11 replies to this topic

[Dan Lewis]

Hi Guys, 

 

Got a game tomorrow Arab Israeli 1956 and will be using jeeps with M40 Recoiless Rifles. Learng the missle rules. I want to make sure I'm doing this right.

 

Let's say the Jeeps fire at 30" which is max range for the Rocket. There's no range adjustment for Missiles to the "To Hit" so... 10 (TQ) + 0 (OM1) -1 (Target Moving) +1 (Target DM) = 10. Before I roll, there is a missle reaction. The target is a IS-3M being fired on from side. So IS-3M Take TQ check 10 -2 (missile approaching from side), +0 (Range) -3 (RM) = 5 final TQ check. IS-3M rolls an 8 so fails. Failure on Missile Raction means affect on the to hit for the missile. So Israel rolls to get a 10 or less to hit.and the Heat OV is 20 vs side armore of 11. 

 

 

 

What I don't understand is that on missle reaction, if the missile filght distance was up to 24" or less then the TQ check is at a +2. Why would the target have a better chance of passing TQ check if the missile was at short range?

 

Another question, no range adjustment so in above example, my to hit at 30" is 10, and if I'm at 2" distance, it's still 10. Doesn't make sense to me.  

[Kenny Noe]

Dan,  No worries  You're close but let me step you through like I do players in my games.

 

In your scenario Israel vs Egyptians

Israeli turn and activates a M40 RCL

 

Attacker

1) declare a missile attack and identify the target.

2) work out the To-Hit number to roll

    (your example)

    10 (TQ) + 0 (OM1) -1 (Target Moving) +1 (Target DM) = 10

 

Defender

1) rolls for Missile reaction.

     (your example)

   The target is a IS-3M being fired on from side. So IS-3M Take TQ check 10 -2 (missile approaching from side), +0 (Range) -3 RM) = 5 final TQ check.        

      Defender has to roll a d20 

             If he roll 2-5 then he is successful. And the attacker has an additional -5 modifier on the To-Hit roll.  (If a 1 is rolled its a crit success and the attacker has a -10 applied instead of the normal -5)

             If he rolls a 6-19 then he fails and the attacker doesn't apply any additional modifier on the To-Hit roll.  (If a 20 is rolled then its a crit failure and the attacker has an additional +5 modifier on the To-Hit roll.

 

       The Missile reaction was done to account for the defender doing "something" (ie MG fire to disrupt the targeting system or the driver jinking the vehicle making hitting harder.  (Recount stories of Israeli tactics in the '73 war)

 

 

 

Working out the To-Hit number

 

So lets look at it this way (starting at top of the Direct Fire column on the advance ref card

1) determine LOS - done

 

2) determine range - done (this is ONLY to see if the target is in the Missile envelope.  In the M344A1 it has a min of 4 and a max of 30.  Anything outside this envelope can't be hit.

 

3) determine base To-Hit value

    This is the TQ and +/- the proper OM value  and the +/- of the Defenders Missile reaction roll

     

         10 (TQ) +0 (OM1) -5 (Defender successful MR)  (I'm assuming a successful roll)

   

          Base To-Hit number is 5

 

4) apply the rest of the Direct Fire modifiers (skipping Range)

     5 (Base To-Hit Number) -1 for target moving +1 for target size = 5

 

The attacker has to roll a d20 and make a 1-5 To-Hit the defender.   If a 2-5 is rolled then the missile (RCL) hit.  (If a 1 is rolled its a crit success and the attacker has a +10 applied to the missiles OV number.  M344A1 has a HEAT pen of 20 and +10 makes that 30)

 

Now on to the kill table....

 

 

 

 

I know this seems hard, but once its done a few times in order and understand the principal numbers then you can derive a method of order that work for you.

 

As for my group, once a missile attack is declared the defender makes their check while simultaneously the attacker is working out the To-Hit number.  Working together missile attacks go just as fast as gun attacks.  YMMV 

 

Any other questions, I'll be happy to confuse....  errr  help clarify.

[Kenny Noe]

Also recall covering terrain in the desert can be somewhat hard to find.   So I always remind my player that there is an "Evasive Move" action and it provides a -5 on any To-Hit attempt.   That's a 25% less chance of getting hit.  But it comes with a 1/2 CC pip cost.

 

Again YMMV

[healey36]

My recollection, and I don't know if this was part of the rule-writing consideration, is that missiles of the era (1960-1990) had minimum ranges. When fired, the missile needed to travel a certain distance and accelerate to a minimum speed before it would arm. Hits scored inside the minimum range had little to no effect. 

 

I recall reading of such instances in 1973 involving the Egyptians and wire-guided Soviet equipment, and definitely an issue in 1975 at Xuan Loc involving poorly trained ARVN using the M72 LAW.

 

For what it's worth...

[Dan Lewis]

Great Feedback, thanks guys. In my Arab Israeli game today the rules were new to 3 of the 4 players. Because I make charts for each vehicle, that have for each range, a "To-Hit" number and a "Kill" number right below it, the players very quickly are able to basically run the game on their own with guidance on what mods apply and any other special rules. So it went very fast and was very efficient. I got some negative reaction to the missile reaction but I think part of that was because I was clumsy in making the calcuation and their patience is at the level of "Spearhead" (fast and easy). 

 

Yes! I read about the 1973 Israeli tactics with Saggers, and in what I read they said that the Sagger's took 30 seconds to arrive but it sounded like they were firing from 1500 to 2000 meters out. And so there is time for reaction. But in my game the jeeps with M40 RCL attacked from the rear/side so it's questionable under some circustances that the target be allowed to react at all since they are not likely to even see the shot being made. And I don't think missle reaction should apply for weapons in short range situations (e.g. PanzerFaust and Bazooka firing from short range say...6-7" or less). It's like creating a rule for things like saggers but applying it to everything including rudamentary rockets.  

 

But I can make those adjustments in my own games and limit reactions to longer ranges, perhaps greater than 12". But you didn't answer the one question I had, which is the Mod for Missile Flight Distance. Why is their a +2 mod to reaction for short range and minus mod for long range. Should be opposite shouldn't it? 

[Mark Hinds]

(post removed)

[Mark Hinds]

IIRC, the main reason why Sagger (and similar) has minimum range issues in games (and real life) is that it took time (and thus distance) for the operator to get the missile under control.  The guy was using a joystick to control the early versions. 

 

(text removed)

 

But I can make those adjustments in my own games and limit reactions to longer ranges, perhaps greater than 12". But you didn't answer the one question I had, which is the Mod for Missile Flight Distance. Why is their a +2 mod to reaction for short range and minus mod for long range. Should be opposite shouldn't it? 

 

[Dan Lewis]

I read that the Sagger had a minium arming range of like 500m and for that reason the infantry that were equipped with Sagger's were also equipped with RPGs in case the attacker was inside that envelope. But that would simply translate to the firing weapon having  a minimum range in addition to maximum range.

 

 

I'm no expert but a control issue like you describe would apply to a "guided" missiles only. And the +2 inside 24" is being applied to rockets/missiles that are not guided. So why would a target have a better chance of avoiding being hit if the range is inside 24" rather than at longer ranges. I think the +2 is supposed to be a -2 and it's an error. 

 

Same question applies at long range. If the missle is fired at greater than 48", then the target has a -2 to their reaction. So the target has a lower chance of avoiding the missile at 50" than they do if the missle is at 30". Again, I think it's an error and should read +2 not -2. 

[Kenny Noe]

 

I read that the Sagger had a minium arming range of like 500m and for that reason the infantry that were equipped with Sagger's were also equipped with RPGs in case the attacker was inside that envelope. But that would simply translate to the firing weapon having  a minimum range in addition to maximum range.

 

Yes, it was Soviet Doctrine to have RPG Teams in the same platoon as Sagger Teams for this very reason.

 

However, not all consumers of Soviet weapon systems adhere to true Soviet doctrine, not all battles worked out like training, not all forces always paired saggers and RPGs, and Saggers and RPG have different OM, OV, and cost values.

 

Granted RPG in most armies RPG were the Panzerfaust of the Post Korea period, everybody seemed to have one (or a dozen).  There is nothing keeping a GM from adding RPGs to their scenario. 

 

 

 

I'm no expert but a control issue like you describe would apply to a "guided" missiles only. And the +2 inside 24" is being applied to rockets/missiles that are not guided. So why would a target have a better chance of avoiding being hit if the range is inside 24" rather than at longer ranges. I think the +2 is supposed to be a -2 and it's an error.

 

It is not an error.  Guided and unguided makes no difference.  The +2 is applied to the Missile Reaction roll that the defender attempts.  The greater the ranger the more opportunity the defender has to observer and attempt to avoid the incoming attack.

 

On the Missile Table if a missile has supersonic speed ("No" in the RM column) then the defender's Missile Reaction check is not allowed.

 

 

 

Same question applies at long range. If the missle is fired at greater than 48", then the target has a -2 to their reaction. So the target has a lower chance of avoiding the missile at 50" than they do if the missle is at 30". Again, I think it's an error and should read +2 not -2.

 

On the Missile Reaction Modifiers table, the modifier is +8 at ranges greater than 48".  This gives the defender (target) a + 40% chance to avoid an incoming missile.   I don't see where you are getting the -2 at greater than 48".   Perhaps it would help to identify what table you are seeing the modifiers.

[Dan Lewis]

The +2 is applied to the Missile Reaction roll that the defender attempts.

 

 

7.3 under Direct Missle Fire, 2nd paragraph, it says "Modify the stands Quality Value with the modifiers in Table 7.4." It doesn't say to modify the missle reaction roll. 

 

 

On the Missile Reaction Modifiers table, the modifier is +8 at ranges greater than 48".  This gives the defender (target) a + 40% chance to avoid an incoming missile.   I don't see where you are getting the -2 at greater than 48".   Perhaps it would help to identify what table you are seeing the modifiers.

 

In the Core Rules 2.1C. it shows attached below. 

 

 

 

In the download "MP2 Core zz4 Advance Reference Card-2B.pdf, it show below as 7.4, which is different than the one in the Core Rules 2.1c. The same is true for the Easy Read version.

 

The printed version of the rules I purchased are 2.1b. Those rules show the reference that you are talking about where it's +8 at greater than 48". The hard copy of the Advance Reference Card that came with the rules, shows the same thing. This chart makes sense. It says that at 24" there is a zero modifier - not a +2 like the rules 2.1c show. And at distances of up to 2" it's a -10. This makes perfect sense. Using 2.1c at 2" it's a +2 which means it's easier to avoid the missle at short range than at long range. 

 

The adjustment to the missile chart made betweeen 2.1b and 2.1c I still think is a mistake. At the very least it is a contradition. Either way you have 3 different versions of the same chart. 

Attached Files

•  7.4 Core Rules 2.1C.PNG   16.99KB   0 downloads
•  7.4 Advance Reference Chart.PNG   17.62KB   0 downloads

[Kenny Noe]

2.1b was updated in 2023 with expansion of "Example of Play" and various other items listed in this forum.   You have found an Easter Egg!   2.1C and 2.1Ca was updated this month and is awaiting a "formal" announcement of release with a thread of updates.  (Probably this weekend or next seeing how IRL takes precedence in our lives)

 

At any rate, you should DL the latest 2.1C book and not reference the older files.  I also will need to do the same.

[Dan Lewis]

Thank you Kenny