Posted on 07 January 2010 at 13:50:57 GMT Greetings
The absence of any AT effect from HMGs (i.e. larger than rifle calibre) is problematic especially for some early war situations where HMGs were sometimes standard tank armament. For example Sdkfz 251 half tracks and Italian L3s are currently - under BKC2 - completely immune to light tanks with heavy MGs e.g. 0.5 inch of the Vickers Mk VI.
In 1934 the Vickers Mk V, followed by the more familiar Mk VI, VIA and VIB was equipped with a .5 inch MG and a co-ax .303. This was (apparently) specifically intended for AT work albeit against light tanks of the mid 1930s vintage {source: British AFVs 1919/40} though I can't find much data on the weapon. I'm also unclear on the effectiveness of the 15mm Besa fitted to the VIC and IIRC to the Humber I-III armoured cars.
Note that the BEF in France (12 Lancers) and Western Desert Force (11 Hussars) used Morris armoured cars (in 11th Hussars case mixed with the Rolls). These carried an LMG and a Boys ATR and are not represented in the lists as far as I can see. Note that the 1924 Rolls, as used in the Desert, also carried a Boys ATR as well as the Vickers so should probably have a 1/20 rating for AT. 11 Hussars certainly knocked out Italian L3's with them.
Where an HMG armed vehicle is designed for AT work rather than AA (the majority of US .5in MG were intended for AA use e.g. on exposed pintle mounts) should it have an AT rating (e.g. 1/20) at an additional point cost. The downside to this is that this could give a problem differentiating 2cm armed AFVs, though these would usually have a better range anyway.
Not sure what the right answer is here.
Regards
Edward |