"Rank order these levels of protection." Topic
22 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board Back to the Modern Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land Modern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleYou can pick up a toy blimp in the local toy department for less than a dollar.
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
UshCha | 20 Dec 2020 1:53 p.m. PST |
Peering under the carpet at the bits of the rules you fudged a bit by lack of understanding and even how the rules play is a bad thing, you find bits that with 11 years of hind sight look a bit suspect and may be made a bit more plausible. So can you help put these sorts of cover from least to most with respect to small arms fire? Crew of an Unbuttoned AFV, troops lying on the ground, troops in a fighting position with overhead cover, troops in a foxhole. I've put them in a daft order deliberately so as to try and not influence you in your decision. Comments and clarifications in making up your worst to best welcome. |
Bunkermeister | 20 Dec 2020 2:52 p.m. PST |
In my rules we use a 6 sided die to determine hit location. If that part of the body is in direct line of sight to the shooter then it is a potential target. 1 head 2 shoulders 3 chest 4 stomach 5 thigh 6 lower leg So the tank commander standing with his head, shoulders, and chest out of the turret would be hit if the shooter rolled a "hit" result on his dice AND a 1, 2, or 3 on the six sided hit location die. Troops lying on the ground being fired at from above would be subject to being hit by all six numbers, but if they are laying on the ground with their head towards the enemy in a prone firing posture, then 1, 2, 3 given that their head and chest would be up. Troops in a foxhole would be similar to the prone figure, 1, 2, 3 because their head, shoulder, and cheat are exposed while firing a rifle. Troops in a bunker with overhead cover, would be only a die roll of a "1" since they only have their head visible through the firing slit. This is easy because you look at the cover available, and the activity of the troops, firing, moving, and adjust according to how much of the soldier should be visible to the enemy. Mike Bunkermeister Creek Bunker Talk blog |
Jeff Ewing | 20 Dec 2020 4:30 p.m. PST |
Using your list as a key: 3, 4, 1, 2. |
emckinney | 20 Dec 2020 5:13 p.m. PST |
3, 4, 1, 2. The unbuttoned crew is usually silhouetted, which is dangerous. In a proper foxhole, you should have dirt behind you so that you don't stand out. (See The Defense of Duffer's Drift for how far back this mattered!) Their height also means that almost everyone has a line of fire to them, while small obstacles and undulations in the ground block LoF to some prone troops. |
Skarper | 20 Dec 2020 5:55 p.m. PST |
I think 1,2,4,3 in order least to most. I rate lying down in open ground about the same as being in a building – unless keeping completely out of sight. |
Martin Rapier | 21 Dec 2020 12:46 a.m. PST |
2,1,4,3 The last two might be described as hasty defence and prepared defence. Adding in proper bunkers etc makes the latter into fortified defence. The combat multipliers assigned to each defence level are…. significant. An exposed TC is about as exposed as someone in a foxhole (many TCS only expose the top part of their head). Lying down is decent protection against small arms fire from the front, but wide open to shell splinters. Lying down in a ditch is different. |
Skarper | 21 Dec 2020 6:20 a.m. PST |
This may be another issue but at anything but very short range, a man lying down is very hard to pinpoint. A TC in a turret hatch is a more obvious target. Also – a lot of shell splinters go upwards from the ground – so the infantryman lying down, possibly in a natural dip or hollow is much safer than a TC with head and possibly shoulders out of his hatch. |
Legion 4 | 21 Dec 2020 10:08 a.m. PST |
I have a chart or two somewhere around here … I'll post what I got later today. If I find it ? But we generally always aim for center of the target. Upper body and head will be probably where most "accurate" rounds hit. If prone you will generally get a head shot as it is the biggest part of the exposed target. However prone like hull down makes a smaller target an generally harder to hit. Especially with SA, if using a standard "open iron" sight … Add a scope … in the hands of a trained sniper … you are dead. In our rules if you are Infantry and don't move, on Fire Orders, you are considered prone/and or taking advantage of every little piece of cover. E.g. rock, depression, log, etc. So you get a cover bonus … when taking most fires. |
Andy ONeill | 22 Dec 2020 2:59 a.m. PST |
2,1,4,3 worst to best or 3,4,1,2 best to worse. Kind of depends where you've chosen to lie down how efective lying down is. Imo There's a big difference between going firm and choosing the best spot or happening to be one of the supporting static section as your platoon advances using ww2 era tactics. Somewher in the middle is a recce patrol crawling about choosing a route based on best cover. |
Legion 4 | 22 Dec 2020 8:23 a.m. PST |
Couldn't find the FM(s) I was looking for but I do have a very good book about the Vietnam War that has some interesting stats. May be of some use … Fatal Wounds/KIA: Head – 39% Chest/Torso – 19% Waist, Hips – 18% Legs – 7% Arms – 1% Multiple Sites – 10% _____________________ Non-Fatal/WIA : Head – 14% Chest/Torso – 7% Waist/Hips – 5% Legs – 36% Arms – 18% Multiple Sites – 20% ________________________ Causes : Small Arms – 51% KIA , 16% WIA Fragments from FA/Mortars – 36% KIA , 65% WIA Booby Traps/Mines – 11% KIA , 15% WIA Punji Stakes – 2% WIA Others 2% KIA , 2% WIA |
UshCha | 22 Dec 2020 8:28 a.m. PST |
Legion 4 Thanks thanks interesting. |
Legion 4 | 22 Dec 2020 9:23 a.m. PST |
Again it may be helpful … |
UshCha | 22 Dec 2020 5:16 p.m. PST |
Thanks folks the results are interesting. Really the debate is about where the AFV comes. Our current rules least to most, are, 2,4, (3&1). in other words a unbuttoned up AFV and a fighting position are treated the same. Bunkermeister shows the reason. In talking to an ex-tank commander, buttoned up was the hatch propped open a crack with a block of wood. If it got unheathy he knocked the woood out and the hatch closed. So really it comes down to the definition of what an unbuttoned up AFV in combat looks like. To me the 1/35 sacale model with the TC with his head and shoulders out in the open looks daft as a figting stance, but good if you want someting to paint. How would you describe an un-buttoned AFV in combat. Skarper, those are telling arguments in any ranking system and not ones we had given thought too. Leigion 4 if you can find anyting we would be very gratfull. Interestingly we consider lying on the ground and moving in soft cover (some limited visual obsuration but little balistic protection) the same. We also allow troops lying down to hunker down and become invulnerable but thet becone reluctant, for want of a better word to poke their heads up. This in part reflects the real situation and also stops the wargamers "kill everything with a machine gun" sysnrome from Hollywood based on 8 shot six shooters and infinite belt ammo for machine guns held in one hand, with full armour provided by flower beds ;-); so this is a least worst approach to us. Some hours later and lots of discussions and we have decided an AFV and Foxhole are similar situations. Skarpers arguments bringing AFV protection down a bit and not everybody is a Chieften Tank commander. |
Legion 4 | 22 Dec 2020 5:36 p.m. PST |
I'll see what I can dig up … But I know from Charts in old FMs, prone troops losses are significantly less that otherwise, obviously. |
Skarper | 22 Dec 2020 11:08 p.m. PST |
To clarify, I was treating a crew exposed TC as having head/shoulders out of the turret hatch. I think the modern practice of 'locking' the hatch cover over the TC's head and having a few inches to see out of would merit more cover – but it would confer relatively little benefit in situational awareness. I think in WW2, they could not really do this. |
David Manley | 23 Dec 2020 12:02 a.m. PST |
Doesn't it depend on the threat? Small arms, blast, airburst frag etc? |
UshCha | 23 Dec 2020 1:07 a.m. PST |
Skarper, it's an interesting point. I have no experience of tanks but in using radio controlled models if you have a good unobstructed view you can keep your bearings bacause without any consious effort you are aware of where you are looking by your body position even if you could not see the horizon. Experience indicates that plain eysesight is very usefull some of the time, often better that with aids, so again better, than split up vision blocksI would suggest. If it were not why not work buttoned up fully all the time. David Manley, I am sure it does, however as a desighner it's always a compromise. Its interesting what players define as too complicated. We have been accused of complication as we turn turrets of tanks. We consider it gets rid of more rules, makes the gamme more plausible and is more fun for free. Buttoned up vs unbuttoned is further than most games go, the level of buttoned up to be honest would be too much for them. To be honest its always a law of diminishing returns, geting something plausible gets most of the way easily, adding more does not add enough to make it worth it at our level of modellind. Besides. we do cheat a bit. A tank can go turret down under a bit taller cover, the TC can stand on top off the turret and look over. We don't diffrentiate the cover type he still counts as un-buttoned but typicaly he's not being shot at so its not a big issue. |
Legion 4 | 23 Dec 2020 8:05 a.m. PST |
To clarify, I was treating a crew exposed TC as having head/shoulders out of the turret hatch. I think the modern practice of 'locking' the hatch cover over the TC's head and having a few inches to see out of would merit more cover – but it would confer relatively little benefit in situational awareness. OK… yes, a TC can be Name Tag Defilade, where his name tags are on his uniform are, so basically from the top of your chest to top of your head is exposed. Then [I forget the name, ] the TC is exposed from the waist up. The trade off is better protection vs. better visibility of the terrain, etc., around you. IMO for gaming purposes your are buttoned up or unbottoned. I think in WW2, they could not really do this. Depends on the vehicle even in WWII, generally, I'd think. Doesn't it depend on the threat? Small arms, blast, airburst frag etc? IMO … Violates K.I.S.S. – accuracy vs. playability. E.g. then you'll have to roll for a moral check to see if he likes the C-Rat he was issued, if he got a "Dear John" letter in the mail at Mail Call, or if he lost his lucky Rabbit's Foot, etc., etc. … Of course anytime you are being shot at and/or stuff is exploding all around you or even just nearby it's a threat. And if you don't get hit[of if you do!], you're going to "duck" inside your AFV. Or if on the ground "duck" – in your fighting position, behind a log, tree stump, rock, etc. Trying to get something solid between you and the incoming fires not matter what type it is. Also found my old FM 7-7 "Mech Inf Plt & Sqd". On pg. 1-7 Chart shows "the protection a Sqd gets from a good Fighting Position if a barrage of VT-fuzed indirect fire goes off around the Sqd"… Standing – 9 of 11 of the Sqd will be hit Prone – 6 of 11 of the Sqd will be hit Dug-in – 1 of 11 of the Sqd will be hit Hope that helps somewhat … |
Rudysnelson | 30 Dec 2020 6:54 p.m. PST |
Back in the mid-1980s at Historiconin Baltimore, the vendor in the booth next to me had released a deck of cards for damage determination in skirmish actions. Each card had a silhouette on it with a red dot over an injured area. Needless to say, he sold out after Friday. |
Legion 4 | 31 Dec 2020 5:41 a.m. PST |
|
Wolfhag | 06 Jan 2021 9:13 a.m. PST |
Here are the tally of gunshot locations and KIA/WIA results for 2020 in ChiRaq:
Most likely none of the victims were taking cover, other than sitting in a car. The majority would be wounds from pistols and a small percentage of 7.62mm. Wolfhag |
Legion 4 | 06 Jan 2021 9:14 a.m. PST |
|
|