Should infantry guns fire smoke?

[plloyd1010]

I am referring to, but not limiting myself, theses guns:


These weapons had smoke ammunition available to them, the Japanese 70mm even had an illumination round. Other "infantry" designated guns, such as the U.S. M3 105mm, are already indirect fire and are thus considered artillery with smoke and illumination ammunition.

Obviously these guns would need to be able to the hex they are trying obscure. I would also expect they would need to be able to see what they are trying obscure as well.

[treadasaurusrex]

An astute observation, Peter. Here's my take on this question . . .

I agree that these types of (Direct Fire)infantry guns had smoke rounds in WW2, but I think that it would be stretching things too far to imagine that these rounds would be able to create as big a smoke effect as an American M-3 105mm howitzer firing sufficient firing smoke rounds to screen a 200 meter hex for 15 minutes.

Appropriate at this scale? Probably not, as in the example provided by the smoke grenade dischargers of German and British tanks that cannot create their own smoke screens at this scale. I suggest that this is also beneath this level of abstraction

However, if you think this factor is appropriate at this scale, then maybe we should consider using the same procedure that applies to 60mm-size, or smaller, mortars firing smoke in the 4th Edition Optional Rules (page 40 - the Procedure paragraph) and perhaps use the IG's direct fire range?

[plloyd1010]

An astute observation, Peter. Here's my take on this question . . .

I agree that these types of (Direct Fire)infantry guns had smoke rounds in WW2, but I think that it would be stretching things too far to imagine that these rounds would be able to create as big a smoke effect as an American M-3 105mm howitzer firing sufficient firing smoke rounds to screen a 200 meter hex for 15 minutes.

Appropriate at this scale? Probably not, as in the example provided by the smoke grenade dischargers of German and British tanks that cannot create their own smoke screens at this scale. I suggest that this is also beneath this level of abstraction

However, if you think this factor is appropriate at this scale, then maybe we should consider using the same procedure that applies to 60mm-size, or smaller, mortars firing smoke in the 4th Edition Optional Rules (page 40 - the Procedure paragraph) and perhaps use the IG's direct fire range?

Currently, per the rules for artillery and mortars which can place smoke 83% of the time (5 or more on 2 dice). A 60mm or smaller gun can do it 72% of the time (6 or more). So I don't see how the caliber is an issue.

[treadasaurusrex]

An astute observation, Peter. Here's my take on this question . . .

I agree that these types of (Direct Fire)infantry guns had smoke rounds in WW2, but I think that it would be stretching things too far to imagine that these rounds would be able to create as big a smoke effect as an American M-3 105mm howitzer firing sufficient firing smoke rounds to screen a 200 meter hex for 15 minutes.

Appropriate at this scale? Probably not, as in the example provided by the smoke grenade dischargers of German and British tanks that cannot create their own smoke screens at this scale. I suggest that this is also beneath this level of abstraction

However, if you think this factor is appropriate at this scale, then maybe we should consider using the same procedure that applies to 60mm-size, or smaller, mortars firing smoke in the 4th Edition Optional Rules (page 40 - the Procedure paragraph) and perhaps use the IG's direct fire range?

Currently, per the rules for artillery and mortars which can place smoke 83% of the time (5 or more on 2 dice). A 60mm or smaller gun can do it 72% of the time (6 or more). So I don't see how the caliber is an issue.

You're right caliber is not the issue. Just a suggestion using an existing optional rule procedure.

I do think that the issue is that adding infantry guns to the units already able to create smoke screens is unnecessary give the scale of the game. It seems beneath the "level of abstraction" at this scale in PG.

[Blackcloud6]

It my not be caliber but how much smoke ammo did they carry in their basic load.  Is there enough to fire a a large screen over a 15 minute turn?   

The 75mm gunned Sherman tanks could lay a good immediate smoke screen, and this was one reason why the US Army infantry commanders demanded it remain in production when the Armor Board wanted to witch to only 76mm gunned tanks. However, thier smoke screens were for smaller tactical engagements and could not do a screen like an artillery battery could.

[plloyd1010]

It my not be caliber but how much smoke ammo did they carry in their basic load.  Is there enough to fire a a large screen over a 15 minute turn? 

I would expect that a 75mm infantry gun screen as a 75mm howitzer would be. This assumes that an adequate amount of smoke ammunition is carried in both cases.

However, you indirectly raise an interesting question. The firing battery of most infantry gun units consists of 2 weapons. That suggests there should be some greater difficulty in laying smoke, like a -1? Similar to the smaller caliber weapons laying smoke.

[Grognard Gunny]

..... ANOTHER rule?

GG

[plloyd1010]

..... ANOTHER rule?

Extending an optional one. (Maybe)

[treadasaurusrex]

Good point about how few, individual infantry guns were in a section.

An interesting discussion, but not really worth the effort, IMHO.

[dirk]

If the optional rule applied to infantry guns, would it also apply to close support AFV , ie. Grille, sIG33B or the British A9CS. Personally due to the size limitations of the battery and the problem of what AFV would be included. I vote to not include them in smoke units. Stick to indirect fire units.