> On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> Yeah, but it's an historical scenario and even the ACCV version was
Not to mention the floor was lined with sandbags. Don't forget the ACCV has
the Hvy MG (M2HB) and a pair of SAWs on either side. All have sheilds and the
Commander's Cupola (with the M2 mount) had a side shield. His hatch made the
rear. So he had pretty good cover all around. Against a
force with heavy weapons, an ACCV (or A-Cav) would be toast pretty
quick, but in close quarters fights against light forces, they were great.
Add a Size 3 Tank with a 90mm gun (gotta have that beehive round) and you are
set. Speaking of beehives, the 152mm beehive round on the M155 Sheridan was
nasty. About as close to an 8 gauge shotgun as you can get for tanks.
Another interesting vehicle to do would be an Ontos, 6 (yes SIX) 106mm
Recoiless rifles mounted on a really small tracked vehicle (also size 2,
crew 3). They fired them and then moved to cover to reload. The odd
contraption saw its best use during the USMC's battle to retake the ancient
city of Hue during Vietnam. 6 Rounds in a rapid fire could be hell.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> Don't forget the ACCV
Do you think this warrants giving the gunners on the ACAV any cover bonuses?
> Add a Size 3 Tank with a 90mm gun (gotta have that beehive round) and
We had a discussion of this on the Charlie Comapny discussion list
(http://www.egroups.com/group/charlie-company/info.html) a little while
back. You can search the archives for the "beehive rounds" thread. One of the
list members even forwarded a pic of the flechettes used in the beehive
rounds. And I thought the beehive round was nasty BEFORE I saw that pic.
> Another interesting vehicle to do would be an Ontos, 6 (yes SIX) 106mm
I know I'm going to model the Ontos in one of my SGII games at some point, so
I should probably ask now that you mentioned it. How would you model the 106mm
RR? Thanks.
-Mike
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Michael Sarno wrote:
> Do you think this warrants giving the gunners on the ACAV any
Probably partial if not good hard cover. If you have a proper model, just look
at where the fire is coming from. If you can draw line of sight and
the gunner isn't pointed that way, have at it.
> We had a discussion of this on the Charlie Comapny discussion list
And I thought
> the beehive round was nasty BEFORE I saw that pic.
I have a US Army Training manual (ST6-50-19) that has a sectional photo
of the whole damn thing, base ejection charge, core flash tube, flechettes,
and the front detonator charges and the handy tracer element at the rear. You
gotta love the warning in the manual that says "Firing beehive
rounds over the heads of exposed friendly troops is prohibited."
Its odd in that it pushes the flechettes out from the rear towards the front
after splitting the front of the casing apart. It has a steel base
and an aluminum side case.
> I know I'm going to model the Ontos in one of my SGII games at
Size three, HKPs with limited range? Unless you want to scale them down,
their range is a bit more limited compared to your average 105mm round as the
RR round spends a great deal of its energey in the equivalent rearward energy.
Fitting all that on what is a size 2 chassis would be tricky, butit was all
mounted external so its not too hard perhaps...
Oh, don't forget the 4.50" spotting rifles...
> Michael Sarno wrote:
> Do you think this warrants giving the gunners on the ACAV any
Yes, at least as long as the fire doesn't come from above. The entire point
with having a gun shield is to provide cover, after all <g>
> We had a discussion of this on the Charlie Comapny discussion
thread. One >of the list members even forwarded a pic of the flechettes used
in the >beehive rounds. And I thought the beehive round was nasty BEFORE I
>saw that pic.
If you're faced by beehive rounds, get behind armour or hide behind a
stone. Earth and trees provide poor protection, though :-/
> I know I'm going to model the Ontos in one of my SGII games at
Buzzbombs, SG p.40. Adjust range bands to taste :-/
Regards,
In a message dated 1/27/00 2:16:20 PM Central Standard Time,
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com writes:
<<
Yes, at least as long as the fire doesn't come from above. The entire point
with having a gun shield is to provide cover, after all <g>
> [quoted text omitted]
Unless you're on an old style PT boat where the gun shield was made of plywood
and was to keep salt spray out of the gunner's face.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Michael Sarno wrote:
OK, so how do we handle this? Someone is shooting a.51 cal HMG at the M113
ACAV. He is trying to hit the commander who is behind his shield. We'll give
the commander a range and armor shift equivalent to hard cover, two die
shifts. Are there any chances that some of the "missed" shots are going to hit
the M60 gunners? How about "accidentally" hitting the ACAV itself?
-Mike
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Michael Sarno wrote:
Right, but my main concern, and I know I didn't emphasize this, was exactly
how to figure out hits against these partially exposed occupants. What happens
if the M113 ACAV comes under attack by a HMG? The firer of the HMG is not
trying to hit the commander and gunners, specifically, but he is trying to
generally attack the ACAV. What's the chance of hitting one of these partially
exposed occupants? What about
the ACAV getting hit with the RPG-2? What kind of damage might be done
to a commander when an RPG-2 makes a non-penetrating hit on the front of
the ACAV?
-Mike
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Michael Sarno wrote:
> OK, so how do we handle this? Someone is shooting a .51 cal HMG
I don't think the rounds (SLAP or otherwise) are going to care about the
shield in front of the Commander or the hatch cover behine him. They won't
care much about the commander either. The only people I'd consider
safe would be the guys behind the engine compartment. The Driver is SOL IMO
too. A few inches of Al armour (or.5" of Mild Steel) aren't going to do squat
against the.50 or higher class. I'd want a big detroit diesel between me and
one of those.
How this would work game mechanic wise, I'm not sure, Perhaps roll for as
against armour. What was the general AP ability of the HMG that was decided?
It should have been set up to deal with strength 1 armour...
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Michael Sarno wrote:
> Right, but my main concern, and I know I didn't emphasize this,
hmm, count it as hard cover where an explosion occurs. I assume this is a
detonation against the front engine access cover where its been folded
forwards and the area filled with sand bags? A side shot will problably wound
the guys inside, but if they are standing high up in the back, they may
verywell not feel a thing with the hot jet going in one side and out
the other....There is a reason those troops rode around on top of the
113s...
> Ryan wrote:
It should have been set up to deal with strength 1 armour...
In my skirmish rules, the.50 cal does D20 damage. Level 1 vehicle armour is
D20 protection.
> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> Yes, at least as long as the fire doesn't come from above. The
<chuckle> There's that, true. I doubt if the M113 is quite that fast
when wading/swimming, though ;-)
Later
> Michael Sarno wrote:
> OK, so how do we handle this? Someone is shooting a .51 cal HMG
If it's a.51 firing, the shield would have as much effect as tinfoil. That
shield could stop an AK round, that's about it.
> Michael Sarno wrote:
> Right, but my main concern, and I know I didn't emphasize this,
If an HMG is attacking a vanilla M-113 at anything under 1000m, it will
go through the sides as if they weren't there, but may be stopped at the
front, if only by hitting the engine. Basically, vs an HMG being inside or
outside makes little difference.
> What about
A friend of mine was the commander of an M-48 track in Vietnam, when an
RPG hit the side of the turret. He was deafened, a little singed, but
still able to nail the gunner with his non-issue Thompson .45 SMG.
Oh yes, the RPG made a little divot in the 48's turret, didn't come within
cooee of penetrating.
It was written:
> > Unless you're on an old style PT boat where the gun shield was made
Of course, here in NZ, some army guys tried driving a M113 across a bay.
It's top was _below_ the sea water, most of the time. Only constant
pumping kept it afloat. I got this from a guy in Intelligence, who got it from
a friend, I believe.
> Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:
> Michael Sarno wrote:
OK, 'cause I was thinking that it would give him a little better armor die
when he has to roll for the wound.
-Mike
> Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:
> If an HMG is attacking a vanilla M-113 at anything under 1000m, it
Right, but just saying that the rounds will pierce the ACAV doesn't really
help in determining the casualties. What's the difference in mechanics if the
HMG firer is targeting the partially exposed gunners or the ACAV itself?
-Mike
OK, thanks to all who have tried to help me get this sorted out for
my Vietnam-era SGII scenario at Cold Wars. Here is what I've decided to
do about the partially exposed crew and riders of armored vehicles. I couldn't
find anything in the rules that covered this situation. Which doesn't mean
they're not there, just that I couldn't find them. At any rate, I'm not going
to allow targeting of the personnel. A firing action can take up to 5 minutes
in SGII, so I'm going to assume that if you're shooting at the vehicle with
multiple shots, you're giving it a good "hosing down." One shot weapons
probably aren't as accuate, so targeting the personnel isn't going to much
different from targeting the vehicle itself. If a hit occurs, minor or major,
check for penetration of the vehicle. If penetration occurs, check for the
occupants as per
the rules as written. However, if it is a non-penetrating hit, that's a
potential hit, and you should check for penetration on all partially and fully
exposed passengers and crew as per step 3 of the fire against dispersed
targets (p.36). For partially exposed personnel, shift the armor die up one.
If you have some kind of a shield, shift up the armor die, too.
So, for the M113 ACAV vs RPG-2 situation we were discussing, a
non-penetrating hit will cause the commander to check for penetration of
the RPG-2 by rolling his armor die (d4) shifted up for being partially
exposed (d6) and shifted again for the gun shield (d8) vs the RPG-2
impact (d10), which may be doubled if it was a major hit. What do you think,
sirs?
-Mike
In a message dated 1/27/00 11:51:59 PM Central Standard Time,
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com writes:
<<
<chuckle> There's that, true. I doubt if the M113 is quite that fast
when wading/swimming, though ;-)
> [quoted text omitted]
Definitely not - when the ducks can overtake you if they try.
Wish I had gotten involved on this one earlier.
A 113 onl has enough armor to protect it from small arms fire for the Vietnam
period. The Hull could generally stop.50 cal and below, but thats about it.
Around the end of the 70's the Arm had accuall dropped the "Armored" from the
APC nominclature for a while.
The ACAV is a kit that was added to the 113 and intended for use in cavalry
and scout units. It consisted of an lightly armored unpowered turret (actually
litte more than a tall ring of sheet metal) and a gun sheild for
the commander and to gun sheilds for the added M-60 MMG on the sides.
Any of these additions could only stop small arms fire. It did'nt reduce the
carrying capacity of the vehicle at all as it had no internal components and
weighed little. The reduced number of troops in the vehicle was the
complement prescribed for the scouts/cavalry. The kit was so popular
that anybody who could get one equipped their track with it.
There were so many modifications done to 113s during the conflict it's mind
blowing. There are variants that replace any of the HMGs or MMGs ith recoiless
rifles, flamethrowers, early auto grenade launchers, miniguns,
..you name it. Because the 113 was basically a steel box, if you could weld
something to it, it as done. Other modifications included things like aviators
seats welded to the rear of the deck to serve as observation platforms for
commanders and FOs (the 557 is not seen that oftn in VN).
The Australians had a fire support version that mounted a 75mm gun in a
turret. Both the US and Aussies used varients that mounted cadi-gage
turret. I've seen at leat one vehicle fitted with a small naval turret (HMG or
20mm -
I can't remember).
Factor variations include ambulances, bridge laers, 81mm and 4.2 " mortar
tracks, flame throwers and probably the most usful varient, the M163 with the
Vulcan 20mm gatling gun. Although the last as intended for air defense,
several CMHs were won using the system to defend against ground targets.
Someone mentioned the Ontos. An interesting vehicle, but not very useful and
absolutley hated by its USMC crew. The scorpion is not much better remembered.
Of course the U.S. Army returned the M42 Duster to sevice. It could have been
useful, but most were so badly maintained by thier National Guard owners they
were seldom operational.
Just some comments,
Faron
Thanks form bringing this up. The KEY to remember is that an APC (especially
the M-113) is to keep Artillery fragments, not bullets, off of the
riders. Being tracked just aids in the mobility, it does not make it a tank.
Common fallacy is to treat anything with tracks as a tank.
Michael Brown
Treadhead for 20+ years
[quoted original message omitted]
> Fabet@aol.com wrote:
> Wish I had gotten involved on this one earlier.
I wish you had, too. But nothing is etched in stone.
> A 113 onl has enough armor to protect it from small arms fire for the
from
> the APC nominclature for a while.
Great, how do we handle this in SGII?
-Mike
> Michael Brown wrote:
> Thanks form bringing this up. The KEY to remember is that an APC
Common
> fallacy is to treat anything with tracks as a tank.
I've not encountered this fallacy, but I'll take your word for it. How do we
simulate the APC's ability "to keep Artillery fragments, not bullets, off of
the riders" in SGII?
-Mike
> "Glover, Owen" wrote:
> I don't think we need to do anything more really. The M113 is a Size2
Owen, I think it would be best to use the rules as written and roll to see if
the armor is penetrated (p.47).
> If troops are exposed or riding on top then casualties as per normal
I'm not really comfortable with allowing troops to get "in position" on a
vehicle. To my way of thinking, that would consist of buttoning up. But I
welcome you to try to convince me otherwise. <g>
-Mike
Hi Mike,
I don't think we need to do anything more really. The M113 is a Size2 vehicle
with Armour Class 1. If troops are buttoned up and are caught in the beaten
zone of arty then suppression is all that we give them in game terms. If
troops are exposed or riding on top then casualties as per normal rules. The
gunners behind wing shields get Hard Cover bonus of 2 die shifts and a third
for In Position I would think.
Hi Mike,
I see what you are getting at with the arty; I also meant that we use only the
rules as written for the troops buttoned up. Dealing with exposed troops
is going to be different in a Vietnam/WWII era. In SG the vehicle crew
have less of a requirement to expose themselves; even head and shoulder and
can
take advantage of the sensors and elecrto-optics of the vehicles.
In your Vietnam period, the Crew Comd and driver is going to be sitting up for
99.5% of the time. Even if teh vehicle is caught in teh casualty radius of the
round and doesn't penetrate the vehicle hull there is a different and
HIGHER chance that teh exposed/partially exposed crew will suffer wounds
from shrapnel. And this is where I'm suggesting the Hard Cover. In Position is
where he is hunkered down and looking over the gun sights. Two very different
target aspects for your shrapnel effect indeed.
So, to re-iterate....
The vehicle and troops INSIDE suffer results of Arty Impact vs Veh Armour as
for Minor hit.
Exposed Crew and Riders are potential casualties from the external shrapnel
effect.
Just trying to give a more era specific feel.
Cheers,
Owen
> -----Original Message-----
> "Glover, Owen" wrote:
> I see what you are getting at with the arty; I also meant that we use
I don't see how the effects are going to be different at all. The tactical
requirements place more importance in being able to operate without being
buttoned up, but that has no real effect on how HE rounds will behave if you
decide not to do so. <g>
> In your Vietnam period, the Crew Comd and driver is going to be
OK, as I mentioned before, I'm all for going with the one shift for partially
exposed crew or passengers. If you're waist is actually in the track or tank,
you should get that die shift. If only your head is exposed, or have some
other kind of additional armor, like the ACAV commander, I'm all for an
additional shift. I'm not sure that I'd give that extra shift to the M60
gunners for heavy weapons, though.
> In Position is where he is hunkered down and looking over the gun
OK, this where I'm not in agreement. Here's why. Let's say we go with the
third possible die shift. Let's also say that we give our track commander a
flak jacket. Now, I've got to give him a base armor of d6. If I shift it up
three, he's at d12 armor: the same as being inside the track! I'm just not
comfortable with having a guy sitting halfway out of the track and getting the
same armor benefits as being inside.
> So, to re-iterate....
Right, like I mentioned before, if the vehicle penetration doesn't occur, I'm
all for having exposed crew roll for personal armor penetration with up to two
die shifts.
> Just trying to give a more era specific feel.
I appreciate that. I think we've almost got a reasonable solution. After we
get this out of the way, I'd like to take a more detailed look at some of the
small arms of the era.
-Mike
> Fabet@aol.com wrote:
> The Australians had a fire support version that mounted a 75mm gun in
Actually a 76.2mm gun, in a turret off a UK "Saladin" Armoured Car. Called an
FSV (Fire Support Vehicle). The later versions had the turret off a Scorpion
light tank instead. Note: these versions are NOT amphibious. As has been
demonstrated by experiment. Despite this, they have a lot of floatation gear
around them, which has been proved to be useful vs shaped charges.
In a message dated 1/30/00 10:32:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> aebrain@dynamite.com.au writes:
<<
> The Australians had a fire support version that mounted a 75mm gun in
Actually a 76.2mm gun, in a turret off a UK "Saladin" Armoured Car. Called an
FSV (Fire Support Vehicle). >
Exactly right.
<The later versions had the turret off a Scorpion light tank instead.>
I don't think this model made it to Vietnam, but most texts don't talk about
the Aussies in 'Nam enough.
< Note: these versions are NOT amphibious. As has been demonstrated by
experiment. Despite this, they have a lot of floatation gear around them,
which has been proved to be useful vs shaped charges. >>
Technically speaking the 11 in all it's varients are swimable not amphibious.
When chassis are altered the weight shifts and the vehicle has problems. To
overcome this floation panels were added. The later FSV had them as does the
Vulcan. If you look at Israeli Vulcans, they drop the floatation panels.
Faron
> Fabet@aol.com wrote:
Very true...
> < Note: these versions are NOT amphibious. As has been demonstrated by
I heard the FSV variant with the Saladin turret had problems with stability on
slopes.
> Fabet@aol.com wrote:
> < Note: these versions are NOT amphibious. As has been demonstrated by
Take it from me, the FSV is not amphibious, not swimmable, it doesn't float,
regardless of the flotation panels. The rear is just too heavy,
In a message dated 1/31/00 2:21:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> bcadwgan@fl.net.au writes:
<<
I heard the FSV variant with the Saladin turret had problems with stability on
slopes. >>
Would'nt suprise me. It's sort of like a baby KV2. This might be something to
add to DS2 games. Vehicles that have special mobilit problems. I wouldn't want
to use it all the time, but may make for an unusual scenario.
Faron
In a message dated 1/31/00 5:08:21 PM Central Standard Time,
Fabet@AOL.COM writes:
<<
Would'nt suprise me. It's sort of like a baby KV2. This might be something to
add to DS2 games. Vehicles that have special mobilit problems. I wouldn't want
to use it all the time, but may make for an unusual scenario.
> [quoted text omitted]
The TOC version of the M113 is very notoriously top heavy and of course has no
armament at all, being the communications, staff vehicle. Had a friend who
was on an evaluation team for a light counter-battery radar set. He and
his team drove all over the desert around Yuma having mortar batteries drop
practice bombs on them so they could operate the radar system. In six weeks
they turnved the TOC over twice.