In the last scenario of Operation Cyclone: "Das Boot", which weapons exactly can sink the submarine? It is Armor 6, Health 3, and from what I understand the damage you inflict is not cumulative, so in order to sink it, you must inflict at least 3 damage with a single weapon in a single attack.

So anti-tank weapons that are unable to cause it any damage include: Mickey's howitzer, Honey's phaser, the Laser Werfer and Luther's Flak.

Demo Charges and Panzerfausts can damage it, but are unable to inflict more than 2 hits in a single attack.

The dangerous weapons which can pierce the sub's hull are: Panzerschreck, Ludwig's cannons, Kampfzange, Hermann's laser, Bazookas and the Pounder.

My biggest doubt is concerning flamethrowers and napalm throwers. Theoretically they can damage Armor 6 units, but the rules say that their flame nature prevents them from damaging structures like tank traps. So is a flame weapon able to pierce a submarine's hull?

Loophole Master said:

I believe the rules just say that they can't damage tank traps, rather than damaging "structures like" tank traps. I allowed flamethrowers and napalm throwers to destroy the walls in the one Blue Thunder scenario, and I think i'd do the same here.

Another thought - does single attack with single weapon refer to each individual unit, or a weapon line? One could use multiple demo charges at once, it would still just be one weapon (demo charge), but multiple instances of that weapon. I have to wonder if that should count. From a thematic approach, demo charges should be perfectly suitable for destroying the submarine.

felkor said:

I didn't allow flame weapons to destroy walls in that BT scenario. If they can't destriy a concrete tank trap, I don't see why they should be able to destroy a concrete wall. But I agree that maybe a metal submarine is a different thing altogether, and should be destroyable by flame weapons.

felkor said:

I had thought about that, but the scenario says "each time you use one of your weapons that's able to pierce it...". It says "weapon" not "weapon line". I agree that temathically the demo charge should be able to do the job, but then again two stray panzerfausts wouldn't necessarily hit the same spot and compound their damage to pierce the hull.

I would think the make-up of a submaring would be closer to that of a walker than of a tank trap.

Also, are the walls in the Blue Thunder scenario really concrete? I don't have the book with me, but I don't believe it ever states what they are made of. I debated myself whether flamethrowers and napalm throwers should be able to take down the walls - in the end I mainly decided it would be more fun if the walls were a little easier to take down, so I allowed it.

I think "one of your weapons" would mean a weapon line. I mean, the Ludwig has 2 weapons in one weapon line, and there's no way to fire just one of them, so if it mean just one physical weapon as opposed to one weapon line, it wouldn't make much sense for the Ludwig. To me, it seems in the game that "weapon" and "weapon line" are synonymous, and using multiple demo charges would be using "one weapon" but "multiple ammo". Demo charges are considered a "limited ammo weapon" rather than "limited number of individual weapons" in the rulebook.

I don't see any flamethrower weapons causing much risk to a submarine.

Tanks and walkers have vision slits and engine intakes and exhausts where flames could cause problems. A submarine is a sealed tube, that can survive an internal fire because it's equipped to do so.

A flamethrower outside any of the entrances is not to likely to cause a significant problem, and definitely not be able to pierce the hull.

A flamethrower standing at an entrance and firing down directly into the submarine would be more of a problem, but only significantly so if the entrance happens to be where they load torpedoes, and some of them are exposed.

Yeah, I dunno about the rules, but this gets a common sense ruling of "No, the flamethrower can not destroy a giant water base vessel" from me. Rules be damned, seeing a guy standing on top of a submarine trying to light it on fire just seems absurd to me.

vengeance000 said:

Common sense isn't common. If it were, most people WOULD have it!