Canuck Armor - Printable Version +- PG-HQ Forums (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms) +-- Forum: Panzer Grenadier (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +--- Forum: DIY (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=10) +--- Thread: Canuck Armor (/showthread.php?tid=1767) |
Canuck Armor - plloyd1010 - 06-28-2018 Simple question: Should Canadian tanks be required to have armor leaders in the 1940-42 period? British and Australian armor does (AK & DR), but the Australian 1st Arm Div has intrinsic leaders. RE: Canuck Armor - Shad - 06-28-2018 I don't know enough about the situation to vote either way, but allow me to pose a question: did they have effective radios during that time? I vaguely recall reading some PG trivia way, way back when that the whole tank leader business on the Eastern Front was predicated on the presence and effective implementation of radios within the tanks, no? RE: Canuck Armor - plloyd1010 - 06-28-2018 I don't know enough on this particular subject for a definitive reply. Here is what I do know, in no particular relationship.
My conclusion would be that they have a good radio, and a better one later, but it isn't in every tank. Maybe only the platoon/troop commander's tank? My intended query has more to do with the PG system, rather than history, but both matter. RE: Canuck Armor - Hugmenot - 06-29-2018 As long as they get a +5 modifier when conducting AT fire, I don't care either way. RE: Canuck Armor - Shad - 06-29-2018 (06-29-2018, 03:20 AM)Hugmenot Wrote: As long as they get a +5 modifier when conducting AT fire, I don't care either way. I support this, provided the player says "sorry" after every activation. And the sorry needs to sound like story, not like starry. RE: Canuck Armor - Hugmenot - 06-29-2018 No objections here; I always say sorry to Matt after a series of good rolls. RE: Canuck Armor - Matt W - 07-02-2018 And after today's game that "sorry" is certainly due! |