Dear Sir, First of all I like to congratulate you for the excellent Command Post which you are in charge of. I include a couple of Spanish Civil War battle orders. Ater seeing them if you consider them quite interesting 1 can serd you other ones. As well I also include a couple of questions about CD which I would very much appreciate if you could answer me: Rule 2.511 May recon AFVs like the German Sdf 250/1dismount a patrol stand in addition to those listed as part of the Panzer Division 44? Yes, but while the patrol stand is dismounted the Sdkfz 250/1 may neither move nor fire. Rule 2.7 A stand which moved in the immediate past move­ment phase and it is fired at during the Opportunity Fire Phase, and, wishes to pin itself--is it considered pinned during this Opportunity Fire Phase? Yes, the pin takes effect before the stand is attacked. Rule 3.22 What is the meaning of: "A stand may not use road movement through a blocked road point": Option 1: To bypass the obstacle, the stand must leave the road, taking to accord the surrounding terrain? Or: Option 2: The moving stand can not use the road movement allowance for its turn while moving on the road? The answer is that both options apply. The moving stand, if it leaves the road at any time during movement, may not use road movement forthat turn. Even though it is moving on a road, it moves at its cross-country rate. At the point where the blocked road point exists, the terrain that the stand will be pass through may put additional restrictions on the movement of the stand. If the terrain on either side was a swamp, vehicles could not pass that point. If the terrain was woods, then vehicles would have to pay an additional cost to bypass the road block-that is, tracked vehicles would pay 2" for every 1" moved, and wheeled vehicles would pay 4" for every 1" moved. Rule 3.41 In order to move at a running speed, would a stand be considered fired at if it is targeted by enemy artillery that failed to arrive during the past turn? Yes, the stand would be considered fired at for purposes of being allowed to run. The targeting observer was firing spotting rounds in an attempt to bracket his target, but failed to do so. The target stands would notice that fact and react to it. Rule 3.61 If an AFV like the US Sherman is carrying an infantry stand as a tank rider, would it be possible to include a single ­figure command stand with this stand? Yes, a pure (single-figure) command stand could ride free and would be subject to any fire taken in the same manner as the infantry stand. Rule 3.63 A towed weapon Class I receives a Cautious Move Order. May it unlimber (1/2 move), then push the weapon 1" and be ready to fire in the General Fire Phase? Yes, as the cost of unlimbering a Class I weapon is half of its total movement allowance for the turn, which, since the stand is operat­ing under a Cautious Advance Order, is 2". Rule 3.81 Is a nonspotted stand considered as a visible enemy unit? No, a nonspotted stand is not considered as a visible enemy unit. Rule 3.81 An enemy unit in front of me has a No Order, and I give to my unit a Cautious Order because I wish to move toward the enemy in order to reach his flank 5" away without contacting him. Is this movement considered as closing to contact with the move limitation to stop at the halfway point? The actual direction of the stand's movement would determine whether or nor the limitation on moving toward the enemy will apply. If the stand is moving closer to the enemy stand during the course of the turn, then the limitation on halting at half the movement will apply. If the stand is moving away from the enemy stand during the entire turn, then the rule would not apply. If attempting to push an enemy stand out of a position, this rule will almost always apply and needs to be remembered. Rule 4.45 A nonspotted infantry stand is covered by the 2" blast area of the smoke screen and approaches an enemy nonspotted infantry stand covered by the same blast area, at the end of the movement phase. Are they automatically spotted? Yes, though if both stands are within the smokescreen I would reduce the autospot to 1". Rule 5.43 Can AP munitions destroy soft-skin vehicles? What is the chance? No, AP fire have no actual effect on soft-skin vehicles. Rule 5.44 Only weapons that have an HE fire value may destroy a towed weapon. For this purpose can a weapon like the German 50L60 (that has an HE equivalent SA value, but not a tabulated HE round) destroy a towed weapon? No, weapons with an HE equivalent SA effect may not destroy towed weapons. Rule 7.13 Is the troop quality of the firing stand for Direct Fire added/subtracted before or after one halves the chance of hitting for cover? The halving for cover always takes effect before the modifier for troop quality is added or subtracted. Rule 7.22 Do weapons like that of the SU-152, which only fires HE and which has a poor accuracy performance to get a direct hit on enemy AFV, have a chance to inflict damage within the blast area of the weapon on an attack which failed to get a direct hit? Yes, 7.26 always applies in this case. An SU-152 would havea die roll to hit, after which, and regardless of its effect, it would roll for HE blast effect. Rule 7.34 Does the +1 modifier to hit when firing on a stand moving though a smoke screen apply if the target is stationary with the smoke screen behind it? No, the modifier applies only to stands moving through a smoke screen. Historically, units moving though the smoke stand out against the white smoke as they move forward, making them more visible. A nonmoving stand in front of it would not stand out in the same manner. Rule 9.11 In order to compute the morale of a group, if a group has stands within 10" of an enemy AFV and stands not within 10" of an enemy AFV, is the morale for each stand computed differently? Yes, though only one roll is made for stands in a groups, stands will quite often have different morale numbers. The case cited is the most common, with some stands within 10" of AFVs, and some stands not. Some stands may be suffering the effects of a pinned result, while other stands will be in cover. Only one roll is made, but that roll may affect different stands in different ways. Rule 10.4 Would an engineer stand that is an AT assault stand receive +2 and +3 for a total of +5? Yes, if the scenario in question had such a stand as part of its force structure. Rule 18.8 Is there any modifier if the target is inside a building? Stands in buildings cannot be seen from the air. The building is autospotted, and the stands are not. Rule 18.8 A stationary stand is on a road inside a woods; will it be considered as a target in woods for spotting purposes? If the spotting stand is within 8" of it, it is considered on the road in open. If the spotting aircraft is more than 8" away, it is considered as being in the woods. Rule 20.1 Is the German flak gun 20L113 is considered an AA machinegun of an AA autocannon? The current discrimination makes it an AA machinegun and restricts it to targets at very low attitude. We believe this is not historically correct. The chart should read 20-40mm instead of 21-40mm for AA autocannons. Additional Questions 1. A nonstationary AFV on the top of a hill is fired at through its front facing—does it receive hull down benefit? The question here is in what fire phase was the vehicle shot at? Stands moving in cover do not get the benefit of cover in the opportunity fire phase. Therefore in Opportunity Fire the answer would be no, and in General Fire the answer would be yes. 2. Is an open-top AFV free of the -3 and -6 spotting modifiers? No, though Frank Chadwick is talking about giving open-topped AFVs the ability to use the -3 spotting modifier for all directions, instead of just the front. 3. Does a destroyed wooden building have modifiers against HE, LOS, Small Arms, etc.? No, destroyed wooden buildings are treated as on fire. The smoke blocks LOS though the building, and stands may not remain in the area. If the scenario goes on to the point where the fire burns itself out, then the area should be treated as open space. 4. Are US Armored Engineer Battalion stands considered as US Armored Infantry for purposes of fire? No, US Armored Engineers are considered as Engineers for purposes of fire, so ROF is 1, and range is 8"/16". 5. What is German Panzer Pioniere Kompanie from the regimental troops of a Panzer Grenadiere Regiment of the 1944 Panzer Division considered for purposes of fire? The stands that were part of the Regimental troops should still be considered as German Engineers for purposes of fire, so ROF is 1, and range is 10"/20". 6. What is German Panzer Pioniere Kompanie from the Engineer Battalion of a Panzer Grenadiere Regiment of the 1944 Panzer Division considered for purposes of fire? These stands that were part of the Divisional Battalion should also still be considered as German Engineers for purposes of fire. 7. What are the elements of the Recon Battalion of the 1944 Panzer Division considered for purposes of fire? The infantry stands that were part of the Recon Battalion should be considered as Panzer Grenadier Infantry stands. 8. Why don't the Red Devils (British 1944 Airborne Division) have integral PIATs? They do have integral PIATs. See Note 2 under British Army in Armies of WWII. All British infantry (including command infan- try and recon infantry) have PIATS as their AT weapons. This also includes the Glider Pilot infantry stands. 9. Are weapons stands listed in an engineer company treated as engineer stands? Yes, they should be listed as engineer weapons stands. 10. Are howitzers, such as the German 75L24 mounted on an open AFV like the 251/9, capable of carrying out indirect fire like a M3 (75) GMC? No, they were not intended for indirect fire missions, and should not be used as such. 11. In CPQ 2, the Minefield Warfare Rules stated that artillery can remove a protective minefield with 12 hits. Doesn't that seem excessive? The gentlemen who wrote the article, Joseph Dicamillo, based it on his six years experience as a Combat Engineer Officer in the US Army. I tend to assume for that reason that he knows more about the subject then I do and that his figures are correct. Thanks very much in advance for the answers. --Alfredo Jose Vitaller, Madrid, Spain PINNED STANDS Dear Mr. Novak, The more I play CD2, the more I find myself in two minds about the effectiveness of a stand which is pinned either through morale effect and/or voluntary pin. Whilst agreeing that a change was needed on the eligibility of pinned stands to fire from CD1, I wonder if a pinned stand has been overcompensated during the Close Fire Phase both in its rate of fire and range of fire. After all, as I interpret the spirit of the rules, a pinned stand is more interested in its own survivability rather than on its shooting ability and the effectiveness of its return fire. Therefore, I suggest that the following additions to the rules concerning pinned stands (non-AFVs): 1. The rate of fire for all pinned stands should be 1, irrespective of the type of stand. 2. Effective range for pinned stands should be halved. These amendments, I believe, would allow pinned stands to be effectively penalized for being pinned, at the same time being given the benefit of attacks against them being halved (as allowed by the existing rules). This would make the rules for pinned stands more true to real life combat. What do you think? I'd like to hear your views on the matter. --David J. Bain, Scotland The debate over the voluntary pin rule is one that still rages at GDW. Frank wanted it in the rules, but is having second thoughts about it at the CD level. The more I play, the more I am unsure of it as it gives players an out that I don't think they should have. One can tell a squad to take cover—it's more difficult to tell a company to take cover. On the other hand, as it takes the unit out of action for the remainder of that turn, and all of the next turn, it does have a cost to the player. I pushed for allowing pinned units to fire in Close Fire only, as it gave a pinned unit some ability to defend itself. I like the idea of halving the ranges for all pinned stands as it still allows them to fire at enemy stands very close to them, but not at stands further away. Enemy troops 400 yards away (8") are not the threat that enemy troops are 100 yards (2") away. I am not as sure about decreasing the ROF as ROF depends on the weapons issued to astand. Crew weapons are moreprone to fire than individual weapons, and reducing the ROF would ignore this. I would be interested in readers' reaction to this as well. STREAMLINED SMALL ARMS An article in the old Command Post raised the issue of the proper fire power for a US leg infantry platoon. The article contended that an ROF of 1 was too low for a platoon armed with Ml Garands, especially since this is the lowest fire power rating allowed by the CD rules. On the other hand, the article noted, raising US leg infantry platoons to an ROF of 2 would make them equivalent to armored infantry and paratroopers, which seemed too high. The article concluded with a plea for ideas from the readership. The problem identified by the article runs deeper then just the proper fire power of US rifle platoons. The CD system of rating infantry on a scale of one to three based on ROF simply does not allow enough variation to cover all the different types of infantry and weapons that participated in WWII (to say nothing of the modern period). The system also produces some very harsh jumps between types of infantry. For instance, an American armored infantry platoon has twice the firepower of its similarly equipped leg brethren; German weapon platoons have three times the fire power. The system also has the annoying side effect of producing an enormous number of die rolls. For instance, to resolve an attack by a German Motorized Company you must roll nine dice (two for each rifle platoon and three for the weapons platoon). If this attack produces four hits, these must be randomly distributed over the target area, producing four dice rolls for a total of 13 (!) rolls to resolve a simple fire combat. Just assembling that many 10-sided dice and keeping them all on the table becomes a major logistical undertaking. (If you think this is a worst case scenario, check out the ROF for some modern units—it can get much worse. Our present record is 27 rolls to resolve one attack.) In the spirit of constructive criticism, I would like to offer the following alternative system for resolving small arms attacks. Rate the fire power of each infantry platoon on a scale of one to 10. For instance, US leg platoons would rate as fours, and German Panzer Grenadiers as sixes. Each platoon rolls ID 10. A roll equal to or less than the platoon's firepower produces one hit; a roll equal to or less than one half of the platoon's fire power produces an additional hit (for a total of two hits). Attacks are made by companies. Each company selects a target stand and rolls a die for each platoon in the attacking company. Add up the number of hits scored. The attack affects the target stand and every stand within 2" (friendly or enemy). The first hit goes on the first stand, the next hit on the next closest stand, the third hit on the next closest stand, and so on until all hits are distributed. If there are more hits then stands in the target area, restart the hit distribution with the original target stand. This system gives the attacker some control over where the heaviest weight of fire falls without allowing complete shot by shot control. If the attacker selects a patrol stand as the target, all rolls are reduced by the patrol modifier. (This will discourage selecting command stands as target stands.) Using this system, the attack by the German Motorized Company, mentioned in the example above, would only require four die rolls to resolve (one roll for each platoon), less than one-third the number now required. All CD small arms modifiers remain the same, except that Veteran stands add one to their fire power. Elite stands add two, and Green stands subtract one. Platoons firing past effective range have their number halved. The old fire power table based on troop quality is now replaced by the following table: Type Fire Power Patrol/Crew 3 Leg Infantry 4 Mech Infantry 6 Weapons 6 Heavy Weapons 8 (In general, ROF of 1=4, ROF of 2=6. and ROF of 3=8.) As weapons platoons now have different hit numbers, they must use a different colored die to distinguish them from the rifle platoons. In the example above, the German Company would roll three white die (each needing a 6 or less to hit) and one red die (needing an 8 or less to hit.) An even better solution to the weapons stand problem is to drop them from the organization charts and consider their weapons distributed among the rifle platoons, as was actual practice—but that's another article. Alert readers may note that I have seemly not done much to improve the lot of the poor US leg rifle platoon. I have given it two-thirds (rather than one-half) the fire power of its mechanized equivalent, but I have not increased its fire power in relation to German-led platoons. This is because I feel the German superiority in light and medium machine-guns (issued at the platoon level) cancels out the American superiority in rifles. If you disagree, feel free to raise the US leg platoon to a fire power of five-—the system allows fine tuning. One clear advantage American rifle platoons did have was in advancing fire. The US Garands could be easily fired while advancing unlike the German machineguns and bolt-action rifles. To reflect this allow US rifle platoons (including armored infantry but not including weapons platoons) with Cautious Advance orders to fire at half strength in the Opportunity Fire Phase. US rifle platoons will Full Advance Orders can fire at half strength in the General Fire Phase. I strongly suggest CD players give this system a try in their next game. --Thomas J. Thomas, Atlanta, Georgia WHAT ABOUT US BRITS? Dear Mr. Novak, I would appreciate if you would response to the following queries in a future edition of CPQ. After playing CD for two years as a German "commander," I turned my hand to using British forces. On inspection, I find that the equipment list for the Brits has some highly debatable facts and figures and a rather startling omission. 1. Omission first. Why don't the British have a weapons stand? After all, they had the ubiquitous 2" mortar which could qualify them to one. This could have a range of 10" to 12" and a ROF of 2. 2. Incidentally, there is no data on any Soviet Weapons stand even though they are mentioned in at least two unit organizations. Please amend if you can. 3. Talking of ranges and ROFs, the hub of British weapons training was rifle shooting, which they practiced with mastery and pride. A British riflemen was deadly in both speed and accuracy at any range. Don't take my word for it, just ask any German from either of the wars! Why don't the charts reflect this? Can I suggest a ROF of 2 for British infantry and range of at least 10" (possibly 12"). 4. Is the PIAT really a Heavy Infantry Weapon whereas the Boys anti-tank rifle is not? The PIAT may have been cumbersome to fire, but it was extremely portable, whereas the Boys ATR should, in my view, be a good example of a HIW. Has there been a printing error? These are important (and realistic) modifications for any British "commanders." I would be very interested to hear your response. --David J. Bain, Scotland 1. In regard to the British weapons stand, the answer is no. The British 2" mortar was a platoon weapon, and not used in a separate weapons platoon. The German early war 50mm mortar was used the same way, and so the early war German organization does not have a weapon platoon either. 2. The data for the Russian Weapons stand is ROF of 2, an effective range of 10" and a long range of 20". 3. The case might be made for giving the British infantry stand an effective range of 10" but not ROF2. The British Army Infantry Battalion is one of the lightest armed units of its type in WWII. When one compares its fire power vs. those of nations which have an ROF of 2, there is a vast difference in the number of automatic weapons in the two formations. While the British Army puts a better than average emphasis on rifle training, there is still a limit to the fire power that the average platoon can bring to bear at any range. 4. There was an error with the PIAT on the reference chart—-it should not be listed as an Heavy Infantry Weapon. Back to Table of Contents -- Command Post Quarterly # 9 To Command Post Quarterly List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1995 by Greg Novak. This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com