Korea and bazookas

[leonard]

There's something I don't catch regarding US baz in the Korea game. The US get special bazooka platoons that have a 3-0 AT value in Assault. 3 AT value seems pretty ridiculous since T-34 armor is 5 (you need to roll a 12 to hit them !).
4th Ed rules state that inherent Foot AT weapons get a 6 AT value in assault which is far better but this is true in 44-45 in Elsenborn or Liberation 44... not in 1950 in Korea since the special rule that gives Foot units such weapons has been omitted...
Or am I missing something ??

[thomaso827]

The Bazookas in Korea started out with the obsolete mid-WW2 models and in very limited numbers, and then switched to the later model that did have some value. I see this as limiting units from having inherent AT weapon value beyond their normal assault value. One problem was that the initial US Army forces were occupation forces from Japan, and had no AT weapons assigned while serving in that role. And I think these counters represent just a few team members, not full platoons. That's why they have no DF value and only an assault value of 1 like weapon crews. I think this adaptation fits the period.

[plloyd1010]

No, I don't think you missed anything. I would also say 3 is under rated. I would give them the same in-hex modifiers you might be giving to ATR units.

My note on the subject; Designated Bazooka teams are armed with the M20 3.5" rocket launcher. The weapon is similar to the Panzerscherk, without the flashback issue, and the rocket far more stable. It has an effective range of 150 yards and penetrates just under 300mm of steel. (For comparison the Panzerscherk penetrated 160-170mm.) Panzerscherk units got a 6-0 in C&C. So 0 hex range is reasonable, AT of 3 is low.

[thomaso827]

I just checked the counters, and Pusan Perimter has both 2.36 and 3.5 inch models, and the 3 factor is for the 2.36, where the 3.5 goes up to a 6.

[plloyd1010]

Ok, that sounds more reasonable. I would still give them ATR bonuses which you might be playing with in regular PG.

[thomaso827]

I've played that way. Makes a world of difference. Except in the one street fighting scenario with MG Dean running around directing them. I lost all the bazooka teams first in that game. Need to play it ftf and see if I can manage a better result.

[larry marak]

We need to ask the series designer whether he intends to continue separate anti-armor representation in the rest of the series. Jay?

[JayTownsend]

After reading tons of material on the Korean War, I felt Bazooka Teams were necessary.

1. Because when the war started there were very few to go around, thus when they had them, Bazooka Teams were formed and some accounts had high ranking Officer as I high a Major General leading them.

2. Because we had to distinguish between the two types: 2.36in and 3.5in which makes a big difference.

3. Even in the later years, while assault bunkers Bazooka Team were used to clear them, as not every Infantryman wanted to carry one up the mountain.

4. The US Army usually mentioned Bazooka accounts in the Korean War and I did not want every Platoon to have one, just like Flame-throwers.

5. The NKPA & CCP started getting ahold of them, but in small numbers, so like above they get Bazooka Teams.

6. Lastly it’s just more fun to have them and manage them and it adds to the PG value in my opinion.

In WWII I didn’t feel it was necessary as they were massed produced but also it would be too difficult to go back to all the games to fit this model of the Korean War, so Bazooka Teams will just be for the Korean War. Enjoy them, I hope!

[thomaso827]

Jay, while we are talking about these, I wanted to make sure I am doing it right when they take casualties. I'm treating them as a weapon crew, and since most of my play has been solo, have rolled randomly to see which counter takes the loss, but since they are also just a team, smaller than a weapon unit crew, I wondered if I was doing that right. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Matt W]

Much of the written material concerning the early battles in Korea, up to and including the battles along the Perimeter, indicate the futility of using the bazookas issued to the army units stationed in Japan. As a result the "3" rating for the 2.36 bazookas seems right in line with the history. To understand it I take a look at the Japanese armor in Saipan and see that a 2.36 bazooka would be very effective indeed. The garrison troops in Japan simply weren't equipped to take on late war Soviet tanks.

I like the bazooka teams as the NKPA use of armor was a huge part of the initial campaign and very few South Korean or Far Eastern US troops stood up well to the attacks. I would expect that the edge given to the NKPA armor will decline rapidly in future releases that deal with the battles that follow.