Please be aware that I am drawing two random unit damage markers when the artillery chit has a +RU on it. This in incorrect, you only have to draw one, if the chit has +RU on it. That would have spared me some night vision damage, I guess. 😂 05:52 The HMG should have been shooting at EA in SK3, too.
We now have a functioning, night capable, tank in an over watch position and we have tanks taking ATGM fire, but the over watch vehicle can't suppress/neutralise the known ATGM sites?
@@whya2ndaccount Because the Rules of Engagement prevent it. Once the enemy attacks escalate the RoE track into the section where the Danes historically threw their RoE over board and independently and without orders opened fire, which caused some public debate and UN investigation afterwards, or once the escalation allows to give the order to fire at will, no tank may fire. In any case, for game mechanic sakes they need to receive a fire order one way or the other. This simulates a) the fact that they were running into an ambush without knowing it, b) didn't realize the enemy was present in strength and would attack them, c) and that they were under fire, d) they were trained under more restrictive RoEs than were in place during the mission, however, those were still quite restrictive and they couldn't simply open up immediately.
@@whya2ndaccount Have a look at Resolution 819 and 836. The mandate was very conservative and limited to the declared "safe zones". Use of force outside those was not permitted.
I'm not sure of the value of moving a night blind (I don't know what "night vision" actually means - only the gun sight or the various NVGs available to the crews) and unable to communicate vehicle into an over watch position? It can not provide "over watch" as it can't see and even if they can with their mark 1 eyeball they can't warn anyone, nor can they receive orders to suppress / neutralise targets. Or am I getting this all wrong?
Nighty vision refers to crew NVGs, gun sights is a different type of damage preventing direct fire attacks. Radio damage still would be an issue of course, when it comes to directions from Observation Point North. This is not modelled by the rules, though. Historically, the commanders of the tanks that had their radio damaged simply directed the fire based on where they saw ATGMs were fired from and such. Like every model, it's an abstraction.
@@LetsPlayHistory OK. Maybe I'm getting to pedantic but the Gunner's sight has a thermal imager (i.e. night capable) as well as the various crewman (using the Commander and Driver) wearing their own goggles. If "night vision" damage only covers NVGs then the Gunner can still see/shoot. Similarly usually you carry spare antenna and if these are damaged by artillery they can be quickly swapped out. But I am perhaps delving too deeply.
@@whya2ndaccount Yes, that's what I am saying. Gun sight damage impacts direct fire (only applicable to OWs in Kalesija and adjacent exposed positions, I believe one of the tanks in my game had it and I had to roll for hitting, which is otherwise automatic). From Saraci they couldn't see the enemy, though, they were firing indirectly, basically using the tanks as artillery. I assume the damage was to the IR searchlight, then. Some tank commanders opened the hatch to mitigate and direct the fire from there. They don't mention whether they had goggles, but it's possible. In game terms "night vision" damage puts the commander at risk and potentially denies movement, but has no impact on firing. In the heat of the situation and under artillery shelling, they were apparently not too keen to change their antennas. They basically expended all their ammo and then retreated. I suggest watching the documentation to get a feeling for how tense the situation was.
@@LetsPlayHistory Yes I understand (having been in an AFV under fire myself). We were able to manoeuvre and replace the antenna though. Anyway I've taken up too much of your time and your play throughs have at least help me make a more informed decision about the game.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Please be aware that I am drawing two random unit damage markers when the artillery chit has a +RU on it. This in incorrect, you only have to draw one, if the chit has +RU on it. That would have spared me some night vision damage, I guess. 😂
05:52 The HMG should have been shooting at EA in SK3, too.
We now have a functioning, night capable, tank in an over watch position and we have tanks taking ATGM fire, but the over watch vehicle can't suppress/neutralise the known ATGM sites?
@@whya2ndaccount Because the Rules of Engagement prevent it. Once the enemy attacks escalate the RoE track into the section where the Danes historically threw their RoE over board and independently and without orders opened fire, which caused some public debate and UN investigation afterwards, or once the escalation allows to give the order to fire at will, no tank may fire. In any case, for game mechanic sakes they need to receive a fire order one way or the other.
This simulates a) the fact that they were running into an ambush without knowing it, b) didn't realize the enemy was present in strength and would attack them, c) and that they were under fire, d) they were trained under more restrictive RoEs than were in place during the mission, however, those were still quite restrictive and they couldn't simply open up immediately.
@@LetsPlayHistory Hmm OK - I'm certain that forces retain the right to "self defence", even under Chapter 5.
@@whya2ndaccount Have a look at Resolution 819 and 836. The mandate was very conservative and limited to the declared "safe zones". Use of force outside those was not permitted.
I'm not sure of the value of moving a night blind (I don't know what "night vision" actually means - only the gun sight or the various NVGs available to the crews) and unable to communicate vehicle into an over watch position? It can not provide "over watch" as it can't see and even if they can with their mark 1 eyeball they can't warn anyone, nor can they receive orders to suppress / neutralise targets.
Or am I getting this all wrong?
Nighty vision refers to crew NVGs, gun sights is a different type of damage preventing direct fire attacks.
Radio damage still would be an issue of course, when it comes to directions from Observation Point North. This is not modelled by the rules, though. Historically, the commanders of the tanks that had their radio damaged simply directed the fire based on where they saw ATGMs were fired from and such. Like every model, it's an abstraction.
@@LetsPlayHistory OK. Maybe I'm getting to pedantic but the Gunner's sight has a thermal imager (i.e. night capable) as well as the various crewman (using the Commander and Driver) wearing their own goggles.
If "night vision" damage only covers NVGs then the Gunner can still see/shoot.
Similarly usually you carry spare antenna and if these are damaged by artillery they can be quickly swapped out.
But I am perhaps delving too deeply.
@@whya2ndaccount Yes, that's what I am saying. Gun sight damage impacts direct fire (only applicable to OWs in Kalesija and adjacent exposed positions, I believe one of the tanks in my game had it and I had to roll for hitting, which is otherwise automatic). From Saraci they couldn't see the enemy, though, they were firing indirectly, basically using the tanks as artillery. I assume the damage was to the IR searchlight, then. Some tank commanders opened the hatch to mitigate and direct the fire from there. They don't mention whether they had goggles, but it's possible. In game terms "night vision" damage puts the commander at risk and potentially denies movement, but has no impact on firing.
In the heat of the situation and under artillery shelling, they were apparently not too keen to change their antennas. They basically expended all their ammo and then retreated. I suggest watching the documentation to get a feeling for how tense the situation was.
@@LetsPlayHistory Yes I understand (having been in an AFV under fire myself). We were able to manoeuvre and replace the antenna though.
Anyway I've taken up too much of your time and your play throughs have at least help me make a more informed decision about the game.
@whya2ndaccount I very much appreciated the conversation. Thank you for your insights!