"ATGM's" Topic

Ok with all of the buzz about Team Yankee and all things Cold War, here are a few things that should be of thought about.

Back Blast Area?
Personal and Soft Skin Vehicles should be for warned.
It can kill you.
You have a Kill Zone and a Danger Zone.
Extreme Heat any lose items in the are thrown around.

Wire Guided Missiles being fired over Body's of Water?
When I went threw my Dragon and TOW Gunners Training courses we were instructed that you could not fire over body's of water (Lakes, River's). I cant remember what the cut off was as far as the width of the water course but I'm thinking anything over 100 meters in width do to the wire would ground out.

Wire Guided Missiles being fired over Electrical Lines?
Pretty much the same as over a Body's of Water.
I remember that going from North to South along the front of my old B.P. (Battle Potion) there were Major Power Lines. And even thought we had been assured of the Germans that these would be shut down in time of war, we may have to fine alternative fields of fire or use our demo charges to knock down the towers.
Vehicles with ATGM's abele to move and fire.
We were forbid to move our M-901's with the Hammer Head up unless in were an emergency.
This was do to the only thing keeping it in a erect potion was two pins that locked in when the Hammer Head was up. I think in the manual it stated you could move at a maximum of 5 mph with the Hammer Head up.
We did creeping drills on flat level ground to train for this situation.

Suppressing an ATGM Gunner?
This was common training if you detected an enemy ATGM launch to Suppress to area were it was launch from with Machine Gun and main gun fire to ether Kill or Suppress the Gunner.

On the M901 if you chose to dismount the TOW system then the vehicle TOW system was not able to be used.
We would normally in the defense set up three dismounted TOW firing potions away from the M901.
You would fire from the one farthest from the M901, then move and fire from the next one and so on till you were back on the vehicle and you got the hell out of there.

Just some things to think about. Granted this is just for the U.S. I'm sure the U. K. West Germans and the other NATO country's as well as the WARSAW PACK had there little problems with there ATGM's

Thank you for sharing this 11 ACR, I really appreciate your contributions of first hand experience.

I remember reading the Israili's figured out ATGM suppression in 1973 using thexact procedure you describe. If a Sagger launch was sighted, saturate the suspected launch area with MG fire, causing the operator to flinch is enough to make them miss.

I had never thought about wire guided missiles over bodies of water. All of these considerations would play in to a game the size of Team Yankee.

On Telic we had to do a survey of power lines for the Striker chaps, for the reason stated above,

Tally Ho!

You can also not fire an ATGM through trees or brush, the wire tangles and gets severed.

The Israeli's also found that early ATGMs (Sagger) could be fooled with a sudden last second swerve maneuver. Remember Sagger was not an optically tracked missile it was command controlled through a joy stick.

There should also be the possibility of dodging the missile, moving behind intervening terrain. This is all difficult to wargame. The only modern wargame I know that had the full gambit of ATGM defenses and fire limitations was Combat Commander by Enola Games, updated by Battlefield Commander. This was a very complicated rule set. Played a lot of this in the 80's.

The power lines I speak of were like these.

But I'm sure your standard rural lines would have the same problem.

"The Israeli's also found that early ATGMs (Sagger) could be fooled with a sudden last second swerve maneuver. Remember Sagger was not an optically tracked missile it was command controlled through a joy stick."

Yes, we called this a "Sagger Drill"
link
link

There should also be the possibility of dodging the missile, moving behind intervening terrain. This is all difficult to wargame. The only modern wargame I know that had the full gambit of ATGM defenses and fire limitations was Combat Commander by Enola Games, updated by Battlefield Commander. This was a very complicated rule set. Played a lot of this in the 80's.

Sabresquadron has the target make a 'dodge' roll, with modifiers for things such as aspect of attack and range.

Also "You can also not fire an ATGM through trees or brush, the wire tangles and gets severed."

Our three M901's in my Scout Plt. each carried a Chain Saw just so the could cut the tops out of trees.
Almost like a firing port in a fort.

But I would have to say on average you can only fire from the edge of the woods/forest and the target would be the same. No more the 50 meters in.

We never had any problems with brush. The wire pretty much stays tight as its coming out of the missile but it dose start to lay down on the ground with in a few seconds of launch.

was battlefield commander a miniatures game?

Battlefield Commander was an update supplement to Combat Commander. But, yes it was a miniatures game, designed for 1/285th or 1/300th scale. 1" equaled 50 meters, 1 turn was 90 seconds. Good game, you can still find it, but its long out of print.

Back in the day most people preferred Challenger due to it being easier to play. Now days most people would say Challenger is too complicated.

This game handled ATGMs very, very well (but complicated).

One issue with gaming ATGMs is ammo. In Germany a M113 carried 3 or 4 rounds for the Dragon. IIRC we could fit about 12 TOW rounds in an M901 ITV. Seems like the M2 Bradley only carried 4 rounds. Not sure about the M3 version, I'm sure it would have double if not more. The BMP-1 only carried 2 reloads for the Sagger.

I play 1/600 scale modern now. I use my own home rules that use a hex based system. Platoons or sections mounted on the hex bases with magnets. Each hex is approx 167meters, 3 hexes equal 500 meters, and a turn is 1min.

Firing missiles was an issue on the very early ATGMs, but was apparently resolved on later models.

I wouldn't worry about firing across creeks and narrow rivers, but a wide one could be an issue with the earlier model ATGMs.

I saw a chart on Google Images, regarding the TOW, and how far across a body of water you could fire, given different elevations above it. The missile range is longer, the higher it is off the water.

As mentioned, backblast is also a concern for them, and RPGs/LAWs/MAWs too. I've seen some 90 degree, rear zone templates, with death, and/or casualty templates of 20m – 30m to the rear, and out to 50m – 100m, respectively.

Yes, before firing an M72, M47 Dragon or TOW you had to check for a clear back blast area. And in most situations could not fire from inside a structure.

The same could be generally said about Recoilless Rifles(RR). The CEs attached to my Mech Co. in '87 were still using the 90mm RR. For AT work. While the Infantry were using M47s. And we were not trained to use RR at all. I was surprised to find that the CEs were still using RRs, during that time frame. And we all were 18th ABN XXX units.

And as has been noted here, wire guided weapons like the M47 and TOW, terrain is very much a consideration. That wire could get snagged on a number of things occurring in nature. Or man made.

I was talking to a former UH1 Pilot when TOWs were first being experimented with in SE Asia. The wire could get snagged and most likely broken, firing over tree tops. So that always had to be taken into consideration among other things.

So…how would one address these issues?

Let's say a TOW on a hill fires at a target on a nearby hill and in between are an area of brush, a wooded area and a river along which some power lines run.

Would you have the player make a roll for each terrain feature over which the TOW missile flies? That means the target essentially gets a virtual save roll for each feature crossed.

Does the target get a special bonus evasion roll to dodge the missile? Does the roll vary with range to represent time available to react?

FoW lacks op fire. But would one introduce a form of op fire allowing targets to shoot at TOW gunners to disrupt their aim? How does that square with not allowing op fire in other situations where even more time is available for targets to react?

If you do any of those things then, given the game's level of detail, you will quickly reduce the usefulness of TOW missiles to nill in the context of the game.

And one opens a can of worms if trying apply special rules to ATGMs such as suppressing gunners that would logically apply to other situations.

I think BF got it right: keep it simple and focus on weapon battlefield role at an appropriate level of game detail.

Here's how I'd do it:

"Let's say a TOW on a hill fires at a target on a nearby hill and in between are an area of brush, a wooded area and a river along which some power lines run".

If the distance is less than 2X the depth of the ravine, and/or canyon, then ignore the river (also applies to the power lines).

Perhaps a 1D6 mod. of 1 point worse to hit, if the missile passes over a brush, or wooded area at a lower level than the missile is fired from, or the target is located at.

"Would you have the player make a roll for each terrain feature over which the TOW missile flies? That means the target essentially gets a virtual save roll for each feature crossed".

Yes, a 1 point mod. worse, on 1D6, per item crossed.

"Does the target get a special bonus evasion roll to dodge the missile? Does the roll vary with range to represent time available to react?".

Only if the firer is in the front arc of the vehicle targeted, is spotted, and the range is more than 750m – 1,000m. At shorter ranges, it's probably too late to react, and unlikely for the target to see an attack from a side arc. Give the target a 1 or 2 in 6 chance of spotting the firing weapon.

"FoW lacks op fire. But would one introduce a form of op fire allowing targets to shoot at TOW gunners to disrupt their aim? How does that square with not allowing op fire in other situations where even more time is available for targets to react?".

I guess we'll need to see how, and if they handle it. If not, I think the players should be given the options above, to attempt to suppress the firer, and/or swerve out of the way. Popping smoke should be a viable strategy too, as well.

If you only permit a 1, or 2 in 6 chance of seeing the missile in the first place, in order to have a chance to react, it really shouldn't be that bad.

"And one opens a can of worms if trying apply special rules to ATGMs such as suppressing gunners that would logically apply to other situations".

It may not be that difficult, but generally, I like Op Fire, so hope there are rules for it.

Of course, the BF people could just as easily claim that the above are already included in the stats to hit, so you don't need to come up with any house rules for the above.

Powerlines! Absolutely – vividly remember the scathing debrief I got at the School of Infantry after siting my MILANs with fields of fire crossing powerlines. I knew they had a range of 1950 metres, but neglected to check on the map out that far out for invisible powerlines!

Great kit though with superb optics – they'd be no disgrace today…

Surely they can easily fly underneath those really tall ones, right?

Lots to think about, however given that the on table range of an AT-6 is 20" from the helo cards are we likely to ever see it hit terrain. 5km range missile having a game range of just over twice the size of the launching model is pretty silly.

So…how would one address these issues?

Let's say a TOW on a hill fires at a target on a nearby hill and in between are an area of brush, a wooded area and a river along which some power lines run.

Easy
1 Don't fire anything
2 Get on the radio…." Hello Shell Drake, this is ( Insert name or number here )…. Fire mission over"

Artillery. The art of being in a battle without actually being there

There was another thread about terrain in West Germany. We had a defense plan (that probably wouldn't have lasted after first contact) based on a mobile defense concept.

In the area around the Hof Gap, you had rolling hills with wide valleys. The Germans kept most of the hills in forest, and the ope low land was cultivated. This allowed for long kill zones in the defense. These open low areas were referred to as "bowling alleys". WP Battle Drill was not going to allow for finese and crawl through covered close terrain. 99% they were going to come up through these bowling alleys enmasse. TOW would have been deployed to shoot down these alleys and most probably get in the first licks. I was teamed during an ARTEP at Hoenfels with one of the last companies of M60A2s and they would have used the Shileleigh in the same fashion.

So point is you normally would not be defending a hill top, but would be in the woodline where ever that maybe, and your killing zones were fairly open.

For artillery, since HE quick is almost useless against armored vehicles, send FASCAM, ICM, ADAM, and the FIST team can call in Copperhead. All of these are firepower multipliers. Not to mention on our initial GDP position, we were supposed to have an anti tank ditch, and manually placed minefields using the old M25 AT and M16A1 bouncing betty. Then closer in M18A1 Claymores to stop close assaulting infantry.

So if we start modeling power lines then what about downed lines? If intact lines are an impediment to wire guided ATGMs then surely downed lines are an impediment to troops trying to traverse them as we saw in Iraq.

I use telephone poles on my model battlefields since they're a staple of modern life. But I just can't see implementing rules for them "intact vs ATGMs" and then ignoring them when infantry try to cross downed lines.

One additional weapon that produced a backblast was the M202 Flash. It was a quad barrel, reloadable, shoulder fired weapon similar to 4 LAWs strapped together that fired incendiary rockets. Our platoon was assigned one of these weapons.

Over watch is a key element of Cold War tactics. If TY has no OP Fire like FoW (and already see lots of problems with weapon ranges and organizations), it might be a fun game, but it's not going to feel Cold War. WWII plays well in 15mm, but not sure how well CW will work in that large of scale. I've already retreated to 1/600. Given a 2" hex grid that gives me a 6km battlefield length on a 6' map.

To lincolnlog's point and the topic/comments in this thread a very interesting question is emerging:will Cold War vets who were willing to accept FoW's most salient departures from real world tactics such as lack of op fire be willing to accept such departures from "simulation" when their personal training and knowledge conflicts with TY's depiction?

In other words, Cold Vets who guarded the Fulda Gap knew that overwatch/op fire was key to their potential success. And, as discussed here, they have intimate knowledge of those weapons and gear. For tournament play purposes and simplicity FoW/TY ignores overwatch (something I dislike) and abstracts gear quite a bit (something I heartily agree with). If they accepted this for WWII play will they accept it for Cold War?

Sheldrake remember MAPCO?!!!

The way I read it was that if you have 2 tanks in cover, providing cover for a 3rd tank advancing/withdrawing if said tank is hit by multiple hits then any left over it does not are distributed between the two, probably hull down in cover tanks. The same for a troop of tanks providing cover for a couple of troops etc. if it is a 1:1 game it makes attempts to use tactics slightly pointless.

Anyway we shall see how it pans out and if some systems are good
whether it can be sorted with a hoose rule.

Back to the ATGW topic since writing this piece I came across a company in the US that makes 6mm Pylons!!

Tally Ho, Acorn!!

Due to technology improvements over WWII, a CW game just won't feel CW if it's too simple. For instance in WWII armor was armor, the only factors were slope and thickness. Armor is now standard, composite, chobham, spaced, reactive. All these armor types have affects on weapons. Weapons have developed too, HEAT, the Brits used HESH (we did too on our 152mm gun), ATGMs, APDS, APFSDS, Depleted Uranium, laser range finders, improved digital fire control, stabilization, 155mm Copperhead, ICM, ADAM, FASCAM, non-persistent chemical agents, tactical nuclear weapons, you can go on and on. Personally I would never incorporate Nukes in a table top. But, gas should be an option, with most probable being blood or blister agents.

Just my opinion, but a wargame doesn't have to be complicated to give to flavor of a historic period. But you do need to determine what is unique about that historic period to provide the correct flavor.

Re weapon vs armor issue I suppose one could simplify that into CE and KE values for both. Some scifi games have taken that approach.

The obvious question relative to WWII vs moderns is…this data is based on what?

At best we have only anecdotal information on the effects of these technologies. And the closer one gets to the present the harder it is to get ANY information since most is classified. No military has an interest in publishing data for enemies to use in designing their next weapon system.

IMO this calls for more abstraction rather than less. A number of games have taken this approach such as Force on Force with good results. For historical gaming I wouldn't go as far as totally generic "1st gen ATGM vs 3rd gen MBT armor".

But if someone tells you they have actual penetration and armor data on modern weapons and armor accurate enough for a detailed, reliable simulation then, if true, someone violated a security clearance and ahould be in jail!

Such concerns also fail to account for the complexity of modern AFVs. Reactive and spaced armor might prevent full penetration but other damage to sensitve systems from the same strike can still render an AFV combat ineffective even if to outward appearance it seems totally intact. Ultimately you can't totally protect optics, tracks, or even the engine deck against attack from even relatively light weapons.

To that end broader protection, damage capacity, and destructive capability values are more useful for recreational (!) table top gaming than fruitless attempts at modeling detailed data of highly questionable validity.

Viceral, I agree some what. Some of this is abstraction with a lot of conjecture. I agree that a lot of guesses have to be used to make a CW game work.

Data obtained from the GW about the T72 is next to useless when discussing the Soviets, since the Iraqis had the T72M which is the downgraded export model of the T72. However, the T72M is probable pretty close to T72 Ural (T72U).

Some abstraction is fine. And detailed does not have to mean complicated. But I see where the KE/CE pen values apply. But a long rod penetrator and a APDS round are both KE, but the Long rod penetrator will have greatly improved pen. I realize that this in fact is an abstraction, and probably is good enough.

In terms of Cold War veterans spurning TY if their is no explicit recreation of bounding overwatch, I expect there will equally be some who are more than happy to play. I know plenty of GW and Afghan veterans who are more than happy to play WW2 Flames of War which definitely has no explicit overwatch, as they understand that the recreation of the tactics comes out at a holistic level, as an overall result of fire and manoeuvre, particularly around the amount of firepower you bring to bear in the assault phase.

That said, if your wargaming experience absolutely hangs on the granular recreation of every step of fire and manoeuvre, the good news for you is that the BattleGroup family of rules, which recreate this for WW2, will be bringing out a set of modern rules in the not-to-distant…

I think for gaming purposes and a little simplicity. Maybe … If TOW fires over or into questionable terrain … give the target a cover bonus. Questionable could be broken or rough terrain for ground TOWs. Aircraft TOWs, like Gunships, I'd think they would have worked out how to fire those without any problem. And for that matter all my M901 TOW crews never even mentioned this being a problem.

Cold Vets who guarded the Fulda Gap knew that overwatch/op fire was key to their potential success. And, as discussed here, they have intimate knowledge of those weapons and gear.

That would generally be true in most situations.

Having played games that model the crunch (and well) I still prefer a game that's fast and entertaining for both players. I'll still keep slogging away at mt pile of Elheim soviets for crunchy gaming mind you. Wargaming is a big tent with space for all!

Having said that though, there's a big difference between abstraction and just getting weapon systems wrong, a risk with this game.

'crunchy gaming' what a great term for granular rules! I will pinch that one if you don't mind!

Having said that though, there's a big difference between abstraction and just getting weapon systems wrong, a risk with this game.

In FoW's defense, that's exactly the balancing act that we designers face and so much of it is subjective. Each person has a tolerance level for abstraction before a game's approach appears "wrong".

For example, as discussed above, there's weapon vs armor. Is it enough to have 1 frontal arc armor value? What if a vehicle is hull down or not which means a lower, weaker frontal hull is exposed or not? Is one side armor value enough to cover side AND rear? Or must those be separate? Should side hit location matter since a round into the upper side armor might bounce but into the lower side will likely result in a mobility kill against even the heaviest armor?

For some, abstraction to 1 front and 1 side/rear armor value is so abstract it's getting armor "wrong". For others (like me!) I'm ok with it as long as the values account for the above issues in the abstraction (eg we severely limit side/rear armor values even on really heavy armor so that even lighter AT weapons are a threat.)

WRT ATGMs, what level of detail is needed to represent various guidence systems? There's MACLOS, SACLOS and fire-and-forget. There's wire guided, infrared, laser, and others such as that used on the Javelin. There's even the issue of firing with the guidence system on and firing in dumb fire mode.

Is it enough to simply model the idea that a missile is, in game terms, a low ROF but higher hit probability weapon compared to a tank gun? Does flight time matter? Jamming? Special terrain considerations?

I would note that in FoW's case a lot of the issues discussed above might already be abstracted into the game's model (eg the target skill could represent its ability to evade the missile).

Here's another example. In Iraq a recon unit had trouble locking on to Iraqi tanks with the Javelin when there wasn't enough hull available to the sensor. A wire guided weapon could have been fired anyway. But the Jav wouldn't lock and at 3,000m the shot was impossible in dumb fire mode and when locked they achieved hits at 3,000m (which is in excess of the Javelin's official range).

In game terms, should all hull down AFVs be immune to lock by a Javelin? That wouldn't be realistic since that wasn't quite the issue. They didn't need the entire hull visible, just a little more than the turret alone.

Then there's the issue of wire vs laser guidence. If wires are threatened by water and power lines lasers can be challenged by atmosphere and sand.

My preference, for truly recreational play, is for the absolute minimum level of detail needed for the level of decision making by the player based on his role. In this case, I would worry primarily about the contrast between missiles and guns (eg ROF, range, and hit probability) and then guidence systems only to the degree they effect tactical issues such as mobility (eg the broadest contrast would be between weapons needing continuous control by a human, whether optical, laser, etc. and true FnF mode where shoot and scoot is a real option).

Beyond that one could argue that many of these concerns are already built into the model (crew skill in dodging a missile).

The more I hear the more I see hand fulls of tanks charging each other like Teutonic Knights, mmmmm

Tally Ho!

Most of the distractions mentioned are great, no issue. Do see issues with the unit cards and some of the weapon data. I do fully understand that I am posting in ignorance of the rules, since I don't have a copy.

Using single armor values for each facing (front, side, rear, top) is fine. With the understanding that modern armored vehicles have heavier armor on the front, less on the sides, and generally very little on the rear and top. So armor for sides should not be the same as the rear. So I consider this a good abstraction.

Without the ability to overwatch, this will unbalance the game heavily in the WP favor. This is an environment where "Quantity has a quality all of its own".

ATGMs should have the ability not only to be dodged, swerved, or distracted, but also the launcher killed before the missile reaches it's target. Yes, the are a longer range, more accurate, slower ROF weapon, but the trade off is they are also more vulnerable.

Of the 4 company team types, only 2 would have had M125 mortar vehicles and 81mm mortars. Tank heavy team would not have mortars, a tank/infantry balanced tean with tank HQ would not have had mortars, an infantry heavy team would have had an 81mm mortar platoon with 3 M125 mortar vehicles, and 1 M113 FDC/HQ vehicle. M106 with the 4.2" mortar were not deployed at the company level. The four duece mortar was a battalion asset. Pre Division 86 (ROAD org.) the 4.2" mortar platoon would have been assigned to CSC company, and Division 86 assigned to HHC company.

There appear to be some inconsistencies in weapon ranges. When a LAW out ranges any ATGM or MG theats an issue, the LAW didn't even out range an M16A1 rifle, actually less than half the range of a rifle. These are conjectures or abstractions that are not palatable to me personally.

Setting classified information aside, anyone who can draw a range card or sector sketch can tell you the maximum effective range of Cold War weapons. So while guesses will have to be made on some conjectural issues, there is a lot of solid performance data available. Data on most CW weapons are pretty available to the public.

For instance the M113 card shows thermal capability. The M113 had a driver IR periscope, that usually didn't work, and had to be used buttoned up. Dragon eventually got thermal tracker sights (IR initially). We had active IR night vision devices for the M2 .50cal, M60 MG, and M16A1, as well as Passive AN/PVS-5 goggles (maybe two sets per vehicle).

On night patrols we used to use the AN/PVS-5's to find the OPFORs active starlight scopes and then plan a deliberate attack based on the positions of the active NVDs. Almost none of that tech is being used anymore, so it's no longer classified. By the way, drivers were not allowed to drive with the AN/PVS-5 due to loss of depth perception.

you guys do know you are trying to justify complex rules into a FOW platform, right? i mean, you do know that the best you will get is t72's packed on a too small table, and hence "side by side" with no space between them, right?
this is'nt a updated "close and destroy", or that game from GDW with the cards(i had it, and was turned off because it was only us and soviet cards…)

My biggest fears are the issues over their range compression scheme, and the continued use of the D6 for combat.

I can see why they've compressed the weapons ranges, but will have to see how the rules play on the tabletop, once they are released. From what I've seen NATO is a bit hamstrung, and lacking in long-range firing capabilities.

It seems to me that has been offset a bit by making the points for the Soviet armor closer to that of NATO than I would think it ordinarily should be. That way, people don't have to field 3X the number of tanks and IFVs for the communists as they do for the Western forces, which I can see might be an issue for many people wanting to play the game.

Nice post visceral impact. You'll never get a decent simulation with this game, but that's not its intention or goal. But it should try and get a decent representation, especially of a weapon or platforms capability and use. On the whole TY will be reasonably close, but not across the board (atgm's and soviet air defence being examples). But it will be good enough for me to start with.

Sparks, crunch away!

lincolnlog and I seem to generally have very similar experiences …

Linconlog, one comment for you. He Airburst is hell on Western tanks because it usually if not always strips off radio antennas. I saw this happen a couple of times. Sort of hard on exposed TCs if there are any.

Most games cant really model that sort of loss of command and control, so not a point for most people.

Owen

The more I hear the more I see hand fulls of tanks charging each other like Teutonic Knights

Sounds like a NATO exercise…

Seriously though, its asking a lot of a set of rules to be written in such a way that they absolutely prohibit the use of unrealistic tactics. So long as they reward historical tactics, you can't legislate for the ex space marines generation, you just have to be grateful they've taken an interest and hope to slowly educate them…

@Badger,

Yes, HE-VT is very effective against antennas and exposed crewman, as well as infantry in the open.

My issue with Artillery in Modern armor games is it destroys tanks. Artillery may cause suspension or track damage, causing a temporary mobility kill, but should not penetrate the top armor of a MBT. There are valid arguments for HE-Q being able to squash an M113 or even a BMP if fired from a high enough caliber gun.

Yes, HE-VT is very effective against antennas and exposed crewman, as well as infantry in the open.

Yep, that was almost a standard when calling for fire …

There are valid arguments for HE-Q being able to squash an M113 or even a BMP if fired from a high enough caliber gun.

We used to say, the best armor on our M113s was the front, that is where the engine is ! And the flat sides didn't help any either. If a Russian, 152 or larger round even came close to an M113. It could do damage. Imagine a direct hit !!!!

We trained with our .50s to shoot at BMPs on the flank or rear. The .50 cal., could penetrate the armor fairly easily at those locations.
Of course, the M113 couldn't stand up much better to Russian MGs either. Or heaven forbid an RPG !

The rule set my friends and I designed 20+ years ago had terrain modifiers for ATGM's. Our turn sequence had a ATGM declaration and launch phase, and then an ATGM impact phase. In between those phases was an OP fire phase allowing for launches that were spotted to be fired on to suppress the gunners and in some cases destroying the launch vehicle.

Sounds reasonable …

With regard to downed power line they will almost certainly be inert. Once they touch the ground they short and have to be switched off to prevent damage elsewhere to the system.

We MG have not really covered machine gunning missile launches as we saw it as quite an art to detect a launch, bring a weapon to bear, fire a few rounds for range and then fire suppression unless you were looking directly in the right direction and not any other. At greater than 750 m detecting a launch other than by a dragon may be difficult. You need to view lots of terrain in detail. If lots of tanks see this it may be possible to do it but it's so hit and miss it may not be useful to model it.

If you can make the gunner "flinch" … it will increase the probability of the missile missing the target …

At greater than 750 m detecting a launch other than by a dragon may be difficult.

At that range the naked eye could easily miss an entrenched Dragon or a Dragon mounted on an M113 that is hull down. TMP link

My issue with Artillery in Modern armor games is it destroys tanks. Artillery may cause suspension or track damage, causing a temporary mobility kill, but should not penetrate the top armor of a MBT.

This again goes to level of detail relative to game scope.

In a tactical company or platoon level fight a tracked vehicle is, for game purposes, usually combat ineffective
(but even at that level I enjoy modeling mobility kills…it's just that in the real world if a crew faces a serious AT threat they'll probably leave for the day).

So in a game context not every effective hit against an AFV is a "penetration". MRAPs can look perfectly fine externally after being hit by an IED while the crew is seriously wounded, if also still alive. The force of the explosion alone made the vehicle and crew not only combat ineffective but also an objective for comrades to secure.

In WWII US 57mm AT guns would track vehicles whose crews would then bail knowing that arty and air might be next since they were now stuck in place.

Pure penetrstion is not the only way to make an AFV combat ineffective. Tracking it, spalling, flame, destroying optics, stunning the crew, and even smoke* can take an AFV out of the fight.This is why, after much research, in our rules we don't use the terms armor and penetration for AfV combat. We refer to protection and damage to account for a broader array of combat results without having to model every little hit locarion detail.

*According to one WWII memoir Sherman crews would hit heavier German tanks with smoke. Crews would then bail thinking their vehicle was on fire.

I wonder how the Lynx will be done. A couple of Lynx hovering behind a tree line with a Gazelle off to the side spotting. When the enemy appears and "guided" by the Gazelle the Lynx pop up and engage the enemy, sort of in an overwatch position

Tally Ho!

Given that ATGMs seem to generally fly at about 120m – 200m, or 300m/sec, that certainly doesn't leave much reaction time for firing on the person controlling it, if it's only spotted at 750m, or less.

Most rules sets that allow ATGM suppression, the ability to do so is conditional. Same with swerve or dodge ability. It's based on the ability to spot the launch, that probability normally changes with the generation of the missile.

By the way Dragon is 2nd Gen missile, but had a 1st Gen signature. A good set of rules will note this. One factor with suit case Sagger was the gunner could located as far as 20m from the launcher and well cammoflaged. That is an impossible suppression scenario. M901 ITV when hull down is an impossible suppression scenario, distraction could still occur from tank fire or artillery but the artillery would have had to have been coincidental (a call for fire takes much longer than the missile).