US Proximity Fuses and Friendly Fire

[Poor Yorek]

How to adjudicate? No rule specifies modifying FF results in the case of a scenario in which the US is allowed proximity fused bombardment. But surely shrapnel and HE doesn't know friend from foe ...

Thoughts?

[Matt W]

I would use the RAW without modifications. The US artillery was exceptional and despite the terrifying effect of this fire I would not suggest using the column shifts to the friendly fire results.

[vince hughes]

PY,

I just go the way of the normal rules too.

Incidentally, they are one seriously powerful tool in the open and I hate them !

[Poor Yorek]

My sense is that the VT fusing "as written" is all reward with no risk. VT fusing had nothing to do with the ability to aim the ordinance - and (in response to MattW) this is why US/UK/GER artillery has the 1:6 not 2:6 chance of FF (i.e. that codicil already accounts for on-target accuracy). In reality, if the fire was off-target, the damage due to the air-burst would not discriminate between friend and foe.

Of course, any introduction of "home rules" complicates matters and, perhaps, that in itself suggests not tinkering. But I can't help but believe that a +1 or +2 shift to the d6 roll for the Bombardment Fire column for a FF VT event would make the US player weigh their options a bit when units are adjacent and be more reflective of the fact that shells are a two-edged sword. :cratches head::

[larry marak]

Vince your suggestions makes sense. Unfortunately Allied gunners probably wouldn't jump to the conclusion (that you don't use pfs when friendlies are adjacent) till long after the war. When any game-changer is introduced into combat no one recognizes it at first.

[vince hughes]

Vince your suggestions makes sense. Unfortunately Allied gunners probably wouldn't jump to the conclusion (that you don't use pfs when friendlies are adjacent) till long after the war. When any game-changer is introduced into combat no one recognizes it at first.

So now Yorek and I are twins ?

[Poor Yorek]

So now Yorek and I are twins ?

Bloody hell!

Can I tell TheDoctor he has a new uncle?

[vince hughes]

Can I tell TheDoctor he has a new uncle?

Yes, and if he likes Dickens, you can tell him Uncle Vinny lives in the village where Dicken's family house is located (Gad's Hill) and he can read a Dicken's book in Dicken's garden !

[campsawyer]

My sense is that the VT fusing "as written" is all reward with no risk. VT fusing had nothing to do with the ability to aim the ordinance - and (in response to MattW) this is why US/UK/GER artillery has the 1:6 not 2:6 chance of FF (i.e. that codicil already accounts for on-target accuracy). In reality, if the fire was off-target, the damage due to the air-burst would not discriminate between friend and foe.

Of course, any introduction of "home rules" complicates matters and, perhaps, that in itself suggests not tinkering. But I can't help but believe that a +1 or +2 shift to the d6 roll for the Bombardment Fire column for a FF VT event would make the US player weigh their options a bit when units are adjacent and be more reflective of the fact that shells are a two-edged sword. :cratches head::

I vote for "as is". I see the VT fuses are more of a deterrent than something that kills. As the SSR states it is only valid for units that are in the open, woods and town no mod. As the Germans, it just means I need to look for a path that is no in the open or the least amount of open space to move across or defend.

[campsawyer]

Can I tell TheDoctor he has a new uncle?

Yes, and if he likes Dickens, you can tell him Uncle Vinny lives in the village where Dicken's family house is located (Gad's Hill) and he can read a Dicken's book in Dicken's garden !

This is the only place where the thread can go from VT fuses to Dickens. We are not ADD... oh wait there goes a tank.