BKC-III Decision Reached - Please Read!

[petercooman]

One of the major things we like is the ,remote' special rule/keyword.

Allowing things like mg platoons to provide suppressing fire while the rest advances just feels more accurate than having them tag along in an assault because they would get out of command range.

The new recce is a good concept. (except for the range)

And personally i like the area terrain approach.

The rule allowingsmall arms fire against armoured transports at close range was also something we have tried a few times.

[Dr Dave]

The vulnerable rule was at best very odd: Rifles and LMGs easily KO'ing PzIs at long (30cm) range was the result. Any light armour became a death trap. Suppression sure, but a full KO was a tad extreme.

The reversion to BKC1 suppressive fire was good to have back in. But from memory it didn't cover guns with no HE firing against soft targets, only those with no AP firing at armour?

[petercooman]

That's. Why I explicitly said "armored transports" and not armour as a whole. Don't know about you, but I woul not like to be in a been carrier when an mg42 starts spraying lead at it!

[Sunray]

That's. Why I explicitly said "armored transports" and not armour as a whole. Don't know about you, but I woul not like to be in a been carrier when an mg42 starts spraying lead at it!

Indeed not ! The Bren was never an APC as we know it.  The frontal armour plate was however 12mm.  So a lot depends on (1) the type of 7.92x57 that the MG42 is feeding on and (2) the range.

If the GPMG is sustained fire mode, using the s.m.K.H tungsten core, yes, it will penetrate the Bren  at 100 meters. The Bren armour has no slope to deflect the round.  I  say SF because I believe the early 34/42s had a higher RoF and wandered on the bipod.  It would still however be worth a dice.

The 7.62mm black tip will cause similar contemporary problems for a lot of first generation WP APCs

In other circumstances there is  perhaps a +1 chance that suppressive fire within battle range (300 meters) will cause casualties.   A lot depends on the reaction of the crew, and the terrain.  Is the GPMG firing from elevation?   I have had a ride in a Bren at Vintage Show.  You are in a cramped seat. Not a lot of room for a grown man to "hunker down"

How does this translate into BKC rules ? 
Do we allow elite and veteran units the savvy to change belt to the hot s.m.K.H ?

MG42 aside, we also have to factor the most effective WW2 German tool in the Killing Ground. The humble mortar. Lethal to any open top "armoured transports" , not withstanding how thick their frontal armour.   

[toxicpixie]

I agree with all that, Sunray - but that's all great detail in a skirmish game, but not a lot of use at BKC's level/abstraction.

It just boils down to - The possibility of rendering the BGC unit combat ineffective is there, so they get a dice - if they roll a success, they get the hit. Evidently the MG crews had a belt of AP & switched to it. Or the BGC crews didn't have space or time to hunker down. Or the crews panicked and some one drove into a ditch and bailed and the other drivers reversed out "recovering the casualties" back past the start line.

Mortars... mmmm lovely mortars... far more dangerous than direct fire for everyone on the receiving end

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

The standard rules writer fudge, mortars cant hurt tanks. If so why did the squadron commander at Admin box say that the greatest threat to his Lee's were the Japanese 81mm mortars. I also think that on table mortars should be treated exactly the same as off board arty, with maybe less scatter dice, except the British 3".

IanS

[toxicpixie]

Doesn't BKC allow them to score hits on sixes on enclosed AFVs? It's actually been so long I can't remember, but I thought BKC2 allowed that, with 5's for open topped AFVs, just like any indirect fire arty... that may have slipped in as a house rule if it's not in the actual rule book

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

May well be, I'm too lazy to walk the 20 ft and look it up !

[toxicpixie]

Heck, mines not just 20ft away horizontally, but about forty feet up as it's in the loft so buggered if me checking is likely

[Dr Dave]

Luckily mine was only 19.8 ft away!

p. 68 "vulnerable - count as a soft target as well as a hard target when attacked from within 30cm. .... These armoured vehicles have very thin plating, or are open topped."

So they have 3 hits and still save on a 6 (?) Infantry have 6 hits and no save. So it means that carriers, ACs (even fully closed), some SP AT guns (even Archer on the Valentine hull), 1/2 tracks etc can be KO'd by rifle / MG fire at 600m? In BKCIII it's better for infantry to be in the open than in the vehicle. I know people THINK the MG42 was deadly - that's a different topic - but this covers rifle fire as well. Armoured transport is a death trap against small arms fire at MAXIMUM range, so 2 German infantry platoons should be able to destroy a carrier platoon without recourse to any AT weapons?   

And as I've said before "lumbering" needs to go as well. Matildas (at 12 mph) can't keep up with the infantry!   

[toxicpixie]

Not having actually got a copy of III I can't comment on it's specifics like that - but yeah, I know the drive was to enclose both APCs and TDs, but that seems a little overly deadly to be sure

Mind, save 6, three hit APC/IFVs are a liability most of the time in both BKC II and CWC.

[Orcs]

The standard rules writer fudge, mortars cant hurt tanks. If so why did the squadron commander at Admin box say that the greatest threat to his Lee's were the Japanese 81mm mortars. I also think that on table mortars should be treated exactly the same as off board arty, with maybe less scatter dice, except the British 3".

IanS

I went to Bovinton a long while ago on one of the open days (Before Tank Fest). I was looking at the Lee on display and got talking to a veteran who had served in them in the far east.

He said that due to the heat and particularly the humidity the tank got so hot crew members would faint. the only way to stop this was to open the hatches especially the side ones as it allowed a breeze to pass through.   I said what about in action, and  he  said it was almost impossible to function with them closed so they went into action with them open.  He also said some crew removed the hatches all together,

Now I have looked and never been able to find written or pictorial evidence of this, but when a veteran volunteers this storey and points the hatches out they left open it is rather compelling to believe him,

The lack of side hatches would definitely make tanks more vulnerable to mortar fire.

[petercooman]

I know people THINK the MG42 was deadly - that's a different topic - but this covers rifle fire as well. Armoured transport is a death trap against small arms fire at MAXIMUM range, so 2 German infantry platoons should be able to destroy a carrier platoon without recourse to any AT weapons?   

And as I've said before "lumbering" needs to go as well. Matildas (at 12 mph) can't keep up with the infantry!   

It was deadly. weapons always are

Now about it knocking out a carrier: being knocked out in the game doesn't necessarily mean destroyed. they could pull out in the face of stiff resistance, the crew may bail etc...

With you on lumbering, it needs to join the dodo!

[paulr]

I recall reading at least one account of a boarding action being fought in a Lee, they just managed to overcome the Japanese who had entered via the side hatch

[Sunray]

I went to Bovinton a long while ago on one of the open days (Before Tank Fest). I was looking at the Lee on display and got talking to a veteran who had served in them in the far east.

He said that due to the heat and particularly the humidity the tank got so hot crew members would faint. the only way to stop this was to open the hatches especially the side ones as it allowed a breeze to pass through.   I said what about in action, and  he  said it was almost impossible to function with them closed so they went into action with them open.  He also said some crew removed the hatches all together,

Now I have looked and never been able to find written or pictorial evidence of this, but when a veteran volunteers this storey and points the hatches out they left open it is rather compelling to believe him,

The lack of side hatches would definitely make tanks more vulnerable to mortar fire.

Intriguing discussion.  The only mortar I have any experience of was the 81mm British  with two main offensive bomb types - HE (about 9lb and Phosphorus)  The 81mm HE mortar bomb is NOT compatible with a 25lb or 105mm (33lb) artillery shell .  

The SOP - if caught in the open  when subject to being mortared was to mount APCs and bug out of the killing zone.  This would have  included Saracens and Humber Pigs with not a lot of roof armour (8mm plate?)  Even Rovers clad in Makralon offered protection from mortar attack. As proved in Operation Banner.
I would speculate the Japs had 1940s era percussion fuse and the HE of around 9lb would have thrown the bomb case fragments about 25-30 meters.
Would that amount of blast have ruptured the 12mm roof plate of a Lee with gravity providing the only velocity?

The open/removed side hatch theory gives a viable explanation.  I would give APC/AFV room armour the benefit of the doubt against mortars in my own games. (1)

As to incorporating a GPMG belt feed into BKC rules- its already set up for such an assumption with your existing troop type AP. Vets and elite will have enough chill pills in them change belt feed from ball to the black tips (or WW2 AP belt). Green and Conscripts won't.    

Footnote
(1) There was a special 81mm mortar round  called a Merlin developed in the early 1980s. Was it ever issued? Rumour was it could mallet a T-62