"Is being a small target an advantage?" Topic

There has been much debate in our little circle about the advantages of being a small target. In particular small vehicles, for instance a Bren Carrier engaged by Antitank weaponry. We currently assume that when engaged with Machine guns or auto cannons its not that difficult a target to hit as the fire can be walked onto it even moving. However on the basis that tanks suffer less hits below 1m above ground, a small vehicle would often have very little above this to be hit. There does seem to be some anecdotal evidence the Bren Carrier and even some of the Modern smaller vehicles seemed to dodge RPG (now) and Panzerfoust (WW2) due to this effect.

Again not interested in rules but informed opinion of the validity of the assumption that at a practical scale, is a small vehicle is noticeably harder to hit and if so hazared an estimate of the change.

Smaller targets are harder to see and easier to hide.

As they told us in the Army:
If you can be seen, you can be hit. If you can be hit, you can be killed.

Look at all the effort taken to reduce tank profile.

Certainly harder to see and harder to hit a smaller target. Depending on terrain and range, the firer is also more likely to have to expose himself in order to see the target. While I don't have a lot of experience firing machine guns or shooting at moving targets, I do have some. I can see a small bonus for firing at the same target on successive turns but, it is still not a cake walk shooting at a moving target and trying to adjust fire, so I disagree with your premise that small, moving targets are not difficult to hit because you can walk your fire onto it. I think the skill and experience of the gunner really comes into play here. There is a reason that you are taught to make yourself as small of a target as possible.

its also a question of if it is worth it. if you only have a limited quantity of ammunition do you waste it by firing on a small target or do you wait until you find a bigger juicier target that you really need to take out and the find you dont have a weapon capable of defeating it. its the old adage of try to look unimportant they might be short of ammunition

If you are considering a guns dispersion then the smaller the target the harder it will be to hit and larger targets easier.

The formula I'm using a tank like a T-34/85 has a Target Size of "0". A Panther and Sherman are a "-100" and a T-34/76 is a "+100". Most Assault Guns like a StuG is a "+300". The gun charts use 100m range increments (no short, long, extra long ranges) and each 100m range increment has a 1-20 hit number, low numbers are best. The target size is an accuracy modifier to the Accuracy Range. A StuG at 600m would use the Accuracy Range hit # at 900m. A Panther or Sherman would use 500m.

The hit # for 600m might be 1-11 and for 900m 1-7. A 20 is always a miss and SNAFU (jam, misfire, gunner choked, etc).

Target Size is based on the overall area a target presents. Terrain differences will present suspension down protection. We have hit location rules which can protect a hull down target so there is no modifier for a hull down target but it is much harder to hit.

There are no modifiers to the D20 die roll. A "+" is smaller and harder to hit and a "-" is larger and easier. Ace crews are a "-100" and poor crews a "+200". Moving targets have a "+" depending on their speed, angle and range.

This system is for vertical targets. Firing HE at a point on the ground against infantry, weapons teams, trenches, etc use a different system.

Wolfhag

Yes, smaller targets are harder to see and in turn to hit.

As they told us in the Army:
If you can be seen, you can be hit. If you can be hit, you can be killed.

Same here …

The best rules I've seen that cover target signature are the GZG's Dirtside.