Good comments and I just got Peiper at the Gate so I have some more good rules
for WWII.

- John Paul

--- In twohourwargames@yahoogroups.com, "Bob George" <bobstro@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:10 PM, John Paul <paulnutsplayer@...> wrote:
>
> > [...] Doh! I was to fixed on enclosed tanks to think about open vehicles.
> > That makes sense for
> > open vehicles.
>
>
> And specifically ARMORED open vehicles. I'd include those open/mesh-topped
> armored cars, assault guns, self-propelled anti-tank/air and artillery in
> this category. With this in mind, I'm picking up a lot of odd AFVs for my
> games, particularly less armored early war stuff, half tracks and the like.
>
>
> > Hmmm. I guess if the figures are attacking other vehicles like trucks or
> > jeeps, "Attacking
> > Vehicles" and "Damage versus Penetration" section (NUTS! page 29) are used.
> > I would add
> > rifle rounds to the Damage versus Penetration if going against unarmored
> > trucks.
>
>
> Hmm. I don't think I'd count non-armored vehicles as any sort of hard cover.
> Maybe concealment at most. Otherwise, you'll have guys jumping INTO
> unarmored trucks when they come under fire, which is the opposite of what
> typically happened.
>
> What I'm not too sure about is unaimed 'spray' fire with non-AT weapons at
> an area, such as the tarp-covered back of a truck carrying troops. For that
> matter, a wheat field which has completely hidden figures. I don't recall
> anything specific in the rules about how to handle such fire. Recon By Fire
> doesn't sound right, since the firer truly doesn't know someone's there. But
> how to handle a situation where, for example, I know guys are in a tarped
> truck, or I just saw movement in a dense crop field?
>
> For vehicles, an easy fix is to handle it like a modified Pass 1d6 result
> for penetration. In my variant, I roll for each passenger and the drive
> train on a Pass 1d6 pentration. That doesn't handle the fields very well
> though.
>
>
> > In that case I would add the CLANK Test to the occupants in the cab
>
>
> I'd definitely do a Clank Test for any hits on unarmored vehicles, yes!
>
>
> > and the open back would
> > use Receive Fire to determine their reactive opinion of their circumstance.
> > Would Run
> > Aways from the open rear jump out? If the guys in the truck had rifles and
> > SMGs and their
> > opponents had the same and weren't firing from bunkers or fortified
> > trenches, I would say
> > they were not Undergunned for purposes of Truck.
>
>
> My impression is that an unarmored vehicle was considered a bad place to be.
> I'd have them roll at -1d6 whilst still in the vehicle. Once clear, they
> would react normally.
>
> There's the tarp issue too. What if they're under a tarp when the fire comes
> in?
>
>
> > Since jeeps are really almost as vulnerable as motorcycles, I would say
> > shoot at the jeeps
> > crew (in partial cover if you wish) and include the jeep as a Target. The
> > crew is per Ranged
> > Hit table and the jeep is per Damage versus Penetration.
>
>
> Here again, assume a 1d6 penetration result automatically for every hit on
> the vehicle, only counting as concealed.
>
>
> > I would suspect that perhaps a vehicle going over an anti-personnel mine
> > could do a
> > Penetration test, though I think for a anti-vehicle mine you'd need to
> > upgrade damage on
> > Pass 0d6.
>
>
> There's a definite loss of control as well. Maybe an automatic fail for the
> driver on a control test? Again, I'd go for a 1d6 penetration test right
> away for unarmored vehicles.
>
> - Bob
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>