Pendraken Miniatures Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
26 April 2019, 02:46:28 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
We've purchased the Castle Arts buildings range!
274462 Posts in 16393 Topics by 2176 Members
Latest Member: tonysilvey
* Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  Pendraken Miniatures Forum
|-+  Pendraken Rules!
| |-+  Blitzkrieg Commander IV
| | |-+  BKC-IV Rule Queries
| | | |-+  British Army Lists
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: British Army Lists  (Read 461 times)
fred.
Major General
*
Posts: 4721



WWW
« on: 09 April 2019, 10:00:36 PM »

Hi Chaps, had a detailed read through the British lists as I spotted a few anomalies. I know there is a lot of stuff listed here, but most of it is minor stuff that as a player you can work out easily enough, but it seems worth getting it documented, so it can be corrected and remove any ambiguities.


BRITISH ARMY, AFRICA

Recce
Daimler, Scout and Daimler Dingo have names reversed. The dingo should have the Low Profile rule (it does in NWE list)
Humber, should this have Low Profile, its the same size as the Daimler Dingo?
The first M3 Stuart entry, with no AT value, it would be helpful to call this Stuart Recce, date probably should be 6/42+  Probably should have Exposed rule.

Infantry Upgrades
Is it intentional that no AT weapons are available in early 1943?

Armoured Cars
Same Daimler Dingo issue as in Recce section
Assume Daimler, Scout should just be Daimler
Low Profile should be added for both Dingo and Humber

Armour
Grant Scorpion and Matilda Scorpion, both should have Engineers rule

M4 Sherman, is listed as -9/42, I think should be 9/42+

First M3 Stuart Honey, I think this one can be removed, the third entry for the Stuart looks correct
Second M3 Stuart Honey,  with no AT value, it would be helpful to call this Stuart Recce, date probably should be 6/42+ 

Lend Lease
This Sherman entry seems a bit redundant as Sherman is listed in Armour section, but this one does seem to have the right dates

Accurate rule - this is different to one in the special rules section (applies across the British lists)

BRITISH ARMY, ITALY

Daimler Dingo, missing Low Profile rule, in both Recce and Armoured Cars sections

In the lend-lease section are Sherman Crab and Firefly which were British conversions, in the armour section is the M10, which was a USA vehicle (cf NWE list)

There has previously been a lot of discussion over the validity of the Wolverine and Achilles names M10 and M10c are more common contemporary names.


BRITISH ARMY, NW EUROPE

Armoured Cars
Daimler Dingo has Recce rule, which it shouldnít in this section, and is missing low profile
Humber - should have low profile

Lend Lease
M3 Stuart Honey (open) should this have Low Profile (I also donít think the Honey name is appropriate for NWE)
Jeeps (Scout) - donít think this should have the Rear Line rule. Should this have Low Profile
Jeeps (utility) - not sure about Rear Line rule for these, as Trucks donít get it as well. Should this have low Profile

I would suggest doing a Find for Jeep across all army lists, some have Low Profile, some donít. A few have Rear Line, most donít - this needs making consistent


BRITISH ARMY, AIRBORNE
Jeep, Vickers - why is this in the Lend Lease section, this is a British conversion

Iím generally not getting the point of the Lend Lease section in the British lists - it makes it much harder to find things, and there isn't much consistency between whats in the Lend Lease bit and what isn't. In some of the other lists I can see a point to grouping foreign weapons together. But for the British, the use of Lend Lease kit was so widespread I don't think separating out the units on the lists helps.
Logged

2011 Painting Competition - Winner!
2012 Painting Competition - 2 x Runner-Up!
2016 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2017 Paint-Off - 3 x Winner!
Big Insect
Second Lieutenant
*
Posts: 64


« Reply #1 on: 09 April 2019, 10:39:55 PM »

Great stuff Fred

Much appreciated - we should have roped you in to review the lists ahead of publication as TBF I'm not a big aficionado as far as British kit goes.

I can see your point about the Lend Lease section - it works well in the Russian lists and the captured armour in the German lists also has the same effect, but as you point out the US kit was well integrated into the UK forces operationally. So maybe this approach was unnecessary.

All this kind of detailed feedback can be amended in the PDF copies of the lists and once we have collected a sufficient number we'll get these incorporated.

The Rear Line for some of the jeeps and not others is a deliberate choice - usually it is to denote a specific tactical use of the jeeps in an army.
This also applies to units like the big 230mm Soviet tracked mortars that were used in the Winter War as Infantry Support Guns firing at very close range over open sights shooting at Finnish field fortifications and again in the drive to Berlin for clearing (demolishing in the process) building in street fighting, but in the mid-war period were kept back in a massed artillery support role. But it's a good suggestion that we go through and search and double check all Jeeps across all lists. We did a similar thing with Carriers and in the end we chose to not differentiate between all the various patterns of universal carrier - just differentiated generally by armament and any with overhead cover.

Low Profile is one of those subjective things - but I get your point about the A/Cs. A good call.

Do please keep these coming - others have raised the issue about some missing M3 half-track varients in the US N.Africa list - it's an easy fix now, with PDF lists available soon.

Many thanks

Mark
 
« Last Edit: 09 April 2019, 10:41:43 PM by Big Insect » Logged
fred.
Major General
*
Posts: 4721



WWW
« Reply #2 on: 10 April 2019, 08:03:54 AM »

Happy to help, unfortunately when BKC IV was in its initial stages Real Life was rather full on, so I didnít through my hat in the ring. Things are a bit more normal now.

Rear Line - I get why some units might have it and others not. It stood out that the transport jeeps have it, which is ok. But trucks donít have it, which seems odd compared to jeeps. And recce jeeps having rear line seems wrong if they also have the recce rule.

Low Profile - I think all Jeep types should have it, certainly looking across the other army lists. If the Stug III is the top end of low profile then there are probably more tankettes that should get Low Profile, a few do already. Itís about consistency and tidying up - if there are subtle variations players will forget in a game.
Logged

2011 Painting Competition - Winner!
2012 Painting Competition - 2 x Runner-Up!
2016 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2017 Paint-Off - 3 x Winner!
Big Insect
Second Lieutenant
*
Posts: 64


« Reply #3 on: 10 April 2019, 08:30:33 AM »

I totally agree that Recce Jeeps with Rear Line is a clear error - likewise all Jeeps should be low profile - as should all smaller 4x4 type vehicles - again an editorial oversight on my part.

There was much debate about Trucks and Rear Line - there seemed to be as many people in favour of it as opposed.
But it needs to be consistent across the majority of lists and personally I am in favour of all soft-skin transports being Rear Line - especially as they (usually) don't count towards an army BP. 

Again, thanks for your support - any other omissions or errors spotted are gratefully received.

Thanks
Mark
Logged
Prophaniti
Cadet

Posts: 12


« Reply #4 on: 11 April 2019, 06:50:13 PM »

My comments on the British lists are as follows: (Also trying not to point out anything already raised.)

BEF and Africa: Vickers MkVI, has amphibious.  I don't believe it had this capability, as a scout or otherwise.  I'll leave 'low profile' to the writers, I'm not convinced it is.  The North African Armour version doesn't have any of these special rules.

I think the various vehicles with 1/20 AT capability should have the AT rifles special rule.
Piat upgrade should have IATW notes for clarity.  Designers decision to extend to 'Carriers, Piat' or not.

Africa, Armour M3 Stuart (no honey) at 90 points looks like a typo as it's otherwise identical to the Stuart Honey

Italy and NWE, There's a discrepancy between the Churchill AVRE and the SBG, the stats and abilities are identical, but they have different points values.  It looks like a hangover from the more specialised engineer units in BKCII.
NWE, Churchill VI 75mm has the 6pdr gun stats

All lists, Counter battery notes. The term 'field artillery' doesn't appear in the lists, so it's not clear which guns it applies to.
Logged
BeeKiller
Cadet

Posts: 10


« Reply #5 on: 14 April 2019, 10:18:08 PM »

Hi,

find here some Armoured Car recommendations to the NWE British list, in accordance to what Prophaniti has already pointed out.

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AkV2e1-ABB-ki1Dgo1SrWd9MvUNN

Regards,

Eduard F
« Last Edit: 14 April 2019, 11:18:34 PM by BeeKiller » Logged
ianrs54
Playtester
Lieutenant General
*
Posts: 6541



WWW
« Reply #6 on: 15 April 2019, 08:35:36 AM »

To cover the point on A/T weapons in 43, the answer is that although officially the troops still had the Boys ATR, they basically threw them away as useless. They did have Hawkins mines and EY grenades, but those are close assault weapons.

IanS
Logged

FOG IN CHANNEL - EUROPE CUT OFF HURRAY
sultanbev
Playtester
Captain
*
Posts: 315



« Reply #7 on: 15 April 2019, 05:28:29 PM »

PIATs were first issued to two infantry divisions in Tunisia in February 1943 (46th and 78th divisions if I recall) but didn't see any real use. By Sicily they were standard issue in frontline divisions. Battalions in lesser theatres still had Boys in late 1943 at least, eg in the Dodecanese campaign. Not every unit ditched them as useless, it was probably random across platoons and companies, so the option should still be there.

Boys in vehicle units, eg Universal Carriers, were randomly retained, eg I've seen a photo of carrier with a Boys in Italy in 1944.

Mark
Logged
sultanbev
Playtester
Captain
*
Posts: 315



« Reply #8 on: 19 April 2019, 07:48:28 PM »

Well now then, PIAT allegedly in Tunisia being used to knock out a Tiger in conjunction with a captured PAK40 and Churchills:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=7xzG_rRngs8

Mark
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!