Crossfire PingPong -- 2 Questions

[Tambu]

Oh brother . . .

If this is the way it is to be officially interpreted by the rules lawyers, then it is indeed time to create another house rule deleting the ridiculous second sentence located on page 25, in 11.12, under Anti-Tank Fire.

Tubac52's and the T-Rex's views are realistic in this situation. A targeted platoon of AFVs once shot at by an AT weapon system should remain in a "crossfire" situation for other AT weapon-carrying units with the correct angles for the balance of the turn.

[ACav]

In baseball, it's called a double play!

Let's create a new house and a clear illustration and procedure description to fix this unrealistic sentence.

Cross fires should remain in place until the turn ends, which is how I have always played this.

[OldPueblo]

True, except that C would be setting up a crossfire for B with its first shot at the KV-1.

Nope, because the rule says 2nd and/or subsequent shots. It does not say 2nd and/or subsequent shots reevaluate the crossfire status.

Oh, for Pete's sake!

Whoever wrote this inane rule must have never read any of the US tanker's reports about how to defeat Panthers and Tigers with under-armed Shermans in the Bulge. They uniformly mention the importance of getting shots at well-armored targets from all angles, at relatively close ranges, to make the AT hits count! Lose that second sentence in this poorly-conceived rule (11.12) so that multiple shots that meet the shot angle criteria get the +2 column shift bonus.

This is a simple fix of a very foolish and unrealistic rule.

[Reconquista]

True, except that C would be setting up a crossfire for B with its first shot at the KV-1.

Nope, because the rule says 2nd and/or subsequent shots. It does not say 2nd and/or subsequent shots reevaluate the crossfire status.

Oh, for Pete's sake!

Whoever wrote this inane rule must have never read any of the US tanker's reports about how to defeat Panthers and Tigers with under-armed Shermans in the Bulge. They uniformly mention the importance of getting shots at well-armored targets from all angles, at relatively close ranges, to make the AT hits count! Lose that second sentence in this poorly-conceived rule (11.12) so that multiple shots that meet the shot angle criteria get the +2 column shift bonus.

This is a simple fix of a very foolish and unrealistic rule.

Heck, yeah!

Dump the ridiculous sentence and allow any number of AT shots with the bonus when there is a crossfire already setup in a given turn.

[leonard]

My answers to the questions would be yes and yes.
When the first unit (A) fires, it sets up the crossfire situation even if it has no chance to hit the target.
Unit C gets crossfire bonus (+2) on both shots.
Unit B gets crossfire bonus (+2) thanks to the firing of unit C.
I’ve never played like multiple crossfire could be cumulative giving + 4 bonus.

[Blackcloud6]

Ya'all are over thinking this one.  The rule is quite clear.

Yes, the armored car can fire first to set up the crossfire.

Yes, the German tank platoon will get the cross fire bonus whether it fires second or third.

The AT gun will not get the cross fire bonus if it fires second, but it will get the crossfire bonus if it fires third after German tank platoon fires second.

But the real lesson is don't be a dumb-ass and drive your KV-1 into such a situation because if you do, you deserve what is coming.

[plloyd1010]

Ya'all are over thinking this one.  The rule is quite clear.

Yes, the armored car can fire first to set up the crossfire.

Yes, the German tank platoon will get the cross fire bonus whether it fires second or third.

The AT gun will not get the cross fire bonus if it fires second, but it will get the crossfire bonus if it fires third after German tank platoon fires second.

But the real lesson is don't be a dumb-ass and drive your KV-1 into such a situation because if you do, you deserve what is coming.

Exacitally!

[treadasaurusrex]

My answers to the questions would be yes and yes.
When the first unit (A) fires, it sets up the crossfire situation even if it has no chance to hit the target.
Unit C gets crossfire bonus (+2) on both shots.
Unit B gets crossfire bonus (+2) thanks to the firing of unit C.
I’ve never played like multiple crossfire could be cumulative giving + 4 bonus.

Hmm, I'm confused, where did the +4 come from?

[cjsiam]

Hmmm....
Interesting differences in perspective on this....

A few things have to be kept in mind....
A) This is a 15min period of Gun fire, involving identifying a]we are under fire(or new fire); b] where fire is coming from; c] do we face that fire with our vehicle..
B) There are 4 or 5 "Tanks" in this one unit....not all might do the same thing---thus, the universal facing one direction could break down --- exposing some, but not others...
C) Doctrine at the time, based on Time and current National Armor (or Armour for some of you) doctrine, should probably be the determinate...
D) Presence of Leaders?

The RAW say NO to B getting +2....
A Few players seem to think Once a Crossfire is set up, any/all further shoots at that unit that turn will result in a Crossfire (that's reflect perspective, yes?)

I'm not sure how to Proceed other then to House Rule, pregame disclosure to both players...
As it stands RAW says no.

[cjsiam]

Hmmm....
Interesting differences in perspective on this....

A few things have to be kept in mind....
A) This is a 15min period of Gun fire, involving identifying a]we are under fire(or new fire); b] where fire is coming from; c] do we face that fire with our vehicle..
B) There are 4 or 5 "Tanks" in this one unit....not all might do the same thing---thus, the universal facing one direction could break down --- exposing some, but not others...
C) Doctrine at the time, based on Time and current National Armor (or Armour for some of you) doctrine, should probably be the determinate...
D) Presence of Leaders?

The RAW say NO to B getting +2....
A Few players seem to think Once a Crossfire is set up, any/all further shoots at that unit that turn will result in a Crossfire (that's reflects the perspective, yes?)

I'm not sure how to Proceed other then to House Rule, pregame disclosure to both players...
As it stands RAW says no.