With the updated army lists now being available, we've created this new thread for any tweaks, queries or feedback on the updated lists.
Please confine your posts to this thread purely to Army list errata or suggestions (there is a separate thread for Rules Errata).
If you spot an issue with any of the lists please explain which list, section, unit you're referring to. Any suggested changes are very helpful too.
With all of the lists being online, it's a lot easier to update them but we'll still aim to do this in regular batches to avoid constant tweaks.
I am pretty sure the Ethiopians had T34s
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 02 September 2025, 05:26:55 PMI am pretty sure the Ethiopians had T34s
There is a photo of a captured/damaged Somali T34 on Wiki - so it is conceivable (particularly early in the war) that some might have been repaired and reused by the Ethiopians. But I suspect the numbers would be very small.
My research indicates that the T-34 tanks were deployed by Somalia; the Ethiopian forces were supported by modern Soviet equipment, including tanks and artillery, while Somalia primarily used its older Soviet T-34 and newer T-54/55 tanks.
But, as always, I am happy to be enlightened if I am wrong.
Cheers
Mark
1) All the Sherman entries that show (75mm) armed variants have A/T = 3/90, which is for the 76mm armed Sherman.
2) Churchill Mk.IV in Korea? Not heard of that.
3) There was at best only 1 Comet in Korea, and that narrative is based on one dodgy photo. 4) Centurion Mk.3 not Mk.2 in Korea, although stats would be same at this level. The Mk.2 was a bit of an oddball in that it had thicker hull front armour (118mm) compared to 76mm of Mk.1, Mk.3-8.
4) 120mm Wombat in Vietnam? No, 'Wombat Gun' was the Aussie nickname for the 40mm M79 grenade launcher. They actually were issued 90mm M67 RR but they weren't used in action much.
5) Danes used tracked Roland? wut?
6) 40mmL60 towed Bofors more effective (4/100 cf 2/100) than twin 40mm Bofors on M19 and M42? Ooops
You are not going to convince me that a Bofors gun, L70 even with radar, is as good as a ZSU-23-4. Longer ranged, yes.
I think taking out the AA factor from the notes and letting people pick the best of A/T or A-P factors for AA factors was a mistake. For instance a 100mm KS19 AA gun is going to have reasonable A/T and A-P factors, but poor AA factors at very long range.
7) The Soviet ISU-122 has same gun as Is-2/3/4, so should be A-P = 5/70, A/T = 4/60
8 ) IT-122-54 has a gun similar to the T-10, so A-P = 5/70, A/T = 6/60
9) The T-10 series has HMG coax with its 122mm, so it's A/P factor should not be LESS than the earlier Is-2/3/4, should be at least the same.
10) The 100mm M1944 ATG has same ammo as Su-100, so A/T = 4/60
11) End date for Su-100 is at least 1996.
12) The 125mm 2A45 ATG never entered service (as of 2015 at least).
13) Composite armour; In the West German notes it says these give normal saves to IATW and ATGW. That looks about right, I always thought a 5+ save is miserly.
In all other notes it has (older rule?) that Composite only gives a 5+ save versus IATW and ATGW. And yet the rule book doesn't state that armour gets no save against IATW, only ATGW.
14) Wonder why Challenger ERA is 2+ save whereas everyone elses is 4+ save?
15) Vigilant ATGW - the range correction to 65cm has been picked up for the ground mount, but not for the vehicle mounted variants.
16) British SPAT: What is restricted ammo (due you mean arc?), and why is 17pdr Valentine SP Archer with less stats than 17pdr ATG and M10 17pdr SP Achilles? They all use same ammo.
17) Arab and other lists. You can't use RPG-6 anti-tank grenades against infantry, just no!
18) Some lists still have some IATW with double the ranges they had in real life, sorry, you can't hit a point target with an RPG-7 at 800m (40cm). Don't know what thats about.
What is worse is that within one list you'll have some with correct ranges, and some with incorrect ranges, eg the British:
(https://i.postimg.cc/gJ0yLsT1/British-IATW-sample.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
So the PIAT, No.94 rifle A/T grenades, and Carl Gustav are roughly correct (the latter for S550 700m range version from sometime in the 1970s, not the earlier M2) but the others are pure fantasy:
3.5" M20 range 110m (10cm being generous, in line with PIAT)
66mm LAW 300m (not 800m hahah) so 15cm
94mm LAW80 500m (not 1200m even more hahhaha) so 25cm
NB 84mm M2 from 1963 has 450m range, so about 25cm
What happened?
T-34/85 was used by Ethiopia according to the Osprey NV20. Janes' Armour and Artillery picks it up as in service by the 1985 edition. SIPRI lists 56 delivered in 1977. A SIPRI entry is good confirmation.
Ah, they appear in MicroMark List AF80M, with 2 indpendent tank battalions with Yemeni crews, from late 1977.
The ever wonderful wwiiafterwwii gives info
https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2023/06/24/the-t-34-in-somalia/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2023/06/24/the-t-34-in-somalia/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
Not serious but several dates are wrong. The 432/Rarden should be 74/5 - 2LI had a full issue of 1 per platoon at that time. School of Infantry probably had the other 4.
Quote from: sultanbev on 02 September 2025, 07:36:33 PM1) All the Sherman entries that show (75mm) armed variants have A/T = 3/90, which is for the 76mm armed Sherman.
> Yes - the difference between the two is primarily its armour penetration ability. But reducing the AT to 2/90 which is the only option seems to under-gun the 75mm considerably. But I'm happy to debate alternative options?
2) Churchill Mk.IV in Korea? Not heard of that.
> Info from a conversation with Tank Museum (Bovingdon): "the Churchill tank, including Mark IV variants, was used in the Korean War, although the British Army primarily deployed later marks, like the Mark VII Crocodile flamethrower tank. Its direct combat use in Korea was limited, with Armour Recovery Vehicles (ARVs) and Bridge Layers of the Churchill type mainly seeing service.
3) There was at best only 1 Comet in Korea, and that narrative is based on one dodgy photo.
> The image, along with one taken of British units in Hong Kong ahead of embarkation to Korea, is as you say debatable. And I'd be happy to remove it, until any other more solid evidence.
4) Centurion Mk.3 not Mk.2 in Korea, although stats would be same at this level. The Mk.2 was a bit of an oddball in that it had thicker hull front armour (118mm) compared to 76mm of Mk.1, Mk.3-8.
> Noted - thanks
4) 120mm Wombat in Vietnam? No, 'Wombat Gun' was the Aussie nickname for the 40mm M79 grenade launcher. They actually were issued 90mm M67 RR but they weren't used in action much.
> a good shout on that - thanks
5) Danes used tracked Roland? wut?
> No, that is an transcription error on my part.
6) 40mmL60 towed Bofors more effective (4/100 cf 2/100) than twin 40mm Bofors on M19 and M42? Ooops
You are not going to convince me that a Bofors gun, L70 even with radar, is as good as a ZSU-23-4. Longer ranged, yes.
> yes, the whole issue of AA factors v Ground targets is a challenge but the stats are incorrect and will be ammended.
I think taking out the AA factor from the notes and letting people pick the best of A/T or A-P factors for AA factors was a mistake. For instance a 100mm KS19 AA gun is going to have reasonable A/T and A-P factors, but poor AA factors at very long range.
> I am in total agreement and I am working on an errata that will resolve that problem.
The challenge caused by the use of AA guns against ground targets is common to many sets of rules and not easily solved. Cutting the AT/AP effect and ranges against ground targets by 50% seems overall to have the desired effect - but I am still playtesting that.
7) The Soviet ISU-122 has same gun as Is-2/3/4, so should be A-P = 5/70, A/T = 4/60
> Noted - thanks
8 ) IT-122-54 has a gun similar to the T-10, so A-P = 5/70, A/T = 6/60
> Noted - thanks
9) The T-10 series has HMG coax with its 122mm, so it's A/P factor should not be LESS than the earlier Is-2/3/4, should be at least the same.
> Noted - thanks
10) The 100mm M1944 ATG has same ammo as Su-100, so A/T = 4/60
> Noted - thanks
11) End date for Su-100 is at least 1996.
> which list are you looking at - as all the Soviet/Warsaw Pact lists should end in 1991?
12) The 125mm 2A45 ATG never entered service (as of 2015 at least).
> OK - Wiki has it as in service from 1989 - but no source.
13) Composite armour; In the West German notes it says these give normal saves to IATW and ATGW. That looks about right, I always thought a 5+ save is miserly.
In all other notes it has (older rule?) that Composite only gives a 5+ save versus IATW and ATGW. And yet the rule book doesn't state that armour gets no save against IATW, only ATGW.
> They should all be same as the West German notes - that is a transcription error - good spot
14) Wonder why Challenger ERA is 2+ save whereas everyone elses is 4+ save?
> an error - that can be corrected
15) Vigilant ATGW - the range correction to 65cm has been picked up for the ground mount, but not for the vehicle mounted variants.
> thanks - good spot
16) British SPAT: What is restricted ammo (due you mean arc?), and why is 17pdr Valentine SP Archer with less stats than 17pdr ATG and M10 17pdr SP Achilles? They all use same ammo.
> 'restricted ammo' refers to the fact that a number of 'tank-hunter' SPATs only carried a limited amount of specific ammo, usually HE. I needed a way to reflect this. The Valentine SP Archer and Achilles should be the same stats - will correct that
17) Arab and other lists. You can't use RPG-6 anti-tank grenades against infantry, just no!
>
18) Some lists still have some IATW with double the ranges they had in real life, sorry, you can't hit a point target with an RPG-7 at 800m (40cm). Don't know what thats about.
What is worse is that within one list you'll have some with correct ranges, and some with incorrect ranges, eg the British:
(https://i.postimg.cc/gJ0yLsT1/British-IATW-sample.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
So the PIAT, No.94 rifle A/T grenades, and Carl Gustav are roughly correct (the latter for S550 700m range version from sometime in the 1970s, not the earlier M2) but the others are pure fantasy:
3.5" M20 range 110m (10cm being generous, in line with PIAT)
66mm LAW 300m (not 800m hahah) so 15cm
94mm LAW80 500m (not 1200m even more hahhaha) so 25cm
NB 84mm M2 from 1963 has 450m range, so about 25cm
> The whole IATW 'thing' is/was the stuff of nightmares :) - but some of what you've spotted is actually manual copying errors on my part. Even getting some of them correct is a bonus IMHO. But I'll take a specific look and see what I can do quickly on them.
What happened?
As always - thank you for the detailed feedback Mark.
Answers to the various points are outline above (in bold).
In answer to you last question "What happened?" - as Leon (& I) have previously stated (on a number of occasions) this has been a massive logistical and highly manual process (a real challenge) as a lot of the original stats made absolutely no sense and were not logical in the way they had been constructed.
But the good news is that now all the lists are digital - it's a relatively easy process to update and amend them.
Yes, there will still be errors. Yes, there will still be omissions and mistakes (like the Danish Roland for example) but they are easily excised :)
Cheers
Mark
NB. British armour in Korea
Official History vol.1 Appendix N gives 8 Hussars a total of 64 Centurions (3 Sabre squadrons @20 + RHQ), 6 Cromwells (OP I think), 3 tank dozers (Centurion I think), 3 Churchill ARV, 3 Churchill bridgelayer, 4 carriers, 18 scout cars.
C Sqn 7 RTR is given as SHQ (2 Churchill VII, 2 Churchill ARV, 4 troops @ 4 Churchill Crocodile
45 Field Regiment RA also had 6 OP Cromwells (which were combined with those of 8H to form Cooper force).
Cromwells in Korea had replaced the Stuarts in the Recce troop. Yes the Churchills were Crocs, but the trailers were left at home, so same as VII but no hull MG.
1) All the Sherman entries that show (75mm) armed variants have A/T = 3/90, which is for the 76mm armed Sherman.
> Yes - the difference between the two is primarily its armour penetration ability. But reducing the AT to 2/90 which is the only option seems to under-gun the 75mm considerably. But I'm happy to debate alternative options?
No, stats are okay, what I meant to say is that several Sherman entries are mislabeled as Sherman (75mm) when they should be Sherman (76mm).
11) End date for Su-100 is at least 1996.
> which list are you looking at - as all the Soviet/Warsaw Pact lists should end in 1991?
There was film footage of Russian some Su-100 being used in one of their excursions into the ex-Soviet Republics, Kazakstan or whereever, at the time that the US and Russia were co-operating on anti-terrorist operations c1996.
Re Churchill in Korea, the Mk.IV has a cast turret, so would be immediately photo-obvious compared to Churchill VII, which has the welded turret. A 'defrocked' Crocodile is a MkVII. Any Crocodiles without flamethrowers would be command tanks in any case, so they wouldn't appear as a combat item in the lists. Same with the Comet, you could allow it as a command stand model, but not a fighting unit.
Am tempted to do a list of all IATW on one sheet with correct ranges to help inform list writing.
Regarding 'restricted ammo', doctrine for British anti-tank was 40% HE, 60% AP by 1945, similar to tanks, so I wouldn't worry about it at this level of gaming.
You could perhaps use restricted ammo for AFVs that carry very little, eg a Charioteer at 8x HE and 17x APDS, or a 100mm MT12 with 20 rounds in total - 10x FSAPDS, 6x HEAT, 4x HE.
Quote from: sultanbev on 04 September 2025, 11:03:26 AMAm tempted to do a list of all IATW on one sheet with correct ranges to help inform list writing.
If you could be bothered Mark, that would be helpful and appreciated. :)
Some of it is also very subjective. Such as the RPG-6 stuff (for example), as there are enumerable quotes of them being a very effective AP weapon because of the c.20m blast radius of the fragments.
Cheers
Mark
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.
Quote from: Big Insect on 04 September 2025, 01:22:34 PMQuoteAm tempted to do a list of all IATW on one sheet with correct ranges to help inform list writing.
If you could be bothered Mark, that would be helpful and appreciated
Just to let you know I've started this, it might be a while but I've got a lot of material to go through. I've been collecting this kind of data for nearly 50 years, much of it from books before the internet became common. Should be an epic spreadsheet when finished, it's turning into one sheet per country.....
Quote from: dylan on 04 September 2025, 08:47:55 PMGreat 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
Quote from: Big Insect on 06 September 2025, 08:15:40 PMThanks 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?
Quote from: dylan on 06 September 2025, 09:43:03 PMGood 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.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 06 September 2025, 10:34:11 PMBear 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.
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.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 06 September 2025, 10:34:11 PMBear 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
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.
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....
No they are not. :D
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.
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.
https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2023/06/24/the-t-34-in-somalia (https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2023/06/24/the-t-34-in-somalia)
This might be useful info for the Somali and Ethiopian lists
The challenge we have with Soviet era MBT and gun ranges are as follows:
1). if we blindly follow the information provided by the manufacturers (as some rules do) you end up with MBT gun ranges that are often well in excess of NATO ranges. This tends to lead to Soviet players standing back and playing a shooting game - which is both unrealistic and also not much fun for anybody.
Also, as we know from the 1991 Gulf War, where a British Challenger I tank - in ideal situations - managed to hit and destroy a Soviet made Iraqi tank, at a range of 5,100 meters (about 3.17 miles). If you applied that range to all Challenger I's you'd need to play on a much, much bigger table, and you'd also have a lot fewer Challenger I's.
2). if we were to stick with applying the above (manufacturers ranges) - it also makes a lot of the Soviet tanks significantly more expensive, points wise, than the majority of their NATO opposite numbers - which defeats the game-balance concept within CWC, that the Warsaw Pact forces generally should outnumber their NATO opponents.
3). Tank gun ranges are actually only a relatively small part of the overall factors that go to create a CWC hit factor. What little we actually know about Warsaw Pact tank doctrine, coupled with the known inferiority (when compared to NATO) of crew training, ammunition quality, stabilization, ranging equipment etc. etc. all generally leads us towards a much lower 'effective' range for Warsaw Pact tanks (more of a 'shoot when you see the whites of their eyes' approach). This then leads through to a lower points cost and therefore more Soviet made tanks on the table (for armies with Soviet/Warsaw Pact or Communist Chinese MBTs).
4). In reality - we should probably also be applying the effect of tank crew training and doctrine, to those non-Soviet armies (Arabs and Africa primarily) where Soviet trained crews were also using Western equipment (French or British in particular). But as this creates a bit of a nightmare from an army list POV and these armies very often relatively few 'western' MBTs, and have poorer command and control, I've taken the view that it's not worth making these changes.
5). What we know (and again there is relatively little by way of reliable data) about Soviet/Warsaw Pact AT guns and their tactical doctrine, is that they were fired at a longer range. This was also facilitated by not being fired on the move, by different crew training and more of a tank-hunter type of doctrine. Whether an SU-100 adopted the same approach as a towed AT gun is (TBF) unknown, but it seems a logical deduction, where it is used in an AT role (rather than an infantry support role).
6) Also, if we move into the era of the Soviet MT-12 100mm anti-tank gun, with its 9M117 Bastion anti-tank guided missiles you end up with an AT gun being deliberately deployed at maximum AT gun range, simply so that it can make optimum use of the ATGW missile.
So ... to look at stats alone will give you an approach that just doesn't work out from an overall game-play perspective. Unfortunately, experiance has shown that if we give the Soviet MBTs the optimum gun ranges that their manufacturers claim, players will not follow Soviet doctrine of massed tank attacks. It's really as simple as that.
You also end up with a similar issue with AA guns.
You need a realistic range and hit factor to allow them to cover the battlefield to a reasonable distance, when undertaking their core anti-aircraft function and to actually act as a significant deterrent to enemy aircraft. However, players being players, this has be turned into an unrealistic table-top advantage when the same AA gun systems are turned on ground targets. So, there is an errata under test, that should stop this imbalance - as even target priority systems wont stop the deliberate engineering of potential 'abuse' situations.
Hopefully, that is helpful.
Thanks
Mark
PLEASE NOTE:
I'm not intending to reply to each of the detailed observations being put forward on a 1 by 1 basis, as the time taken to do so, is the time it takes me to log the corrections.
What would be most helpful is that if you spot an errata - please state clearly which list the errata applies to, against each point you raise.
If the point is a general one - like the air-portability of the PT76* (for example) that applies across many lists - if you can register it against its core manufacturer list (Soviet) then it will get picked up across all lists. (NB* the air portability issue is a 'hang-over' from the lists originally going up to 2020 - and some of the carrying capacity of later post Soviet Russian transport aircraft - but it's easily removed).
Many thanks
Mark
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 09 September 2025, 02:50:24 PMhttps://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2023/06/24/the-t-34-in-somalia (https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2023/06/24/the-t-34-in-somalia)
This might be useful info for the Somali and Ethiopian lists
many thanks :)
Quote from: Big Insect on 10 September 2025, 10:57:16 AMThe challenge we have with Soviet era MBT and gun ranges are as follows:
SNIP
5). What we know (and again there is relatively little by way of reliable data) about Soviet/Warsaw Pact AT guns and their tactical doctrine, is that they were fired at a longer range. This was also facilitated by not being fired on the move, by different crew training and more of a tank-hunter type of doctrine. Whether an SU-100 adopted the same approach as a towed AT gun is (TBF) unknown, but it seems a logical deduction, where it is used in an AT role (rather than an infantry support role).
SNIP
Hopefully, that is helpful.
Thanks
Mark
I did not know the highlighted about Soviet/Warsaw Pact anti-tank gun doctrine. Could you post the reference for this, please? I'd be interested to read it.
My copy of Isby, "Weapons & Tactics of the Soviet Army" (1988 fully revised 2nd edition) is my bible to date and it has this to say..."Anti-tank weapons form a mutually supporting system at each level of organisation...the slow-firing but accurate ATGMs provide long-range fire, starting at a range of 3-4,000m. At 1,500m, when volume of fire is more important than individual accuracy, tanks and towed anti-tank guns will open fire..."
Hence, my earlier suggestion that, if you're going doctrinally, the ranges allocated to tanks and equivalent AT guns should be similar.
QuoteYou also end up with a similar issue with AA guns.
You need a realistic range and hit factor to allow them to cover the battlefield to a reasonable distance, when undertaking their core anti-aircraft function and to actually act as a significant deterrent to enemy aircraft. However, players being players, this has be turned into an unrealistic table-top advantage when the same AA gun systems are turned on ground targets. So, there is an errata under test, that should stop this imbalance - as even target priority systems wont stop the deliberate engineering of potential 'abuse' situations.
A standard line-of-site limit for Western Europe is 400 yards. We used to use 800 but think this is too limiting so have upped it to 1,200. Of course the sky lacks LoS obstacles. Hence AAA weapons pointed at the sky horizon would not need limiting whereas for ground use terrain limits would be applicable.
My comments on the list "2025ColdWarBundeswehr1955-1990".
1. Under "Recce", is the M8 Scott really a "recce" vehicle? - I'd call it a fire support or maybe in rules terms a recce support vehicle. I'm also not sure why the Scott is singled out for inclusion - the Germans used a whole lot of Allied vehicles early on for recce - Bren Carriers, Ferrets, etc, even EBR-75s were in test use.
2. Under "Recce", the SPz Kurz 11-2 IFV served in panzer recce units until 1982.
3. Under "Recce", it isn't clear why the M41A3 Walker Bulldog listed here has an AP factor of 3/100 whereas the identical M41A3 listed under "Armour" has an AP factor of 3/110. Presumably they should be the same.
4. Under "Recce", German panzer recce battalions heavily used the M48A2C from 1966 until the 1980s. It isn't listed here as an option.
5. Under "Recce", in the 1980s panzer recce battalions had a company in Fuchs wheeled vehicles, plus some more Fuchs with RASIT radars. Fuchs is not an option here.
6. Under "Support", why is it the 2cm guns on the Kraka and Wiesel are only rated AP=2/60 and AT=1/30 whereas the 2cm guns on vehicles elsewhere in the list are consistently rated as AP=2/100 and AT=2/80?
7. Under "Armour", the Luchs is incorrectly given in-service dates 1968-1975. The correct date is given in the Recce section.
8. Under "Armour", the first Marder was accepted for service in 1971. The designations given to the various Marder here are wonky. The original Marder 1 was just called that. From 1977 it was fitted with the Milan 1 (losing one dismount in the process). The first true modernisation effort was carried out between 1979 and 1982 with the designation Marder A1. However, not all received the full modernisation and only those with all features were called Marder A1A. A further 674 additionally received passive night sights and were called Marder A1 (+). Between 1983 and 1991 a second modernisation programme resulted in the Marder 1A2 (which had the external rear MG removed and TI vision systems fitted). The third modernisation was carried out between 1989 and 1998 and resulted in the Marder 1A3 (which had additional protection against the Soviet 30mm on the frontal arc - not reflected in the stats given in this list).
9. Under "Armour", did in fact the M26 or the M46 serve with the Bundeswehr?
10. Under "Armour", the last M41 Walker Bulldog left German service in 1969.
11. Under "Armour", the last M47 left German service in 1968.
12. Under "Armour", the first M48A1 was received by German panzer divisions in 1957. In 1990 all stored early M48s with the 90mm gun were scrapped.
13. Under "Armour", the first M48A2GA2 was received in 1978. In 1991 all M48A2GA2 with the 105mm gun were scrapped.
14. Under "Armour", why is the 105mm gun on the M48A2GA2 given an AP factor of 5/150 when the very same 105mm gun mounted on the Leopard 1 series is given an AP factor of 4/120?
15. Under "Armour", the Leopard 1A2 was delivered from 1972.
16. Under "Armour", the Leopard 1A3 was delivered from 1973.
17. Under "Armour", it is not credible that the Leopard 2/2A1 has exactly the same surviviability (5 hits, saving on a 4) as the Leopard 1A1A1 or the M48A1. Something has gone badly wrong with the rating system.
18. Under "Anti-tank [Dedicated]", the Kanonenjagdpanzer was not fitted with IR night vision until the early 1970s. Small Target maybe?
19. Under "Anti tank [Dedicated] the Raketenjagdpanzer 1 seems to be missing entirely (introduced from 1961). The Raketenjagdpanzer 2 was not introduced until 1967.
20. Under "Anti tank [Dedicated], the HOT, Jaguar 1 was not introduced until 1978.
21. Under "Anti tank [Dedicated]", the I-TOW, Jaguar 2 is incorrect. The original Jaguar 2 introduced from 1983 had the standard TOW missile. It was not until 1989 that the Germans began receiving the I-TOW for the Jaguar 2. All were retired by 1999.
22. Under "Air Defence [Dedicated]", the M42 Duster was introduced from 1956, and the M16 MGMC was removed from service by 1958.
23. Under "Air Defence [Dedicated], the Flakpanzer Gepard entered service from 1976.
24. Under "Air Defence [Dedicated], the Roland entered service from 1981.
25. Under "Transport & Vehicles", it isn't clear why the M113GA1 has survivability of 4 hits saving on a 6. It isn't significantly more heavily armoured than the 120mm mortar M113A1G which is only given 3 hits saving on a 6 in the "Support" section of the list. Furthermore, the M113GA1 APC typically carried a 7.62mm MG (1/50 AP) rather than a .50cal (2/50).
26. Under "Armour" compared with under "Support" it isn't clear why the Milan 1 is 6/100 when on a Marder but 4/100 when dismounted. Nor is it clear why the Milan 2 is 8/100 when mounted on the Marder but 6/100 when dismounted.
27. Under "Transport & Vehicles", it isn't clear why the 20mm gun on the Schutzenpanzer Lang HS.30 is given such different AP and AT stats from the 20mm main guns on other German vehicles.
28. Under "Artillery [off table]", the MLRS actually only entered service with the Germans from 1987.
Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 03 September 2025, 07:12:11 AMNot serious but several dates are wrong. The 432/Rarden should be 74/5 - 2LI had a full issue of 1 per platoon at that time. School of Infantry probably had the other 4.
ex 2LI?
I was scrolling through the updated Iraqi Ground Forces list to check something out and I noticed BMP-2s being available from 1960. This isn't right is it?
Indeed, SIPRI data shows the following BMP-2 deliveries to Iraq:
x50 in 1987
x100 in 1988
x50 in 1989
with 3000x AT-4 Spigot delivered between 1986 and 1989, some of which will have gone on the BMP-2 I suspect.
200x BMP-2 is only enough for 4 mechanised battalions, so pretty rare overall.
Quote from: Superscribe on 09 February 2026, 09:33:42 AMex 2LI?
No was LUOTC on a 2 week attachment. If you wanted to use them its one Rarden per platoon plse 2 or 3 with Peak turrets. AT assets even better - a few Milan firing posts 6 432/Wombat and 4 FV438, befroe becoming an RA asset
Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 13 February 2026, 09:03:46 AMNo was LUOTC on a 2 week attachment. If you wanted to use them its one Rarden per platoon plse 2 or 3 with Peak turrets. AT assets even better - a few Milan firing posts 6 432/Wombat and 4 FV438, befroe becoming an RA asset
I joined 2LI Aug 76 when they were on NI tour in Belfast so you must have been there before then. In our CWC2 games we are focussed on 1984/85, including 2LI and 1GORDONS in airmobile role, each with 4 Milan Pls.
Rgds
Chris