Hi All
In my game with John last week I fielded a heavy Armoured car. I found it almost a waste of points. I know its only 1 point more than a standard MG but couldn't really see any benefit in using it.
If looking at the various aspects :
Movement - Moves 2 (1 if any trenches) as opposed to the MG's 1 but has a harder roll to leave terrain 3+ vs 5+.
Assault - Ac may assault MG may not. AC get 2 (only 1 if attacking into terrain) dice the MG only 1 (5 for the Mg & 2 for the AC if defending).
Shooting - 1 dice for AC and 2 for MG.
Saves - Both have a save of 3+ but the Ac drops to a 4+ if in buildings/woods.
With these difference, unless I am missing something completely, I cannot understand why a mobile MG in a pillbox, apart from looking cool, an AC would be used. Can someone enlighten me please.
Derek
Derek,
Isn't looking cool enough? :)
I think that there may be a psychological advantage too. I've played with tanks and haven't found them universally great (especially in defence), but other players can be led into trying to avoid them.
And, of course, if a specific scenario calls for an armoured car, then you should probably have one!
Simon
I think they look great but they should also be useful. At least make them a little faster. Maybe they should all be sent scouting somewhere. Oh no they cant, they drive as fast as an infantryman slowly walking across no-mans land >:(
As an ex-squaddie I know that the first things dumped is anything that has no use or weighs a lot(check out the desert in Saudi Arabia/Kuwait or rather under it for the amount of useless c**p we buried during Desert Shield). :)
Derek
They are essentially mobile mgs that acted as hardpoints and cover. They are a bit like early artillery on the battlefield - annoying and best avoided.
They were cheaper than tanks and a tad faster and generally fared better on more open, even terrain. Tanks and kegresse a/cs were able to traverse softer more broken ground but were painfully slow... If you want to use an a/c in no man's land that's your funeral. They'd work even less than a horse drawn artillery team. That's why they generally fared better in the early war period before trench warfare became the norm and in the RCW in wide open spaces or in urban environments on decent roads...
Quote from: Colonel Kilgore on June 15, 2021, 05:45:25 PM
Derek,
Isn't looking cool enough? :)
I think that there may be a psychological advantage too. I've played with tanks and haven't found them universally great (especially in defence), but other players can be led into trying to avoid them.
And, of course, if a specific scenario calls for an armoured car, then you should probably have one!
Simon
They can also draw fire away from other units as your opponent may be scared of what they can do. This probablhy will only work once though!
TBH I stick to 1914, so my armoured cars are Minervas and the roads are still in pretty good nick. The ACs ought really to stick to roads or open terrain. Closed terrain is just asking for trouble. Really not sure why one would use an armoured car, or any other wheeled vehicle, in a trench assault scenario on the western front. Much more scope for armoured cars on the eastern front and the Middle East. Did they contribute much in Italy on the front line?
Quote from: Sean Clark on June 15, 2021, 10:53:49 PMThey can also draw fire away from other units as your opponent may be scared of what they can do. This probably will only work once though!
At Cambrai the tanks mounted an advance on Flesquieres ridge and found themselves in open country without the promised infantry support close by (who were lagging 400 yards away). They attracted the unwanted attention of 4 77mm guns as well as MG fire. Trying to zig-zag at 4 miles an hour must have been a bit like the slugs fleeing the flood in 'Flushed Away'. 27 tanks were hit with no crew survivors. They had acted as 'Shell Magnets'. Their primary role was to clear a path through the enemy trenches and wire, otherwise a/c's might conceivably have fared better on the open ground.
David Bullock cites the psychological value of armoured cars to much of their success in the RCW. Like armoured knights they bolstered friendly morale with their presence and could panic enemy cavalry and infantry. The RCW was a war of shock and mobility and on relatively solid and open terrain the combination of 360 degree turrets, a high rate of MG fire and speed allowed them to support and stiffen cavalry attacks, hold flanks etc. Kind of like the Rooks on a chess set. It is no accident that a/c's had a role in the Arab revolt supporting the Sharifan cavalry. However the crappy suspension made firing on the move inaccurate and the ammo supply was only good for about 30 mins. Artillery were their chief nemesis but the relative lack of and mobility of artillery allowed a/c's a degree of latitude not usually found in European theatres. Improvements in Anti-tank weapons would also have made them more vulnerable.
These are the kinds of factors that need to be acknowledged in rules to make them worthwhile and interesting assets to have.
For those of you who may not be aware, Landships II is a mine of info on a/cs and tanks...
http://www.landships.info/landships/car_articles.html#
Neil
I use 2 armoured cars with my Russian army.
I like them.
martin :)
I also like the thought and look of them. Just please give them something to help them contribute rather than being the poor relative of the MG base. I would suggest either give them the extra movement to match cavalry (doubtful), extra dice to match MG's and/or the saves to make them slightly more survivable than a MG team in the open.
Please bear in mind that My Italian ACs are Lancia 1ZM that mount twin MG's in a 360 Turret. If I use them as 1Zs it is three lined MGs. They are not British ACs that normally mount a single MG. I don't suggest that new stats should come up for different makes/models as that would be unwanted complication in the rules. Just treat them as a more mobile MG and make the points cost a little more. I would be overjoyed at that.
Please make them worthwhile. I would hate for these wonderful table-top items to just sit gathering dust.
Derek
Derek, if you got extra dice for three MGs on each AC you would only have to subtract the extra dice as the AC is being crewed by Italians.
Apologies Luigi.
John
I agree they should be capable of keeping up with advancing cavalry. The Series 3 Austin used from 1918 was capable of 35mph max. speed on an improved lorry chassis. By comparison a tank of the period (even the nimble Reno FT) was only able to go about 4 to 5mph. A horse can gallop between 25-30mph, canter 10-17mph and trot 8mph, so an a/c was theoretically up to 8x faster than a tank on roads/good going but at the very least could comfortably keep pace with cavalry wherever they could go.
Plus armoured cars were usually brigaded together with the smallest tactical unit being in 3s and 4s.
A general rule of thumb; tanks support infantry, a/cars cavalry... simples!
I for once would support Derek's suggestions about armoured cars - partially at least.
I humbly wouldn't choose to improve their speed or mobility on open ground (not as a general norm, at least) because many of them, if not most, didn't enjoy any all-terrain or 4wd capabilities; however, what they were capable indeed is to perform at a decent speed on road. If talking about WW2 or Interwar, they should be certainly faster than almost any tank.
Otherwise, I would grant them not less firepower than to a foot MG, and would certainly give them a little bulletproofing beyond that of an MG team in the open.
I do not agree with some biases given here about italian soldier performance on the battlefield. Just give them a decent reason to fight for.
However, if going for biases, then I'd fell obliged to remind that Germans did re-use Lancia IZ/IZMs as late as 1944 (Lancia IZM Panzerspähwagen, PK 501); therefore, if the Germans considered it useful, it WAS useful.
::)
Lluís
The Minervas operated with the Belgian cavalry in the opening phase of WWI, which saw Belgian cavalry with supporting mobile machine guns attacking German cavalry and giving them a hard time, especially as the Germans had no armoured cars to deploy at this early stage.
Hi all
I am in no way suggesting that Italian ACs should be classed as multiple MG bases. Just to be treated as a normal MG base in all respects as regards firing and the same saves. I would have liked a better then MG save but don't think this would be practical within the game system. Maybe they could be given Cavalry speed but moving across open ground. Each turn they could have a dice roll with a 1 meaning bogged down for the remainder of the game. That would have a degree of realism and randomness.
Derek