Hammer of Democracy- LMG and MMG versus vehicles

[Tim Snoddy]

Not quite sure what is intended for LMG and MMG when they fire at vehicles, or more likely return fire.  P54 “anti tank fire can only be performed by units with some anti tank capability”.  So it seems entirely reasonable a MMG might have good effect against a half track, so a -1 or -2 modifier seems about right.  If you carry this logic on though it seems to be a bit iffy.  Firing at a Stuart -3 or -4 a 10 or 11 can still cause damage.  So is this a correct interpretation a few very lucky rolls against relatively weak armour can cause serious effects?  Or are machine guns not deemed capable of damaging any armoured vehicle?  Or should there be a cut off point, say 3 or 4 armour where the best effect that can be achieved is a stun?

[John D Salt]

I have no idea how “Hammer of Democracy”‘s armour system works, but rifle-calibre MGs, even firing AP ammunition, should have no effect (other than encouraging the commander to close down) on anything heavier than the lightest armour — armoured trucks, half-tracks, carriers, light armoured cars, and light tanks and tankettes with plates of ~10mm and less. Rifle-calibre bullets are, after all, exactly what armoured vehicles were first designed to keep out.

HMGs are a bit meatier, with the same order of punch as many anti-tank rifles, and might worry vehicles with up to about an inch of armour at close ranges.

All the best,

John.

[Tim Snoddy]

Thank you so much for that illuminating reply John D Salt.  Very interested to hear your thoughts Ivan.  So until I hear otherwise I think I am going to go with the following.  Machine guns can have no effect if hitting armour 3 or higher.  Best result achievable by LMG is stun.  MMG/HMG can fire for effect inside firefight range, otherwise best result achievable is stun.

[John D Salt]

You seem to be lumping MMG and HMG together. As a clarification, I should say that what I mean is the modern and WW2 British definition of HMG, that is, one of 12.7mm calibre or more. The WW2 American usage of HMG included rifle-calibre tripod-mounted water-cooled weapons, but they would have much the same armour penetration limits as LMGs.

There is the point that a sustained-fire gun can produce more and longer bursts than an LMG. This makes a difference for things like demolishing brick walls — the “sangar destruction” role, as GPMG(SF) gunners called it — but I don’t think there’s any value in adding more non-penetrating hits against a resilient target like armour plate. I reckon this is especially likely to be true at the light armour end of the scale, where the plate would often be thin homo-hard armour that defeats projectiles mainly by shattering them rather than by limiting penetration once started.

All the best,

John.

[Tim Snoddy]

Thanks again for that further insight John.  Hammer of Democracy is part of the Hammer stable of games whose tag line is “dirt simple wargaming”.  It doesn’t differentiate MMG/HMG otherwise in the rules hence why I am keeping them together on this issue when in reality there is separation as you point out.  That is unless anyone comes up with a clever solution of course.

 

[Ivan Sorensen]

Cheers.

I probably wouldn’t allow MG fire against fully enclosed vehicles as a general rule, though allowing them to try for a stun is reasonable for light vehicles.

A HMG (like the American .50 calibre) CAN fire at vehicles, but with a very modest effect (suggest that it can fire as an anti-tank weapon but with penetration 1 only)

[Author]

Posts