"Vehicle Weapon Minimum Ranges?" Topic

Re-reading an Osprey book on WWII anti-tank tactics recently I came across a quote from an officer on the dangers of tanks. He said a tank is most dangerous 200 yards away but least dangerous 6" away.

We all know that vehicles have blind spots (I learned that lesson once when backing out of tight parking space once at a local hardware store…darn!)

And we know that vehicle-mounted weapons can have trouble bearing on nearby targets due to an inability to depress the weapon enough or the hull might obscure the shot.

I'm a fan of simple rules. While one could get all detailed on specific weapon mounts and hull shapes how's this for a simple vehicle weapon rule which abstracts these visibility and aiming problems?

"Vehicle mounted weapons may not engage infantry targets within X".

Obviously this would apply to tactical rules rather than games in which one stand is one platoon. The minimum range would be based on ground scale and what "looks right" for the figure scale.

Again, this abstracts more than just getting a gun barrel on target. It's also about situational awareness and the crew's ability to spot AND rapidly respond to agile infantry targets nearby.

It is a gross simplification but at least it sort of represents a key challenge vehicle crews face instead of letting them automatically swing that 120mm gun around to shoot a nearby crunchie.

One might also make this a special rule applying only to main guns or certain mounts but I sort of like the idea of simply applying it to all vehicle weapons: keeps things easy to remember and provides at least some help to vulnerable dismounts.

Has this been done in other rules? Good idea or bad?

Not in WWII or Modern but I have such rules in my Hoth and other Star Wars scenario games using my own rules.

A prime example is a weapons system that has an arming distance. 40mm Grenade launchers (M-79 and M203) do not arm before I think 18 meters, similar with RPGs and Laws. I have been on the delivery end of an M203 that did not detonate on an ambush in El Salvador back in the day.

I seem to remember that the Grenade launchers on Hummvee having a limiting block that prevented it from being depressed within burst radios range.

More research needs to be done on arming distances of various rounds in weapons systems and those limitations should be reflected in the rules accordingly.

VR
James Mattes

I have used a simple rule of thumb- targets within one vehicle hull length are in the blind zone or targets within 2 lengths of the main gun are below the max depression of such weapon….you can stretch or shrink the multiples of hull length accordingly….treble for rearwards or double for side arcs etc….easy to remember and keeps the armour away from the dug-in foe- unless they are fans of Soviet trench crushing techniques……

Many rules systems differentiate between direct fire combat and assault combat. It seems to me that once you get within spitting distance you are involved in assault combat. Of course it depends on the scale of the game and how detailed you want to get.

What Scott said.

Many rules systems differentiate between direct fire combat and assault combat. It seems to me that once you get within spitting distance you are involved in assault combat. Of course it depends on the scale of the game and how detailed you want to get.

This would be for a very tactical, near-future/sci-fi game that we play. Figures are 15mm, each stand represents a team of 2-4 soldiers and each vehicle model is one vehicle. We use a platoon per side (ie about 9-12 infantry stands and 3-4 vehicle models per side).

We have close assault rules to represent guys in actual contact with a vehicle. So this would give the infantry a bit of safety on "final approach".

We use the small FoW bases for all teams with 2-3 figures per base. So at this scale maybe 4-6" might work?

This came up in the "firing HE from AFV" thread earlier. The rule of thumb that was suggested for blind spots was:

Vehicle width in front, vehicle length to flank or rear.

Basically, the driver (and radio operator if present) in the front of the hull gives the tank better visibility to the front, while you're relying on the turret-residing eyes for the sides and rear.

Obviously, you can be even more strict if you can turn the turret on the model.

Not sure how it would be in a near future game (depending on what kind of tech you go with), but in a WW2 game I could see this making a lot of sense.

It reminds me of the scene from Saving Private Ryan where the one squad is climbing all over a tank without any problems. Actually found a Youtube clip of it here (obviously graphically violent): YouTube link

The problem with limiting one aspect of combat is you kind of need to support the alternatives. In this case I mean can a pilot/driver pop open a turret and shoot at people on their vehicle? What happens if they get up to speed, can they throw targets off? Can the vehicle be adequately supported by infantry in a realistic way?

This Quar's War has a pretty simple rule: The vehicle can't do ANYTHING to the assaulting infantry, but the infantry have to get past the HMG or autoshottie

don't ya just love, in 40k, how the tanks and that big, imperial guard sp gun(i don't know the name, i don't play the game) can fire at men right in front of them? the basiclly have no minimum range…

vojvoda, after a firefight while i was in afganistan, we bought in a wounded guy from spain(yes, spain). he had an unexploded m203 round in his gut, 3 rounds from i'm guessing, a saw, and a single shot from one of our rifles.
we would have normaly gave him the emperors mercy, as we used to say(funny enough, a fair few soldiers know 40k terms), but whenever we came across a foreign insurgent, we had to keep him for "a talking to".
they say he made it, tho.

What about muzzle blast? Every game I've ever played in, I was told "you cant place an infantry stand in front of a firing main gun", or "you cant shoot through a friendly infantry stand", etc…
If it could hurt my own men, why cant it hurt the enemy?

@John L.: Whoa. I feel sorry for whoever had to pull the 40mm round out of the guy, that's got to be tense 6 ways to Sunday. If the guy lived, hopefully he would have learned a little.

@john lacour,
Makes me wonder how many blokes have shouted "For the Emperor!" or "Waaaaaaghh!" in the middle of a firefight.