CWC-2 Army List Errata/Feedback 2025

[Big Insect]

Great Stuff!

Let the fun begin...

my initial comments on the "2025ColdWarSovietUnion1946-1990" list:

1. This is a massive effort. Well done on incorporating so many different systems and options.

2. Under "Recce" and under "Armour", was, in fact, the PT-76 air droppable by parachute?  I've never seen any evidence to suggest that it was.

3. Under "Infantry Upgrades", the AT rating of the RPG-29 must surely be a mistake.  This weapon is huge and has by far the largest diameter HEAT warhead of any of the weapons listed here.  Yet it is given an AT rating worse than a RPG-7.

3. Under "Support", it doesn't make much intuitive sense that an SPG-9 recoilless gun is only identical in HE and AT range to an RPG-7 shoulder fired weapon (4/40 and 4/40H).  Why would the Soviets have a heavy weapons team in each battalion with this recoilless gun if it only had the same range as the RPGs every one of their squads carried?  I'd also note that the almost identical 73mm low pressure gun on the BMP-1 is rated as 4/50 later in the lists.

4. Under "Support", it is unclear why the "82mm Mortar 2B9 Vasilek, GAZ-66" only has an HE rating of 6/100, when the 2B9 systems immediately above and below it on the table have a rating of 6/200.  I would suggest they all should have the same HE rating.

5. Under "Armour", was, in fact, the BMP air portable by parachute (as opposed to the BMD, which certainly was)?

6.  Under "Armour", the T-54A is a curious beast.  It is rated as having better firepower statistics (4/90 and 4/80) than many very similar tanks that appeared later.  Is it really the case that the 100mm gun or ammunition or optics on the T-54A was better than the later T-55AM with its 100mm gun? (rated 5/80 and 4/80) Equally, the date of introduction given for this T-54A (1976+) does not match what most sources give as the date of introduction of the T-54A (around 1955).

7. Under "Armour", it is unclear why the earlier T-62 has a better AP range rating (6/95) than the later T-62A and on. (6/90 or worse).

8. Under "Armour", it is unclear why the later T-62M with the missile  and also the T-62MV with the missile have an inferior AP rating (5/80) to the T-62M immediately above it without the missile (6/90) or the earlier basic T-62 (6/95).

9. Under "Armour",  the T-72A had composite armour. But it did not enter service until 1979.

10. Under "Armour", it makes no sense that the premium tank T-64A and T-64B have a poorer range weapon than the mass production T-72 series.  The T-64 was fitted with far better optics and a better gun than all the early T-72s.

11. Under "Anti tank dedicated" it isn't clear why the 100mm towed anti tank guns have so much better range performance than their equivalents mounted on tanks. Nor why they roll different amounts of damage dice. Similarly, the SU-100 is given far better stats for its 100mm gun than the same gun mounted on a T55.

12. Under "Air defence dedicated", it isn't clear why a 57mm S60 AA gun gets to roll 4/80 for AT and yet a 100mm anti tank gun on a T-55 only rolls 4/60 and a 85mm anti tank gun on a T34/85 only rolls 3/60.

Thanks dylan. I'll take a look.
FYI.
There can be no correlation between AT guns & MBT guns (as we're back to the issue of doctrine). Likewise you cannot compare AA guns with similar calibre guns on tanks etc.That is partly due to how many time a gun can fire in a game turn & the intended game-balance effect looking to be achieved by the stats.
Cheers
Mark

[dylan]

Thanks dylan. I'll take a look.
FYI.
There can be no correlation between AT guns & MBT guns (as we're back to the issue of doctrine). Likewise you cannot compare AA guns with similar calibre guns on tanks etc.That is partly due to how many time a gun can fire in a game turn & the intended game-balance effect looking to be achieved by the stats.
Cheers
Mark

Good points. I understand what you're saying.

Please note, however, that (partly) I'm talking about the differing Range stats.  How is that an anti-tank gun that is basically the same as the main gun just fitted on a tank, has a longer range?

[Ithoriel]

Good points. I understand what you're saying.

Please note, however, that (partly) I'm talking about the differing Range stats.  How is that an anti-tank gun that is basically the same as the main gun just fitted on a tank, has a longer range?

Bear in mind that the ?KC series, and Warmaster which inspired them, are not interested in input but in outputs. So, as an entirely fictional example, if doctrine dictates that towed artillery open fire at longer range than tanks and tracked artillery then even though it is the same gun firing exactly the same ammo the stats should be different. One reason, among a myriad of others, that might apply.

[dylan]

Bear in mind that the ?KC series, and Warmaster which inspired them, are not interested in input but in outputs. So, as an entirely fictional example, if doctrine dictates that towed artillery open fire at longer range than tanks and tracked artillery then even though it is the same gun firing exactly the same ammo the stats should be different. One reason, among a myriad of others, that might apply.

Yup that is a fair point, although I'm not sure that is the case for Soviet postwar AT guns/SP guns.  I'd want to see the specific references to justify such a position for these weapons.

[dylan]

My initial comments on the "2025ColdWarUSA1946-1990" list:

1. Again, this is a great collection of information and reflects a lot of hard work. Well done.

2.  I'm confused by the title of the list ("United States - 1946-1990") and the presence of things from post-1990.  Also some of the Notes column notations specially *only* apply to post-1990!

3. Under "Recce", the M8/M20 Greyhound is given an AP rating of 1/60.  I was under the impression that the canister round of the 37mm gun was quite highly rated for anti-personnel work, even in Vietnam.  Yet in CWC the 37mm is pants, and you'd actually be better off with a .50cal (which also raises the question of why the M20 which did have the .50cal on a ring-mount is only 1/60 when other vehicles with the same weapon have a rating of 2/50)

4. Under "Recce", if the M551 is classed as Fragile, I'm pretty sure the M114 and M114A2 should be also. Everything you read about them says they were all dogs.

5. Under "Recce", why are all the Bradleys given the characteristic Wheeled?

6. Under "Recce", where is the characteristic Misfire (given to M551) described in the rules?

7. Under "Recce", the M3A2 is listed twice.  I think the first listing should actually be the basic M3 Bradley CFV, not the M3A2.

8. Under "Recce", all the Bradleys are noted to be "Armoured Cavalry only". In fact M3 CFVs were used in mech battalion recce platoons of the headquarters company as well as armoured cavalry units.

9. Under "Recce", although the M113ACAV is listed, actually a lot of armoured cav units used the basic M113 (especially those in Europe). ACAV was pretty much a Vietnam-only thing.

10. Under "Support", I believe the Super Dragon (aka Dragon-III) was only ever used by the USMC.

11. Under "Engineers", the M60 AVLB was in service from 1963. And I think the M48 AVLB was in service from the 1950s.

12. Under "Armour", the LVTH-6 entered service from 1957.

13. Should the M3 CFV be repeated under "Armour"?  They're only issued to recon units.

14. Under "Armour", how come the M551 listed here doesn't have the characteristics in the Notes of the M551 under "Recce"?

15. Under "Armour", the M60A3 TTS came into service in 1979 (and most tankers say its optics/TI were better than the Abrams)

16. Under "Armour", the M48A2/A3 wasn't significantly better armoured than the M48A1.  Not sure why it gets a better saving throw number. In fact, it is a bit confusing to have an M48 listed as "M48/M48A1-A3 Patton" and then immediately below it an "M48A1/A3 Patton". Why the second listing?

17. Under "Armour", was in fact the M26 better protected than the M46 or the M47?  It has a better save number.

18. Under Armour, it isn't clear why the M60A3 TTS and the M60A3 RISE ERA have a better AT value than the 105mm armed Abrams variants. Should be the same.

19. Under "Anti-Tank [Dedicated]", the M901 Improved TOW Vehicle was introduced in 1979, and it should be armed with the I-TOW (hence its name!), not the earlier TOW variant it is listed with the first listing here.

20. Under "Transport & Vehicles", were the M113A3 and the M113ACAV really significantly more heavily armoured than the basic M113?

21. Under "Helicopters", I'm not sure what the Bell UH-1 Cobra actually is - have never heard of such a beast introduced around 1992.

22. Under "Helicopters", I don't think the tiny OH-6A Cayuse should get a Transport(2) rating.

23. Under "Air Support", there are a few eyebrow raising ratings, but I don't really understand them so will just suggest a quick scan to make sure they are as intended.

[sultanbev]

Bear in mind that the ?KC series, and Warmaster which inspired them, are not interested in input but in outputs. So, as an entirely fictional example, if doctrine dictates that towed artillery open fire at longer range than tanks and tracked artillery then even though it is the same gun firing exactly the same ammo the stats should be different. One reason, among a myriad of others, that might apply.

In that case the Su-100 should have range 80cm for A-T, as Soviet doctrine for Su-100 was to open fire at 1500m from overwatch positions. German 88mm Flak guns should only have A-T of 35cm in BKC, because doctrine was to wait until tanks were within 700m or so then rapidly fire 2-3 rounds at each.

I haven't yet found doctrine for Cold War Soviet anti-tank guns, other than that they should never engage tanks frontally but only from "defilade"; they were deployed on flanks to protect regiments, and as often as not used as more pre-planned indirect artillery fire. Also they seem to do focus fire, ie, all guns in the battery fire at one target tank, before going onto the next. There is also YT footage of Warpac towed ATG being used in the attack alongside foot infantry, into BUA and villages, being pushed right into the front line to engage targets at point blank. And when not deployed forward the divisional ATG are tasked with guarding the DHQ, and then acting as a DHQ reserve to deploy to where an enemy tank attack is coming.

How you make wargamers apply such doctrine, some of it contradictory, is rather difficult.

The other problem with doctrine is that it usually goes out the window after the first week of a war once its proven to be useless for the grunts in the mud. I cite the Israeli army (which sees IFVs as pointless), the Ukrainian war and James Rouch's Zone series as examples. My own wargaming experience of IFVs is that if the enemy has only one tank left, it's impossible to advance in that sector, or you'll lose most of your infantry. Often it's safer to walk as you'll get closer before being spotted, and use the IFVs as decoys or anti-tank vehicles. But that's not NATO doctrine.....

Infantry firing anti-tank weapons with HEAT warheads at infantry in cover has never been doctrine, the bean-counters that dictate army structures would have a hissy fit, but troops did it anyway once it was realised it was a thing back in 1943ish. And has been ever since, even if effectiveness isn't great. In the 1960s+ manufacturers cashed in on this by offering HEDP rounds for infantry anti-tank weapons. Which is all well and good, but if your squad can only carry 6 bazooka rounds and it is there to protect against tanks, how many HEDP do you leave behind in the depot? In CWC it might make the difference between 1 and 2D6 firing against enemy infantry, but 4D6 versus 2D6 for anti-tank work.

I digress. I've found the easiest way to enforce doctrines is to use the strict Fire Priority system out of Spearhead, which works really well in my wargaming. I'll stick the one we use in the next post

[sultanbev]

Firing Priorities

All units being assaulted fire at their assaulters.

These are optional rules, but we argue that you should use them, to prevent long range flank shots of opportunity when other enemy are closer and more dangerous.

Where there is a choice of several equal priorities, the nearest must be engaged.

All units must fire at:
   a) enemy within 50m that is facing them.

Tanks and assault guns must fire at:
a) tanks
b) anti-tank guns & AAA used as ATG
c) APCs
d) infantry
e) towed artillery

Infantry must fire at:
a) infantry
b) anti-tank guns & AAA used as ATG
c) APCs
d) towed artillery
e) tanks

Anti-tank guns must fire at:
a) tanks
b) APCs
c) recce
d) infantry
e) other guns

OP directed artillery can choose any target.

Artillery Batteries on table must fire at:
   a) other artillery
   b) infantry
   c) tanks
   d) any others

Artillery assigned to an CHQ follow the fire priority of the CHQ type.

Recce must fire at
a) tanks
b) recce
c) infantry
d) APCs
e) guns

AA guns must fire at
a) aircraft
b) helicopters
c) AFVs
d) towed guns
e) infantry

an optional fire priority we are testing: Infantry Support tanks & assault guns:
a) ATG and AA used as AT
b) Infantry, infantry MG, mortar, Inf guns
c) Artillery, AA guns
d) tanks
e) other AFV

Opportunity Fire - has no fire priority - pre-designate who is opp firing and at what targets before rolling dice.
------------------------------

This might be considered mean: Recce must fire at a) tanks but it is designed to stop you using recce as glory-seeking tank destroyers as too many wargames do, the alternative option of course being not to fire at all and thus give your position away.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Mark your taget priories are incorrect. For instance the 66Law (M72), was reissued in the early 00's for attacking Afgan infantry positions. WWII firing distances were much lower than gamers think, average engagement range was 750m across all theatres. To an extent the ammunition load out was role specific - if your tank was tasked to support infnatry you would carry more HE as that was what would be needed.

Bear in mind that the 1st round hit chance at 750m was roughly 25% before taking into account target cover, movement, and all the other factors....

[sultanbev]

No they are not. 
I'm talking Cold War and WW2, not counter-insurgencies. Anyway it would come under
Anti-tank guns must fire at:
a) tanks
b) APCs
c) recce
d) infantry
e) other guns
because how often did the Taliban field tanks, APCs and scout trucks? Looking at MicroMark List AS42M, only a third of their infantry were in vehicles, there is only 3 recce vehicles per 9 companies of infantry within a brigade, and tanks are independent of divisions. So odds-on the M72 LAWs were unlikely to encounter anything other than dismounted infantry. You can bet your bottom dollar if such a thing as a vehicle did turn up, the LAWs would have been used against them if that's all they had to hand.

I do agree on the 750m average engagement ranges, those wargames rules that allow tank battles to become pointblank range dogfights, like ancients with tanks, are just silly. I've found the correct use of artillery. plenty of terrain, command activations and morale rules tends to create the effect of keeping tanks at distance. Knowing the enemy infantry might have decent anti-tank weapons helps too.

Agreed too, that % hit chances on the battlefield are much less than theoretical tables imply. Mainly because on the range where these things are worked out, no one is shooting back, it's not pouring down with rain or blowing a gale, and smoke from burning wrecks and artillery bursts is not obscuring vision.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

I was just using an example, most of the post covers WWII and weapons use. Bear in mind that the average ranges and hit probability are well known, and ignored by all most all rules writers.