Richard

I notice Amazon have a book titled "German Flamethrowers 1914 - 1945"
by F.C.Koch priced at ?7.95. A very hot topic (Ho Ho). As well as
being cheap this book has the added benefit that perhaps after
reading it your could become a contestant on Mastermind.

Lardy

The lone ranger is a well documented historical figure, as indeed is
Pocahontas although somewhat out of period, this rubbish about Irish
sergeants, however, is simply Hollywood.

I reckon you need double the injuns, a mix size of units, from 8 to
12 men would give a more variable and more attractive "warband"
feel. As in Triumph of the Will the unit sizes would reflect
enthusiasm.

Peter Pig do a nice range of Wild West people in 15mm, these could
furnish you with some homesteaders/miners or whatever. They also do
a Wild West train, but of course that would mean you doing some
painting of the non-skirting board variety! Please apply in writing
to your wife for permission first.

Rich


--- In Toofatlardies@..., "Lardy" <nick.skinner@w...>
wrote:

So, let me get this straight. In Bad Medicine, You think the Irish
sergeants brawling in the ranks to be a little ridiculous and then,
almost in your next breath you suggest that the Lone Ranger

appearing

may add to the game!! Whatever next, a 'Pocahontas' card perhaps!

Thank you for your comments. Stick to the booze.

However, I would agree that the game showed potential and could be
added to the repetoire with relatively little work, which suits me
down to the ground.

Lardy

--- In Toofatlardies@..., "richardclarkerli"
<richardclarkerli@y...> wrote:

Thinking more about the cards, I have refered to an article I did

on

wargaming the Maximilian Adventure, where we had random events
cards. Looking through that the following seem appropriate.

1. Muchos Tequila. Could be converted to "Where's that damn
bottle?". One US or indian officer has swigged a bit too much

and

becomes more aggressive than he should be. A stationary section
would advance that turn on the nearest enemy, a mounted section

would

decide to charge the nearest enemy etc.

2. Muchos Muchos Tequila. Converted to "Wes dat damboddle?"

One

officer has had so much whiskey that he has fallen over/off his

horse

and will spend the next two turns getting up/remounting. During

that

time his section cannot move, they may of course fire.

3. Viva Zorro! Converted to "Who was that masked stranger?".

The

Lone Ranger appears high on a bluff with his trusty companion

Tonto.

Any injuns within 24" will not advance for two turns. After

which

the Lone Ranger buggers off.

4. Murdering Basterados! Converted to "They killed ma Pa!" One

of

the section commanders recognises a certain group of injuns as

the

ones who killed his Pa/Granny/little doggy etc. He will
automatically mount up his men and charge them, guns ablazin. He

can

only be stopped by the US force commander.

5. Is that a Bugle. Converted to "Is that a Bugle". Over the

hill

rides a section (or whatever) of soldiers from another Company,

out

on patrol. They join the Yanks in their quest.

6. Sharpshooter. One of your men picks off an inportant injun.

The

nearest Injun "unit" will halt for a turn in shock, and then
automatically charge you in an attempt to initiate close combat.

One of these could be randomly added to the pack for a game, but
would, of course, need to come out at a single random moment

during

the game. How that system worked we would have to decide.

Anyway,

some ideas.

Rich

So, let me get this straight. In Bad Medicine, You think the Irish
sergeants brawling in the ranks to be a little ridiculous and then,
almost in your next breath you suggest that the Lone Ranger appearing
may add to the game!! Whatever next, a 'Pocahontas' card perhaps!

Thank you for your comments. Stick to the booze.

However, I would agree that the game showed potential and could be
added to the repetoire with relatively little work, which suits me
down to the ground.

Lardy

--- In Toofatlardies@..., "richardclarkerli"
<richardclarkerli@y...> wrote:

Thinking more about the cards, I have refered to an article I did

on

wargaming the Maximilian Adventure, where we had random events
cards. Looking through that the following seem appropriate.

1. Muchos Tequila. Could be converted to "Where's that damn
bottle?". One US or indian officer has swigged a bit too much and
becomes more aggressive than he should be. A stationary section
would advance that turn on the nearest enemy, a mounted section

would

decide to charge the nearest enemy etc.

2. Muchos Muchos Tequila. Converted to "Wes dat damboddle?" One
officer has had so much whiskey that he has fallen over/off his

horse

and will spend the next two turns getting up/remounting. During

that

time his section cannot move, they may of course fire.

3. Viva Zorro! Converted to "Who was that masked stranger?". The
Lone Ranger appears high on a bluff with his trusty companion

Tonto.

Any injuns within 24" will not advance for two turns. After which
the Lone Ranger buggers off.

4. Murdering Basterados! Converted to "They killed ma Pa!" One

of

the section commanders recognises a certain group of injuns as the
ones who killed his Pa/Granny/little doggy etc. He will
automatically mount up his men and charge them, guns ablazin. He

can

only be stopped by the US force commander.

5. Is that a Bugle. Converted to "Is that a Bugle". Over the

hill

rides a section (or whatever) of soldiers from another Company, out
on patrol. They join the Yanks in their quest.

6. Sharpshooter. One of your men picks off an inportant injun.

The

nearest Injun "unit" will halt for a turn in shock, and then
automatically charge you in an attempt to initiate close combat.

One of these could be randomly added to the pack for a game, but
would, of course, need to come out at a single random moment during
the game. How that system worked we would have to decide. Anyway,
some ideas.

Rich

Okay. After a laborious search of just about every source I could
find, along with the internet, ans postings on several modern
discussion groups, the answer on flamethrowers seems to be......no
bugger knows.

There is lots of opinion, but very little (nowt that I've turned up)
primary source accounts of tanks being fried. However there is
primary source stuff about petrol bombs in Spain and Finland, and
also some primary source stuff on the state of WWII tanks.

Aparently the engine compartment was the most attractive target for a
tank killer. This compartment would routinely be full of "Gunk" that
was flamable, and what's more any minor fuel leeks would see the
engine catch fire automatically.

Two schools of thought on crispy critters. One agrees with Mr T's
prime source that the crews would literally cook inside the tank.
The other suggests that all oxygen would be sucked out to feed the
fire. Either way it was a case of "bail out or die". We do not need
to worry about which is true. However I did find a site called
something like "howdoesdoesthatwork.com" which did agree with T that
the flamethrower could spray unlit fuel onto a target which could
then be ignited.

Equally all I could find stressed the effect on the morale of the tak
crew as being a major factor. When looking at Calais it became clear
that simply firing as much of anything as possible at tanks could
make them withdraw.

What most of the research also exposed was that as a rule knocking
out tanks was not the job of a pioneer/engineer with a flamethrower,
it was the job of an AT gun or PIAT/Panzerfaust/Bazoka/AT rifle armed
soldier.

Nothing new there, but certainly in the Finnish section I shall
stress the importance of chucking a petrol bomb onto the rear
decking. For flamthrowers perhaps we should stress that that is the
target area on the tank, not the frontal armour?

Rich

Thinking more about the cards, I have refered to an article I did on
wargaming the Maximilian Adventure, where we had random events
cards. Looking through that the following seem appropriate.

1. Muchos Tequila. Could be converted to "Where's that damn
bottle?". One US or indian officer has swigged a bit too much and
becomes more aggressive than he should be. A stationary section
would advance that turn on the nearest enemy, a mounted section would
decide to charge the nearest enemy etc.

2. Muchos Muchos Tequila. Converted to "Wes dat damboddle?" One
officer has had so much whiskey that he has fallen over/off his horse
and will spend the next two turns getting up/remounting. During that
time his section cannot move, they may of course fire.

3. Viva Zorro! Converted to "Who was that masked stranger?". The
Lone Ranger appears high on a bluff with his trusty companion Tonto.
Any injuns within 24" will not advance for two turns. After which
the Lone Ranger buggers off.

4. Murdering Basterados! Converted to "They killed ma Pa!" One of
the section commanders recognises a certain group of injuns as the
ones who killed his Pa/Granny/little doggy etc. He will
automatically mount up his men and charge them, guns ablazin. He can
only be stopped by the US force commander.

5. Is that a Bugle. Converted to "Is that a Bugle". Over the hill
rides a section (or whatever) of soldiers from another Company, out
on patrol. They join the Yanks in their quest.

6. Sharpshooter. One of your men picks off an inportant injun. The
nearest Injun "unit" will halt for a turn in shock, and then
automatically charge you in an attempt to initiate close combat.

One of these could be randomly added to the pack for a game, but
would, of course, need to come out at a single random moment during
the game. How that system worked we would have to decide. Anyway,
some ideas.

Rich

I thought that the initial playtest for Bad Medicine. The injuns
were encouraged to use historical tactics, ditto for the US. To go
further I feel that the close combat should be taken to represent
close range firing as well as fisticuffs. As such dismounted US
should get +50% dice to reflect accurate close range fire. However
the injuns should get +50% dice if their enemy is on horseback.

How about rules for stagecoaches (which would look brilliant) along
with injuns leaping onto them from a moving horse, flaming arrows,
and civilians firing.

Injuns seemed to loose initiative a bit quickly, however that was
probably because we need to paint more. At playtest stage one idea
for the injuns would be to base then in sixes but count them as 10
men, and cross off the strength as in POW, or even just use the small
dice. This would allow them to be a bit more resilient and actually
attack the US cavalry. However the better solution would probably be
to paint more injuns!

Also, would injuns suffer wounds. I rather like the idea that like
the VC in Charlie Don't Surf they are either fighting fit or out of
it, too tough to bother about any wound other than death. In CDS I
seem to recall that 1-3 is a miss 4-6 is hors de combat.

The fisticuffs with the sergeant should probably only happen once in
a game (if at all?), possibly dice throw each time it comes out, on a
1 it happens, after that the card is discarded?

Other cards....smoke signals, medicine man, Lone Ranger, Champion the
Wonder Horse, Rebel the Dog, Uncle Sandy, Mr Ed. Also perhaps here
is an ideal time to have a drunken doctor to remove wounds rather
than the Big Men, as medics do in CDS.

Anyhow, a good first outing.

I take your point. For petrol bombs the issue would be how the tank
killer team got into position to deliver their attack, in Finland the
Russian tanks suffered heavily when their tanks operated without
infantry support, the Finns simply moved outside their areas of
vision and chucked the petrol bomb onto the rear of the hull where
the air intake was. So yes, very effective. However when the
Russians began to operate their tanks with infantry support then the
Finns were buggered. This fits in nicely with the rules, you have to
work the two together.

Flamethrowers are slightly different. If a car was parked twenty
yards away from my house and I had a flamethrower (God forbid!) I
reckon I could pretty well guarantee knocking it out in the fashion
that Mr T told me about. A quick squirt and then KABOOOOOM. However
the rules allow for the stresses of combat, and do take into account
the fact that the flamethrower operative will probably be crapping
himself to a greater or lesser degree. Equally the "roll to hit"
equation does allow for the umpire to say "That bloke with the
flamethrower is a complete novice, as such he will have a worse
chance of hitting his target than that other bloke who has been
torching chaps from Poland to Stalingrad". In fairness I should have
stated that I would use a 6 to hit as a basic factor only if the
firer is an experienced Pioneer who is entirely familar with his
weapon.

Man carried flamethrowers should be restricted to three rounds of
firing anyway, which will reduce their effectiveness, especially as
once he has opened up with the first one he is a marked man! What is
the percentage chance of rolling 6 or more on two dice? (I could
normally work that out but the head's not functioning too well this
morning).

Let's say for argument it's 60% success, if not you can ammend the
figures accordingly. Using the figures in the rules an experienced
pioneer would do the following.

40% of the time he'd "Miss" (i.e. fail to do significant damage with
his attack).
A further 15% of the time he'd fail to do any damage but would be
considered to have missed narrowly, affecting the ability of the tank
crew to aim effectively et al.
A further 15% he'd fail to damage the tank, but the crew would think
they were on fire and would bail out.
30% of the time the crew would fry and die. The tank would be
totally knackered, with all of its wiring melted, its engine damaged
etc.

So, effectively he would end the tank's game in 45% of incidents, but
again this is with the tank being statiooary. If it's moving then it
would be reduced further, and yes, if the firer was himself under
fire his chances of hitting would be reduced further. Anything less
and the weapon would just be too bloody dangerous to consider using!

Even so I consider the flamethrower to be a "last chance" option
against tanks, the AT gun being the weapon of choice, but really an
offensive assault weapon rather than a defensive one.

Rich






--- In Toofatlardies@..., mikeqchromeuk@a... wrote:

Aynsley,

Haven't got any hard facts or figures to back it up, but my gut

(and I've

plenty of that) feeling is that you are greatly overestimating the

killing power

of flamethrowers/petrol bombs against armoured targets.

Accounts of such weapons taking out tanks (as opposed to open

topped vehicles

which were very vulnerable to Mr Molotov in built up areas) are

very rare. If

they were that effective I am sure that such a simple anti-tank

device would

have been in much greater use.

I have no doubt that a number of well aimed petrol bombs or a good

squirt

from a flamethrower could knock out a tank, but the tank is

unlikely to be

stationary and not firing back at the assailants.

I would suggest that the flamethrower operator should have to pass

a GUTS

test before even being able to attack the vehicle.

Mick

Richard,

The other side of this also needs to be considered. If it takes guts to face a flamethrower in a tank it takes significantly more guts to stand around infront of a tank with a blinking great tank of oil on your back. Especially if you miss first time and become a marked man.

Be careful not to make it too easy for poorly motivated troops to get into great firing positions against armour. I for one would be "gapping it".

But then again, I generally do.

------

richardclarkerli wrote:

Okay, so under the rules a flamethrower firing at a tank would need 6
or more to hit on 2D6. So, its likely it will succeed. Then it has
a 50% chance of knocking it out. This reflects the fact that the
firer gets it right, or buggers it up by spraying the running gear or
some other non critical part of the tank.

If it fails the crew have a 50% chance of bottling it anyway and
abandoning ship. Seems about right to me.

Petrol bombs I am still working on, but it shouldn't be too
stressful.

A conversation with a list member who is clearly too lazy to post his
findings for the benefit of all would suggest that in conversation
with a WWII veteran he discovered that flamthrowers would be used
thus when dealing with a tank or bunker.

Step 1: Neat fuel would be sprayed from the flamethrower, withour
being ingnited, onto the tank/into the bunker.

Step 2: (admit it, you already know what's coming next) A second
squirt of fuel, this time ignited, would then set off the first lot.

Step 3: Tank crew/bunker occupants = crispy critters. Also, I woud
presume, the tank would cease to function as wiring would melt,
engine would be damaged et al.

Nasty but effective.

Therefore a flame based weapon should have no AP strike under the
rules, but an arbitrary test will say that, whatever the target it
has succeeded or failed. I guess range and accuracy are the biggest
factors we need to consider. Any suggestions for a simple yet
elegant system? A large cream bun to the winner.

For petrol bombs (by the way) the Finns found that the biggest
problem was if the damned things didn't break properly, but just
rolled off.

Rich

开云体育

开云体育

A quick idea...

We played an interesting game the other evening, with the Rifle
Brigade attempting a fighting withdrawal through a built up area of
Calais. To reflect the abilities of these regular servicemen, and
the emphasis on marksmanship in the pre-war British Army, we allowed
the Sniper card to be used by any one rifle section of the player's
choice each time it came out. I would reccomend this only for
regular units, not territorials (indeed the QVR troops on the table
were not allowed to benefit from this).

I am putting together the supplement covering the Russo Finnish War
of 1939/40 and the 1940 campaign in Norway. As such I am looking at
petrol bombs and their effects. In Finland the Finns attacked tanks
from the rear, chucking their weapon onto the engine housing. I know
jack about the internal combsution engine, but apparently this would
starve the engine of oxygen and it would break down. More
importantly the crew would be scared of frying, and would jump out
and attempt to bugger off. Apparently the Norwegians did the same
(use petrol bombs, not jump out of tanks - they didn't have any!).

In the Spanish Civil War a similar technique was used, but the bottle
of petrol was accompanied by a grenade. To the crew of the tank a
bloody great bang followed by flames gave them the impression that
their tank had been hit by a shell and was on fire, they too buggered
off double quick to avoid crispy critter syndrome, and the tank woulf
often be captured by its attacker (the Moors were especially good at
this, and were offered bounties, especially for the Russian T26 tanks
which were better than any of the old crap that Hitler or Musso
sent.

To my mind this latter illustrates the effect was moral rather than
physical. The same should be true of the flamethrower itself against
tanks. Rather than have a strike factor for armour piercing it
should probably have a moral impact on the crew, whatever size tank
it was.

Any comments from anyone?

The Fat Lad mentioned "skirmish", I would wish to point out that
IABSM is not a skirmish rule set. We are not interested in the
actions of individual men, other than Big Men, or what they are armed
with. Our smallest unit of interest is the Squad or section. As
such we have a 1:1 ratio rule set, but it is very much about Platoon
and Company actions.

I am sure Nick had that in mind when he made his contributions to the
rules.

Rich

--- In Toofatlardies@..., nick.skinner@w... wrote:

The illustrious PhD bloke wrote "The other way of doing this is to

use

the "skirmish factor" ideas from Napoleonics- if there would be

recce

units in the organisation, don't represent them".

Sadly though Dr D we are doing a skirmish game where single figures

and

vehicles are important.

Well, yes and no. We are not wanting to game the initial recon. of
every engagement. So, we need someway of feeding the results of that
recon. into the engagement we do want to game. So, to my logically
trained scientific mind (:-)), the fact that we want to represent the
results of the recon., but do not want to game it, leads us to a
mechanism by which the figures we want to play with derive some
benefit from the actions of the figures we don't want to represent.
Otherwise, we are reliant on the umpire to do so, and we all know
where that leads us!

Daz

The illustrious PhD bloke wrote "The other way of doing this is to use the "skirmish factor" ideas from Napoleonics- if there would be recce units in the organisation, don't represent them".

Sadly though Dr D we are doing a skirmish game where single figures and vehicles are important.
You are clearly mad. However, I agree with all your other points, particularly the static defence points and general commentary on other stuff. Often in the games we play the briefing on opposition tends to be "the area is believed to be lightly defended by British/German/French" More specificity is probably required with a good intelligence briefing (but ONLY if such information is in keeping with national characteristics).

Lardus

therugdoctor2003 wrote:

Well, you've stolen my thunder. I thought "I'll just read the latest
reply from Rich" before bringing up those fond memories of WRG "lose
a dice roll and lose the game"!

I agree with the umpire bits, and the fact that players need to
discover why those recce units existed in the first place. A worry I
have is that but giving too much away to the attacker doesn't allow
for a mobile defense around strong points, in that if one part of the
mobile force was deemed spotted in the original recon, then it stays
in place- not realistic. It would be realistic to allow the
identification of static strong points, and then to declare "a
strong/small detatchment of tanks/Pzr IVs/amoured vehicles" is known
to be present. Or something like that.

The other way of doing this is to use the "skirmish factor" ideas
from Napoleonics- if there would be recce units in the organisation,
don't represent them (saves Rich all that painting) but give the
units that would directly benefit from the recce arm some extra
spotting factors or dummy blinds. Thus, an amoured unit with recce,
supporting some PBI, would get the benefit of the recce unit, but the
infantry wouldn't.

Daz

Nick and Al

To reply to you both. I thought about spotting idea
when contemplating the French and German motorcycle
troops that I have to paint. I thought "Rather than
paint these bloody figures, I'll just make up some
daft rule".

In fact recce troops do get benefits in the rules,
extra spotting, extra fast, perhaps a slightly longer
automatic spot range would be an easier idea. However
as Nikkos says we could end up playing "where's the
enemy" game every game.

On reflection I think that the umpire should probably
be a bit more decisive at the start of the game,
letting the attackers have a bit more information if
they have been able to recce the area effectively.

I think that there is an issue that players are too
keen to get all of their stuff on the table
immediately, when perhaps they would be better off
chucking a few light tanks or armoured cars around for
a couple of turns to see what they pick up.

In a recent game had the sherrif done just that with
his Panzer Is, even just whipping up to the bridge, he
would have picked up the 2 pounder in the pill box, as
ell as the carrier platoon near the windmill - may be
not knowing exactly was there, but at least knowing
that that was where the enemy was.

So we probably have a classic opportunity for
over-engineering that I love so much.

Perhaps an old chestnut like the "out scouted" rule in
the old WRG ancients could be more effective. With
the umpire getting the defender to put down his blin
nearest the enemy.

Cheers

Rich

Cheers



--- nick.skinner@... wrote: > I would agree
with Big Al. The spotting rules we

have are pretty good.
What you have suggested would be interesting but I
would worry that it
will slow the game up and may mean that it may not
be possible to both
brief and play the game in one evening and may mean
that games would
need advance briefing and dispositions. This is not
necessarily a bad
thing but seeing as some very inconsiderate people
often say they will
be there next week and then aren't (perhaps beacuse
their wife is going
out or some other poor excuse) then we may be left
with a problem.

The counter aspect to this though, as touched on by
Big Al, is that
forces on table need more of a reconnaissance make
up to them.
Mororcycle combinations, a/cars, that kind of thing.
Good fun but the
problem here is that you end up fighting the same,
initial recon game
each week, which would not be much fun.

IABSM put much of the emphasis on the Umpire, and
perhaps the umpire
also needs to play a more proactive role here,
either by producing more
detailed briefs to the attacker of enemy positions
(which does of course
mean that the defender gets very little option to
dictate his own
dispositions, or by raising the profile of spotting
for the attacker,
perhaps with the introduction of extra spotting
cards for advancing
troops (perhaps one per big man?). This would at
least make the attacker
think about spotting a little more. This is much
more in keeping with
the Lardy philosophy than the seemingly convoluted
system you are
proposing. Trevor would never understand it.




Alan Reynolds wrote:

RichardWhat sparked the thought?Was it the fact

that we have seen

examples of attackers being thrown off balance by

some "unexpected"

forces/dispositions, if so I might argue that

better use of existing

spotting/reconnaissance rules would have served to

eliminate the

unknown.Equally tactical reconnaissance could be

provided by an

increase in this type of force on the table, as

you said last week

providing the Germans with a couple of 222's could

have "tripped" the

defensive line of the Brits.If you are thinking

"strategic"

reconnaissance then it may well apply to both the

defender and

attacker, depending on the situation.Normally this

is taken care of in

the briefing notes but if you want to add an

additional phase of

reconnaissance, should both defender and attacker

have the chance to

benefit?Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: richardclarkerli

[mailto:richardclarkerli@...]

Sent: 05 May 2003 10:32
To: Toofatlardies@...
Subject: [Toofatlardies] Pre-battle

reconnaissance

Gents

A pre-battle reconnaissance system has just

struck me, that

would
allow for an attacker to have some prior

knowledge of what

he is
coming up against.

At the start of a game there is a facility

for each force to

dice for
how many blinds it has. This could also be

used to allocate

an
attacker a certain number of pre-deployment

spotting

attempts. This
would reflect how much prior knowledge they

have of their

opponent.

For example as this chart currently stands

good regulars

have 1D6
number blinds. Equally this could also

reflect how many

spotting
attempts they get before deciding on where to

attack.

This would need to be adjusted for

circumstances. For

example..

The force is strong in dedicated recce troops

+2

The force has dedicated aerial recce to

mission

+1
The force has faced this enemy in relatively

static

positions for a week or more.

+2

The contact is relatively unexpected

-2

The contact is entirely unexpected

-4

Let us presume we have an element of 7 Panzer

post the Meuse

crossing, so driving like hell through

northern France. The

force in
question may or may not benefit from aerial

recce, depending

on its
mission. Let's assume it doesn't as this

would apply in

most
circumstances. It does, however, have a good

recce troops

so gets a
+2 there. Whilst contact is expected

somewhere, this may

come at any
point, so becomes "relatively unexpected", a

+2, giving us a

net
result of 1D6.

On the tabletop the defender allocates troops

as usual. The

attacker
would sketch out a general plan at this

stage, however,

before
finally allocating his troops the attacker

then rolls his

D6. He
rolls a 4. He now has four "spots" on the

table before

deciding on
his plan.

For every spot the attacker rolls one dice.

If the target

area,
which would be 1 foot square (?) is within a

foot of the

point (or
any point if multiple) of attackers table

entry the spot is

automatic. If it is between 1 and 2 feet a 2

or more is

needed on a
D6; between 2 and 3 feet, a 3 or more is

required, up to

between 5
and 6 feet where a 6 is required.

For each unit "spotted" a blind is put down

on the table.

The
attacker then rolls a D6 for each of these

blinds, and on a

6 the
actual defending figures are put down. This

reflects that

the recce
forces will more generally identify where an

enemy is,

rather than

=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience