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 Yesterday at 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.