Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
- TooFatLardies
- Messages
Search
|
Grudziadz Sept 39 IABSM in 6mm
After a late war game I thought some early actions in the Poland 39 campaign would be in order for a September IABSM game.? I stole this scenario directly from Rob Avery's excellent Vis Lardica site.?
Grudziadz is a town in the Polish Corridor and the Germans were actually attacking from East Prussia.? The attackers were from the reserve 10th Panzer Rgt. They had a load of light tanks-- 2 platoons of 2) Pz Is and 3) Pz IIs and a HQ platoon of 2 more Pz IIs and another Pz I and a Pz I Befelswagen.??
They also had a company of 3 platoons of infantry, a 4 gun MMG platoon, 2 AA Halftracks? ?The last 2 units came in after 5 'Time' cards. The town was strategically important because it had several military schools and staff offices.? But it was lightly defended.? Only infantry and Border units (KOP) and some artillery.
Jon had was the defending Poles.? He had 3 2) section platoons of infantry.? One of KOP troops and the other regulars.? They were large sections of 10 men though.? The regular platoons also had an ATR and a Lt Mortar.? Also 3? taczankas and 3 37mm Bofors ATGs.? 2 medium mortars and some artillery--which never came in.? Rob had some PZL 37 aircraft to bring in but alas, I did not.? All the Poles could be dug in within the perimeter of the town outskirts.
Link to flickr AAR:?? Mark |
|
Outpost Actions Guadeloupe 1759
Getting around to editing some games played this Summer? This is another older game from our GB Historical Day event
I am a great fan of the 'Wargaming the Sugar Islands Campaign" booklet by Stuart Insch and thought this game would be a nice addition to our July 2021 event. Colorful Seven Year War troops in a unique setting always make for an interesting battle. This scenario was based on 'Outpost Actions' scenario on Guadeloupe in April 1759. The British are to sally from Fort Royal and attack the French in the more "open" terrain 15mm minis and Sharp Practice rules. Link to the flickr set:? ? Mark |
|
Alt Langsow April 1945 IABSM
Another 6mm IABSM game played last month at Gigabites Cafe was a action during the Seelow Heights campaign.? Elements of the 26th Fallschirmjager and 2/8 Panzerabteilung hold off the 220th Tank Brigade and 1054th Rifle Rgt.? A much more one sided affair that it should have been with the boggy Oderbruch assisting the defenders.
Link to the flickr AAR:??https://www.flickr.com/photos/6mmgaming/albums/72157719853187430 Thanks, Mark |
|
Milne Bay Delaying Action Sept 42
This was a 20mm Chain of Command game played last month that was based on the Aussie following up the Japanese retreat after their failed assault on the Milne Bay airfields, early? September 42.? It was a modified Delaying Action scenario with the 2 Japanese players each having a weakened platoon and a MMG team.? The 2 Aussies had regular Commonwealth platoons.? Excellent defensive positioning by the Japanese players and the 2" mortar's smoke dissipating too quickly ensured a Japanese victory.
Link to flickr AAR:? ?https://www.flickr.com/photos/6mmgaming/albums/72157719803781446/with/51441280924/
?
?
Mark
? |
|
Re: IABSM, tweaking artillery effects on tanks
The battalion could also fire a pattern equal to XXX or
X X X with each having a +1 but only rolling x1 per targets in the artillery templates. It does cover more ground. British guns in WW2 had 2x4 25pdr gun sections in a battery. The battalion had three of these totalling 24 guns. They could be played as firing a double wide or deep template. In this case I would roll dice for them as 1 level lower so no +1. I don't remember the size of IABSM! artillery templates. Good shooting. In FOW and Spearhead artillery is effective if you put it on a target and leave it there. A lot of players keep switching targets every turn and although lucky once in awhile a steady barrage I find to be more effective. Mike Reese |
|
Re: IABSM, tweaking artillery effects on tanks
I might suggest that the lowest barrage class have no modifiers.? 50-60mm could take out open topped vehicles but tanks were relatively safe. The modifiers are cumulative?? If not then I suggest:
50mm-65mm = No modifier 75mm - 100mm = +1 100mm - 154mm = +2 155mm + =
+3 If cumulative i.e. 155mm gets the +1 for 75-100mm +1 for 100-154mm and +1 for 155mm you get the same result. If you stonk a target, say with a "Mike" target by 25 pdr, where all of the rounds are aimed at the same point you would have one artillery template and add +1 to your die roll.? But because you have 24 guns - 3 batteries - firing you roll 3 dice at +1. If the fire was by a US 105mm Field artillery battalion (3 batteries of 4 howitzers) firing a TOT then one artillery template and add +2 to your die as well as roll 3 dice. If the fire was a US SP M7 battalion with 18 M7 HMC the same as with the Field artillery battalion. Michael Reese |
|
Re: IABSM, tweaking artillery effects on tanks
Thanks for the feedback everyone. Points all well taken. I may make a minor tweak depending upon weight of shells of the barrage. i.e. 50mm-60mm = no big deal, 75mm - 100mm = threatening, 100mm - 154mm = really threatening, 155mm + = let's get out of here....
On another note, is it the correct interpretation that an adjusted role of 7 on the above table results in at least 4 shock points.? The 2 shock points noted in the table plus an additional 2 shock points when you "take 2 hit points on the AFV damage table?" |
|
Re: IABSM, tweaking artillery effects on tanks
开云体育Tiger I top armour: 25-40 mm. PzII top armour: 10 mm. But don’t let the numbers fool you…when artillery hits your area you wanna leave. Trust me. As in “let’s just get the Hell out. Now!” It is pretty much (as is so often the case) question of Morale. Doug and Ashley speak the truth.? /J Den 24. aug. 2021 kl. 14.08 skrev Doug Melville <dougmelville@...>:
|
|
Re: IABSM, tweaking artillery effects on tanks
开云体育I think we've all seen pictures of tanks including Tigers on their side or upside down. I've always assumed that's a blast effect from large artillery or air attack.
A naval bombardment is really going to ruin your day, even if you are in a tin can.
Doug
Get From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Ashley Pollard <ashley@...>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 11:07:24 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [TooFatLardies] IABSM, tweaking artillery effects on tanks ?
On 24/08/2021 09:39, John Ewing via groups.io wrote:
As to varying the effects of different armour under a bombardment that’s an additional level of chrome you could factor in if you wished to model it. I have just assumed that the rules are an abstraction which can cover anything from a lighter tank being physically destroyed to a heavier one suffering sufficient damage to its optics or other key equipment that it can no longer operate efficiently, all depending on the dice rolled. Works for me. Just as an aside. Even the heaviest tanks have less armour on top as they are primarily designed to defeat frontal attacks. IIRC high explosive artillery shells frequently killed tanks: remember the shock wave alone can cause traumatic brain injury, and being inside a tin can, even a big tin can like a Tiger, will be the equivalent on sitting under the hammer of god. My two pence/cents. YMMV -- Ashley R Pollard ashley@... Enjoy your life. Make it count for something. And do no harm. --------------------------------------- |
|
Re: IABSM, tweaking artillery effects on tanks
开云体育On 24/08/2021 09:39, John Ewing via
groups.io wrote:
As to varying the effects of different armour under a bombardment that’s an additional level of chrome you could factor in if you wished to model it. I have just assumed that the rules are an abstraction which can cover anything from a lighter tank being physically destroyed to a heavier one suffering sufficient damage to its optics or other key equipment that it can no longer operate efficiently, all depending on the dice rolled. Works for me. Just as an aside. Even the heaviest tanks have less armour on top as they are primarily designed to defeat frontal attacks. IIRC high explosive artillery shells frequently killed tanks: remember the shock wave alone can cause traumatic brain injury, and being inside a tin can, even a big tin can like a Tiger, will be the equivalent on sitting under the hammer of god. My two
pence/cents. YMMV -- Ashley R Pollard ashley@... Enjoy your life. Make it count for something. And do no harm. --------------------------------------- |
|
Re: IABSM, tweaking artillery effects on tanks
Hi Dan,
I wouldn’t interpret the rule on tank crews bailing out when caught in a bombardment literally. Section 5.3 on Shock on AFVs is dealing with the majority of cases in the game were AFVs are under direct fire when, as you say, it can make sense for the crew to physically abandon their vehicle when their morale fails. In game terms it’s simpler to apply that same rule to tanks under a barrage rather than create a new mechanism, but I have always rationalised it as the tank crew abandoning their mission and turning tail to withdraw from the table. The effect is broadly the same in that the tank no longer functions. If it suits you better you could simply force the AFV to withdraw at full speed back off table. As to varying the effects of different armour under a bombardment that’s an additional level of chrome you could factor in if you wished to model it. I have just assumed that the rules are an abstraction which can cover anything from a lighter tank being physically destroyed to a heavier one suffering sufficient damage to its optics or other key equipment that it can no longer operate efficiently, all depending on the dice rolled. Works for me. John |
|
Re: IABSM, tweaking artillery effects on tanks
hi Dan You could make a scenario rule that tanks will retire off table instead of bailing if they have too much shock. If it worries you about artillery having the same effect on the different tanks, maybe give your tigers a free pass on the first shock from artillery and pz II get an extra one after the second hit.? Rich has always said the rules are a tool box and you can adjust them if you feel the need. Regards Egg?? ? On 23 Aug 2021, at 15:08, Dan <dan.albrecht.vt@...> wrote:
|
|
IABSM, tweaking artillery effects on tanks
Just got down playing a scenario from Sicily IABSM book.
Scenario played fairly and as expected and as was the case historically, the US naval artillery played a key role in breaking up an attack by Tigers, Panzer IV and Panzer III. One thing that bothers me about the effect of Artillery on Tanks. Here is the current rule: 9.3.3??EFFECT ON VEHICLES Vehicles caught in the Kill Zone of any support fire may take some damage.??Roll 1D6 for each vehicle and consult the following tables, adding +1 to the roll if the shells hitting are between 85mm and 110mm, add +1 if they are over 110mm or rockets.? ?Add +1 if an open topped tank or AFV. My main concern with this concept is that it does not take into consideration the armor and weight of the tank.... Tanks were created as way to deal with advancing across open ground while under fire from artillery. In the battle above, I had both a Tiger I crew and Panzer IV crew bail out of their tank when coming under bombardment.? under these rules a Tiger I is just as vulnerable as a Panzer II.? So that is one item that could use some adjustment.? The other issue is that when shock is exceed for the crew inside a tank...they automatically bail out....yes, if you are getting fired on by a tank bailing out is the smart thing to do....when an artillery bombardment happens, that is the last thing that you would do.? In the case of Sicily, especially the massed assault across the open plain towards the Town, the tank crews there simply turned around their tanks and fled. A few were knocked out.? I have more thoughts on this issue but I would like to to hear from others on this.? Thanks |
|
Re: Lists for 1st Afghan War
Well if you do go for the Duke’s First War of Independence range then having a few gentlemen from Peshawar and beyond will not go amiss. 1857 is not somewhere I need or want to go anymore, but the misadventures of Dost Mahommed and General Elphinstone I do find fascinating along with the rise and decline of the Sikh empire. In fact pretty much anything along the Silk Road in the 1800s.
Graham |
|
Re: Rules Question - Chain of Command - JOP Placement
On the first point, I don't believe the 'sacrificing the benefit of cover' in the FAQ means you can choose to put a JOP on the table edge if cover is available from that patrol marker - if there is any cover available you must use it. What it does mean is that you have a choice as to which patrol markers you use to place a JOP, so you can choose to use one for which there is no cover, so the JOP ends up on the table edge, rather than one where the JOP could be in cover. As to the tree, I don't know know how your table is set up, but I'm assuming you mean a tree on its own outside of any marked area of terrain? If so, then a single tree isn't going to be good cover for a single man, let alone a section, so I wouldn't say it counts for placing a JOP either. A JOP represents an area with sufficient cover that a section could have advanced up to it without being observed (even if on the table edge, it's assumed that such a covered route exists off the table edge). A wood or a hedge allows that, a single tree does not. Hope that helps. Cheers, Jim On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, 04:55 Mitch Abrams, <mhabrams@...> wrote: I have a two part question regarding Jump Off Points and their placement. |
|
Re: Rules Question - Chain of Command - JOP Placement
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Ralph Plowman via groups.io <ralph.plowman@...>
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 7:30:41 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [TooFatLardies] Rules Question - Chain of Command - JOP Placement ?
The sacrificing of cover refers, I believe, to the fact that you are forced to place your JOP on the table edge due to a lack of it. It is not presenting a new rule whereby troops deploying from a JOP on the table edge can ignore cover.
As for single trees; Ininderstand Chain of Command to use a figure to human scale of 1:1, so a single tree represents just that. A section using it as cover would have to adopt some kind of Hanna Barbera arrangement with heads peering out vertically along the trunk. |
|
Re: Rules Question - Chain of Command - JOP Placement
The sacrificing of cover refers, I believe, to the fact that you are forced to place your JOP on the table edge due to a lack of it. It is not presenting a new rule whereby troops deploying from a JOP on the table edge can ignore cover.
As for single trees; Ininderstand Chain of Command to use a figure to human scale of 1:1, so a single tree represents just that. A section using it as cover would have to adopt some kind of Hanna Barbera arrangement with heads peering out vertically along the trunk. |
Michael Reese
to navigate to use esc to dismiss