1) When a VTOL gets a damage chit, how is it handled? The Aerospace section
states that VTOLs are treated as special ground units. So what happens to when
one gets a Immobility result? Does it drop to
the ground & become a very under-armored firing platform? Can it
still hover? I also assume that a Damaged result will 1/2 it's
movement & increase it's range band, as opposed to causing it to break off
like an Aerospace. Just checking to be sure.
2) Does have anyone practical experience with modern artillery? A friend & I
have been engaged in an on going argument about whether or not to allow direct
artillery fire. He keeps quoting that it was quite common in WWII. It keep
rebutting that the much longer ranges in today's artillery should allow it to
avoid being overrun, unless something is seriously wrong. Does modern
artillery still perform direct fire missions (depress the gun & use the Mark I
eyeball for aiming)? In particular, would this be an option if the artillery
is threatened by enemy troops?
3) Does Hull or Turret down affect GMS fire?
Thanks,
> On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Nils A Hedglin wrote:
It crashes & burns. An "IMM" chit works the same as a "BOOM" chit for
VTOLs -- after all, if the rotor(s) stop spinning, it's hard to see how
it can be an effective fighting vehicle any more!
> 2) Does have anyone practical experience with modern artillery?
Sorry, none here.
> 3) Does Hull or Turret down affect GMS fire?
It has no effect in the rules as they are written, but in our group we have a
house rule that adds a d6 or d8 defense die. We did this to try to make
missiles a little less deadly, without pulling their teeth altogether.
<snip><snip>
> 2) Does have anyone practical experience with modern artillery?
Sorry, none here.
I will attempt to answer the original question, which was whether or not
modern artillery uses direct fire. According to GDW's Assault
series, Former Soviet Onion self-propelled artillery explicitly
trained to be used in the direct fire role on occassion. They were also listed
as carrying HEAT rounds. This is partly an outgrowth of the FSU's WW2
experience and partly an outgrowth of the doctrine of
the FSU forces (self-reliance, sending artillery foward so that an
advance is not held up by a unit being slow, blah blah blah.)
Perversely I know nothing about the US doctrine on direct-fire
artillery but it would not surprise me if the US artillery branch assumed they
would never actually have to worry about seeing the enemy.;)
cheers brad
> Nils A Hedglin wrote:
> 2) Does have anyone practical experience with modern artillery? A
I was in a light artillery battalion (105mm towed) and direct fire was a
regularly practiced skill by all crews. The sights can be used for aiming and
shells can be fuzed for PD (point detonating) against tanks or MTSQ
(Mechanical Time Super Quick) against infantry, with a range estimate. It's
planned for in the firebase concept, as the guns are integrated into the
direct fire plan for battery defense, so it's not
exactly a crisis knee-jerk reaction (although the gun crew might beg to
differ). 105mm were used in a direct fire role in Panama in the good
old WWII Soviet-style method of leveling buildings where sniper fire
was emanating from. Also, just because artillery ranges are longer, doesn't
mean someone has located the enemy and passed on good coordinates to generate
an effective fire mission. Since Murphy's Law is the only applicable law in
combat, infantry and tanks will certainly
be able to surprise even the longest ranged guns at some point - a
chaotic, fluid battle provides the best conditions for this to happen.
> From Nils
Yes, modern artillery still have the capability to fire over open
sights, and of course if the Section/Battery Comd can see teh target he
can call the fire adjustments. A practical example more recent than WWII
was Vietnam, during the battle for Fire Base Coral/Balmoral when the
Australian artillery were forced to fire direct at NVA assault positions.