"Tank pistol ports" Topic

The recent thread about tanker's small arms got me thinking about pistol ports.

Do you make allowances in your games for a tank crew defending against an infantry close assault using the pistol ports? Do you bother to take into account the great difference between tanks?

For instance, the pistol ports on many tanks seem wholly inadequate. The T-34 comes to mind. The hole is so small I don't think you could see what you were intending to shoot at. Spray and pray I suppose.

On the other hand the Panzer III or IV have larger ports and hatches as well. Of course this would make it easier to get yourself shot using them.

Do you bother with it? (assuming a skirmish game)

I don't think I've ever seen a game talk about them at all. I can't remember it ever coming up either.

Even on more modern vehicles like the BMP, we tend to ignore it. I doubt you could actually see anything from in there.

We have allowed a tank commander to pop out and take a few shots, at the usual risk of course.

My usual guide to "is this too much detail" is to ask "does ASL cover this?" and I don't actually think it does :-)

Basically, I don't allow infantry to "assault" a tank. They need to have some sort of AT weapon. I suppose you could give the tank a minimal "close combat" value beyond their armor, treads, machine guns. Last thing I'd worry about, though is pistol shots.

IIRC the T-34 had a vision slit above the pistol port for sighting a weapon. I'm working on a 1/35 model of a KV-1 M1942 and this is exactly what it has.

Damon.

Weasel: that is an excellent rule of thumb! Apparently some T-34s had a vision slit and some did not: link

I thought ASL covered everything? It certainly felt like it when I was reading the rules.

There is a rule for 'crew small arms' in ASL. I think it runs like this – when close assaulting an AFV if you roll [6,6] the worst possible roll your infantry suffer some casualties because the crew were able to fire.

No difference for different AFVs though.

I think the pistol ports are there more for the crew to think they could do something than to actually accomplish anything.

IIRC, most pistol ports were soon eliminated from later models -- a good indication that they were more liability than asset.

Even if they were not actually a liability in combat, they certainly add complexity to manufacturing the vehicle.

Practical we MG could allow them to fire from a pistol port. However at a max range of 20 ft and an arc of 45 degrees troops grounded within 2mm would be out of arc. Further more a machine gun would be more likely to get an accurate round in in the slit at beyond 20 ft. Also the man inside would be at risk from genade blast etc. These may wll be reasons few machines do have them now without sophisticated systems. Proably not the thing to do if you have ERA.

Thefore we have never done it. We dont want enemy within 20 ft EVER unless they are already suppresed in which case the pistol is not a good idea. Better get the tank next to you to fire on the troops and you return the favor. Having slits open not a good idea in that case.

Idiot outside at less than 20 ft with molotof cocktail. Inside an idtot tank commander in a stationary tank that close to infantry and no outside enemy MG's or sub machine guns around maybe it could be worth the risk. Do we want to cover this normaly in a set of rules? I see no reasoin to do this. It would take a page of rules, detailed teck specs for the blind spots. Seems to much effort to be botherd with, let the tank commader learn from the experience and not do it again. The great advantage of a simulation. You do not die making stupid mistakes.

I certainly allow the use of the firing ports. Battleground WWII has rules for them too, pistols and SMGs only and at half chance to hit with limited arcs of fire. The bigger hatches (ammo loading doors of the Pz IV turret etc.) would not have such restrictions but would definitely expose tank crew to hand grenades and the like.

The reason firing ports were eliminated was not because they were useless but because they were a weak spot in the armor and also added manufacturing time and cost.

If you are playing 1:1 or 28mm you almost have to have that situation of the lone infantryman attempting to take out a tank with a molotov cocktail or magnetic at mine.

You get the tactics of blinding the tank and the tank attempting to stop the attack through their pistol ports of supporting tanks using their mg's to cut down the attackers.

We use a Situational Awareness Check rule that can give a delay for the defender to respond to the attacker. It makes for some interesting situations when a lone attacker sprints towards a tank with a demo charge, grenade bundle or at mine.

Other scales it's not worth while trying to simulate it.

Wolfhag

7dot62mm,
If the ports were war winning they would have kept them. Ego they diod not earn there keep, diasadvantages outweight advantages.

Wolfhag,
What you are saying is in the 5 seconds it takes to sprint a few yards and throw you have men waiting in the tank, looking all round and then able to draw a bead and fire having moved to a pistol port. Or do you abbndon the gun abd co-ax (even noe min range is considered about 30m for a prone taeget) and command of the tan,k to look out the pistol ports. Plus if the lone mans mates shoot at the tank a bit before they may be reluctant to even look out the port. Not very realistic in my opinion. Hollywood at its worst and they still make crap like that.

Better combined arms cooperation is probably the main reason we don't see pistol ports much anymore.

UshCha,
Tanks have pistol ports and they do get close assaulted by infantry so I don't see any reason for not letting them attempt to defend themselves, even if the chance is slim.

I don't get into role playing each crew member as to what direction they are searching. I use the Situational Awareness Check which is like initiative to determine the success of the attacker versus defender in timely engagement. It's somewhat like the Nuts! "In Sight" rule. They may be able to respond right away or when it's too late. I admit it not the most in realism and it's impossible to determine exactly where a tank commander is going to be looking at any one time. I don't even attempt that.

If you want to protect tanks have an overwatch vehicle or infantry escort. Depending on pistol ports is a desperate last ditch defense.

The situations to use pistol ports has only come up in 28mm urban combat. I've only run into it a few times. I was surprised to see that it was one of the most entertaining parts of the game for the players. The single figure running out in the open with the odds stacked against them was one of the highlights of the game. I'm not going to say how realistic it is but players liked it.

Hand held anti-tank weapons work the same way with no special rules. You have the gunner pop up and the player picks the amount of time spent aiming. Units not presently engaged that have a LOS to the gunner perform a Situational Awareness Check. Any unit with a delay of less than or equal to the aim time can respond by firing which can have a result or decreasing accuracy, forcing the gunner to duck back and abort or kill him. Attacks on flanks and rear have a die roll modifier that has a better chance of generating a delay to engage. It works the same way whether it is a pistol port, coax machine gun, fire team, hull machine gun, etc. I don't need a special rule for each type of weapon or unit. The player has some decision in the process, it's not just about a roll of the dice.

It's still a WIP but so far it's worked well with new players. I guess you could say it's Hollywood at its worst or best. Bottom line it's entertaining.

Wolfhag

I suspect that these day they are more often used for disposal of beer bottles ;)

Battlegroup rules allow infantry with A/T grenades or improvised munitions to close assault armor; even if pinned the tank crew gets to "fight back" with a simple die roll to reflect the use of pistols, smg's fired from those ports and even grenades (yes, most tanks carried them for close in defense) tossed out of a hatch.