"Dealing with Turret Down Positions in War Games" Topic

Sounds a bit too much war and too little game for most people I would think.

Jaz
Http://6sided.net

Strangely enough FOW sort of covers that for Recce
When moving in concealing terrain (such as to acheive an observation position) the Recce unit counts as gone to ground – making it even harder to hit than when merely concealed
This is supposed to represent the superior abilities for Recce troops to move into postion unobtrusively.

Panzer War has turret down rules. We note that the TC doesn't have to stay in the tank but could stand atop it to be turret down.

9.18.0. Turret Down – Positions such as ravines, trenches, crests, and specially constructed defense positions that provide concealment and protection to the entire vehicle can be turret down positions. This is a position such that the entire vehicle is out of view but a person in or atop the vehicle can still see the nearby terrain. Here the vehicle commander may view potential targets and immediately enter the vehicle which would shift out of its hidden position to a position where it could fire.
9.18.1. A vehicle moving from a turret down position to a hull down position does not have to roll a D6 for a hull down factor number provided the vehicle was in the turret down at least one full turn.
9.18.2. A vehicle approaching a position that it wants to go turret down at must halt before it moves to the turret down position. It then must take one turn and 'shift' move to a turret down position.
9.18.3. Once in a turret down position a vehicle may go from turret down to hull down and hull down back to turret down with just a shift move turn after turn. A stationary unbuttoned AFV may be declared ‘turret down' and can see over a crest of a hill by placing a figure on top of the tank and spotting from the head of the figure.

Tim, such turret down positions were certainly used in WWII, with references to the tactic in the desert.

As TT mentioned FOWs mechanisms do factor it in, albeit in a fairly abstract fashion.

Where one vehicle = one vehicle it is important, I believe, to be able to replicate how an individual vehicle is positioned. Because of terrain constraints when playing or umpiring Panzermarsch, KGN or BGK I ensure that players explain their "position" as Hull down or commander popped out to look over the ridge/building corner etc. A hull down tank is very hard to hit.

Tally Ho!

Challenger had it, with the commander rated similar to an individual missile post to spot. IIRC, you could go from turret down to hull down and back causing a slight spotting and movement penalty, to the friendly tank and large ones for the enemy units. Most ridgelines and suitable hull down positions used to be TRP'd, as a result, nothing like a preliminary strike by a DAG's BM-27 assets to deter skulking tanks!

As for WWII, watching the BBC 'Tankies', with Mark Urban (ex RTR) on YouTube where he had a remarkable diary extract. A Firefly's crew commander, sat on the turret, giving aiming directions, so that his gunner could fire through a hedge at a Tiger he'd spotted! Didn't hit it, but the rattled crew retreated, as he said we met the dreaded Tiger today and 'twisted it's tail'.

I've never seen a rules system that addresses such specifically. But then, I see it as tactics. Not a rules issue, as such. Unless one thinks of it as being part of line of sight/ line of fire rules.
As I use periscopes in my games to identify targets, this kind of thing is covered by the fact that, as a tank in turret defilade is not seen, then it cannot be a legitimate target.
Hope this is helpful. I'm interested in seeing your rules when you feel they're ready.

Fire & Fury's Battlefront WW2 has a mechanism on those lines. The premise is that experienced crews would make use of folds in the ground when advancing tactically. Basically an action is expended to try and take up a hull down position with success dependent on a roll on a simple table. Modifiers apply for terrain (eg +1 for rough, rocky or sloping terrain), discipline rating (quality) and size (smaller easier to conceal than large).

It works very well and I've imported it into IABSM (sacrifice one D6 to try and find a hull down position)for my North Africa desert games. I use custom made markers (balsa with textured surface to give height) which are placed in front of the tank to mark a successful attempt. Works for me although one of the group likes to refer to them as "hedgehog poo". Sadly I must admit there is bit of a likeness and maybe version 2 is needed soon.

No reason why this couldn't be adapted for turret down.

Battlegroup Modern Rules allows for turret down observation and movement to a hull down position to shoot. The Cold War version of I Ain't Been Shot Mum allows for it in playtesting.

I use 'Turret Down' in Battlefront: WW2:

Same process as rolling for Hull Down position, except that on a successful roll, the vehicle is Turret Down rather than Hull Down (obviously!).

The Turret Down vehicle may observe but not fire (except AA).

The Turret Down vehicle may be spotted as Troops.

If Spotted or Suspected, the Turret Down vehicle may be fired at as a Hull Down vehicle, but may only be Suppressed or Disordered and not KO'd.

However, it may be engaged by Air or Indirect Fire as normal.

In my Modern variant, some ATGM vehicles may fire from Turret Down positions (e.g. Swingfire).

M10's, m18's and M36's could go turret down in tractics. only hits on the mantlet were 'hits'

LOS rules handle this in IABSM.

I can't imagine anyone but a rules lawyer bring it up in any set of rules, though.

Is this the same as "hull down?" If so, Battlefront WWII has that.

Top pictures are turret down, bottom hull down.

link

I would guess that from the gamers perspective it doesn't add a whole lot. The purpose of turret down would be to spot, but not engage. At the games table we, as the 500 ft tall general, already see everything our tank can. In essence the only time we need to worry about the LOS from the tank is when it shoots. At this point it would be hull down.

Now, if you are playing a detailed skirmish game or even a game where a unit has to make some form of spotting check before engaging a target, or if your rules allow alternate stands to call fire, then the turret down position makes sense to be modeled on the table.

It's all in the level of detail you want. If you are running a couple platoons this has a place. If you are running a Battalion, not so much. Since that's the level a lot of rules end up playing at, it makes sense we don't see it too often.

If you were playing a NATO tank company, versus the un-godly hordes of Soviet armour it made all the difference. Acquisition of your firing position was made more difficult and you could reduce the effectiveness of the salvoes of ATGM's and platoon fired APFSDS.

Those extra turns of survival often were crucial, as you could start to really hurt the advance companies. Hence when playing the Soviets the Red God of War was kept busy shelling/smoking all possible hull down positions and the Mi-24 stands rushed ahead to try to get eyes on the sneaky tanks. A nightmare if you were playing the British who only had the hopeless Blowpipe and AA MG's to fend them off.

If I were playing a bigger scale game, it should be a tactic available, with advantages and disadvantages. Rather like TOAW's reduce, limit and ignore casualties stance taken by the attacker/defender.

Phoenix Command Mechanized makes use of the Hull Down and Turret Down distinctions, and has tables which use a die roll to determine a crew's ability to find the appropriate TD or HD positions in a hex.

Swingfires and Sagger armed BMP-1s can detach a controller to some distance so the weapons can be turret down and still fire.

A picture tells a thousand words:

Very true Mobius. FV-438 (FV-432 with Swingfire) also had an extendable periscope to enable firing from a turret-down position.

Of course nowadays lots of recce vehicles have mast-mounted sights and sensors, which does tend to indicate how important it is for a recce vehicle to be able to observe without being seen.

Phoenix Command Mechanized makes use of the Hull Down and Turret Down distinctions, and has tables which use a die roll to determine a crew's ability to find the appropriate TD or HD positions in a hex.

What didn't Phoenix Command cover?

I'd have to say hull/turret down really depends on how the rules treat terrain and spotting. In Flames, it's assumed that the troops will find the best concealing terrain they can (limited by training level).

If you have some kind of spotting rules, then turret-down could be a modifier to you getting spotted.

Swingfire also had launcher separation. Nice to be 25m away from where the return fire would be aimed.

I have not seen any rules that do what I would consider a good job on the questions of turret-down, hull-down and how to jockey properly, but such things are really for the "tank skirmish" level. An, as has been pointed out, most rules aren't terribly hot on observation.

All the best,

John.

How hard is it to find Hull/Turret down positions? Should it be automatic in certain situations or need some kind of DR/test? I imagine veteren/well trained troops could find such positions much more reliably than green/untrained units.

I also remember many rules saying Soviet close topped tanks can't/couldn't do this so easily because the MA lacks sufficient depression.

We have turret down in our rules (we use the same pictures reproduced from the manual). I our rules you do not see everything instantly. Therfore turret down lets you see effectively without being spotted and then allows a simple move to hull down to fire.

Here is our free bit on tank vs tank and how we model that (some of the same US manual pictures)in MG. It iuncludes Hide, turret and Hull down. It Free and is less hasstle than re writing it here.

I was looking at Firefly Outgunned on the free wargames rules site and it has hull down/turret down rules IIRC. Not sure how well these play though.

How hard is it to find Hull/Turret down positions? Should it be automatic in certain situations or need some kind of DR/test? I imagine veteren/well trained troops could find such positions much more reliably than green/untrained units.

As I posted the Panzer War rules, One turn must pass between getting to a potential turret down position and being in that position. One turn is 75 seconds so it allows the tank some time to creep into position.

I also remember many rules saying Soviet close topped tanks can't/couldn't do this so easily because the MA lacks sufficient depression.

This affects tanks when they go hulldown, not with turret down. In our rules hulldown causes a dead zone to a lower elevation from the hill crest. The better the gun depression the shorter the dead zone. So it's not a absolute benefit, but dependent on terrain. In a tank dugout or some ground depression where the tank gun doesn't have to depress to fire there would be no deadzone.

R Mark Davies,
I like the pictures I'v got the Fennek in 1/72 Revel (not very good) and in 1/144 which is spot on. We have Hull down, turret down and mast only in our rules. The latter is for the Fennek and similar recce vehicals. The great thing about a mast is you can spot from the middle of a field over a rise and if they shell the ridge you are safe (ish).

Swingfire also had launcher separation. Nice to be 25m away from where the return fire would be aimed.

Especially as the Swingfire had a nasty habit of returning fire all on it's own, according to some gunners I trained with :)

OOPS the link for the Tank vs Tank bit got lost:-

link

It is free and has genral stuff on tank vs tank and then how we implement in MG.