{"id":2505,"date":"2014-01-24T01:39:07","date_gmt":"2014-01-24T01:39:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/bucksurdu.com\/blog\/?p=2505"},"modified":"2014-01-24T01:40:00","modified_gmt":"2014-01-24T01:40:00","slug":"close-assaulting-a-tank","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/bucksurdu.com\/blog\/?p=2505","title":{"rendered":"Close Assaulting a Tank"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Ever since last weekend, I’ve been thinking a lot about infantry close assaulting a vehicle. \u00a0I don’t suppose there are any statistically relevant sources on the probability of succeeding. \u00a0There would be so many variables that it would be difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions that could be applied to the game table. \u00a0According to wikipidea (http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Tank_Destruction_Badge) killing a tank with a hand-held weapon wasn’t very common. \u00a0The site claims 18,500 silver recipients of the badge (one kill) and 400 gold recipients (five kills), many of whom were awarded the badge a single time. \u00a0When one considers the numbers of tanks and infantryman on the Eastern Front, this would indicate that knocking out a tank with hand-held weapons is a pretty rare event.<\/p>\n

Still, on the gaming table, we want there to be some chance. \u00a0It’s dramatic and fun. \u00a0Plus as a career infantryman, I really like the idea of blowing up enemy tanks.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I have three pages of notes in my gaming idea notebook on special procedures for the WWII card-based game, G.A.M.E.R. \u00a0It occurred to me last night that special procedures aren’t needed. \u00a0Instead, I can use the explosion markers on the cards for another purpose. \u00a0There are three sizes of explosions on the cards, small, medium, and large. \u00a0These correspond to general sizes of HE: \u00a0grenades, mortars, and artillery, respectively. \u00a0I also use the large explosion marker to determine if a tank brews up from a penetrating hit. \u00a0When a tank is penetrated, you flip the next card. \u00a0If the card has a large explosion, the tank explodes.<\/p>\n

So here’s what I’m thinking. \u00a0A soldier runs up to a tank. \u00a0If he only used half of his movement to get there, he can initiate an attack on the tank. \u00a0I see three classes of attack:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The attacking soldier has no anti-tank weapons and is hoping to shoot someone through a hatch or vision port.<\/li>\n
  2. The attacking soldier has grenades, Molotov cocktails, and other improvised anti-tank weapons.<\/li>\n
  3. The attacking soldier has a purpose-built, hand-held, anti-tank weapon.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    For these attacks you wouldn’t use the cards to determine where you hit the tank. \u00a0The attacking soldier gets to decide between hull, turret, or wheels. \u00a0For a class 3 attack, the attacking soldier flips a card and looks for a large explosion. \u00a0A success results in a penetrating hit. Otherwise, no damage. \u00a0(Or maybe a non-penetrating hit. \u00a0I haven’t decided.) \u00a0For a class 2 attack, a success results in a non-penetrating hit. \u00a0For a class 1 attack, the vehicle must be unbuttoned. \u00a0The attacking soldier just fires his pistol, rifle, or SMG at soldiers in the open hatch. \u00a0If the soldier can climb up (half a move) and the hatch is open, he could, of course, try to drop a grenade in the hatch.<\/p>\n

    It needs some testing on the table, but those are my musings for today.<\/p>\n