US armored rifle confusion

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

batesmotel34
Posts: 423
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 12:14 pm

Re: US armored rifle confusion

Post by batesmotel34 »

Seret wrote:Chris, I don't think you have to treat it as any different from any other team within a section for anything except firing. It fires differently because there's a rule that says it fires on a 1 or a CI. Otherwise it works just like any other team, such as an MG team.

+1 for sharing hits BTW. Teams always share his within 4", although shock is only shared between teams in the same squad.
Where is the rule that says it fires on a CI? The one I quoted says it can move or fire on a 1 or a CI, not just that it can only fire on a CI? I'm seriously confused now.

It seems to me it can either move and fire along with the rest of its section (but only at a vehicle without a separate CI), or else it has to do everything as an independent team. The rules specifically allow individual figures in a section to fire at different targets, so why not the bazoka team as well if it is activated as part of the section.

For what it's worth, this does seem to be an anomaly in the rules similar to the British airborne with a sniper team included in sections while the rules essentailly assume that sniper teams are independent.

Chris

Archdukek
Posts: 4964
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:49 pm
Location: Linlithgow, West Lothian, UK

Re: US armored rifle confusion

Post by Archdukek »

Chris,
The U.S. Armoured rifle platoon Is a bit anomalous and does need a slightly different approach to the norm. Asking the JL to use a CI to get the bazooka team to fire while using his other CI to have the rest of the team fire seems a reasonable approach to me. However, if you want to do it differently fine. It's unlikely to be a problem.
John

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 4095
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re: US armored rifle confusion

Post by Seret »

batesmotel34 wrote: Where is the rule that says it fires on a CI? The one I quoted says it can move or fire on a 1 or a CI, not just that it can only fire on a CI? I'm seriously confused now.
It does indeed fire on a 1 or a CI. The specific rule is 9.3.1., which is talking about bazooka teams (even has a picture of a guy with a bazooka!). I've never said it couldn't fire on a 1, just that it wouldn't fire on a 2 while joining in the section's small arms fire.

FWIW I don't think any AT weapons should be firing on a 2, even Panzerfausts. If you need to spend a CI to throw a grenade I think you should be using one to fire a 'faust.

hedgehobbit
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:49 pm

Re: US armored rifle confusion

Post by hedgehobbit »

Truscott Trotter wrote:AFAIK only the US AR has this issue?
This is only because most bazookas are simply ignored by the army lists. For example, every 57mm AT gun team had a bazooka and two ammunition bearers that were given it once the gun was emplaced. They were to move the the flank to protect the gun from being flanked.

The confusion of the US Armored Infantry bazooka team comes entirely from the fact that the army list describes it as a Team. It shouldn't be a separate team but simply a part of the squad.

If the army list said, "one rifleman may replace his rifle with a bazooka", then we wouldn't be having this discussion and bazookas would operate as the field manuals and TO&E suggests (except for the part about needing a senior leader to fire at a non-vehicular target, which IMO makes no sense.)
Seret wrote:If you need to spend a CI to throw a grenade I think you should be using one to fire a 'faust.
A figure throwing a grenade with a CI is doing so in addition to his regular shooting. A Panzerfaust firing at a vehicle as part of a "2" section activation is counted as having fired. So there is a bit of difference there.

PaulJ
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:44 pm

Re: US armored rifle confusion

Post by PaulJ »

I do have to think that just because bazookas became almost ubiquitous in the US army does not mean that there were lots of people that were in good at it. At one extreme Patton apparently discovered that although the Forces landing in North Africa had bazookas no one had actually been trained to use them and there are apparently no recorded Axis vehicles taken out with bazookas in the entire North african campaign. Although helpfully the Germans captured some and retro engineered them to produce the panzerschreck. My point being if the lists made them as common as they historically were we would have to assume the GIs were actually competent with the weapon and their officers had chosen for them to be deployed, probably this wasn't often the case.
I actually prefer the simple option of assuming you have selected a couple of men to operate the bazooka and they operate as specialists and in CoC terms like other AT teams.

Post Reply