HPS PzC II

[dgk196]

Hello....

Assuming that I have the latest and greatest 'manual', this is what I found...

Special Disruption Rules

"When an indirect fire unit fires on a Hard Target, either hard vehicles or units deployed in a hard fortification, then the disruption effect is twice that of normal. For hard vehicles, this is the effect of causing them to 'button up' and thus have reduced effectiveness. For hard fortifications, this is a result of the 'pounding' that results on the fortifications and the disruptive effect this has on the occupants."

So, say you are in your tank... incoming artillery rounds... you 'button up'. Why? To reduce or negate the effects of the attack on you as a result of the fire directed at you. 'Buttoning up' doesn't increase the effect of the attack it reduces it. Increasing the effects of Disruption by a factor of X2 is the opposite of the effect. I could see a reduction in effectiveness as a result of 'buttoning up', but not a factor of x2. Maybe a reduction by some percentage of effectiveness of the unit that is under attack, say -5 or -10 or some such thing. Barring that being available to set the level then I would like to not have it factored in at all... to me its the reverse of what occurs and out of proportion to the event. The same sort of effect for 'hard fortifications' is more or less the same, only different. The whole idea of the 'hard fortification', or any such thing, is to reduced the effect of enemy attacks while allowing you to carry on your operations. If the 'attack' is sufficiently strong to cause disruption of the occupants then that's what it should reflect. Not some additional effect to simulate 'something'.

"When towed anti-tank guns or towed heavy AA guns fire on a hard vehicle, then the disruption effect is twice that of normal. This effect is based on the fact that the guns are deployed in fixed locations and as result have increased accuracy as opposed to mobile guns which are firing on the move."

I get the idea that towed guns have to deploy to fire. Why does the 'accuracy' of the fixed guns increase because they are 'deployed', as opposed to tanks which have stopped to fire? Both are 'stationary' when firing. There where a few vehicles that employed gyro-stabilized systems, some Sherman and the 'Panther II' (Panther F) where to have a similar system. The majority of 'mobile guns' had to stop to fire their gun, pretty much a common practice as far as I can tell. Some vehicles had attributes, mostly because of the suspension (?), that allowed firing while moving slowly. But even still, most accounts have the tanks stopping to fire, unless its extremely close range! The 'firing tables' that I have more or less, and there are always exceptions of course, indicate the same sort of results for guns that are used in anti-tank roles or mounted in tanks. Range differences seem to be related to the limitations of the mount, if there are any differences at all. So, either assign a reduction of effectiveness of the 'firing unit' by some percentage, as mentioned before, or eliminate the 'effect' altogether. Once again, to me the cause and effect of this is reversed.

Improved Positions. In the case of say a Russian infantry unit, supposedly there where 'standing orders' that if the unit was stationary for a given amount of time, it falls within the one or two hour turns of the game, then they where to begin 'digging in', without being ordered to do so. They dug what the Germans called 'Russian holes'. A simple 'pit' that would allow the torso to be below ground-level. Shallow angular 'dig' and the dirt piled up in 'front' of the position, the legs of the soldier where not in the pit when laying in the 'hole'. This is the most minimal 'improved position' that I required for 'earthworks' and took the least amount of time. I can't see anyway that a gun or vehicle deploying in the same area (hex in our case) would derive any benefit from such an improved position. I can't imagine a company or battalion of T-34's parked next to something of this nature getting any benefit from it at all.

That's why I would like to see some level of specificity as regards the 'class' of the earthworks and the size of the units it is meant to accommodate. Thanks for taking the time to respond. I hope that I've given you a better explanation as to what I'd like to see regarding these factors.

Dennis