"How much cover does a Russian peasant shack really provide?" Topic

Getting ready to paint some 15mm Eastern Front hovels. I'm looking at the models, which seem to be just 2x8s nailed to some uprights, and wondering "is this really worth -1 on all fire dice?"

What do you think?

A lot of pre-war Russian houses were built from logs and then stuccoed on the outside. So they might provide some pretty good protection from small arms fire.

Remember, they have to provide protection from the Russian winter, so they're rather more substantial than you seem to think.

And protection is not just ballistic (although logs are probably pretty good at that) but also from sighting – so a -1 modifier is probably reflecting all of those things.

Bit like hedgerows – not great at stopping bullets, but good to hide behind.

It depends. If the -1 represents the masking of the silhouette of the target or the protection of the target.
Brush might not provide much protection but soldiers hiding in brush are harder to target.
If it's protection then your rules would have to assign an armor value for each structure and check if the weapon can penetrate it.

And then allocate a chance for the shot to hit the target. If a man is hiding in a house, how do you know where to shoot? So even if you can penetrate, the difficulty of actually hitting would be immense.

I imagine the modifier is for cover and concealment.

Logs provide some protection from gunfire but a more sturdy shelter would have been made from sod which was more common in frontier America than TV or movies show.
Sod walls absorb rounds and do not produce shrapnel like wood log or planks will do.

Not sure what the -1 is for? Is this a to-hit modifier for cover (i.e. target in a doorway). Or a damage modifier? or both? Or target completely out-of-sight? I guess it depends on the rule mechanics and the comparison to other structure modifiers.

If it is a to-hit modifier I would think the type of cover has little to do with how much of the target you can see. People tend to shoot at what they can see. Is the -1 basically for "exposed target in building"?

If the -1 is for damage I could see that. Any bullet striking certain materials has a chance of deflecting or being stopped. Maybe the target was just grazed?

Certainly you would want a damage differentiator between being in the open and a building. Perhaps -1 for light buildings to -4 for more fortified. Again this depends on the mechanics.

In The Face of Battle, exposure affects the to-hit roll and the type of cover affects the outcome of the to-hit. So a target in the door of the Russian house may get a -3 to-hit and the damage is resolved on the medium cover type table.

Concealed (out-of-sight) targets are a different story. In TFoB you can engage them but the rolls are greatly multiplied.

In the end, I think a building construction modifier makes sense for damage or a combined to-hit/damage roll.

There's another way of looking at it. For infantry at floor level, possibly serious cover. If you've run your Stug in there, probably not so much.

better than being in the open….

A buddy of mine from way back when was the son of a WWII German tanker who served up to Kursk, where he was injured and he spent the rest of the war as an instructor – he said that they often drove their Panzer IIIs backwards into Russian peasant houses, in large part for cover

They went in backwards to guarantee a speedy expert!

If you've run your Stug in there, probably not so much.

they often drove their Panzer IIIs backwards into Russian peasant houses

At least you could be pretty sure there wasn't a basement.

At least you could be pretty sure there wasn't a basement.

Not really, a root cellar under the house would be where they stored food to keep it coo in summer and from freezing in winter.

For cover? I'd have figured for concealment. Another illusion shattered.

If you have a question, there is a good chance Paul Harrel has an answer.

YouTube link

"better than being in the open…."
If you want to keep warm and dry, certainly. If you are being shot at then a wooden building is ( to quote Lt. Peter White) "A death trap to be avoided"
Big, obvious target, which limits your fields of fire and offers little or no protection. Which is why the smart soldiers dig foxholes around the outsides of such structures, and use its doors and other timbers to create overhead cover.

As many noted they should provide some cover and/or concealment bonus. With their general robust construction.

However like many structures you may not want to be in there when it might collapse from incoming etc. As Keith pointed out. Troops do like to keep warm and dry if at all possible.

But again MGs could make short order of many timber, etc., structures as well. As I know e.g. a US M2 .50cal will chew thru bricks like peanut brittle …

From the accounts I've read the Germans used the cellar as shelter in combat.

Wolfhag

I'm sure it provide cover & concealment from small arms. And they may have reinforced the floor too. Plus had exits to escape if it got too bad/need be.

However, as we know at e.g. Monte Cassino, and elsewhere. Rubble makes very good cover and concealment. Especially compared to being in the open.

If you have a question, there is a good chance Paul Harrel has an answer.

Actually that vide has little relevance t this discussion. Hi is using black powder era cartridges. The most powerful ne that he uses, the 45-70 has about 66 to 75 percent 0f the muzzle velocity of the WWII rifles. The bullets are soft lead half jacketed (which weren't used in the 1800's so doesn't work for the Old West either) instead of lead alloy full jacketed bullets. Then there is the fact that he is at point blank range. So the "Old West" would have much less penetration.

Yes, FMJ makes a difference generally based on the target …

I have been to some Russian villages. A collection of wooden huts scattered a round a clearing in the forest does not provide the same cover as say, a reinforced concrete tower block or a tractor works.

I usually treat them as a more angular version of 'woods'. So some concealment, possibly a bit of cover against small arms, very little against HE unless they've been prepared by digging.