PG:M rule 6.4 and Morale Checks

[Blackcloud6]

What happens when the leader in a vehicle, say a tank, fails his morale check? Does the unit he is in suffer that same result or does it take a separate MC?

[Hugmenot]

Fred, the way I interpret 5.47 (below), only the transporting vehicle makes a morale check and the leader and other transported units suffer the same fate as the transport.

Thus a transported leader would never make a morale check; it would suffer the same result as the transporting unit.

5.47 Transports Taking Damage.
If a transporting unit (including a tank with a “riding” unit)
is fired on, everything it is transporting suffers the same
fate as the transport. If a transport must make a morale
check due to enemy fire, make one roll for the transport
only, adding the morale bonus of any one undemoralized
leader it is carrying or in its hex or an adjacent hex. If the
transport becomes disrupted or demoralized or is eliminated,
so does everything it is transporting

[Blackcloud6]

Fred, the way I interpret 5.47 (below), only the transporting vehicle makes a morale check and the leader and other transported units suffer the same fate as the transport.

Thus a transported leader would never make a morale check; it would suffer the same result as the transporting unit.

5.47 Transports Taking Damage.
If a transporting unit (including a tank with a “riding” unit)
is fired on, everything it is transporting suffers the same
fate as the transport. If a transport must make a morale
check due to enemy fire, make one roll for the transport
only, adding the morale bonus of any one undemoralized
leader it is carrying or in its hex or an adjacent hex. If the
transport becomes disrupted or demoralized or is eliminated,
so does everything it is transporting

OK, makes sense, but I wondered about the Leader Rules in PG:M where they can be "in" a tank and command it and lead the units in the hex and those around it.

[Hugmenot]

I assume advances in (military) communications would explain why this is possible in PG:M but it's an assumption, not an opinion.

I am sure recently retired military men would have a much better opinion whether the rule makes sense for the late 60's.

[Blackcloud6]

I assume advances in (military) communications would explain why this is possible in PG:M but it's an assumption, not an opinion.

I am sure recently retired military men would have a much better opinion whether the rule makes sense for the late 60's.

Oh, I agree the rule makes sense as far as letting leaders command form the tank. I also thin, though, that that tank should use the leader's morale but that is not stated anywhere. When that same leader is on the ground commanding, he does not suffer the same result that any units he is with. Thus, when behind armor, the leader actually has a weakness that he doesn't have when on the ground. That is counter-intuitive to me.

[Hugmenot]

The leader is immune to M, M1, M2 results from the Direct Fire table when riding in a tank. That's a benefit.

If a tank in the platoon I ride in blows up (the unit is reduced) to AT gun, my nerves of steel might show a little chink in their extra-thick armor and I might even be unnerved for a moment. A moment only because I am Canadian.

The M, M1, M2 morale checks in the Assault table are harder to rationalize. I would have to look at the table and think of something clever. That would be a first for me.

[Blackcloud6]

The leader is immune to M, M1, M2 results from the Direct Fire table when riding in a tank. That's a benefit.

If a tank in the platoon I ride in blows up (the unit is reduced) to AT gun, my nerves of steel might show a little chink in their extra-thick armor and I might even be unnerved for a moment. A moment only because I am Canadian.

The M, M1, M2 morale checks in the Assault table are harder to rationalize. I would have to look at the table and think of something clever. That would be a first for me.

It was an assault result that made me ponder this.

One Molson and you guys will do anything.