[ASLML] Carrier C Mortar hit ?

[Mountain View Cottage]

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Bruce Probst" <bprobst at netspace.net.au>
Subject: Re: [ASLML] Carrier C Mortar hit ?


> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 06:47:57 -0500, "Mountain View Cottage"
> <mountainview at westelcom.com> wrote:

>>  A MTR attack on a Carrier will only affect a Crew, using the
>> +2 CE DRM, via Collateral Attack.

> I'm not the one talking about "Collateral Attacks", and it has
> *nothing* to do with the argument.

Actually it does - since the Crew, which receives CE DRM, will
itself, only be attacked Collaterally. The "initial" attack will be vs.
the Vehicle *only*, and it's "target status" is dependent upon
whether or ot the attack could possibly reduce a potential CE
DRM to < +2. For Indirect Fire Ordnance attacks, the CE
DRM can only be reduced by Airburst. (See below.)
Interestingly enough, this will only occur on a Collateral
Attack once the vehicle itself is determined to be
unaffected by the hit.


> (BTW, your e-mail text-quoting system *sucks*.)

Damn, there goes $100.00 per month in therapy
I've spent on trying to come to grips with
*your* problem with my mailer.

I'm *glad* it sucks for you, if I could make it any worse,
I would - maybe you'd stop replying. (See below.)


>> It's attack will first be considered for potential
>> Kill/Immobilize/Shock vs. the Vehicle itself.

> Yes, and if Air-Burst/Elevation Advantage applies, per the
> rules I have previously quoted extensively, the Carrier
> (like any other OT AFV) is treated as being
> unarmoured.  This is very simple, the rules
> state it explicitly, and yet you seem to
> disagree.

I need to amend my earlier statement only in that
vs. Indirect Fire, a Carrier will only be treated
as Unarmored for the attack vs. *it* (the Carrier)
if it's otherwise subject to Airburst. Height Advantage,
for Indirect Fire, does not qualify the Carrier as an
Unarmored Target. (See below). I believe I earlier
said a Carrier getting Airbursts from a MTR will
get -1 OT; -1 All AF <= 4. It doesn't; it eats the
attack vs *it* (not the Crew), as unarmored (and
with *no* Airburst DRM!). *Then*, if *it* (the
Vehicle) is otherwise unaffected the Collateral
Attack will be net +1 (+2 CE; -1 Airbursts).


>> Plus, it doesn't make "sense".

> Here's how much, on a scale of 1-10, that the rules
> "make sense" to Mr Fleury" are important: 0.
>
> Here's how much, on a scale of 1-10, what the rules
> *actually say* are important: 11.

For someone so bent on following the rules to a perfect "T",
it amazes me that you can't even follow your own directions.
When given  (to yourself, no less) a rating parameter of 1-10,
you instead use 0 and 11.


>> Why doesn't it get "height advantage" there?

> Because that's not how the rules describe how you get elevation
> advantage to reduce CE DRM.  Surely that's obvious?

No, it ain't.


>> If Indirect Fire (on- and off-board) can reduce a CE DRM...

> What on earth are you talking about?

An Indirect-Fire MTR shot at a Carrier. Stay on course, captain.


> The rules say nothing about OBA
> (other than possible Air Bursts),...

There ya go. (I'll add Indirect-Fire "as a whole" here.)


> ...it talks about *range from firer to target and
> the elevation difference between them*.
> Obviously this won't apply to OBA.

Or any other form of Indirect Fire as far as I'm concerned.


> Please don't introduce red herrings, you are just confusing yourself.

*Please*...????!!! Put Bruce Probst back on the line,
will ya? Who the hell is this?


> Onboard fire, *no matter what the type of onboard fire*, can
> reduce the CE DRM, given sufficient elevation advantage.

No, it can't.


> That *is* what the rules say, after all.

It might, and I can see how you'd come to that conclusion,
but I frimly believe it's wrong, and I've never seen it played
that way - off the top of my head I think this has come up
before, a *long* time ago - I can't recall the results of the
discussion.


> If you don't believe what the rules are telling you, why
> do you bother playing the game?

It's part of the enjoyment for me -  that, and thinking
on my own two feet instead of blindly following
directions/instructions in a system that is historically,
presently, and always will be in the need of constant
review/adjustment/clarification. For most of us, that's
the enjoyment. For most of us, it's *easy* to get
screwed up, and even "forget" stuff we once "knew".
For most of us, continued discussion and clarification
is a *need*. For *most* of us, that can be accomplished
in a civilized manner.


>> There's also a rule that says Crews can't targeted separately
>> by Ordnance...somewhere.

> There certainly is (D.6, D5.32), and again, it has nothing to do
> with what I was talking about, which was the attack vs the vehicle.

As mentioned above, the *Vehicle's* target status for the
question at hand is actually determined by the *Crew's*
potential reduced CR DRM. Tough concept, I know, but
try to follow along.


>> I also think the "...Airbursts, or fire from a higher elevation..."
section
>> of your quote of D5.31 & D5.311 serves to differentiate between
>> Indirect's, and Direct Fire's, separate application of "Height
>> Advantage."

> Now you're just making up rules to suit yourself.

Yes, that's it Bruce, but it keeps my *other* therapist
in BMWs. Boy, I had a hard time figuring I "made up"
the rule that the white line around the outer edge of
STOP signs here in the USA doesn't really mean
stopping is "optional", but, my therapist got me
through it. (And my ticket/fine.) ;-)


> Whether an attack can get an Air Burst or not has nothing to do with
> what elevation the attack is coming from; it's entirely based on the
> terrain that the target inhabits and the type of fire directed at it
> (B13.3).

Well, there's a revelation that oughta warrant you "ASL-Prophet" status.
Oooooooo, Ahhhhhhhhh. Gee thanks, I don't think I could have
gotten Airbursts figured out without you...


> As for fire from a "higher elevation", are you seriously claiming
> that MTRs cannot fire from an upper elevation to a lower one?
> Or are you claiming that MTRs don't use fire attacks?

To both:

No, you insidious twit.


> Either way you are sadly mistaken.

No, I am not mistaken; you are.


>From Scott Romanowski's Perry Sez Collection:

- D5.311: Is the Inherent Crew of a BU OT
- AFV which is hit by (non-Air Burst)

- Indirect Fire Vulnerable?

-

- No.


OK, so what does this tell you?

Let's look at the next-to-last sentence of D5.311:

"If an OT AFV's crew would receive a CE DRM *reduced
by Elevation-Effects/Air-Bursts* to < its normal CE DRM,
that AFV is instead treated as unarmored and the attack vs.
it - but not vs. its PRC - is resolved (with no Air Burst TEM)
either as per A7.308 (for non-ordnance/Indirect-Fire-HE)
or on the proper TK Table using the pertinent Unarmored
Vehicle TK#."

Hmm, looks like the above quoted Perry Sez sets non-
Airburst Indirect-Fire (that's our MTR in this one, Bruce)
as a non-factor for reducing CE DRM. I don't see any
exception for HA, and for on-board MTR, using Indirect
Fire that's the only way it can otherwise reduce a CE DRM.

Hmm, can't treat it as Unarmored if ya can't reduce it's
CR DRM, now can ya? Hmmm. A BU Crew can't be
vulnerable (or have it's CE DRM reduced) unless
affected by HA/Airburst/(TPBF), and the Perry-Sez
limits Indirect's effect on CE DRM-reduction to
Airbursts. (TPBF being also NA.)

I know it's a leap for you on this one, Bruce - I know Carriers can't
be BU, but if an OT Halftrack with BU Crew can't have it's CE
DRM Reduced by Indirect-Fire non-Airburst attacks (that means,
and includes Height-Advantage, Bruce), it's safe to say it can't have
it thusly reduced even if CE, and so the tenet would also apply to
a Carrier. And, yes, ONE MORE TIME, if ya can't reduce a
potential CE DRM, ya can't treat the Vehicle itself as Unarmored.

The only way a Carrier will be treated as Unarmored for the attack
(vs. it) is if it's subject to Airbursts, and Airbursts alone. Height
Advantage doesn't do it.

I will admit that this is the "hard way" to come around on this,
but it's all I could find.

I'm pretty sure I've had this come before, for the non-Airburst
HA application, and it's safe to say I've never had it done to
me (or done it to someone else) where an on-board Level 4
MTR got to try to Kill a Level 0 HT/Carrier/OT Vehicle at
Range = 1 or 2 or 3 as Unarmored. The Airburst issue *has*
come  up before, and it definitely gets Unarmored treatment
for the TK (interestingly *without* the -1 AB vs. *it*!) - I
simply forgot about it in my earlier post when I was trying to
example the situation (interesting note/warning: this is even
the case if in Bypass of the Woods!).

Back to the "reality" and "sense" of it all:

Consider the trajectory of a MTR shot. No matter what the
postion is of the firer/target, the shot is coming (effectively)
straight down - there's not much difference (in the angle of
attack of the rounds) if the MTR is above or below the target.
Assuming non-proximity rounds, they go off on contact. Ergo,
not matter what, non-direct-hit rounds will off on the ground,
and their shot will spread horizontaly and upward, from the ground.
Either way, the shot "hits" the sides of the vehicle, for the most part.
The Indirect-Fire DRMs offered in C1.55 (AF & OT) serve to
accentuate the chance for a "direct-hit" or very "near-miss" to
outright blow the vehicle to smithereens, due to it's nature of being
very succeptible to *rounds* coming in from "directly" above.
Thus, *direct* fire attacks, be they small arms or ordnance,
automatically get the advantage - if hit, the hit(s) are coming
in from above. With Indirect-Fire this is not necessarily a "given",
and even close-falling rounds will not necessarily have their lethal
doses coming in "from above". Airbursts would automatically
qualify Indirect-Fire for the bonus, since the rounds are "going off"
from above, and their dose is coming straight down. Until the
possible use of proximity-rounds is accounted for in the
system (or SSRed by a designer) Indirect-Fire does not get the
advantage solely due to being fired from "above" the target.


***
"Damn the torpedoes and...follow the directions!":

Bruce and Chris get a couple of new pistols, head
to the range, and try 'em out.

Directions for 1st use:

Bruce follows along blindly, step by step, to
a "T", *sure* that, since it's in black and
white, it's gotta be *right*! Chris reads
ahead a bit, and thinks about it,
before he does anything.

1) Chamber a round.
2) Disengage safety.
2) Make sure barrel is clear by
    looking down muzzle, and
    squeezing the trigger.

"Bruce, I think something's wrong
with these directions, check this out...."

BANG!

Bruce?

Bruce?

Oh my...

...well isn't *that* interesting - there's no
brains running out of that hole in his head!

Bruce, this is the 2nd time I've had an unnecessarily
rude engagement with you. It will be the last.
I gave you the benefit of doubt, but now
it's over.

You will be relegated to my very short, but deserving,
list of ASLMLers to which I will no longer give the
time of day. (I won't "block" you, because I don't
block anyone - nay, the entertainment value alone
is worth the auto-deletes.)

I'm sure this won't bother you at all becuase it's so
difficult for you to reply to mails anyway...

I second the recent dig on you from Tate, and
in short, you can go scratch.

Christopher "the STOP sign deal was 'made up'!" Fleury
Sgt. Meikle's Bunker
Mountain View Cottage
Lewis, NY
USS Iowa; BB-61
Camp Dudley #12557