Attacking Ground Targets

[Nightbomber]

Attacking Ground Targets (AGT) may be an interesting scenario option or even a primary goal.
AGT was common in almost every campaign and theatre, unfortunately specific ruling in RAP is missing, IMHO; bombing and dive bombing has been covered, but other types of weaponry need some more rules for: cannons, rockets, AT guns - you all know what I mean.

So let's discuss it here and I need your thoughts.

Let me start with the first rule Karl AKA Jager and me found as basic, when it comes to strafing ground objects":
[Like Yoda's teaching: "Do or do not. There is no try."

I. You hit or you miss a target. There are no damage points accumulation.
It suites very well when shooting at a tank.

The second one:
II. The side of the tank that is attacked is important.
Obviously it was easier to kill (penetrate armour of) a tank from it's rear or side.
So if you use a AT ammo, let's add an A damage counter when you shoot a tank from an angle that you could reach it's rear with a ruler. I hope I make myself clear in that. It is like the shooting plane is postioned in the "rear half" of the tank being fired at.

III. Altitude? What Altitude?
Since most of the ground attacks were performed at low (very low) altitude I do not think it is necessary to use altitude in such missions. Using it would slow down the action.

IV. Ground attack aircraft are limited to AGT only. "You guys are not going there to shoot the birds."
What was historically accurate and what is not a limitation in WGS is sometimes annoying. When, for example a Beau is sent to attack a ship, it will attack a ship, not other flying enemies. That will prevent them from tearing other planes to pieces and encourage enemy pilots to attack such upgunned planes more vigorously.

Your thoughts?

[Marechallannes]

We have rules for rocket attacks.

...

The second one:
II. The side of the tank that is attacked is important.
Obviously it was easier to kill (penetrate armour of) a tank from it's rear or side.
So if you use a AT ammo, let's add an A damage counter when you shoot a tank from an angle that you could reach it's rear with a ruler. I hope I make myself clear in that. It is like the shooting plane is postioned in the "rear half" of the tank being fired at.

I developed a system for night fighter attacks.

You are only allowed to shot at your target when it is possible to draw a line from the attackers center point - through his firing arc - from behind through the frontal side of the target card. So you always attack from the rear or the side.

A system that would work for tanks, too.

[Teaticket]

I like both posted ideas.

Andy,
1, I agree, hit or miss.
2, not so much as top armor was the weakest and most likely place to hit from the air so angle shouldn't be that critical.
3, Agree.
4, Like it. Nice to put a leash on the Beaus.

Sven, Good way to simulate the night hunting by not having frontal attacks.

[Marechallannes]

...
III. Altitude? What Altitude?
Since most of the ground attacks were performed at low (very low) altitude I do not think it is necessary to use altitude in such missions. Using it would slow down the action.

...

Difficult.

Of course altitude rules slow the game down, but they offer a more tactical depth.

Ground attack planes fly low - escorts can fly one or two levels above and have better chances to hunt and shoot at the interceptors. The interceptors have to choose wether to care for the escort or the ground attackers.

Without altitude rules the interceptor has a bigger advantage. They just have to turn around and check what's in their frontal firing arc.

(I'll bring the mission documents from my Origins game to Prague. It's a ground attack mission with rocket equipped P 51s and Bf.110 and Flacos with bombs. Spitfires and Focke Wulfs are the escorts. The missions idea is, that the Falcos and the Bf.110 have bigger surviving chances with the altitude rules.)

For a 2 hour Summer Con mission with many (and inxeperienced) players I would skip the altitude rules, too.

[Jager]

For strafing with normal ammo, it gets a bit difficult, as you need to factor hitpoints of the target and armor, if any.
For the Panzerknackers (Hs.129s, Ju.87Gs, or the Hawker Hurricane Mk.IID w/ 40mm cannons), I would go simple:
use the D deck, close range only, and slow speed. 1 card only. If you pull the explosion card, the tank or truck is destroyed (not effective against infantry, and you're wasting a valuable aircraft and ammo against a bunker). If you're shooting into the rear (90 degree) arc of the target, or it's unarmored, the 6(fire) card also destroys it. Otherwise, a miss.
This gives a 25% chance (37.5% from the rear) of knocking out a tank, and keeps things in the spirit of RAW.
Karl

[Marechallannes]

D-damage tokens, I think. To use a WGF deck isn't WGS style.

6+ will destroy the target. (There is no 6 in the D-damage deck 45% is zero 17% is 5 and the rest is 10+)

Tanks only from behind (or the side?) all others from all sides.

I think 5 rounds per plane is a fair deal.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Very interesting discussion chaps.
I like the simple approach of hit or miss with the heavier armament a lot.
I think in a very few posts you chaps have just about nailed it for my dessert campaign.
Rob.

[flash]

Nice ideas Andrzej !

I. You hit or you miss a target. There are no damage points accumulation.

It suits very well when shooting at a tank, definitely, maybe accumulation should be allowed on soft-skins & trains, buildings etc

II. The side of the tank that is attacked is important. Obviously it was easier to kill (penetrate armour of) a tank from it's rear or side.

It often is but that is not always the case. As mentioned elsewhere the top and bottom of a tank are the thinnest armoured, I like the idea with the ruler though - maybe an attack through 'a rear arc' might fit the bill ?

III. Altitude? What Altitude? Since most of the ground attacks were performed at low (very low) altitude I do not think it is necessary to use altitude in such missions.

I would suggest you set an 'attack altitude' you could then dive to that level to launch rockets etc ?!

IV. Ground attack aircraft are limited to AGT only.

That is mission focus and is the way to go though I think they should be allowed to use defensive weapons or fire on an opportunity target if one strays into their arc of fire but they should not be chasing them around the skies !

[Jager]

D-damage tokens, I think. To use a WGF deck isn't WGS style.

6+ will destroy the target. (There is no 6 in the D-damage deck 45% is zero 17% is 5 and the rest is 10+)

Tanks only from behind (or the side?) all others from all sides.

I think 5 rounds per plane is a fair deal.

Yeh, I thought this out when I was reading in bed last night
48% seems a bit high for tank killing, but to keep things simple (KISS), then I agree (if you need my agreement, that is ).
Soft targets need a damage level, like planes, though. Shouldn't be too hard to figure out.
Karl

[Nightbomber]

When it comes to shelling tanks by a kanonenvogel or Hs-129 B2 armed with 37 mm BK (bordkanone) (D chits) I think tanks could have a hit capacity - 12 points, other ground targets - 6. Of course Hit or Miss rule applies.
Normally BK 37 were equipped with 12 rounds per barrel.
We played with these rules recently and they seemed to work fine.
Well, Sven will be able to check them in Prague.

[Jager]

Given the nature of AT warfare, I think the best way to simulate it (esp. with the WGS engine) is an all or nothing kill result. If your shot penetrates to do damage, then you're combat dead; maybe recoverable but for the scenario your out.
Karl

[Nightbomber]

Given the nature of AT warfare, I think the best way to simulate it (esp. with the WGS engine) is an all or nothing kill result. If your shot penetrates to do damage, then you're combat dead; maybe recoverable but for the scenario your out.
Karl

Absolutely this.