Login name:
Password:
Forgot Password? New player?

Forums

Forums » Memoir '44 - English » Armor and Railroad (+Hobart's Funnies)

Show: Today's Posts

Author

Topic

Zalamence

Posts: 166
Registered:
June 2010

Armor and Railroad (+Hobart's Funnies)	Fri, 27 September 2013 19:08

In the official rules, Hobart's Funnies may ignore movement restrictions of beach, march and wire (bobbin) or ford and trench (fascine). Railroad always stops movement. I am designing a scenario with Hobart's Funnies and railroad, which could be ignored by armor equipped with proper accessory. But which one? I don't really understand how bobbin and fascine work, so could somebody explain them a little and suggest a realistic option? (Scenario-specific special rule.) Thanks in advance. [Updated on: Thu, 03 October 2013 15:32] [Report message to a moderator]

Clexton27

Posts: 3338
Registered:
February 2007

Re:Hobart's Funnies and Railroad	Fri, 27 September 2013 19:33

A BOBBIN had a reel on it with meshed fabric. This was laid out over sand or marshy ground in order to allow the tank to gain traction where it might be able to move. Once the fabric was laid it formed a temporary roadway for other vehicles. The FASCINE was a bundle of timber carried on an armored vehicle. It was primarily meant to fill a trench or tank trap that could not be crossed because of its depth. The FASCINE bundle was dropped into the hole or trench allowing the tracked vehicle to move over top of it. Sometimes it took more than one bundle to fill a hole or trench. I don't know if there was any accessories that allowed for quicker movement over railways. [Updated on: Fri, 27 September 2013 19:36] [Report message to a moderator]

Phread

Posts: 1778
Registered:
December 2008

Re:Hobart's Funnies and Railroad	Sat, 28 September 2013 01:42

Have a look at Hobart Funnies on Wikipedia [Report message to a moderator]

jdrommel

Posts: 944
Registered:
March 2006

Re:Hobart's Funnies and Railroad	Sat, 28 September 2013 08:38

Hi Zalamence, I will try to answer to your question. Hobart's Funnies were conceived to facilitate landing operations for the liberation of Europe, that means the Normandy landings. Each funny tank had its own function against a particular obstacle but no one was conceived to cross railroad. The only one you can use to cross railroad easily is (in the equipment pack) the Assault Bridge. But remember that it was conceived to cross ditches or trenches but not railroad. I hope this answer helps you, yours, Jdrommel. [Report message to a moderator]

JJAZ

Posts: 744
Registered:
May 2008

Re:Hobart's Funnies and Railroad	Sat, 28 September 2013 12:48

I wonder how much of these each battalion got and how many landed on those first days. Is there somewhere info with exact numbers of units for each ship? J. [Report message to a moderator]

Clexton27

Posts: 3338
Registered:
February 2007

Re:Hobart's Funnies and Railroad

Sat, 28 September 2013 14:26

JJAZ wrote on Sat, 28 September 2013 06:48

I wonder how much of these each battalion got and how many landed on those first days.
Is there somewhere info with exact numbers of units for each ship?
J.

CRACKING HITLER'S ATLANTIC WALL
has the most detail analysis of any book I have seen.

http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Hitlers-Atlantic-Wall-ebook/d p/B004EPYFGW/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1380371060& ;sr=8-2-fkmr0&keywords=Cracking+hitters+Atlantic+wall

[Report message to a moderator]

JJAZ

Posts: 744
Registered:
May 2008

Re:Hobart's Funnies and Railroad

Sat, 28 September 2013 18:47

stevens wrote on Sat, 28 September 2013 14:26

JJAZ wrote on Sat, 28 September 2013 06:48

I wonder how much of these each battalion got and how many landed on those first days.
Is there somewhere info with exact numbers of units for each ship?
J.

CRACKING HITLER'S ATLANTIC WALL
has the most detail analysis of any book I have seen.

http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Hitlers-Atlantic-Wall-ebook/d p/B004EPYFGW/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1380371060& ;amp ;sr=8-2-fkmr0&keywords=Cracking+hitters+Atlantic+wall

Thank you Mr Stevens Smile

[Report message to a moderator]

Zalamence

Posts: 166
Registered:
June 2010

Re:Hobart's Funnies and Railroad	Mon, 30 September 2013 12:55

So neither bobbin nor fascine really fits as representative "railroad-crosser". The railroad still plays a major role in the scenario, so I'll try and see if bridge could be used. I think I'll use the rules for bridge first, and if that doesn't work, let the Churchills just ignore railroad hexes. [Report message to a moderator]

Sgt Storm

Posts: 930
Registered:
December 2006

Re:Hobart's Funnies and Railroad	Mon, 30 September 2013 21:12

I seriously doubt that railroad tracks impeded tank travel in real life to the degree modeled in M'44 if at all. So bear that in mind. I'm sure someone will disagree. [Report message to a moderator]

Sgt Storm

Posts: 930
Registered:
December 2006

Re:Hobart's Funnies and Railroad

Mon, 30 September 2013 21:13

Sgt Storm wrote on Mon, 30 September 2013 15:12

I seriously doubt that railroad tracks impeded tank travel in real life to the degree modeled in M'44 if at all. So bear that in mind. I'm sure someone will disagree.

What I mean by that is, I would simply use a house-rule that they don't impede armor movement or they reduce remaining movement by 1.

[Report message to a moderator]

Phread

Posts: 1778
Registered:
December 2008

Re:Hobart's Funnies and Railroad

Tue, 01 October 2013 09:15

Sgt Storm wrote on Tue, 01 October 2013 08:12

I seriously doubt that railroad tracks impeded tank travel in real life to the degree modeled in M'44 if at all. So bear that in mind. I'm sure someone will disagree.

Railway tracks on the flat - like at a road crossing - might not impede tanks, but consider how railways are usually built on embankments for there is only a gradual change in gradient. A railway embankment or cutting would indeed impede tanks.

[Report message to a moderator]

Achtung Panzer

Posts: 1142
Registered:
December 2007

Re:Hobart's Funnies and Railroad	Tue, 01 October 2013 16:20

And remember 'scale' - we're talking also about the extras of buildings, rolling stock etc. that surround railways - particularly in urban areas. It's not about single tanks crossing a railway line. This debate lead to a claim that moving 'onto' a railway meant entering the hex, but moving 'along' a railway should not impede Armour movement. The FAQs cleared this up. [Report message to a moderator]

Sgt Storm

Posts: 930
Registered:
December 2006

Re:Hobart's Funnies and Railroad	Tue, 01 October 2013 17:41

Well I for sure am no tank or railroad expert, and I have read of tanks having problems with some embankments and not with others. I find it hard to believe that (as a general rule) a single obstacle (lets say in non-urban area) warrants the complete stoppage of the unit as is the case with a forest or built-up area, because in those areas there are many obstacles. That's why I think the affect should not necessarily be equivalent to a forest or town hex, i.e., its a matter of degree of affect in M44. I would have to research the issue to be convinced the impact is that large (but I won't because I'm not that interested, but maybe the OP will). In any case, this is a rule that can probably be modified by special rules based on the historical circumstances, more so than other terrain types, particularly if you know the railroad did not actually impeded movement that much. [Report message to a moderator]

Zalamence

Posts: 166
Registered:
June 2010

Re:Hobart's Funnies and Railroad	Tue, 01 October 2013 18:52

Fictional scenario The reason I brought this up was because I wanted to hear some opinions on different accesories, and I was also wondering if fascine could be a reasonable option (I let the commander choose the accessories, just like in the EP scenario book) for, say, mine digger and petard mortar. [Report message to a moderator]

Achtung Panzer

Posts: 1142
Registered:
December 2007

Re:Hobart's Funnies and Railroad

Tue, 01 October 2013 20:22

Sgt Storm wrote on Mon, 30 September 2013 20:13

Sgt Storm wrote on Mon, 30 September 2013 15:12

I seriously doubt that railroad tracks impeded tank travel in real life to the degree modeled in M'44 if at all. So bear that in mind. I'm sure someone will disagree.

What I mean by that is, I would simply use a house-rule that they don't impede armor movement or they reduce remaining movement by 1.

I actually quite like this idea.

[Report message to a moderator]

van Voort

Posts: 656
Registered:
August 2011

Re:Hobart's Funnies and Railroad	Thu, 03 October 2013 15:21

As Phread says, a railway is not much of an obstacle But any earthworks for it - embankment or cutting - certainly are. [Report message to a moderator]

Zalamence

Posts: 166
Registered:
June 2010

Re:Armor and Railroad (+Hobart's Funnies)	Thu, 03 October 2013 15:41

Lots of interesting conversation about armor and railroad in general. I changed the name of the topic. If railroad affected armor movement like Sgt Storm suggested, it would be like beach hexes, wouldn't it? That makes the improvement/house-rule even better and maybe more realistic without complex new applications. [Report message to a moderator]

van Voort

Posts: 656
Registered:
August 2011

Re:Armor and Railroad (+Hobart's Funnies)	Tue, 08 October 2013 03:37

You also need to ask yourself how much of the hex is really railway. M44 has a deliberately abstract scale, but for example, on a map that was Pegasus sized you can argue that the whole hex would be railway. However on larger scales that is not going to be the case, and most of the hex will not be railway and the same terrain as the surrounding areas. Mind you the same is true of roads and rivers [Report message to a moderator]

tank commander

Posts: 2569
Registered:
October 2004

Re:Armor and Railroad (+Hobart's Funnies)	Thu, 10 October 2013 23:42

From what I have seen of railroad tracks, some ares would inhibit, if not prohibit armor movement. This was true of the largest tank battle of Kursk where the RR embankment was 18' high and very steep. Tanks could not cross the RR tracks and it divided up the battlefield. Different tanks of WW II had different abilities and had there limitations. I rememeber seeing a side by side performance test between a Panther and a Lee tank. Both tried to climb a 3' high wooden wall but the Lee could not due to lack of traction and or power. Too steep a RR slope and /or the usual loose material found around RR tracks (ballast rocks) could pose a problem for many tanks. A notable excetion was the Churchill tank which was put to good use in Tunisia. It could climb up the many steep slopes which were found there. Other areas, like those found in RR yards and low embankment areas may slow them down a bit, but not force a stop. Perhaps there should be two RR terrain types to reflect this difference. You certainly could make a house rule to reflect this. [Updated on: Thu, 10 October 2013 23:42] [Report message to a moderator]

Previous Topic:	Battle for Hong Kong Campaign
Next Topic:	General Rules: Armor Strength

Goto Forum: