Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
APCs and Armored Car questions
#1
Do APCs generate wrecks?  The way I read the rules they do.  However, it makes for an interesting situation.   I have APCs and armored cars dueling it out in an assault in town (along with various infantry).  By the time it's done, there may be 3 AFV step losses in the hex.  If they each create a wreck  it seems any remaining APCs, and the armored cars would be stuck there because they can't clear wrecks.

Also, from what I can tell, armored cars cannot be efficient and don't provide the combined arms shift in assault.   Is that correct?
Reply
#2
Yes, APCs are AFVs, and therefore create wrecks. If there are 3 wrecks in the assault hex, one would need to be cleared for the other vehicular occupants to move out, unless they are demoralized and must retreat/flee.

Armored cars can have efficient gunnery. They do not contribute an AFV column shift in assaults.
... actually you Americans are probably the most dangerous people in the world. This is because you treat war as a job, and your culture has an excellent work ethic.
-- paraphrased from John Keegan's Fields of Battle

Reply
#3
(10-17-2017, 10:38 AM)plloyd1010 Wrote: Yes, APCs are AFVs, and therefore create wrecks. If there are 3 wrecks in the assault hex, one would need to be cleared for the other vehicular occupants to move out, unless they are demoralized and must retreat/flee.

Armored cars can have efficient gunnery. They do not contribute an AFV column shift in assaults.

And an APC is unable to clear the wrecks of other APCs (armor factor less than 2).  So, does it get stuck if the hex it is in accumulates 3 wrecks?

As for the armored cars, I should be more specific.  Liberation 1944 says German and British tanks are efficient.  Armored cars seem specifically excluded from Tanks under the definition of terms, as they have the recon symbol.  That's where I got confused.
Reply
#4
J6A Wrote: And an APC is unable to clear the wrecks of other APCs (armor factor less than 2).  So, does it get stuck if the hex it is in accumulates 3 wrecks?
The wreck rule specifically states they are stuck. The rules also functionally prohibit APCs from being able to clear their own out. I would suggest a minor rule change, probably with regard to being able to exit the hex.

J6A Wrote: As for the armored cars, I should be more specific.  Liberation 1944 says German and British tanks are efficient.  Armored cars seem specifically excluded from Tanks under the definition of terms, as they have the recon symbol.  That's where I got confused.
There seem to be a few complications in the new games, just like that one. The general rule says AFV. Since it seems APL has difficulty with the distinction, I would suggest that when the general rule says AFV, and the special rules say tanks, you should think AFV, unless specifically otherwise directed. Otherwise how would you ever move Russian tank destroyer?
... actually you Americans are probably the most dangerous people in the world. This is because you treat war as a job, and your culture has an excellent work ethic.
-- paraphrased from John Keegan's Fields of Battle

Reply
#5
Well, the definition of tank (page 5) says (in part) "So units that would be excluded would be self-propellef artillery, reconnaissance and APCs, while most tank destroyers would.count, along with engineering vehicles like the British Crab or Crocodile. "

So, based on this, I think that tank is a subset of AFV. The question is how this relates to efficiency and armored cars. The efficiency rules specify AFV, however the scenario book says tanks.
Reply
#6
The efficiency rule says:
The following units have “armor effciency”:
• Full-strength (not reduced) German AFV units;
• Full-strength Soviet Guards AFV units in scenarios taking place in 1943 or later;
• Full-strength American, Commonwealth, French and Polish AFV units in scenarios taking place in 1944 or later.

In all cases the designation is "AFV". Tank is a type of AFV, but I have also noted a mental laziness with APL. I expect that the "tank" usage in Lib'44 is such a case.
... actually you Americans are probably the most dangerous people in the world. This is because you treat war as a job, and your culture has an excellent work ethic.
-- paraphrased from John Keegan's Fields of Battle

Reply
#7
Do APCs generate wrecks?  The way I read the rules they do.  However, it makes for an interesting situation.   I have APCs and armored cars dueling it out in an assault in town (along with various infantry).  By the time it's done, there may be 3 AFV step losses in the hex.  If they each create a wreck  it seems any remaining APCs, and the armored cars would be stuck there because they can't clear wrecks.



See the rule sections below as to generating wrecks.


1.2 Definitions
Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV): Any unit with a printed armor defense value (even a value of 0). This includes self-propelled artillery, armored cars, special armored engineering vehicles, armored personnel carriers, and other similar vehicles. A tank leader may activate any of these.

16.3 Wrecks
When an AFV step is eliminated in a bridge, road, or town hex, place a Wreck marker there.

And yes, they will be stuck in the hex if the are three wreck markers and have an armor value less than 2.

==

Also, from what I can tell, armored cars cannot be efficient and don't provide the combined arms shift in assault.   Is that correct?

Armored Cars that have an armor rating of 0 or more are AFV (see 1.2 above) and thus can be efficient.

Armored Cars do not provide the combined arms shift in assault as they are not closed-top AFV. The relevant section is below.

12.41 Column Shifts
For the combined arms modifier that requires a side to include at least one undemoralized closed-top AFV and at least one infantry of any type except 
HMG (or WPN) units, the closed-top AFV must have BOTH an Anti-Tank AND either a Direct Fire or Bombardment Fire value to qualify. Other friendly units may also be in hex. This modifier only applies if the AFV has Armor Efficiency (11.2).

==

I do agree with Peter that the usage of terms is not entirely consistent throughout. I try very hard to make the verbiage consistent within a product when editing a scenario booklet but I am sure I miss things in 100+ page Word documents. Example: ensuring the names in the order of battles match the names on the counters takes roughly 5 minutes per scenario and can be tricky if I only see the final counter proofs at the last minute. I also prefer the use the same name (on the counter) as was in previous games but that does not always happen. 
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)