I think first of all that it is great that the 1916 rules are kept
simple; the more rules, the more discussion during play will occurr
on ways of how to interpret them. Now you simply (well I do ofcourse
have questions here...) apply a 'common' rule and that is that.
For towed guns I don't see it neccessary to add target size
indicators, as the most common guns placed on the table for both
sides will be field guns. In all armies these had about the same
size; I can only imagine converted German field guns later in the war
with smaller wheels being a bit lower in profile, which were used by
attached artillery with assault troops. In my view a gun is pretty
much covered for in the rules.
Some thought about your comment on tanks and their cover.
1. Yes, your argument is also good; small or large target and that
already including condition and size of the tank. It keeps things
2. Geeting deeper into tanks would not appeal to me, when it concerns
recording an entire bookkeeping per tank on gun and MG guns status or
even the state of the wounded driver. Other tactical older rulesets
like "Kaiserbosch" or "Trench" also more or less work along the same
path as the 1916 rules. The attention given to tanks would in such a
case also become inbalanced with the other rules for infantry; so,
no, I don't need it.
3. I do have some simple add ons for tanks that would not use a
bookkeeping record. For instance you could work out a simple rule on
how many of the on-board guns and mg's could fire in the same turn.
A crew of a german A7V was large enough to fire all its mg's and the
gun in one turn, but e.g. regarding the British Mark tanks only the
side-mounted guns or mg's could fire in one turn as these were
operated by the same men (as I remember correctly). I will have to
work these things out in a later message here.
Another idea would be an add-on rule, perhaps in the Optional rules
best, about the view from within a tank, which I think was more or
less restricted. Now I know the line of sight rules in 1916 are kept
as simple as possible, but perhaps I could work out some ideas about
4. Protection can also be given to tanks, by letting the be
accompanied by a unit of infantry in front, so artillery cannot see
through that infantry and fire on it. Would that be a good idea on
applying the rules? It could also be such a 'large' target that guns
could fire over the infantry, but that would be bending the 1916-
rules and making them not the way they are: simple.
5. Another reason for not making a seperate tank tracking record, is
in my mind, that the 1916 rules are tactical rules and in the case of
a record, would more get close to a skirmish game.
One more thought too about the guns and their shields, and perhaps a
reason to avoid making target size modifiers for them, is that field
guns and others were usually placed in gun empacements during the
war, which would at least be dug out and so be more or less the same
construction as trenches were for infantry. The guns would thus also
benefit from a hard cover, or at least solid cover, bonus.
--- In email@example.com, "Jim B." <manfred@r...> wrote:
> I think the direct artillery fire chart was calibrated to take into
> account the condition and size of the tank itself. The reason that
> towed gun (with shield) gets the benefit of automatic cover is its
> smaller profile (defense against direct artillery) and its shield
> (defense against small arms). I think the shield itself cannot be
> considered a huge protection against direct artillery fire, since a
> 75mm round is not likely to be stopped by a 5mm shield. It would
> protect against large shrapnel flying in from anywhere forward of
> gun. Small shrapnel would probably still pass through it given the
> condition of some wartime guns I've seen. But the gun crew itself
> given a certain amount of credit for using local ground and the
> smaller size to avoid being hit. Something a tank can't really do.
> Having said that, I should note that this ruling stems from the
> original rules (1943) which were for WWII. Many towed guns of that
> time were lower profile than in 1916. So maybe I should review
> whole thing. Many towed guns circa WWI were very high profile
> that made easy targets. We may have to give target size indicators
> for towed guns.
> This did make me think about a related way of handling tanks and
> their weapons & crews. It would be more complex, but a tank could
> treated separately from the weapons on board. That is, it could be
> treated like a movable steel bunker that houses several MG bases
> two artillery bases, instead of as a single unit that either gets
> damaged or does not. Of course that would require some kind of
> to track the condition of the vehicle and the weapons on board. The
> original armor rules were kept simple because of the emphasis on
> infantry warfare, so I'm not sure what the level of interest in
> detailed "tank tracking" might be. ???
> BTW, I have not forgotten your question about trench crossing, but
> it's something I'll have to review the rules for before trying to
> offer an answer. I've got company visiting from out of town for the
> next week or two, so I may not get to that right away.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "erwin" <erwinmk@y...> wrote:
> > We sometimes have a little discussion about the cover class of
> > tanks, when they are shot at using direct artillery; in that case