Pendraken Miniatures Forum

Pendraken Rules! => BKC-III => Topic started by: Big Insect on 04 December 2018, 03:53:04 PM



Title: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Big Insect on 04 December 2018, 03:53:04 PM
Looking at the BKC lists - as I am now having to do on a daily basis to convert across to BKCIV, I am coming across consistency/continuity issues specifically around machine guns.

I can see that an HMG platoon will bring down more firepower than a tank platoon - but I'm finding that there appears to be little logic around standardizing the ranges of units.
At the level of abstraction we are playing at - can we opt for a 'standard' AP factor for vehicle mounted machine guns?

Also - US 0.50 cal HMGs - is there any agreement on a standard range and standard AP/AT ratings please - as I look at 2 vehicles, both armed primarily with .50cals and they might have different AP factors and ranges.

Any thoughts please folks

Thanks
Mark


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: petercooman on 04 December 2018, 04:12:04 PM
Can you give an example? Might be easier if we know wich ones are not consistent with the rest. Maybe there is a reason they are different?


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Steve J on 04 December 2018, 07:44:22 PM
I agree, some examples would be useful.


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: mad lemmey on 04 December 2018, 08:08:44 PM
Solid and metallic?

Oh, that's not what you mean by consistency...


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Kiwidave on 04 December 2018, 09:42:37 PM
Mark,

Are you refering to MG-only armed AFVs?

Co-ax (etc) MGs are factored into the +1 attack at 20cm versus soft targets. AFAIK the AP stats for AFVs is the HE capability.

Dave


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Dr Dave on 04 December 2018, 10:22:39 PM
Thats curious, though perhaps not all that surprising?

Id go back to bkcII. As far as I recall there are no inconsistencies there.


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Leon on 04 December 2018, 11:05:21 PM
Id go back to bkcII. As far as I recall there are no inconsistencies there.

These are the BKC-II lists that are being used in BKC-IV.


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: petercooman on 05 December 2018, 07:40:36 AM
Mark,

Are you refering to MG-only armed AFVs?

Co-ax (etc) MGs are factored into the +1 attack at 20cm versus soft targets. AFAIK the AP stats for AFVs is the HE capability.

Dave

Yes, that's what i thought. That's why i wanted an example,to clear that out.


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Big Insect on 05 December 2018, 01:34:58 PM
Sorry for the delay in responding folks - real-life getting in the way of important wargaming life  :D :D

So to answer some of the queries

1). do I mean purely MG armed AFV's - yes mostly - so a US White AC has an (AP) factor of 1/40 - which I am assuming is primarily the .50cal (although I am aware that they also carried a couple of lighter machine guns - pivot mounted) - so in instances of other light vehicles that are purely armed with a .50cal - such as certain Jeeps used by USA particularly in Armoured Recon formations, is it safe to assume that an (AP) score of 1/40 is the standard 0.50cal stat?
1a). I am also aware that a 0.50cal has a reasonable armour piercing capabilities - especially at short range - however, I am assuming that this is taken care of by the fact that firing the 0.50cal at an armored target will suppress it not cause actual casualties.

2). I am aware that the AP factor for a lot of AFVs - particularly MBTs that also have HE rounds - will include their hull, co-axial and roof mtd hmgs - but in an instance where the vehicle has no HE capability - so a British A9 might be a good example - then there needs to be a factor for the vehicles machine gun. If that is the case, then is there an agreement broadly on what that factor is (e.g. is it 1/30 for each hmg or an overall general AFV/MBT agreed factor)?
I am also interested in this issue because you have Early War tanks such as the T-28s with a host of HMGs etc but a 3/80 AP factor.

Does that all make sense? Or am I smoking something here  ;) ;) ;)

Many thanks


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: petercooman on 05 December 2018, 05:06:15 PM

1). do I mean purely MG armed AFV's - yes mostly - so a US White AC has an (AP) factor of 1/40 - which I am assuming is primarily the .50cal (although I am aware that they also carried a couple of lighter machine guns - pivot mounted) - so in instances of other light vehicles that are purely armed with a .50cal - such as certain Jeeps used by USA particularly in Armoured Recon formations, is it safe to assume that an (AP) score of 1/40 is the standard 0.50cal stat?
1a). I am also aware that a 0.50cal has a reasonable armour piercing capabilities - especially at short range - however, I am assuming that this is taken care of by the fact that firing the 0.50cal at an armored target will suppress it not cause actual casualties.


Sounds good to me.



2). I am aware that the AP factor for a lot of AFVs - particularly MBTs that also have HE rounds - will include their hull, co-axial and roof mtd hmgs - but in an instance where the vehicle has no HE capability - so a British A9 might be a good example - then there needs to be a factor for the vehicles machine gun. If that is the case, then is there an agreement broadly on what that factor is (e.g. is it 1/30 for each hmg or an overall general AFV/MBT agreed factor)?
I am also interested in this issue because you have Early War tanks such as the T-28s with a host of HMGs etc but a 3/80 AP factor.



Bit of a strange beast that one  :-\

Maybe the range was determined by the 'stability' of the firing platform or volume of shots or something?


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Big Insect on 05 December 2018, 05:47:17 PM
There are a lot of Early War & pre-War/between war tanks and tankettes that only have HMGs as weapons.

The T28 also has a main armourment that can fire HE so it can in effect have a long range AP effect but at closer ranges the mass of HMGs makes it a formidable anti-infantry weapon - it is really an Infantry Support tank rather than an MBT. This is covered by the +1 dice for under half-range shooting, however, i am tempted to give these early wars multi turreted HMG 'heavy' support tanks a +2 dice at under half range.

However, I suppose my real question here is - do we give the HMGs on AFVs a 1/30 AP factor as opposed to a 1/40 for .50cals ???

Thanks
Mark


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Dr Dave on 05 December 2018, 06:03:23 PM
Id assumed it was 1/40 for an A9 etc AP from the desperate use of solid shot.

Then the +1 die for < 1/2 range and +1 the coax. So a jump to 3/20 in effect?

Or is it 1/40 for the very stable coax, then just +1 for < 1/2 range meaning 2/20 overall?

Now Im confused.


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: petercooman on 05 December 2018, 06:36:45 PM
I always assumed the +1 under half range was an accuracy thing  :-\

The +1 for the mg under 20 should make it 3 dice total.


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Ithoriel on 05 December 2018, 06:49:42 PM
To take the T28 first off, I'd assume the 3/80 covers the artillery turret, +1 for half range covers odd bursts from the MGs.  The +1 firing at soft targets within 20cm covers more effective fire by the two MG turrets.

1/40 sounds OK for a .50 MG but it might also be OK for 2 .05 MGs depending on configuration, crew arrangements (if one of those MGs is manned by someone trying to command the vehicle, fire the MG and use the radio the extra firepower might not make the difference you might imagine looking at the armament alone!) and arcs of fire.

Lots to take into account to get an effect on the table which is a reasonable simulation of the real thing. Hats off to those of you working on this!



Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Shedman on 05 December 2018, 09:04:35 PM
If we were talking about an individual vehicle I would say it was worth the effort but as BKC is aimed at platoons and troops of tanks then probably the extra dice at close range covers most of it

For a base of mg-only armed tanks then probably the 3 @ 60 would suffice for AP ie a mobile MG and 1/30 for AT


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Orcs on 05 December 2018, 09:07:30 PM
So looking on the BKC 2 lists

Tanks with twin machine guns like those below get AP 2/40

German Pz 1    2 x 7.62 MGs  AP 2/40
Polish 7-TP      2 x 7.62 MGs  AP 2/40
Russian T26     2 x 7.62 MGs  AP 2/40

Other Tanks with a single MG as main armament like the Belgian T15, French FT 17  get AP 1/40

The British Mk V1 also gets AP of 1/40 which is fine for the A and B variants but the Mk Vl C had a 15mm HMG and a 7.962 MG coaxially mounted

Also the A9 has an AP of  1/40 despite having 1 Mgs in each of the two front turrets .

So from this I think we need two entries for the British MK Vl and the A9

Mk V1 A/B  AP 1/40
Mk Vl C      AP 2/60
A9             AP 2/40 both Turrets manned in Early war
A9             AP 1/40 Later when Turrets not always manned


My other query with the vehicle  mounted Mgs is that they are no where near as effective as normal infantry MGs.  surely in a tank where the gunner is nice and safe from normal bullets and shrapnel he would be able to aim better than his infantry counterpart laying / sitting in the relative open.  

Perhaps the lack of visibility in a tank can account for this. but what about the MGs on Half tracks?  They are at 1/40 unless you dismount them when they become 3/60?







Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Dr Dave on 05 December 2018, 09:13:24 PM
... will include their hull, co-axial and roof mtd hmgs...

roof mtd hmgs are often solely for AA use. you have to leave the turret of a honey to use the 30 cal!

also, if the commander is doing that, then he's not guiding the fire and selecting targets for the gunner / other crew members. I'd ignore roof mtd AA mgs.


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Dr Dave on 05 December 2018, 09:23:44 PM
My other query with the vehicle  mounted Mgs is that they are no where near as effective as normal infantry MGs.  surely in a tank where the gunner is nice and safe from normal bullets and shrapnel he would be able to aim better than his infantry counterpart laying / sitting in the relative open.  

Perhaps the lack of visibility in a tank can account for this. but what about the MGs on Half tracks?  They are at 1/40 unless you dismount them when they become 3/60?

you're right about the field of view - it's dreadful for a coax / bow MG. The infantry MG gunner has a much better view of the world.

I think the exam question is "what was wrong with MGs in BKCII?" - for 1/2 tracks - nothing. The rules worked fine didn't they?

I'd be more interested to know if proper suppressive fire is making a come back?



Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Orcs on 05 December 2018, 09:52:09 PM
roof mtd hmgs are often solely for AA use. you have to leave the turret of a honey to use the 30 cal!

also, if the commander is doing that, then he's not guiding the fire and selecting targets for the gunner / other crew members. I'd ignore roof mtd AA mgs.

I was thinking the  Pulpit MG in the M3/M5 Half track or the infantry MG mounted on an SDKFZ 251. This cpould be taken with the infantry when they left the vehicle when it becomes AP 3/60

But your right. it works fine in BKC2 also we do not know the rationale behind the authors thinking. it might just have been to simplify things and make the game more playable/ realistic, otherwise some idiot rule lawyer will buy loads of half tracks and no infantry as it gives him more firepower for the points

You can always bring in a house rule. Its not worth changing the main rules for


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Ithoriel on 05 December 2018, 10:20:14 PM
I don't think the German LMG would dismount as anything other than one more bit of kit in a standard infantry platoon.

I'm not aware of them being formed into machine gun platoons.

Happy to get evidence I'm wrong, of course.

No idea of Western Allied doctrine, I'm still largely deployed on the Eastern Front :)


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Big Insect on 05 December 2018, 10:35:20 PM
Thank you all

This is most helpful

I was looking to establish some sort of working system that would allow me to introduce a few new varients into the lists - such as the Recce Stuart - without the turret but with an MG; or the Armoured Recon Jeep with a mounted o.50cal as part of a Recce Support platoon.

I appreciate the work (Orc especially) as all the variants of the Early War British tanks have been really taxing my brain.

Also Dr Dave - Suppression Fire is back - partly because I am trying to look for Core 'Commander' mechanisms that can be transposed across all 3 rules variants, and that is most certainly one of them.

I plod merrily onwards through the lists ... I am not 100% convinced we'll get them 100% right (as I have said to Leon), I'd personally prefer them all in a downloadable PDF off the Pendraken website, rather than in printed hard copy. As looking back through the old Forum it is the lists that seem to get the greatest hammering and the most need for change. But I gather that having them printed in the back of the book is what has been requested by popular demand.

Anybody for Finnish Aerosani or Russian 280mm M1939 tracked mortars ????

Cheers   


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Ithoriel on 05 December 2018, 11:06:56 PM
Russian 280mm M1939 tracked mortars - yes, Yes, YES!!!

Might persuade Pendraken to make one so I can retire my ridiculously small 6mm scale one!

Direct fire mode for bunker busting and fortified house clearance a must :)


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Orcs on 05 December 2018, 11:18:33 PM
I don't think the German LMG would dismount as anything other than one more bit of kit in a standard infantry platoon.

I'm not aware of them being formed into machine gun platoons.

Happy to get evidence I'm wrong, of course.

No idea of Western Allied doctrine, I'm still largely deployed on the Eastern Front :)

My point was that  the mg on the German half track was the squad MG  mounted on the vehicle and it gets AP of 1/40 . Exactly the same gun mounted on a tripod gets an AP of 3/60 Both have the same visibility and the halftrack surely has the ability to carry more ammo.


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Ithoriel on 06 December 2018, 01:11:28 AM
For our games we assume that a standard German infantry battalion is 3 companies of 3 stands each of infantry and a heavy weapons company of 2 MG stands and a mortar stand. YMMV!

So our MG stands represent half a dozen or so guns.

An Sdkfz251 stand is the transport for a platoon - 3 vehicles with a machine-gun each.

The MG stand represents a unit designed to provide fire support. The 251s are valuable and relatively fragile transport.

I wouldn't want the latter to become mobile fire platforms. Leave that to the M16 "Meat Chopper"

BKC2 seems to me to have it about right to me.


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Dr Dave on 06 December 2018, 07:55:33 AM
Jerry might take the rear mg mount off his 251, not the front (shielded) one.

Most British 1/2 tracks are the straight variant (not A1) and so have no pulpit mg anyway.

Good to have the bkc1 suppressive fire back. That way Vickers Lts and PzI can have a role in a tank battle.

Id just be wary of counting MGs and think more about how was the vehicle used. Recce Honeys are precisely that, just a recce platform for sneaking and peeking. Not really a mobile heavy MG carrier - I thought that they were already in the lists anyway.


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Steve J on 06 December 2018, 07:58:15 AM
For the problems of aiming bow mounted guns in British tanks, the following is very informative:

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/11/bow-machine-guns.html (http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/11/bow-machine-guns.html)

Personally, I think pretty much of all of the BKCII stats work as they are. There are exceptions of course, as the recent discussion on BEF CS Support tanks has shown. So I think those 'errors' that are known need fixing and then, famous last words, everything should be fine...


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Dr Dave on 06 December 2018, 04:20:51 PM
Personally, I think pretty much of all of the BKCII stats work as they are. There are exceptions of course, as the recent discussion on BEF CS Support tanks has shown. So I think those 'errors' that are known need fixing and then, famous last words, everything should be fine...

Agreed.

Id beware the tail wagging the dog


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Orcs on 06 December 2018, 07:52:07 PM
For the problems of aiming bow mounted guns in British tanks, the following is very informative:

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/11/bow-machine-guns.html (http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/11/bow-machine-guns.html)


So from this article we can deduce that bow machine guns were almost ineffective, The threat of them being there was probably as effective in deterring opposing infantry as any firing they may have done.

It seems  strange that the powers that be did not take this as a reason to reduce the crew by one, and use the space gained to improve the tank in other ways.

From my reading of accounts in the Western desert crews were often short manned and it was the bow Machine gunner that was most often left unmanned, particularly as this and the driver position were impossible to bale out from if the gun was pointing over the hatch.


I would still like to see the MKVl given a beter AP rating of 2/60 as its considerably more powerful than the Pz1 that gets 2/40

So it would seem that an AP of 1/40 is correct for ant tank with a bow machine gun.


Title: Re: Machine Gun Consistency
Post by: Big Insect on 06 December 2018, 11:39:14 PM
Many thanks folks - we all are broadly in agreement

I am mainly looking at where I need to add to the BKCII lists rather than alter too much of what is in existence

& yes the 280mm tracked mortar has a Bunker Buster capability over open sites, if deployed on-table

Cheers
Mark