Transports

A situation occurred during one of my recent games:

my opponent had trucked infantry, which he dropped in his front line, their transport (a medium truck) remained within 4", waiting.
Then he needed one of his medium guns to be brought to another site, but unfortunately the transport of this gun (another medium truck) had been hit by a stray mortar and destroyed.
So he took the (waiting) infantry transport, brought it to the rear, towed the gun and off he went.

Is this correct ?
I mean a medium truck is a medium truck, but can I handle my Battegroups trucks this way, and without ........ whatever ?
Do I have to make a Comm-Test (cause some officer is wanting it to happen) or a unit experience test or the like firsthand ?

I didn't find anything relevant in the books, so maybe someone is able to help me solving the situation correct.

Can’t help there but personally I would at least want a communication check to be successful to make it happen.

Pretty sure in reality it wouldn’t have happened in the British or US forces but the Russians possibly and I’d be more lenient with the Germans as their ability to conjure up effective kampfgruppes at the drop of a hat would make it more likely. However after D Day you would need to have a fairly hi die roll due to the lack of transport

Just my 2 bobs worth and purely a personal view only

Nothing stopping it in the rules, although there are obvious problems, like the gun's tow would have its ammo in... but technically, it is allowed. Time consuming... but I don;t see why not, in emergency, a truck can't be re-purposed as a gun tow (if it's big enough - I wouldn't let a jeep tow off a 155mm gun). Not standard practice, but I'd bet it was done.

Warwick wrote:although there are obvious problems, like the gun's tow would have its ammo in...

well, yes, and that's the main problem I think
the gun can be towed but has no ammo
nice
thank you

Ok you guys are killing me with your logic is so circular. Gun teams don't have an ammo counter because it is assumed they have all the ammo they need with them.
Then you say the transport that brought them in has the ammo. But how will the gun shoot is the ammo in in the truck? No the gun has all the ammo it needs. Now it's oh no! Transport is destroyed, there goes our ammo!! What about all that ammo we have with us? What that ammo on the ground it those boxes? no way it's been on the ground to long yuck!

Look a trucks is a truck, they all had tow hooks and if the commander says move that truck and grab that atg I am pretty freaking sure the guy in the truck will say "yes sir!" And do. Not, "well sir I am transporting that infanty sqaud over there that is shooting the enemy. I better go ask them if it's ok."

If you have a forward observer and their Jeep is destroyed and they are about to be killed by mg fire. There is a 3/4 ton Truck near by I am sure that would be sent it to save a life even at risk to the loss of the truck. It's call being a hero and self sacrifice. Military personnel did and do it all the time.

Just because someone does something in the game that the rules, as written, does not say they can't and has all the indications that they can, such as passangers limits. Then they can.

Play the game as you wish to play, that's your choice, but don't punish someone for thinking outside the box because it could cost you the game. Take note of it instead and use it the next time one of your atgs, or whatever is in a bind and you need to move it.

I don't mind if someone's idea(s) costs me the game, because a game is good game as long as I have fun, and for me victory only is overrated.
Of course there is ammo on the ground, and as long as the gun stays there firing ..... no problem.
But if they move they have to take that ammo along in order to keep the rate of fire.
So they have to repack it into the (new) truck and then carry on ....
I don't say using another truck for hauling a gun is a no go, but it has some things to be considered beforehand and they hinder (in my opinion) the grab and go - version.
No more no less.

A truck is not exactly "just a truck". The reality (whether you want to game it or not) is that it belongs to somebody. Some unit has it listed by serial number and registration on its establishment, and the driver who has signed for responsibility of it belongs to a chain of command.

Tow vehicles would always belong to the unit which owns the guns being towed (the ammo question is something else), though circumstances might dictate otherwise for breakdowns or losses. It should be stated at the start of the game, but normally a gun that starts the game with a tow vehicle would "own" that vehicle for the duration, and it wouldn't be able to swan around picking up random infantry units.

For the infantry it's very nationally dependent. For example the German panzer grenadiers mounted in trucks "own" their vehicles. Again, those vehicles would not swan around doing other things - and don't give me "the commander ordered it" because it's not something routine enough to be justifiable without pre-game agreement. The "commander" (you) is 500-feet tall with situational awareness that would make even modern electronic battlefield commanders gawp in awe.

Other countries had truck pools, and those trucks would be parceled out to lift infantry or other elements as ordered. Again, pre-game though. The commander allocated them before the battle, and the ability to change that just didn't exist - no radios in the average truck. Their orders would be "drop the infantry at map reference x and return to harbour at map reference y." In game terms: drop the infantry then leg it for the table edge. Trucks "bought" as supports would most likely fit under this category.

Now, as said, there's nothing in the rules stopping it, if that's how you want to play it fine. I recommend discussing the issue prior to rolling the first dice though, just to avoid arguments. Remember, this isn't a game with tournament play in mind, so rigid adherence to the rules (and using a philosophy of "what isn't prohibited is permitted") may not endear one to potential opponents.

Great answer, made my day

Everything you just said is completely contradictory to that last paragraph. You just when on a long rant about being strict about why you can not transport units with another units transport. How that doesn't happen in for reason of x,y,z. When we know that it in war, to save lives, to win the conflict and kill the enemy, it did happen.

Remember, this isn't a game with tournament play in mind, so rigid adherence to the rules (and using a philosophy of "what isn't prohibited is permitted") may not endear one to potential opponents.

Correct, this isn't tournament play. So telling players what units they can or can not, within the limits of already established rules (size, weight, or passenger capacity), move around because you don't like it is just as bad and may not endear one's appoinent.

I am saying it's NOT a tournament game, but a narrative one. You are not the commander but a story teller using the rules of the game to tell that story. By restricting you opponent and yourself from having that narrative by inserting a rule that doesn't exist (dedicated transports) prevents story telling.

You see it like this, disembark/move order to half track, drop infantry squad, move half track safely away. Next turn: give move/limber order to half track, move to towed gun, Nope, you dis agree with this and say not allowed. Unfair, foul, wouldn't happen in real life. We have to be strick about this.

I see, half track drops off infantry and heads away from battle because, tanks. As it's heading to the back lines and to safety they run into an atg team whose transport had already left earlier. The enemy tanks have been reported to be flanking the infantry and they need to move the atg now to stop that tank. The atg team stops the half track and tells the the Captains orders, the half track hooks the atg with out question, to save the lives of his squadmates. They take off and get into position just in time to catch the enemy tank in the side and kill it, the last tank destroyed the see it's a lost cause and retreats.

Now that's an enjoyable out come. All because I allow what you don't. A story of a hero. You are the one being strict not I.

@Tau1850

I can go with your way too, but have you also considered what I wrote earlier:

Of course there is ammo on the ground, and as long as the gun stays there firing ..... no problem.
But if they move they have to take that ammo along in order to keep the rate of fire.
So they have to repack it into the (new) truck and then carry on ....
I don't say using another truck for hauling a gun is a no go, but it has some things to be considered beforehand and they hinder (in my opinion) the grab and go - version.
No more no less.

I we proceed like you said then the time to collect the ammo from the ground and repack it into the new transport should be part of the told story too,
with another order/dice spent,
me think.

So then let me ask you this, what happened to the ammo after the gun transport leave the field or is destroyed? All the ammo on that truck had to be unloaded from the truck to the ground, no special checks, rules, or orders. It's just done. Then that truck comes back to move the gun, they have to load back all the unspent ammo back onto the truck with no special load ammo rule or order. So why should it be any difference with a transport that picks them up? It adds another roll that shouldn't be there. No matter the vehicle it's the same gun crew, the same routine that all gun crews and driver's train in.
There is a ww2 training video on YouTube that is all about how the truck logistics work and shows they all train the same. I will find it for you.

Tau1850 wrote: I will find it for you

Great, I'm looking forward to that.

Good god, just play it the way you want, Tau, and stop trying to be RIGHT. You aren't (at least you wouldn't be in my games) and no amount of arguing and bitching will make you so in many players' eyes. Again, play it any way you want in your games-- your strident opinion will not make everyone else change their minds at all.

Right, play it as you want, you can change rules, make up new ones and ignore one's you don't like, that's all cool.

I am stating my opinion and how I and the group I game with reasoned it out, Through discussion  and debate, none of us will tell the others to shut up and keep you option to you self or else you can't play with us. That's a child's response.

 I was absolutely enjoying the debate with El Sid, who brought up a lot of good points and was waiting for his rebuttal. Then you had to respond with this rudeness of shut up. I never insulted or was rude during the discussion.

Your abrasive attitude is the kind what chases people away from miniature war games and I wouldn't game with any with your attitude, Nazrat.

Sorry, El Cid, I won't post again after reading Nazrats response of sit down and shut up. I enjoyed the debate a lot. I would definitely game with you and play with the rules as you see it. I am sure you would do the same.

It's not "changing rules." Nor is what I said contradictory, since most of my post was simply to give you an idea of what happens in the real world, with actual soldiers. The "rules" point was it's not in the rules, but it would be a good idea to agree with your opponent before hand because some people, oddly enough, expect the "narrative" of the game to conform somewhat to the reality of WWII.

In any case, I'm not saying you should not construct whatever fantasy narrative you desire. Just pointing out how reality works should you want to incorporate that into said narrative.

I never said shut up and never would. To be honest I found YOU to be abrasive and rude as you criticized people for explaining why they play the way they do. But have a hissy fit if you like-- I still support you playing the game however you like.

Folks, please, return to the topic.
No one is wrong, it's just another view on playing the game.

Ok, Nazrat, just because some has a counter argument doesn't mean they are criticising. It's just a counter argument that's all. You said to stop trying to be RIGHT, why do you not say that to the others? Simple, because you don't agree with my view, aka shut up.
I was never trying to be RIGHT, just putting out my "opinion" and showing...Well stating why.
If I was taken as being rude or abrasive, I apologize as that was not the way I intended to come off.
But you did, on purpose, to shut some on up simply because you can't handle some disagreeing with your views.

Whatever, dude.