Hey

i have a few questions about M10 tanks

1st is their Penetration cumulative -> so 2 M10`s combined fire make other tanks to roll -2 defensive dices ?

2nd does M10 have overrun and concussive fire ?? Coz they are missing in reference cards.

That is interesting.

Ad 1. I was tempted to say "Of course not" but when I thought about it a bit, it ceased to be so clear. I´d say yes now. Every M10 participating in combined fire subtracts one armour die of the target.

Ad 2. No. Because, as you said, they are not mentioned in the reference sheets.

Personally, I think the M10 is flawed a bit. I´d give it the concussive and overrun abilities - Why not? Every heavy vehicle has them - but most importantly, reduce its armor to 2 (historically accurate). So that it cannot be used as a tank (it is an agile, fragile and lethal tank destroyer) and if it IS used as a tank, it suffers heavy losses (as it happened historically when it was misused in this way).

And of course scratch its penetration ability. I mean, a penetration ability for the 76mm M7 gun of the M10? Hell, then what about the 88mm KwK 36 gun of the Tiger or the 75mm KwK 42 L70 gun of the Panther capable of penetration of enemy tanks far beyond 1000m?

Well im not excepting from ToI to be pure battlefield simulation, i just like it as it is.

And i like M10 beeing different than other tanks even if some rules are bit weard -> open top

I assume that those answers are not official, but its good to campare my opinion with others.

Thx a lot

Overrun: Personaly I think that the crew of any M10 would dislike any notion that their vehicle should venture anywhere close to an infantryman with a handgranade or worse.

Concussive: Anyone know how much HE they were allocated?

Tigers etc have plenty dice to penetrate anything else anyway - they do not realy need more power

add 1. I agree Amor penetration is cumulative.

Overrun: Exactly. More than dislike. The armour 4, making their vehicle as sturdy as a Sherman is, is then just weird. With that, in game terms, the M10 wouldn´t be facing any more danger in overruning then any conventional tank.

Concussive: Probably very few, if any. But the same would apply for the Jagdpanzer IV as well. So why limit just the M10?

Tiger and co.: Thats very true. But it sounds unfair to me to give a specific penetration ability to one vehicle when there were others with much greater penetration abilities. Either give it to every eligible gun - I.E. all German guns except Panzer IV and StuG III and their American counterparts (M10 and Firefly) or just scratch this strange concept.

Actually, the firepower of the M10 versus tanks is in game terms on par with the Tiger. When targeting a vehicle with 'tick' armor, the penetration is worth atleast 3 dices. And maybe it doesnt sound 'fair'. However, all in all the M10 is a fun vehicle. It has some great firepower versus vehicles, but at the same time it has some nasty drawbacks. The open top makes it a real nice target for a double mortar & artellery attack. On top of that the M10 lacks overrun and concussive firepower, which makes it quit less usefull versus infanteri.

I never enjoyed the Stug or the Jagdpanzer, because they are too similar to the panzer. I would have enjoyed giving them penetration, maybe instead of concussive firepower. The only problem, when fighting the US, penetration would not be that helpfull as no of the US vehicles have 'Thick Armor'. I also think that their lack of turret should give these vehicles some dissadvantage and advantages.

Further I think Stug/Jagdpanzer should be able to be concealed in defensive battles. (but ofcourse that is easy to do in senario rules).

In order to really enjoy any of these specialty vehicles, one must incorporate facing rules...considering the allergic reaction some of us have to that concept, I will not go there.

In order to simulate doctrine and actual use:

1. No overrun ability.

2. Reduce armor value.

3. Unless facing rules are used, I would allow the penetration factor in order to model TD doctrine, which was (when not in direct support of infantry) to stealth up on heavy tanks and attack from flank or rear. (I reiterate my long time support for simple facing rules.). Another option is to use the penetration factor ONLY for short range attacks.

4. Yes to concussive firepower.

5. I continue to disagree with the suppressive fire rule for the M10...and forcing the pinned rules onto an AFV is just plain silly.

6. US TD's used cover and recon vehicles to approach heavy German AFVs within the range and penetration power of their weapons. We play a couple of variants to model this doctrine in the game

a. If the M10 remains in cover, it operates as a concealed unit until it fires.

b. The other variant is based on the FoW rules, whereby the TD remains offboard until the recon vehicle finds a suitable setup location, then the TD is placed on the board within two hexes of the recon vehicle but not closer than 4 hexes from enemy units. Placing the TD is an action but the vehicle itself is not fatigued.

The M10, M18 and M36 are very interesting vehicles. Unfortunately the current edition TOI rules do them a disservice. Hopefully, the new rules to be published with "Fury" will improve them.

Nice ideas. I agree with most of them except..

1. No overrun. Why? This is an unnecessary exception (I guess we agree the less exceptions from the rules, the better). The key is the reduction of its armor value (to 2 lets say). By doing that, you are already nicely simulating its fragility. I seriously doubt anyone would use an M10 (armor 2) to overrun a fresh squad with 4 dice to inflict damage at close range. Or he may try, why not? It´s not physically impossible as it is an AFV after all.

5. Exactly. Thats sounds so silly as I tend to believe that the suppressive dice are supposed to inflict normal damage. I.E. you may nicely damage this vehicle with mortar or arty fire. That would make sense. Has there been an official word about that?

6.a. I don´t think you may adopt concealment rules for just M10. Even the King Tigers were succesfully dug in and disguised. A clear solution would be to give the possibility to conceal vehicles to defending - or stated - side.

I hope as well the Fury will bring more in depth rules.

von Stichen said:

1. The M10 has an open fighting compartment, so it is very vulnerable to small arms fire and grenades at close combat range. Common sense and doctrine prevented close assaults by such vehicles.

5. Pinning a vehicle with small arms fire is silly. Even if you scare the tank commander in the open fighting compartment, his repsonse would probably be "Driver, this is getting too hot, get us out of here!" rather than "Nobody move, keep your heads down!".

6.a. Armored vehicle concealment is best left to scenario special rules, I think.

If I remember my reading correctly, the TD doctrine was impressive in theory but not very successful in practice.

Bazookajoe said:

1. I agree.

2. I would prefer keeping the armor as it is but adding a special vulnerability to adjacent infantry (gernades etc.), artillery, air attacks and mortars.

4. Did TDs carry much HE ammunition?

6.b. I like this idea even without the use of recon units. Just use an action to set up a TD in ambush no closer than 4 hexes from enemy units or nor closer than 6 hexes from enemy recon units (that would give those recon squads frm DotF something useful to do). This rule could apply to tank hunters from all nations. Good scenario special rule, I think I will use this one from now on.

M-10's likely carried little HE maybe 10% of the combat load as it was basicly there to kill tanks. as for overrun i suspect it could perform it but that would be in extreme cases. yeah i think the armor could be reduced to 2. M-18's might be 2 as well but they should get a speed modifer since they could go as fast as 55mph so some way to make them harder to hit would be accurate

BJaffe01

I would strongly suspect that the squad being overrun would not be pinned as it would be much too busy cheering from the recent handgranade throwing contest.

BJaffe01 said:

I have been referencing FoW and ASL stats, and armor 4 is OK for the M10, as long as some rule factors in the open turret.

The M18 would be armor 3 according to these sources, and speed would be around 10. Firing and Moving, the M18 should be able to keep out of LOS anyway half of the time.

well that's funny because the frontall armor on a M-10 is 37mm, M-18 25mm. Early Sherman 62mm, A3 Sherman 100mm. i tend to think a 2 is fine for both the M-10 and M-18. The M-18 Hellcat is a truly bizarre TD is was designed for ambushing cause in the open even a 20mm Cannon is going to kill it. Hence the shoot and scoot idea

BJaffe01

BJaffe01 said:

...and thus we come back to facing.

I think TOI values for armor thickness use a bandwidth to create an abstract value and the M10 frontal armor barely falls within the "4" value band. I personally believe the M10 armor value should be "3", especially when giving it the ambush abilities mentioned above. (balances out)

The M18 IS unique due to it's light armor and speed. Since the M18 relied on speed to avoid being hit by slow traversing panzer turrets, a "3" might be warranted based on model abstraction, however, I agree with the "2" but only if the M18 has the TD ambush ability AND is allowed to move and fire without firepower/2 penalty (I.E. full firepower value due to fast turning turret) but with a movement penalty of -2 . I agree with a 10 for speed, with some speed reduction penalty (maybe 8) when moving and firing at full firepower.

WRT concussion, all TDs ended up at one time or another being used as mobile infantry support artillery and fired quite a bit of HE ammo from 1943 on. They all probably had enough to justify concussion.

There is a lot of chatter regarding the open tops, but I haven't read many accounts of TDs being close-assaulted in the ETO. The would be most vulnerable in urban combat due to the exposure to upper story windows and from snipers anywhere. Close -assault by infantry appears to have been unusual unless the unit was cut-off from normal infantry it was supporting. Also, German infantry was terrified of the .50 cal MGs mounted on TDs and reccon units (M8 and jeeps). Many accounts mention the German fear of the .50 and its almost automatic pinning effect. I agree with KlausFritsch about a TD CO's reaction to small arms fire. Regarding overrun, I don't think any sane TD commander would choose it as an action.

I think if one has the models for these units, cards and special scenario rules are not necessary, but if only playing with basic TOI models then maybe yes.

Bazookajoe said:

I think there are not that many accounts because TDs kept well away from enemy infantry.

That is why I would prefer modelling open-topped vehicles by giving them weaknesses against infantry at very close range and maybe against high-trajectory weapons such ar mortars, artillery and aircraft.

Maybe it would be correct to reduce the M10's armor to 3, but as long as the official rules say it's 4, I am going to play it that way. I like to add things to the game, not change them. That way I can still play the game with other people without having to adjust to unfamiliar stats. Should the M10 ever be reduced to armor 3, I will reduce the M18 to armor 2 in my Experimental Unit Stats.

KlausFritsch said:

I completely agree with you regarding infantry. Shame on any TD CO that tries to use it like a tank to overrun or without infantry support. I think a determined, successful 1-hex infantry attack, mortars and artillery against a TD should have a special effect. Something like: immediate retreat towards friendly forces and unable to fire again until adjacent to another friendly unit. This could take the place of a pinned result? Also, the sniper card could have the same effect.

I also feel the same about rules. Mostly we add/subtract capabilities to units but avoid changes to the rules mechanics unless we feel a rule is grievously inappropriate.

I also agree that 'open top' should give the vehicle some weakness against infanteri at close range. A weakness versus mortar&artellery is kind of included in the game, which is nice. If the M10 was all about fire and movement, why didn't it get some kind of bonus for 'fire and movement' action? It may have sliglty too high firepower versus vehicles (effectivly on par with the tigers). I would love to see updated rules where the few irritating rules are fixed, and the units stats perfectiniced. However untill that happens, the M10 is basicly fine enough.

The thing which irritates med more is the huge difference between a 'double mortar' and a 'single mortar'. I love the mortar and how it is done, and how powerfull they can be, however the difference between having two or having one is to big. Luckily its useually not worth to put two MG in the same base. Because the firepower two MGs has against vehicles (firepower 4 which easily can damage a standar tank) seems very game to me. One MG is fine, but two is just nasty. I also misslike that the stug is identical to the panzer. The Stug should have 'no turret trait' which gives some advantage and some disadvantage.

All these things are basicly minor complaints. Allthough the senarios may be unbalanced, the units are basicly fine.

Grand Stone said:

I agree to both issues. I dislike the fact that MGs can damage tanks very much. I would like to make vehicles with the Heavy Vehicle trait immune to MG fire. That way, you can still shoot up trucks, halftracks and armored cars (if they are ever included in ToI), but you cannot destroy a Sherman or Panzer IV with one lucky shot of two MGs. That just never happened, no matter how lucky the MG crews got.

The fact that there is no rule model whatsoever for vehicles without turrets is also strange.

I think we are taking the actual models too litteraly. A MG squad would not just have a medium MG with a crew of two and a couple of onlookers. It would be 10 guys armed with a range of weapons. That lucky hit by a MG on a PzIV might not the MG, it could be an ATR or some other weapon, perhaps even a simple rifle nailing an overconfident commander/driver. That two MG squad might use the 6 remaining guys to add some panzerfaust or even a light mortar, knowing that they will not be moving around much.

Gamewise taking away the MGs ability to hurt tanks would make a tank very powerfull indeed. Being able to roam at will with good firepower would be deadly.

Hefsgaard said:

I have to disagree. The way WW2 squads were composed, one ToI figure represents two or three soldiers, and one heavy weapon figure represents the weapon with the team. Panzerfausts come into play with the AT specialization. If your explanation were correct, all infantry figures should have range 3 against vehicles.

Killing the tank commander is a possible effect, but once you got him, your MG cannot do any more damage to the tank, most certainly not destroy it.

What I do not like is having to creep through fields covered by multiple MGs with your heavy vehicles instead of just driving through.

As the nations of WW2 used diffrent unit sizes, and with most squads on the front rarely up to specs, a fixed man/model number is proberly unrealistic. But no need to qurral about it. Panzerfaust is proberly not even AT, but the inherent AT-ability of normal infantry, as Panzerfausts were a rather shortranged weapon. But I will still maintain that the weaponmix of squads would be much more diverse than is possible to simulate in ToI.

A tank without a commander is next to useless anyway, though still able to shoot and drive a bit, it will have limited observation and no direction.

Being able to drive tanks across the field with impunity, will require either taking them out, or putting in AT assets to offset them. I think it is much simpler to assume that besides the assets we see on the field, the armies are supported with unmarked light mortars, light AT, snipers etc.

Besides MGs can be shot from outside their own range.

KlausFritsch said:

Yes, yes, yes!

I love the scene in "Saving Private Ryan" where Captain Miller appears to destroy a Tiger I using a Colt .45...in truth though, it was a P-51 tank buster that took it out.

TOI does a great job of modeling infantry squads using figures and specialization chits. For the most part there were two types of infantry squads...rifle or special. The key to an infantry squad's capabilities is training, experience and specialization. TOI's use of specialization chits very clearly designates what squad has the right equipment for the job. No chit, no capability. One can argue about many things in TOI, but I think this is very clear and very well done.

It has been argued before that LMG/HMG cannot damage a heavy vehicle. I agree. Even the abstraction inherent in TOI should not model in such an astronomically unlikely event by making it possible every single time. The rules should state: "MG's cannot damage heavy vehicles." Even armored cars and half tracks were secure from all but .50 cal ammo.

I'm hoping FFG fixes these gamey rules in "Fury".

And how would you offset tanks increase in power? Perhaps modeling their weaknesses too? such as limited vision. Or perhaps add extra AT-assets to all scenarios involving tanks?