needs to be adjacent and is only for immobilization.

Defensive fire vs overruning AFVs must come from an adjacent non-open ground hex, unless the firing infantry has an anti-tank weapon. Technically an MG is not considered an anti-tank weapon (Q&A 36.11 & 105.21 "Both rules state that all infantry without AT weapons adjacent to an AFV which wish to attack it must first pass a Pre-AFV Attack MC. Exactly what constitutes an AT weapon? A. Any AP weapon whose principal use is against armored targets. Although a HMG has AP capabilities, its principal use is against infantry targets.")

edit: Yes, DF (including that from MGs-and the MGs must be adjacent, too) from an adjacent hex can only immobilize an AFV. Anti-tank weapons fired during an overrun attempt, by the units who are the target of the overrun, can destroy the vehicle.

GordoMG wrote:

So in my particular case, since open ground the inf/MMG can not defensive fire and are automatically overrun?

Yep! You toast!
GordoMG wrote:

If MMG Fire is only for immobilization, then what is the MMG/HMG column for on the AFV kill table for?

The MMG,HMG column is there for halftracks.
33.7 Halftracks armed with MGs can fire on AFVs using the MMG, HMG column.
GordoMG wrote:

If they survive the overrun can they attempt to kill the T26 during their Prep Fire phase? Para 36 only provides ways to kill an AFV during the Defensive Fire and Close Combat phases?


Don't know why they didn't extend the halftrack's ability to MGs until later, but if you're using only rules introduced up to that point then no. You have no options with your MGs.
But if you allow the later rule which permits targetting AFVs with MGs, then yes you would be able to attack it in a later phase.

You might even make the argument that since it is possible to destroy an AFV with an MG, you should be able to use it in an overrun DF, and see if your opponent will go along with that.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott B
msg tools
mb
I believe infantry can use a MMG/HMG To Kill and AFV (33.6, Q&A 17 and Q&A 17.3). No To Hit. To Kill roll includes modifiers for Armor and Penetration (65.3). If they wait until the AFV is adjacent, they must pass an PAAMC (Q&A 36.11 & 105.21).

Personally, i would let the squad fire the MG in open ground, look at the QRDC and if the weapon appeared on the AFV TK table, i would consider that a sufficient 'anti-tank' weapon.

MGs may not attempt deliberate IM (66.24), they use the To Kill table instead.

If the AFV has its crew exposed, they may be attacked w/o a PAAMC (Q&A 36.11, COI4-68)

On the early war tanks, a MG bullet could hit a rivet and sent it ricocheting around the tank with almost the same force a the bullet. MGs only really works against the old stuff and Hts. I think its snakes in SL vs a halftrack.

S
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

In light of recent discoveries, I change my vote.

sbramley1967 wrote:
I believe infantry can use a MMG/HMG To Kill and AFV (33.6, Q&A 17 and Q&A 17.3). No To Hit. To Kill roll includes modifiers for Armor and Penetration (65.3). If they wait until the AFV is adjacent, they must pass an PAAMC (Q&A 36.11 & 105.21).


Thanks, Scott. I agree 17 and 17.3 do make that implication.
Are you sure you meant 33.6, though (AFV gun type)?

sbramley1967 wrote:

Personally, i would let the squad fire the MG in open ground, look at the QRDC and if the weapon appeared on the AFV TK table, i would consider that a sufficient 'anti-tank' weapon.

Yes, I would have to agree, given that the others mentioned in the 36.11 Q&A all appear on the Special Weapons section, while the MGs are on the AP chart, though this does suggest a schizophrenia between the Q&A and the other rules on the subject.
It's a shame they didn't get around to declaring these abilities of an MG directly to make this clear.
sbramley1967 wrote:

MGs may not attempt deliberate IM (66.24), they use the To Kill table instead.

Until COD 119.
Interestingly, this section declares that even when using MGs to do so, the infantry must pass a PAAMC.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott B
msg tools
mb
Yeah, probably a bad reference on my part.

The problem is they don't have rules for MGs vs AFVs, also they didn't include rules for a DC vs a AFV so players see it on the QRDC and are left scratching their heads. When they see the rules for an FT vs AFVs, they wonder where the ones for MGs and DCs are.

Only the QRDC clearly shows the designers intended use as anti-tank weapons. GIA even has one rules modification shown only on the card, infantry height advantage.

In SL its impossible to KO anything but a Ht so not too significant in game play. Later GIA includes the missing rules.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jamie Shanks
Canada
Unspecified
Saskatchewan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Coming to all of this a little late... FYI, I'm driving the T-26 in question. After reading the above discussion, I agree this situation isn't adequately covered in the rules (at least at the SL/COI level).

Working out the TK numbers with the COI armour modifiers provides some insight on what infantry with, say, an MMG could reasonably expect to accomplish by using it against an AFV... which is not much. (And I agree that they should at least be able to try it; I think 33.7 -- which says tanks and SP guns can't use their MGs against AFVs but halftracks can use the MMG/HMG column -- implies that the former are armed with LMG equivalents. Additionally, the 36.1 DF procedure for infantry in non-Open Ground that includes the PAAMC for attacking adjacent AFVs is strictly for Immobilization attempts; it makes no mention of fire attacks, so I reckon we could ignore it here. The references to infantry MG use against AFVs in the COI Q&As also bears this out. And I have never used so many acronyms in one paragraph in my entire life.)

So... the T-26s have a 0 modifier for frontal armour and a -1 modifier for side/rear armour. Using an MMG/HMG, you'd need either:

1. An adjacent side shot with a roll a 2 (TK of -1, penetration modifier of -2 for less than 40mm at that range and T-26 side modifier of -1); or

2. A roll of 2 on a rear shot from not more than 2 hexes away (TK of 0, armour -1, penetration mod of -1).

Anything further away or with a higher roll would be futile, and even the above examples are risking MG breakdown as much as anything else.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

sbramley1967 wrote:
Yeah, probably a bad reference on my part.

The problem is they don't have rules for MGs vs AFVs, also they didn't include rules for a DC vs a AFV so players see it on the QRDC and are left scratching their heads. When they see the rules for an FT vs AFVs, they wonder where the ones for MGs and DCs are.

Only the QRDC clearly shows the designers intended use as anti-tank weapons. GIA even has one rules modification shown only on the card, infantry height advantage.

I think the one you're referring to does actually appear before GI, and I'm glad you mentioned it, because I found further reference to MG use.
COI Rulebook wrote:
77.5 The height advantage applies to attacks by AT Guns, bazookas, panzerfaust, medium and heavy MGs within normal range, ATRs, and all other types of armor piercing weapons.


sbramley1967 wrote:

In SL its impossible to KO anything but a Ht so not too significant in game play. Later GIA includes the missing rules.


Yea, it seems like something only a Berserker would engage in. It should be added to their repertoire--only effect being a possible broken weapon.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott B
msg tools
mb
hi Jamie,

and you made good sense with your acronyms.

the zero is for target size, the T-26S has a -2/-3 Frontal/Side,Rear Armor modifier per the Armor Listing

T-26S
Front TK -1 -4 (-2 Armor, -2 Penetration), TK 3

Side,Rear TK 0 -5 (-3 Armor, -2 Penetration) TK 5

Halftrack (for comparison)
Front TK -1 -6 (-4 Armor, -2 Penetration) TK 5
thats enough to keep my Hts back a hex.

No Random or Deliberate IM. PAAMC when adjacent. Normal breakdown rules apply.

In 13, i don't think they can attack on the first turn, right?

S


3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

jshanks wrote:
Coming to all of this a little late... FYI, I'm driving the T-26 in question. After reading the above discussion, I agree this situation isn't adequately covered in the rules (at least at the SL/COI level).

Working out the TK numbers with the COI armour modifiers provides some insight on what infantry with, say, an MMG could reasonably expect to accomplish by using it against an AFV... which is not much. (And I agree that they should at least be able to try it; I think 33.7 -- which says tanks and SP guns can't use their MGs against AFVs but halftracks can use the MMG/HMG column -- implies that the former are armed with LMG equivalents. Additionally, the 36.1 DF procedure for infantry in non-Open Ground that includes the PAAMC for attacking adjacent AFVs is strictly for Immobilization attempts; it makes no mention of fire attacks, so I reckon we could ignore it here. The references to infantry MG use against AFVs in the COI Q&As also bears this out. And I have never used so many acronyms in one paragraph in my entire life.)

So... the T-26s have a 0 modifier for frontal armour and a -1 modifier for side/rear armour. Using an MMG/HMG, you'd need either:

1. An adjacent side shot with a roll a 2 (TK of -1, penetration modifier of -2 for less than 40mm at that range and T-26 side modifier of -1); or

2. A roll of 2 on a rear shot from not more than 2 hexes away (TK of 0, armour -1, penetration mod of -1).

Anything further away or with a higher roll would be futile, and even the above examples are risking MG breakdown as much as anything else.


Actually your armor modifiers are -2 and -3, so you may not want to show your backside to an adjacent MG (-2 and -3 to get a 0!), but your overrun, providing only a front shot, is a pretty safe option. (I calculate it as; -2 at one hex range, -2 armor mod, to get a -2 means a roll of 2 is required).

edit: oops sat on my browser too long, and now I'm just duplicating.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

Hi guys,

I agree with Scott that a PAAMC is required if adjacent.
Although it appears later, I think the 119 rule that I mentioned above supports that;
COD Rule book wrote:

119.1 Any fully manned mg except that of an AFV may attempt to immobilize an enemy AFV in an adjacent or same hex regardless of target facing or fire phase in a manner similar to the Defensive Fire Immobilization Numbers (36.12). Usual requirements for pre-AFV Attack MCs apply.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jamie Shanks
Canada
Unspecified
Saskatchewan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, I have no idea where I got those armour modifiers from. Most embarrassing. I can't even share my sorrows with my wife or I'll be laughed out of the room with a list of chores a mile long.

One of the SSRs for Scenario 13 is that only the two Russian tanks may move or fire in the first Russian player turn (except for German DF vs. the tanks). A stack of Gordon's Romanians started out in the open so I drove clear across board 4 to try an Overrun, and I rolled the "Start a big discussion on the BGG forum" result and Immobilized our entire game...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

jshanks wrote:
Well, I have no idea where I got those armour modifiers from. Most embarrassing. I can't even share my sorrows with my wife or I'll be laughed out of the room with a list of chores a mile long.

WE'll sympathize with you. Call it heat of battle.
jshanks wrote:

One of the SSRs for Scenario 13 is that only the two Russian tanks may move or fire in the first Russian player turn (except for German DF vs. the tanks). A stack of Gordon's Romanians started out in the open so I drove clear across board 4 to try an Overrun, and I rolled the "Start a big discussion on the BGG forum" result and Immobilized our entire game...


Glad you did. These conversations are really good for sorting some of these rules out. Especially ones like this (and the DCs that Scott mentioned) where we have to pull bits of information from various locations to make sense of it.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott B
msg tools
mb
Is a 'Congratulations on your first Cross of Iron scenario' in order for either one of you?

It fills out the armor nicely and its still abstract enough for playability. I hate to say it but in all my playing i've never actually used a Nahverteidgungswaffe but its cool knowing it's there. Enjoy the game.



2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jamie Shanks
Canada
Unspecified
Saskatchewan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is just my third COI scenario -- I've played Block Busting in Bokruisk and Pavlov's House -- and I believe it's Gordon's first (correct me if I'm wrong, Gordon) but I really like it. The apex of the system in my opinion. I'd probably play with US and Commonwealth units at the COI level too, if I could.

Thanks, gents.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
Have to agree.
The SL-COI combination are a near perfect mix of playability and realism that really works well.
One of my favourites from that set was scenario 19; paratroopers, cavalry, snipers...great chaos!
Have fun with that guys!

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gordon G
United States
Bossier City
Louisiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jshanks wrote:
.... and I rolled the "Start a big discussion on the BGG forum" result and Immobilized our entire game...


Now that is funny.

And yes, this is my first CoI scenario.

If I can summarize....

Infantry MMG/HMG fire against an AFV is allowed, irrespective of terrain, but if adjacent requires a PAAMC. No To Hit requirement. Deliberate immobilization is not allowed.

Am I correct?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

Correct.

Neither random nor deliberate immobilization is possible (until COD, when immobilization by MG is introduced).

Hope you can get back to your game.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott B
msg tools
mb
We all missed 47.7, which sets rules for MG fire vs an Hts. While it makes sense to include it there, a reference in the index would have been helpful.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.