Pendraken Miniatures Forum

Please confine your posts to this thread purely to Army list errata or suggestions (there is a separate thread for Rules Errata) - thank you.

There are already a couple of 'known knowns' as far as the existing list errata is concerned.

The more astute of you will have noticed that the 'example' army lists printed in the rule book differ slightly from those in the online downloadable lists.
For example - the printed Soviet list actually runs through to the modern day (when of course the Soviet Union disappeared in the early 1990s). The online Soviet Union list is however restricted to pre-collapse troops and there will be a post Communist Russian Federation list (along with Gulf War lists) in a future online army list release.
Likewise - I had a 'mad moment' with the printed US lists and 'forgot' to put all the Bradley stats into the Armour section  :'( - but these are in the on-line list.
NB: for those of you 'craving' the LAV stats in the US list - there is a separate USMC list about to be launched on-line (along with a Soviet Naval Infantry list) and all the LAV  stats are in that.

As a guide and to be helpful - if you spot an issue with the lists please can you be specific.
It is not helpful (for example) to simply state that "all the Soviet guns are under-powered" ... !!!

It would be helpful if you can state in which list and with which unit(s) there is an issue (or an omission), and why and even a suggested change, that would be really very helpful.

Continuity can also be an issue across lists - sometime this may be deliberate - e.g. a lower range or AP/AT state for a Soviet 'client-state' operating a particular MBT might justifiably reflect a lower spec to an export model or poor crew training or a change in tactical deployment. Or it could simply be a typing error on my part (I am after all only human  :o ).

Again, because the majority of the lists are on-line now, it is going to be a lot easier to make adjustments and tweaks, but my intention is to try and do that in batches - to avoid the constant 'drip-drip-drip' effect of real-time updating. 

I know that I cannot please all the players all the time, and my knowledge of such a broad subject matter will never be as thorough or detailed as those of you that specialise in a particular army or conflict, so I do rely upon your active engagement and involvement in these lists.

Many thanks (in anticipation)

Mark

Should the Chinese Type 59 really be only 45 pts in the - Warsaw Pact, Grade 2 list?

This looks like a cut and paste typo from the NVA list

Thanks you - I will check that out

The main Chinese list is well underway and I will cross-check with that as well.

Mark

Having had a quick look through the lists, these jump out at me:

You've missed the HEAT round off the 82mm 2B9 Vasilek
On the British & US List you have M24 with a HEAT round.... It should be the same as the Churchill 3/80 3/60 surely?
Cromwell VII - why the improved gun stats? It didn't get any better ammo or sights postwar that I've heard of.
A lot of the LAWs have ridiculously long ranges,
eg RPG-18 out to 1000m (50cm) ! 200m actual
66mm LAW out to 800m (40cm) 300m actual
LAW80 out to 1200m (60cm) 500m actual

Something has gone wrong there with the LAWs in most of the lists.


Vickers Vigilant was in use to 1977 with Paras
Vickers Vigilant range is 1370m = 68cm, not 185cm
Under transport can add Ram Kangeroo to 1956
Under anti-tank can add Archer out to 1956
Churchill ARK should be AVLB, not sure if the ARK was used postwar?
Under British Recce:
Still promoting the myth of no 2pdr HE on the Daimler II armoured car - stop it! And it did have a coax MG afterall.
Also add Daimler II with Littlejohn adaptor up to 1960
Can add AEC MK.III up to 1958

In the American lists the M24 Chaffee under recce has different gun stats to the one in the armour section, neither seem consistent and it certainly was never issued a 75mm HEAT round, although prototypes were made in WW2.

What happens to "non-dedicated" AA such as Soviet 85mm, 100mm, 130mm, US 90mm, UK 3.7" and area SAMS such as Sa-5, Thunderbird, HAWK - are they abstracted?

Some of the on-table artillery are missing their anti-tank ammunition. Although, it could be said, they'd only have tyically 6 anti-rounds in an SPG, so understandable if you leave them out. Examples Abbot 105mm HESH, Russian 130mm M46 APHE, 122mm D30 HEAT.

The 125mm Sprut towed anti-tank gun never saw service by the way.

Mark

A Type 56 should in effect be the same at RPG-2 (in game terms).

Both should be the same points (15pts) and both should have the same stats (AP: 3/10 |AT:3/10H)

I'll do a check across all the appropriate lists and adjust (45pts is a typo)  :o

Thanks
Mark

Couple of errors there Mark - only use of Vigilent by the British was on Ferrets in Recce squardrons. All infantry had in theroy a GW platoon from 1970? but never instigated. I suspect that is where you are getting the Para use. If you insist pictorial evidence please. Paras had either Malkara/Hornet or Ferret 5 with Swingfire.

Shoulder fired ATGL do have very long ranges but tactical use is not to use them. 2 reasons, they are not very accurate above 750 m and there will always be a limited ammunitrion supply so most rounds will be heat even though a Charlie G for example has HEAT, HE, Smoke and may be canister. It's a matter of loading, No 1 has the gun and 1 round loaded + personal kit and weapon. Officially that was a Sterling but observation seems to show that it would be an SLR. The load is of the order of 60 kg.

You are correct that the 2pdr has HE but as the only vehicles fitted witrh it are recce they won't be firing very often. You could always use it as 1/40 - it's not an auto cannon and has 2-3oz of HE in it. Any source for the Littlejohn use ?

Finally have you got any info on 2nd Light Infantry in 1974/5 in Germany. Freind was attached for a short time and wants to recreate it if possible but has lost his photos.

QuoteHaving had a quick look through the lists, these jump out at me:

You've missed the HEAT round off the 82mm 2B9 Vasilek
On the British & US List you have M24 with a HEAT round.... It should be the same as the Churchill 3/80 3/60 surely?
Cromwell VII - why the improved gun stats? It didn't get any better ammo or sights postwar that I've heard of.
A lot of the LAWs have ridiculously long ranges,
eg RPG-18 out to 1000m (50cm) ! 200m actual
66mm LAW out to 800m (40cm) 300m actual
LAW80 out to 1200m (60cm) 500m actual

Something has gone wrong there with the LAWs in most of the lists.


Vickers Vigilant was in use to 1977 with Paras
Vickers Vigilant range is 1370m = 68cm, not 185cm
Under transport can add Ram Kangeroo to 1956
Under anti-tank can add Archer out to 1956
Churchill ARK should be AVLB, not sure if the ARK was used postwar?
Under British Recce:
Still promoting the myth of no 2pdr HE on the Daimler II armoured car - stop it! And it did have a coax MG afterall.
Also add Daimler II with Littlejohn adaptor up to 1960
Can add AEC MK.III up to 1958

In the American lists the M24 Chaffee under recce has different gun stats to the one in the armour section, neither seem consistent and it certainly was never issued a 75mm HEAT round, although prototypes were made in WW2.

What happens to "non-dedicated" AA such as Soviet 85mm, 100mm, 130mm, US 90mm, UK 3.7" and area SAMS such as Sa-5, Thunderbird, HAWK - are they abstracted?

Some of the on-table artillery are missing their anti-tank ammunition. Although, it could be said, they'd only have tyically 6 anti-rounds in an SPG, so understandable if you leave them out. Examples Abbot 105mm HESH, Russian 130mm M46 APHE, 122mm D30 HEAT.

The 125mm Sprut towed anti-tank gun never saw service by the way.

Mark

Thanks Mark
All extremely helpful as always - I'll look at the continuity issues across the lists as a priority.

I agree about the LAW factors - I had a bit of a technical 'issue' with the IATW and the RR/RCL factors/ranges.
I'll double check those.
NB: There was a theory put forward that we didn't need the longer AT ranges or the 'H' designation now that we had a separate AT stats line - but that didn't take into account the fact that you can shoot at field defences and needed to use the AT stats to represent that.

As always - I appreciate the input from a specialist like yourself.
On things like the "add Daimler II with Littlejohn adaptor up to 1960" suggestion (for example) - can you offer a proposed change to the standard Daimler II please? Much appreciated.

BR
Mark

That's for Mark B not the 6 legged one.

M24 Light Tank (Chaffee) stats should all be: AP: 3/100 | AT: 2/90

I think that I might have mixed them up with the 75 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M8 stats. But I'll get that change on the list to sort out.

I think the AP factor for M1Abrams and IPM1 Abrams looks suspect 1/100

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 24 May 2022, 01:11:23 PMI think the AP factor for M1Abrams and IPM1 Abrams looks suspect 1/100

No the Yanks had lousey ammo  :d

Seriously - OT-65 missing form 1st Line Warpact, Checz possibly Poles. It's the FUG from 2ndline list with an 82mm RCL added and Recce only.

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 24 May 2022, 01:11:23 PMI think the AP factor for M1Abrams and IPM1 Abrams looks suspect 1/100

Good spot - both should be 3/175

Thanks

The M60A1 RISE(P) Combat Tank and the M48A5 Patton appear to be identical but are of differing points.

On the Soviet List should the conscripts and good conscripts both be compulsory?


( we do appreciate you doing these lists Mr B Insect)

In the Infantry Support Weapons rules on p49 it states that small calibre mortars (below 100mm/4") can only cause suppression v hard targets and they have * in the army list to denote this. 

The 4.2" mortar in British Army List also has *
Is this an error?

Chris

Quote from: Superscribe on 24 May 2022, 04:23:23 PMIn the Infantry Support Weapons rules on p49 it states that small calibre mortars (below 100mm/4") can only cause suppression v hard targets and they have * in the army list to denote this. 

The 4.2" mortar in British Army List also has *
Is this an error?

Chris

Yes - thanks Chris - well spotted

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 24 May 2022, 02:20:08 PMThe M60A1 RISE(P) Combat Tank and the M48A5 Patton appear to be identical but are of differing points.

I'll check it out - that may well be a 'copying error'

Keep 'em coming please

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 24 May 2022, 03:22:18 PMOn the Soviet List should the conscripts and good conscripts both be compulsory?

( we do appreciate you doing these lists Mr B Insect)

A deliberate act on my part.

I reached a decision that most of the compulsory infantry requirements in CWC-II actually didn't work that well, especially if you were playing with armies based on OOBs.
I'd be interested to hear players views on this but generally my own experience has been that formations with no infantry in them tend not to do that well, and I also came to the view that some Soviet formations were probably as good as some of the less well motivated NATO forces.

This may be one of those changes that gets debated - along with the +1 Soviet Air Superiority change.
We'll see  :D 

QuoteA deliberate act on my part.

I reached a decision that most of the compulsory infantry requirements in CWC-II actually didn't work that well, especially if you were playing with armies based on OOBs.
I'd be interested to hear players views on this but generally my own experience has been that formations with no infantry in them tend not to do that well, and I also came to the view that some Soviet formations were probably as good as some of the less well motivated NATO forces.

This may be one of those changes that gets debated - along with the +1 Soviet Air Superiority change.
We'll see  :D 

So,if I am reading it right the compulsory number of infantry for Soviets is 6?

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 24 May 2022, 05:02:13 PMSo,if I am reading it right the compulsory number of infantry for Soviets is 6?

Ah - no - you only need 3 but they can be of either or a mix of the two types.
A clarification Note has gone missing in the Special Rules section.

Good spot - we'll get that sorted.
Thanks

Quote from: Big Insect on 24 May 2022, 07:05:50 PMAh - no - you only need 3 but they can be of either or a mix of the two types.
A clarification Note has gone missing in the Special Rules section.

Good spot - we'll get that sorted.
Thanks

I am collecting good spots- I need one more for a Hat Trick

Indeed - I 'claim' the fact that on the back of the cover it states there are 15 scenarios (when there are 16) and that Angolan is spelt Angloan - how that got one through the proof reading I'll never know  :'( 

Posted in error

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 24 May 2022, 12:34:09 PMAny source for the Littlejohn use ?

Images of War book the Royal Armoured Corps in the Cold War 1946-1990, MP Robinson & Rob Griffin, Pen & Sword (2016) pp119-120
A higly recommended book, it also shows the Alecto being used post war in a few recce regiments, and AEC Mk.III

On Page 90 it states that AA attacks are listed in the Notes column of Army Lists but they seem to be missing from the PDFs for Bundeswehr, British, Soviet and Soviet VDV army lists.  (I haven't checked the example army lists included in the rules). I understand that AA stats for CO, HQs and Dedicated AA units are the same as their AP stats in all cases.

Regards

Chris

QuoteFinally have you got any info on 2nd Light Infantry in 1974/5 in Germany. Freind was attached for a short time and wants to recreate it if possible but has lost his photos.

2nd Bttn LI served in 20th Armoured brigade of 4th Division from March 1974, replacing 1st Bttn LI. Based at Lemgo, it was replaced by 1st Bttn Royal Welch Fusiliers in Jan 1978.

20th Armoured Bde 1974-1975ish:
Bde HQ & 200th Signals Sqn
Life Guards Armoured Regiment (in NI May-Sept 1974) to Oct 1975 then Blues & Royals
9/12th Lancers Armoured Regiment  (in NI Jan-May 1975) to May 1976 then Queens Own Hussars, Chieftain tanks
2nd Bttn Light Infantry (in NI March-July 1975 & Aug-Dec 1976)
3rd Bttn Royal Anglian Regiment to Aug 1975 then 2nd Bttn Royal Reg of fusiliers

4th Divisional support
1st RHA: A, B, E Batteries (Abbotts)
27th Medium Arty Reg: 6, 23, 312nd Bttys (M109)
19th Field Arty Reg: 25, 28th, 67th Field Bttys (Abbotts) to Aug 1974
then 26th Medium Arty Reg: 16, 17, 159 Btys (M109)
26th Engineer Reg: 5th, 25th Field Sqn RE
35th Engineer Reg: 29th, 42nd Field Sqn RE
2nd Armoured Engineer Sqn RE
44th Field Support Sqn RE

4th AAC Regiment: 654th, 661st, 662nd Sqns AAC (helicopters)
The division only had one other brigade, the 6th Armoured Brigade.
Source: The British Army in Germany An Organizational History 1947-2004, GE Watson & RA Rinaldi, tiger Lily Publications (2005)

In theory the 2nd LI would be organised as a normal mech bttn with FV432, this link implies so:
https://www.lightinfantry.org.uk/regiments/li/li_index.htm
but we can see how the NI deployments really disrupted the brigade organisation.
Some OOB details here:
https://www.baor-locations.org/stornowaybks.aspx.html
HQ Company: Sigs Plt: Mk1 FV432, Recce Plt,Bugle Plt
A, B, D Companies: all FV432 Mk1
Support Company: FV32 Mk2 Swingfire (?)

the Armoured Regiments in theory would be 74x Chieftain, 8x Scorpion, 6(?)x FV438, but might still be on the older TOE of what? 45x Chieftain, Ferrets ? I'm not well genned up on the 1970s TOEs, and they seem hard to find.

Any idea what kit it had ?

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 25 May 2022, 06:59:21 AMAny idea what kit it had ?

Just standard British 1970s infantry as far as I can tell - SLR, Sterling, GPMG, flak jackets - there are videos on Youtube of it's service in NI. I suspect the Falklands War British range would provide sufficient 10mm figures.

I have found a 1969 TOE for a Mech bttn and 1970 Tank Regiment since, which may or may not be relevant.

Thanks Mark. It had 4 x 438, 9 432 Rarden, 4 Milan posts and all most all rest of 432's had Peak turrets. No live Milans though.

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 25 May 2022, 08:43:43 AMThanks Mark. It had 4 x 438, 9 432 Rarden, 4 Milan posts and all most all rest of 432's had Peak turrets. No live Milans though.

That's a lot of none-standard issue kit. Presumably then the battalion was a bit of testing unit?
rationale being -

a) The FV432 peak turret only entered service in 1975, not reaching full deployment (2 per platoon) until 1978
b) The FV432 30mm Rarden served in the Berlin Brigade from 1976, which suggests 2 LI had them for testing.
c) FV438 was not standard issue for a Mech Battalion
d) Milan-1 didn't enter British service until 1978 according to some sources, 1975 according to others.

Makes for an interesting wargames unit :)

The entire brigade was a test unit - also the Rardens didn't go to Berlin til 77, Warminster had 4 in 76.

Quoteb) The FV432 30mm Rarden served in the Berlin Brigade from 1976, which suggests 2 LI had them for testing.

Pedant alert - the Berlin Brigade was the name of the American force in Berlin.

The British force was the Berlin Infantry Brigade.

Quote from: Raider4 on 25 May 2022, 11:47:19 AMPedant alert - the Berlin Brigade was the name of the American force in Berlin.

The British force was the Berlin Infantry Brigade.

Man after my own heart

Korean war list - why is the 17lb ATG more powerful than Centurion Mk III with 20lb? In wider British list it is different to Korean war PDF stat lines.

Just checking Vietnam lists for my 15mm - Sheridan has 'misfire' special rule but that's not in the special rules section of the book, is it hidden elsewhere?

My observations so far have been on the PDF version only, but have just received new rules in the post and I note that the stats in the rules for Brit and Soviet IATWs and Mortars do not match those in the PDFs. In the rules IATW AT ranges are shorter than those in PDFs, which reflects the Howitzer rule. For most Mortars their AT ranges are missing from the rules, but they do appear in the PDFs, some of which have asterisks.

QuoteThe British force was the Berlin Infantry Brigade.

And note the famous British Berlin camo was not not introduced until the early 80's, so this, sadly, is a work of fiction:

Quote from: Superscribe on 25 May 2022, 12:14:31 AMOn Page 90 it states that AA attacks are listed in the Notes column of Army Lists but they seem to be missing from the PDFs for Bundeswehr, British, Soviet and Soviet VDV army lists.  (I haven't checked the example army lists included in the rules). I understand that AA stats for CO, HQs and Dedicated AA units are the same as their AP stats in all cases.

Regards

Chris

Thanks Chris
We'll correct that - the stats to use are the actual AP & AT stats - you use AP against all Aircraft and Transport helicopters and AT against Attack Helicopters (not that these generally tend to differ) - I reached the decision partway through the lists that all I was doing with the AA stats was duplicating them in the Notes column.
As you cannot shoot SAMs at ground targets and the AA guns were all going to end up as the same factors for hitting ground targets as aerial ones - it seemed a sensible change.
Cheers
Mark

Quote from: Superscribe on 25 May 2022, 06:05:14 PMMy observations so far have been on the PDF version only, but have just received new rules in the post and I note that the stats in the rules for Brit and Soviet IATWs and Mortars do not match those in the PDFs. In the rules IATW AT ranges are shorter than those in PDFs, which reflects the Howitzer rule. For most Mortars their AT ranges are missing from the rules, but they do appear in the PDFs, some of which have asterisks.

Thanks for this -

We picked up errors in the printed lists too late to correct them ahead of the go-to-print deadline - the original thought had been that with AP & AT stats you wouldn't need the longer ranges or the H designation, but that didn't take into account firing at longer range at fortifications - so the longer ranges and H designation were added back for the online lists.

Mortars with an * are up  to 100mm (or there abouts) and only inflict suppression on armoured targets.
Mortars without the * inflict hits.
Again this error was picked up after the gone-to-print deadline.

QuoteFinally have you got any info on 2nd Light Infantry in 1974/5 in Germany. Freind was attached for a short time and wants to recreate it if possible but has lost his photos.

Gents - not wishing to pee on your party so to speak - but can I please remind you:

Please confine your posts to this thread purely to Army list errata or suggestions (there is a separate thread for Rules Errata) - thank you.

A bit too late to stop this topic expanding - but if you can move to a new separate thread please - that would be much appreciated.
Thanks
Mark

Quote from: sjb1001 on 25 May 2022, 05:48:23 PMJust checking Vietnam lists for my 15mm - Sheridan has 'misfire' special rule but that's not in the special rules section of the book, is it hidden elsewhere?

Should be in the Special Rules at the bottom of the PDF list SJB - it has gone walkabout from the main US list for some reason (we will correct that). It is same as in CWC-I:

Misfire: -1 command penalty when ordered to fire after the first shot in a turn.

Good spot - thanks



 

Quote from: sjb1001 on 25 May 2022, 02:42:06 PMKorean war list - why is the 17lb ATG more powerful than Centurion Mk III with 20lb? In wider British list it is different to Korean war PDF stat lines.

I'll check that one out as it shouldn't be.

Quote from: Raider4 on 25 May 2022, 08:09:31 PMAnd note the famous British Berlin camo was not not introduced until the early 80's, so this, sadly, is a work of fiction:

But it looks sooo pretty  :D

(Now I am falling foul of this distraction from List errata - my apologies!)

Assuming I am reading the lists correctly the French don't seem to have any compulsory infantry.

In the Soviet list, the BTR 152 is given transport (1) - I would suggest that is low and it should be transport (2)

British list (online and PDF)
On table artillery section 
The Oto Melara and L118 105's have a movement of 50.

Soviet List (online and PDF)
Battlegroup Selection states max nine heavy tank units per Battlegroup
No reference to what is a heavy tank in the lists.
I guess any AFV in the list with a limit of [9] is classed as heavy (IS2, IS3, T-64 etc..)  ?

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 25 May 2022, 10:05:21 PMIn the Soviet list, the BTR 152 is given transport (1) - I would suggest that is low and it should be transport (2)

That would make sense as the earlier mechanised and motor rifle battalions had 2x BTR-152/50 per platoon to carry 3 squads and a small PHQ.

Dates on the US korean list - Chaffee 1952 -54 - should be 1950?

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 24 May 2022, 12:34:09 PMCouple of errors there Mark - only use of Vigilent by the British was on Ferrets in Recce squardrons. All infantry had in theroy a GW platoon from 1970? but never instigated. I suspect that is where you are getting the Para use. If you insist pictorial evidence please. Paras had either Malkara/Hornet or Ferret 5 with Swingfire.

THere is a book on the 3rd or 5th Para in the Falklands I borrowed from the library, it explicitly describes the para brigade as having X and Y A/T troops with Vigilant up to 1977, after which they got the Milans in the battalions. Can't remember which book it is now and I can't find my notes I made at the time.

On a more general note, I'm a bit confused by the WW2 equipment carried over from BKCIV. Are the gun stats meant to be the same as BKCIV for Shermans et al, or are new numbers introduced to reflect their relative less effectiveness compared to modern guns? I can understand lower factors, but I wouldn't have thought the ranges change unless different ammo was used.

For example, in the 1950s Indo-China list the Sherman as A/T 3/8 (a typo for 3/80 presumably), the M24 which has identical firepower, A/T = 3/60 H.

Quote from: Big Insect on 24 May 2022, 01:04:08 PMM24 Light Tank (Chaffee) stats should all be: AP: 3/100 | AT: 2/90

Thus the Sherman with 75mm and British 75mm QF should also be these? Any reason why the maximum range has increased compared to the WW2 stats?

WARPAC
StuG III has the same gun as Hetzer, but A/T =2/50 and 2/75 respectively?
And PAK40 A/T = 2/75
Any reason why these guns have shorter range than their WW2 counterpart?
Missing the 88mmL71 PAK43/41 as used by some Warpac nations in early Cold War.

US List
76mm M1 gun (M4A3 76mm) same A/T stats as 90mm M3 gun in M26 Pershing - is this due to lack of wiggle room at the lower end of the gun spectrum? Again ranges altered compared to WW2 rules. 76mm up, 90mm down.

Hi all,

Its been a good read so far! A few things I noticed.

In response to the question about points costs differences between the M60A3 and RISE, is the extra points possibly because of the fact thelat the RISE has ERA?

On the Warsaw Pact Grade 2 Army List I think the FJB40 might be accidentally overcosted. It has the same stats as the Wachregiment, but is 20 pts more. Maybe the option recce support of 20 pts was costed in?

Also, as far as suggestions: Brazilian EE-3 Jaracara, EE-9 Cascavel, and EE-11 Urutu, and Israeli M50 and M51 Super Shermans stats would be great. Same with Ogaden War Army lists like V1.

Quote. . . and Israeli M50 and M51 Super Shermans stats would be great.

Wouldn't that just be an M4A3E8 with either the gun from the AMX-13/75 (M50), or the gun from the AMX-30 (M51)?

Quote from: Raider4 on 26 May 2022, 04:20:59 PMWouldn't that just be an M4A3E8 with either the gun from the AMX-13/75 (M50), or the gun from the AMX-30 (M51)?

Different, less flamey engines, or on the early ones more flamey engine and worse suspension.

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 25 May 2022, 10:05:21 PMIn the Soviet list, the BTR 152 is given transport (1) - I would suggest that is low and it should be transport (2)

I think that is a fair point - the BTR 'family' of vehicles seems to have broadly carried c.15 passengers (excluding 2 crew) and that equates to half of a Soviet platoon.

An M113 - our standard CWC APC template - Transport (2) holds 11 passengers + the track commander - which also equates to over 1/3rd of a US infantry platoon (@ 27 infantry).

Thanks

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 25 May 2022, 10:01:08 PMAssuming I am reading the lists correctly the French don't seem to have any compulsory infantry.

Correct - it allows you to field Armoured Recce formations with no infantry.
Quite a few of the lists have no compulsory Infantry - it is a deliberate decision.

Quote from: glennister on 26 May 2022, 02:34:47 AMBritish list (online and PDF)
On table artillery section 
The Oto Melara and L118 105's have a movement of 50.

> typo - should be 5 (but I will double check) - good spot

Soviet List (online and PDF)
Battlegroup Selection states max nine heavy tank units per Battlegroup
No reference to what is a heavy tank in the lists.
I guess any AFV in the list with a limit of [9] is classed as heavy (IS2, IS3, T-64 etc..)  ?

> yes - that is a good point and is a carry over from CWC-II lists - I'll look at a deffintion as I ma not sure that there was one in CWC-I either.

Thanks
Mark

Quote from: sultanbev on 26 May 2022, 08:49:12 AMOn a more general note, I'm a bit confused by the WW2 equipment carried over from BKCIV. Are the gun stats meant to be the same as BKCIV for Shermans et al, or are new numbers introduced to reflect their relative less effectiveness compared to modern guns? I can understand lower factors, but I wouldn't have thought the ranges change unless different ammo was used.

For example, in the 1950s Indo-China list the Sherman as A/T 3/8 (a typo for 3/80 presumably), the M24 which has identical firepower, A/T = 3/60 H. Thus the Sherman with 75mm and British 75mm QF should also be these? Any reason why the maximum range has increased compared to the WW2 stats?

WARPAC
StuG III has the same gun as Hetzer, but A/T =2/50 and 2/75 respectively?
And PAK40 A/T = 2/75
Any reason why these guns have shorter range than their WW2 counterpart?
Missing the 88mmL71 PAK43/41 as used by some Warpac nations in early Cold War.

US List
76mm M1 gun (M4A3 76mm) same A/T stats as 90mm M3 gun in M26 Pershing - is this due to lack of wiggle room at the lower end of the gun spectrum? Again ranges altered compared to WW2 rules. 76mm up, 90mm down.

I'll break this out into it's component bits Mark - thanks. However, on the WW2 stats - there should be no comparison between BKCIV stats and CWC-II stats. We tried to use the BKC stats as a starting point but it became impossible as we headed into the late 1980/1990s with the larger tank guns.

Thanks
Mark

Quote from: Smartbomb on 26 May 2022, 03:57:18 PMAlso, as far as suggestions: Brazilian EE-3 Jaracara, EE-9 Cascavel, and EE-11 Urutu, and Israeli M50 and M51 Super Shermans stats would be great. Same with Ogaden War Army lists like V1.

Thanks Smartbomb - will pick up your other points - all the South American lists and units are in a future army list release, I'll look at the Israeli stuff and there are also a number of African lists on the way, and the Ogaden War is in there (along with a new African Marxist Insurgency and Colonial Portuguese list).

Glad you are enjoying it.

Mark

Quote from: Big Insect on 26 May 2022, 07:13:54 PMThanks Smartbomb - will pick up your other points - all the South American lists and units are in a future army list release, I'll look at the Israeli stuff and there are also a number of African lists on the way, and the Ogaden War is in there (along with a new African Marxist Insurgency and Colonial Portuguese list).

Glad you are enjoying it.

Mark

Definitely! African lists are always fun - lots of oddities like old Shermans, the aforementioned Cascavels in Zimbabwe, Cuban BMDs, Portuguese G.91s and EBR90s, on and on and on.

Quote from: Raider4 on 26 May 2022, 04:20:59 PMWouldn't that just be an M4A3E8 with either the gun from the AMX-13/75 (M50), or the gun from the AMX-30 (M51)?

To be honest can't remember what stats I gave it but it was derived from the orginal set.

Hi Mark

I note that in the Bundeswehr army list many artillery units are listed under both on-table and off-table sections thus giving the choice of how they are deployed.  However in the British, Russian and US lists all artillery less than 200mm seem to only appear in the on-table artillery lists.  e.g. 152mm Soviet and 155mm British/US SP artillery are only listed for on-table use.

I understand why smaller calibre weapons such as British 105mm Abbott/Soviet 2S1 122mm might only be on-table, but is there any reason why weapons of 152/155mm calibre are not in both lists?

Regards

Chris

Chris

Chris a proportion of 2S1 might be on table but Abbots with a 15km range are normally deployed 5 to 10 km back. As it's the same tube as the Light Gun use that one and add shoot and scoot.

My question is specifically related to 152mm Soviet 2S3 and 2S5 SP guns and British M109 155mm SP guns, none of which appear in the off-table lists.  They are only shown in the on-table lists, which cant be right.

We should have the option to use HE templates with these heavier guns, hence the need for them to be in the off-table lists as well, like those for Bundeswehr.

Yes all those should be off table.

Quote from: Superscribe on 27 May 2022, 11:03:36 AMMy question is specifically related to 152mm Soviet 2S3 and 2S5 SP guns and British M109 155mm SP guns, none of which appear in the off-table lists.  They are only shown in the on-table lists, which cant be right.

We should have the option to use HE templates with these heavier guns, hence the need for them to be in the off-table lists as well, like those for Bundeswehr.

Agreed - that can be rectified - but you can always use on-table artillery off-table that is not an issue.
See below for comments about on-table temaplates.
Thanks

Quote from: Smartbomb on 26 May 2022, 03:57:18 PMIn response to the question about points costs differences between the M60A3 and RISE, is the extra points possibly because of the fact that the RISE has ERA?

> good spot

On the Warsaw Pact Grade 2 Army List I think the FJB40 might be accidentally overcosted. It has the same stats as the Wachregiment, but is 20 pts more. Maybe the option recce support of 20 pts was costed in?

> yup - that looks like a likely scenario - we can get that corrected. Thanks

In the French list the dates for the SB2C-5 Helldiver should end at 1958 and not 1985

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 27 May 2022, 03:12:12 PMIn the French list the dates for the SB2C-5 Helldiver should end at 1958 and not 1985

Thank you - probably my dyslexia striking again  :o

Lured back into this by the new CWC2 (thanks Pendraken and Big Insect!!!)

A few initial thoughts on the Soviet/WarPac lists.
1. Air Support - MiG29 Fulcrum-A didn't have PGM capability.
2. Artillery (off table) - as others have pointed out, the absence of 2S19, 2S1, 2S3 and 2S5 is an oversight.
3. Air Defence (dedicated) - ZSU-23-4 versus 2K22 Tunguska.  Is it really credible to give the Shilka a longer effective range (100cm) compared to the Tunguska (80cm)?  The former has a 23mm gun, the latter a 30mm cannon.
4. Armour.  I'm intrigued that the T-64 and T-64A are not given Composite Armour.  They were the first tanks in the world in widespread service to feature composite armour.  That was the whole point of the USSR introducing them.  They also were stabilised, but this doesn't appear in their ratings.
5. Armour.  The T-64B without Kobra should be labelled T-64B1.   
6. Armour.  The T-64BV without Kobra should be labelled T-64BV1.
7. Armour.  The gun ratings of the T-64, T-72 and T-80 series make no sense compared with what we know about them.  The T-64 and then the T-80 were the Soviet "premium" tanks.  They had the best fire control and optics.  The T-72 was the "mass produced" model with initially more basic stuff.  At minimum, there should be consistency between what is labelled as the "T-64A" and the "T-72".  They both had coincidence rangefinders and similar 125mm guns.  Either lower the T-72 range ratings or raise the T-64A ratings.
8. Armour.  It is odd to miss out the T-72A (1979) which was a variant that was significant.  It introduced the laser rangefinder to the T-72 series.  It had the Dolly Parton composite armour on the turret.  In 1983 it got 16mm HHS added to the glacis because of performance of Israeli M111 Hetz rounds against existing glacis.  The T-72M1 introduced similar to the export/WarPac line.
9. WarPac Grade 1.  WarPac definitely got 9K111M Faktoria ATGM.  It was manufactured outside the USSR.
10. WarPac Grade 1.  I'd love to see the source you're using for the rating of the T-72M "ubergangsversion".  Because, as far as I'm aware, it only had the 16mm extra HHS glacis from the T-72A M1983. And it should be T-72M1 anyway.

Welcome Dylan - I'll leave it to Mark to answer your questions.

Hi, can I get some information on what's an MT-LPV (on the Soviet recce list)?

First welcome. MTLPV is a version with wider tracks used in thev Arctic as a personel carrier instead of the BTR60/70

It's a typo,
MT-LBV not MT-LPV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MT-LB#Variants

Hi. Helicopter rules on page 60 state hels are treated as stabilised but the stabilised factors are missing from US and Soviet army lists in the rulebook, and from Bundeswehr, Soviet & Soviet VDV PDF lists. British factors seem to be the only ones present. Are all the other Nations' helicopters S2, like the Brits?

FRom 1st ed - any US tank after the M4 to upgraded M60A1, are unstabalised,M60 upgrades and M48A5 are S2 rest are S1 (1 die off). All British tanks after Comet are at least S2, later Cents and after S1. Dont agree with this but most Soviet tanks after T54 are S2, none are S1. Feel that the late T72's, T80's and T90's shaould be S1.

My post is about helicopters not tanks 😅

You don't expect me to actually read em do you ?  :D  :D

QuoteMy question is specifically related to 152mm Soviet 2S3 and 2S5 SP guns and British M109 155mm SP guns, none of which appear in the off-table lists.  They are only shown in the on-table lists, which cant be right.

> you can use the heavier Soviet SP-Guns on-table (up to 6 units of them) - and the reason for that is that Soviet Doctrine encourages close support of advancing armour. Generally, pre 1990, that was not NATO practice. That will change in the post-1990 'Modern Supplement' when I get around to writing that  :) .

We should have the option to use HE templates with these heavier guns, hence the need for them to be in the off-table lists as well, like those for Bundeswehr.

> There is a general principle in the Commander series that no on-table units (with a few exception*) can use Templates weapons. It is a gaming mechanism. That is primarily because on-table artillery can fire in any number of turns (as long as they receive a successful Command order). Whereas, off-table artillery can only fire once per game turn and so the template represents multiple rounds fired off to a single order. If that makes sense

*Soviet river craft in BKCIV (optional rules) - can use short range MLRs with a template but once per game-turn only and with some very large number of deviation dice, and in Future War Commander, any manner of strange & futuristic on-table weapons get a template - but that is a whole other story for another thread!!!  :D

Answers in-line in Bold
many thanks
Mark

Quote from: dylan on 28 May 2022, 12:30:06 AMLured back into this by the new CWC2 (thanks Pendraken and Big Insect!!!)

A few initial thoughts on the Soviet/WarPac lists.
1. Air Support - MiG29 Fulcrum-A didn't have PGM capability.
2. Artillery (off table) - as others have pointed out, the absence of 2S19, 2S1, 2S3 and 2S5 is an oversight.
3. Air Defence (dedicated) - ZSU-23-4 versus 2K22 Tunguska.  Is it really credible to give the Shilka a longer effective range (100cm) compared to the Tunguska (80cm)?  The former has a 23mm gun, the latter a 30mm cannon.
4. Armour.  I'm intrigued that the T-64 and T-64A are not given Composite Armour.  They were the first tanks in the world in widespread service to feature composite armour.  That was the whole point of the USSR introducing them.  They also were stabilised, but this doesn't appear in their ratings.
5. Armour.  The T-64B without Kobra should be labelled T-64B1.   
6. Armour.  The T-64BV without Kobra should be labelled T-64BV1.
7. Armour.  The gun ratings of the T-64, T-72 and T-80 series make no sense compared with what we know about them.  The T-64 and then the T-80 were the Soviet "premium" tanks.  They had the best fire control and optics.  The T-72 was the "mass produced" model with initially more basic stuff.  At minimum, there should be consistency between what is labelled as the "T-64A" and the "T-72".  They both had coincidence rangefinders and similar 125mm guns.  Either lower the T-72 range ratings or raise the T-64A ratings.
8. Armour.  It is odd to miss out the T-72A (1979) which was a variant that was significant.  It introduced the laser rangefinder to the T-72 series.  It had the Dolly Parton composite armour on the turret.  In 1983 it got 16mm HHS added to the glacis because of performance of Israeli M111 Hetz rounds against existing glacis.  The T-72M1 introduced similar to the export/WarPac line.
9. WarPac Grade 1.  WarPac definitely got 9K111M Faktoria ATGM.  It was manufactured outside the USSR.
10. WarPac Grade 1.  I'd love to see the source you're using for the rating of the T-72M "ubergangsversion".  Because, as far as I'm aware, it only had the 16mm extra HHS glacis from the T-72A M1983. And it should be T-72M1 anyway.

Welcome (back) and thank you for all the observations/corrections and comments.
I will digest and reply in-line when I can grab some time.
But on the Soviet gun stats - this has long been an issue - as we come up against the challenge of doctrine v official stats. If you put a lot of the 'official' stats for Soviet tank gun-ranges etc into the army lists as they were 'officially' supposed to be you'd end up with many of them far outdistancing their contemporary NATO opposite numbers. Generally, I don't believe that in practice that is how they'd have been used.

I have a whole set of 'alternative' Soviet tank gun stats - I'll start up a separate thread on the subject and we can debate them in detail there. I am not opposed to changing them at all (even in the near future) but I would like to ensure we 'honour' game-play balance and also that we should attempt a degree of continuity across all lists where they are used.

Many thanks
Mark

Quote from: sultanbev on 28 May 2022, 06:07:18 PMIt's a typo,
MT-LBV not MT-LPV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MT-LB#Variants

It is indeed - well spotted - as Ian states - a wide tracked, APC, usually with only a pintle mounted machine gun by way of armourment. There were ATGW version, Mortar carriers, AA varients - even one with a light artillery piece mounted on it.
Which list have you spotted the typo in please?
Thanks
mark

Quote from: Superscribe on 29 May 2022, 01:12:41 PMHi. Helicopter rules on page 60 state hels are treated as stabilised but the stabilised factors are missing from US and Soviet army lists in the rulebook, and from Bundeswehr, Soviet & Soviet VDV PDF lists. British factors seem to be the only ones present. Are all the other Nations' helicopters S2, like the Brits?

All Attack helicopters are classified as Stabilised - and all are S1 (I'll double check the Brits - that is probably an error as I had removed all other references to it in the list notes).
Certain ATGW can only be fired when stationary - and then helicopters are considered to be hovering statically. But that is a specific example highlighted in the appropriate list.

Thanks
Mark

Quote from: Big Insect on 30 May 2022, 07:11:12 PMWhich list have you spotted the typo in please?
Thanks
mark

It was the Soviet Cold War list in the recce section.

Quote from: Big Insect on 30 May 2022, 07:07:22 PMWelcome (back) and thank you for all the observations/corrections and comments.
I will digest and reply in-line when I can grab some time.
But on the Soviet gun stats - this has long been an issue - as we come up against the challenge of doctrine v official stats. If you put a lot of the 'official' stats for Soviet tank gun-ranges etc into the army lists as they were 'officially' supposed to be you'd end up with many of them far outdistancing their contemporary NATO opposite numbers. Generally, I don't believe that in practice that is how they'd have been used.

I have a whole set of 'alternative' Soviet tank gun stats - I'll start up a separate thread on the subject and we can debate them in detail there. I am not opposed to changing them at all (even in the near future) but I would like to ensure we 'honour' game-play balance and also that we should attempt a degree of continuity across all lists where they are used.

Many thanks
Mark

Sounds good.

Just to clarify - my main point about the Soviet tank gun ratings is not to seek they be improved relative to other (i.e. Western) nations.  Instead I'm trying to get internal consistency within the Soviet lists.  As an example, I was trying to point out that both the T-64A and the original T-72 had a 125mm gun and coincidence rangefinders.  Yet in your lists you give the original T-72 a rating of 6/100 and 6/80, while you give the T-64A ratings of 6/90 and 6/60.  This makes no sense.  I'd suggest they should be the same.  You can decide which you prefer, but my suggestion would be giving both the ratings you currently have assigned to the T-64A.

Dylan I would agree. In essance apart from the engine early T64A and T72 are identical. It could be that it's been carried over from the T64 - a rare beast with the 115 rather than the 125.

Quote from: sultanbev on 30 May 2022, 11:23:52 PMIt was the Soviet Cold War list in the recce section.

Thanks Mark

Quote from: dylan on 31 May 2022, 08:46:22 AMSounds good.

Just to clarify - my main point about the Soviet tank gun ratings is not to seek they be improved relative to other (i.e. Western) nations.  Instead I'm trying to get internal consistency within the Soviet lists.  As an example, I was trying to point out that both the T-64A and the original T-72 had a 125mm gun and coincidence rangefinders.  Yet in your lists you give the original T-72 a rating of 6/100 and 6/80, while you give the T-64A ratings of 6/90 and 6/60.  This makes no sense.  I'd suggest they should be the same.  You can decide which you prefer, but my suggestion would be giving both the ratings you currently have assigned to the T-64A.

Great - we are 100% aligned on all of that - thank you - I'll double check them and make an appropriate correction.

Quote from: Big Insect on 31 May 2022, 09:58:00 AMGreat - we are 100% aligned on all of that - thank you - I'll double check them and make an appropriate correction.

Cool - remember to correct the base model T-72 on all the lists (incl. WarPac Grade 1, WarPac Grade 2, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc, etc).

Now, the next problem you have is the "composite armour" special characteristic.  As noted in my earlier post, you don't give this to the T-64 or the T-64A, and yet both of them had it, and in fact this was the defining feature of that tank in Soviet eyes.  You also don't give them S2 when in fact they were stabilised.
By contrast, the original T-72 only had composite armour on the glacis.  The T-72 base model turret was solid steel with no composite armour at all.  Now, CWC isn't granular enough to feature different turret and hull ratings (although, especially for NATO tanks that were intended to fight mainly from hulldown there were often huge differences in the protection of turret and hull, take Challenger for instance).  So you'll have to decide whether only having composite armour on the hull front is enough for the T-72 to be rated as "composite armour".

The T-72A should be added to the Soviet lists.  It was introduced from 1979.  It had composite armour in both hull and turret front ("Dolly Parton").  It added a laser rangegfinder to replace the coincidence rangefinder.  So it should be rated "composite armour" and it should have better range stats than the base T-72 and the T-64A.  *BUT* its optics and fire control still weren't as good as those of the T-64B and the T-80B (which were premium tanks in the Soviet conception).  So whatever firepower range ratings you give the T-72A have to sit in between the original T-72/T-64A on the onehand and the T-64B/T-80B on the other. Simples!  The T-72M1 is the export equivalent of the T-72A and should be rated the same but was produced from 1983.

You include the base model T-80.  Be aware that this was produced only in miniscule numbers.  Also be aware that it had a gas turbine engine in a new hull but that it essentially had a T-64A turret.  I'm not sure your ratings currently reflect that.  The first mass production model of the T-80 series was the T-80B.  There is a case to be made for simply ignoring the "T-80" and leaving it off CWC lists and just starting with the T-80B (even more confusingly, the "T-80A" actually came after the T-80B and was never mass produced, but lets ignore that one!)

Thanks Dylan

The plan is to review all the suggested army list errata/changes - compile a 'master' list and then we will publish it for wider debate, ahead of correcting things.

We usually leave that for a couple of months, as experience has told us that things come out of the woodwork as gamers play with the rules more often. Also, I'm very aware that I will never have he specialist knowledge that many individual players have on specific armies. So, this is very much a 'community effort'.

It is also why I'm being 'hard-nosed' about trying to keep the Rules errata and List errata separate and in the two 'sticky' threads that have been set up.

Obviously, things like typos & I spotted a unit stat that had a factor or 300/100 somewhere (now corrected to 3/100) - for example, will get corrected automatically.

Any help and assistance especially with the Soviet tanks stats, assorted vehicle varients and armour effects are much appreciated.

Thanks
Mark

A small gripe, idk, but Transport (2) on many APCs just feels wrong when playing 1 stand:1 squad/1 vehicle.

E: Esp. on the Hungarian D-944 PSZH which, as far as I can Google, was only ever a recon vehicle that can transport 6 dudes.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong in reading the list (Warpac Grade 2), but T-72 with Composite armor would come as superior to T-72M and T-72M1 when faced with Tandem Warhead ATMGs, right? Because Tandem ignores ERA, no Composite.

Quote from: JcDent on 01 June 2022, 04:41:01 PMA small gripe, idk, but Transport (2) on many APCs just feels wrong when playing 1 stand:1 squad/1 vehicle.

E: Esp. on the Hungarian D-944 PSZH which, as far as I can Google, was only ever a recon vehicle that can transport 6 dudes.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong in reading the list (Warpac Grade 2), but T-72 with Composite armor would come as superior to T-72M and T-72M1 when faced with Tandem Warhead ATMGs, right? Because Tandem ignores ERA, no Composite.

When playing 1:1 games Jim I totally agree - by all means reduce the number of INF: transported in certain APCs.
Mostly the game is designed for a higher level of abstraction and there is a need to carry an INF: and a Support weapon in an APC to allow certain formations to be created.

The T-72 factors have already been picked up in another posting on this thread and are in the errata file.
Thanks for picking the up though  :)

Cheers
Mark

Hi

Noticed in the rule book, the british list  Charlie G is 5/25 but in the online list it's 5/40 as in other lists. Which one is correct .

We will pick this up in the Errata Jim

The correct stats (for a standard Carl Gustav) is:
AP: 5/40   AT: 5/40H

Thanks
Mark

Presumably that's the S.550 Carl Gustav of the late 1970s+ which has 700m anti-tank range - the original M2 Carl Gustav in NATO service had a maximum anti-tank range of 450m.(1963 in UK service). The Swedish original dates back to 1948 with 300m range.

A minor, possible error. On the French list the Milan-2 for Infantry support is 190 points, while the dedicated AT Milan-2 in 4x4s is 185.should that possibly be 200 (190 for the Milan-2 and 10 for the 4x4s)?

Hi all, one more I discovered. USMC Infantry upgrades seem "off" other than the Rifle Grenades

M9 Bazooka is AP 1/10 and AT 2/5
M72 LAW is AP 2/20 and AT 2/10 H. The M72A2 is similar.
M136 is 3/30 and 5/15H

US Army List has
M9 AP 2/20, AT 2/20 H. Same in the Swedish list for example
M72 is AP 4/40 and AT 4/40H; M72A2 is 3/40 and 5/40H
M136 5/60 and 5/60H; Swedish list agrees with the USMC
Danish list has it as 6/30 and 6/30H

Points vary on the, AT-4 for example from 30-40 points. Danish M72 is 10 points and the US one is 10 (M72A2 is 20 points.) Maybe this is deliberate to model availability? That doesn't seem quite correct though, because a French AML-90 is 115 points and an Argentine one is 65. I'm sure there's a logic to it - I'm just in an unusual position of trying to build 2 imagi-nation armies and I'm noticing this stuff as I go.

More of a design question rather than a suggestion, but why is infantry - meant to represent platoon-size units - bereft of any AT capability by default? Seems like it would have been more and more prevalent with every passing decade of Cold War.

Quote from: JcDent on 03 June 2022, 01:47:31 PMMore of a design question rather than a suggestion, but why is infantry - meant to represent platoon-size units - bereft of any AT capability by default? Seems like it would have been more and more prevalent with every passing decade of Cold War.

I think that's so you can build units by time period without a bunch of infantry lines. I.E. 1 line for Regular US Army and 1 line for the bazooka in upgrades, vs. 1 line with rifle grenades, 1 line for the infantry with bazooka, 1 line with super bazooka, etc. Then repeating it with National Guard, US Army Reserve, and so on for each AT weapon.

Quote from: Smartbomb on 03 June 2022, 02:36:38 AMA minor, possible error. On the French list the Milan-2 for Infantry support is 190 points, while the dedicated AT Milan-2 in 4x4s is 185.should that possibly be 200 (190 for the Milan-2 and 10 for the 4x4s)?

I can check that, but usually additional benefits have a 5pts cost - or a multiple of 5pts.
However, it might be that the 4x4 SP:ATGW version, has fewer hits than the INF:ATGW version, and that is off-set by the increased move distance for the 4x4 version. So they broadly end up the same points cost.

Thanks
Mark

Quote from: Smartbomb on 03 June 2022, 02:28:07 PMI think that's so you can build units by time period without a bunch of infantry lines. I.E. 1 line for Regular US Army and 1 line for the bazooka in upgrades, vs. 1 line with rifle grenades, 1 line for the infantry with bazooka, 1 line with super bazooka, etc. Then repeating it with National Guard, US Army Reserve, and so on for each AT weapon.

Absolutely Smartbomb - there are also instances - such as Soviet forces in Afghanistan (for example) - where having the standard Infantry squad armed with an RPG-7 is a waste of points, and historically the Soviets left a lot of their IATWs back at base - same as with the ATGWs - as the Mujahedeen had no armour and even very few soft vehicles to target.
Similarly, you might want to field a force that represents an army that is low on supplies, so limit your IATWs to 1:3 Infantry units (for example).
I am just trying to make things as flexible for players as possible.

Hope that helps JC?

QuoteHi all, one more I discovered. USMC Infantry upgrades seem "off" other than the Rifle Grenades

M9 Bazooka is AP 1/10 and AT 2/5
M72 LAW is AP 2/20 and AT 2/10 H. The M72A2 is similar.
M136 is 3/30 and 5/15H

US Army List has
M9 AP 2/20, AT 2/20 H. Same in the Swedish list for example
M72 is AP 4/40 and AT 4/40H; M72A2 is 3/40 and 5/40H
M136 5/60 and 5/60H; Swedish list agrees with the USMC
Danish list has it as 6/30 and 6/30H

Points vary on the, AT-4 for example from 30-40 points. Danish M72 is 10 points and the US one is 10 (M72A2 is 20 points.) Maybe this is deliberate to model availability? That doesn't seem quite correct though, because a French AML-90 is 115 points and an Argentine one is 65. I'm sure there's a logic to it - I'm just in an unusual position of trying to build 2 imagi-nation armies and I'm noticing this stuff as I go.

All of this is helpful Smartbomb - thank you
As you can imagine there are many thousands of stats going into the proposed c.70 army list - the intention is that there should be a standardised set of stats and costs for a specific vehicle type (& there is a master-list) - however, sometimes in transcription I get what I call 'list-blindness' (Leon will laugh at this  ;D ) and no matter how many times I double check a list or a stat (like that Austrian Carl Gustav) I cannot see the issue.

Also - there are - as you can imagine - so many variants of a specific vehicle and unfortunately only a certain number of stats available to represent it.
In addition, sometimes my sources are a bit vague as to which variant a certain army used - and on other occasions (the IDF list is a really 'bad'example of this) the number of variants produced and then used, in such small numbers, really doesn't warrant a separate stats line for each variant. If that makes sense.

We have a number of new lists about to be released - once those are out I'm intending to spend a bit of time on the errata and also the continuity across lists. For example - we have a points issue with some of the Chinese tank stats, across the Pakistani, Warsaw Pact and NVA lists, that will be picked up when the Chinese list (my current 'project') is finalised.

But on the AMX 13 - I suspect that that might be a copying error from the CWC-I lists. I'll add it to my to-do list.

Thanks
Mark

Quote from: Big Insect on 03 June 2022, 07:29:46 PMBut on the AMX 13 - I suspect that that might be a copying error from the CWC-I lists. I'll add it to my to-do list.

Thanks
Mark

FYI, it's the AML-90 (don't want to looking at the AMX and asking yourself WTF I'm talking about)

I completely get the issue of list standardization, I brought up primarily because if there was some kind design theory behind the varying points cost by Army, I'd want to properly tailor my lists to that.

Quote from: Big Insect on 03 June 2022, 07:09:13 PMI can check that, but usually additional benefits have a 5pts cost - or a multiple of 5pts.
However, it might be that the 4x4 SP:ATGW version, has fewer hits than the INF:ATGW version, and that is off-set by the increased move distance for the 4x4 version. So they broadly end up the same points cost.

Thanks
Mark

Thanks, its easy enough to house rule, but 5 points different seems very generous for the 4x4. It's got less hits, but a full 360 firing arc  can fire multiple times a turn, twice the move rate and is cheaper. From a man/material standpoint it would be a high cost to lose in real life than "just" the men.

I understand that unit limits affect this some - I'm more looking at it from the perspective of potential power gamer abuse.

Let's talk about NATO tanks.

*NOTE* I am comparing NATO tanks with other NATO tanks - I'm not comparing them with Soviet tanks here.

Let's start with the tanks that all shared the ubiquitous 105mm L7 gun.
The British 105 Centurions and the German Leopard 1s are all rated with lower range and dice than the American M60s.  It isn't clear why a 1962 M60A1 is rated 5/150 and 4/125, but a 1966 Centurion Mk6/2 is only 4/120 and 4/100, as are 1970s Leopard 1s.

Then looking at 120mm gun armed tanks.  It isn't clear why the M1A1 is given 3/175 and 7/175 whereas the Leopard 2 with the very same 120mm gun is given 3/175 and 6/120.  The AT range difference in particular is extraordinary!

I think the Chieftain is over-rated for armour protection at 6/3.  I know some seem to imagine the Chieftain was some sort of supertank but it simply wasn't the case.  It was marginally better protected than an M60A1 (275mmRHAe as opposed to 250mmRHAe).  There is no way it can be rated better than a Leopard 2 - but it is!

I suspect there are a lot of things tied up in the whole platform performance as well as the actual gun on its own.

The Americans made several 'upgrades' to the the basic 105mm L7 gun.

Ammunition is another probable factor, the US M829 series ammunition may account for the difference in the various 120mm platform performances (as well as all the other associated variables - stabilisation, ranging, elevation damping etc etc.)

As for the Chieftain - probably is overrated if Iraqi views on its performance in the Iran Iraq war are believable (are they?), but it probably depends on which Chieftain and which Leopard 2 we are talking about.

Generally I'd go with the lists ratings as they are but I wouldn't quibble if someone wanted to tweak say the Chieftain Mk9 and earlier.

Quote from: dylan on 04 June 2022, 09:32:11 AMLet's talk about NATO tanks.
I think the Chieftain is over-rated for armour protection at 6/3.  I know some seem to imagine the Chieftain was some sort of supertank but it simply wasn't the case.  It was marginally better protected than an M60A1 (275mmRHAe as opposed to 250mmRHAe).  There is no way it can be rated better than a Leopard 2 - but it is!

"We don't want your stupid tanks!"

 Iraqi director of Armor, Salah Askar, in response to the UK Gov' trying to sell him Chieftains

QuoteI suspect there are a lot of things tied up in the whole platform performance as well as the actual gun on its own.

The Americans made several 'upgrades' to the the basic 105mm L7 gun.

Ammunition is another probable factor, the US M829 series ammunition may account for the difference in the various 120mm platform performances (as well as all the other associated variables - stabilisation, ranging, elevation damping etc etc.)

At the level of abstraction or granularity that CWC runs at, would there be a difference between a 105mm on an 1965 Centurion and a 105mm on a 1980 M60A1 (or even a 1985 M1 or Merkava)?

Or is it just a 105mm has these stats, whatever? The later tanks have - presumably - better targeting systems at least? So, possibly extra range, but same damage, maybe?

Quote from: Gwydion on 04 June 2022, 11:10:08 AMI suspect there are a lot of things tied up in the whole platform performance as well as the actual gun on its own.

The Americans made several 'upgrades' to the the basic 105mm L7 gun.

Ammunition is another probable factor, the US M829 series ammunition may account for the difference in the various 120mm platform performances (as well as all the other associated variables - stabilisation, ranging, elevation damping etc etc.)

As for the Chieftain - probably is overrated if Iraqi views on its performance in the Iran Iraq war are believable (are they?), but it probably depends on which Chieftain and which Leopard 2 we are talking about.

Generally I'd go with the lists ratings as they are but I wouldn't quibble if someone wanted to tweak say the Chieftain Mk9 and earlier.

Let's take these in turn:

1) Alleged American "upgrades" to L7 gun.  Not sure that was the case in any meaningful way for the American M68, but even if it was, as I noted, the CWC-II lists give a 1962 M60 better performance than 1970s Leopards.  I can't see how that can be.

2) Ammunition.  Certainly could be a reason for better AT attack dice (although remember that we're talking about early M829s for the basic M1A1 of the 1980s - the "Silver Bullet" wasn't introduced until the end of the Cold War and probably should only be determining the ratings of the M1A1HA in the CWC-II lists). I don't see how the AT ammunition country of origin results in an almost doubling of effective range for a 120mm gun.  It just isn't credible to argue that an American M829 120mm round had a substantially longer range than a German DM23 or DM33.  They are all 120mm APFSDS using very similar technology - except the US round had a DU core penetrator.
The other argument advanced here is about stabilisation (note that this is already taken into account in CWC-II through an entirely separate rating, the "S1" or "S2" in the Notes column) and fire control.  Is it really credible to argue that American fire control was so much more advanced than German that it gives an almost doubling of effective range?  German optics and fire control is very good.  All the 120mm tanks have laser rangefinders integrated into their fire control system.  There just isn't a huge degree of difference in CWC-II terms there.  I could understand a substantial rating difference if one still had optical rangefinders or a ranging machinegun while the Americans were using lasers, but that isn't the case.

3) Chieftain.  The base armour didn't change, regardless of Mark.  The Stillbrew add-on to the turret of the later Marks is already accounted for in a separate factor in the Notes column.  The hits/saves should stay the same for all Chieftains.  And I'd suggest it should be 6/4.   

Quote from: dylan on 04 June 2022, 08:21:08 PMLet's take these in turn:

1) Alleged American "upgrades" to L7 gun.  Not sure that was the case in any meaningful way for the American M68, but even if it was, as I noted, the CWC-II lists give a 1962 M60 better performance than 1970s Leopards.  I can't see how that can be.

2) Ammunition.  Certainly could be a reason for better AT attack dice (although remember that we're talking about early M829s for the basic M1A1 of the 1980s - the "Silver Bullet" wasn't introduced until the end of the Cold War and probably should only be determining the ratings of the M1A1HA in the CWC-II lists). I don't see how the AT ammunition country of origin results in an almost doubling of effective range for a 120mm gun.  It just isn't credible to argue that an American M829 120mm round had a substantially longer range than a German DM23 or DM33.  They are all 120mm APFSDS using very similar technology - except the US round had a DU core penetrator.
The other argument advanced here is about stabilisation (note that this is already taken into account in CWC-II through an entirely separate rating, the "S1" or "S2" in the Notes column) and fire control.  Is it really credible to argue that American fire control was so much more advanced than German that it gives an almost doubling of effective range?  German optics and fire control is very good.  All the 120mm tanks have laser rangefinders integrated into their fire control system.  There just isn't a huge degree of difference in CWC-II terms there.  I could understand a substantial rating difference if one still had optical rangefinders or a ranging machinegun while the Americans were using lasers, but that isn't the case.

3) Chieftain.  The base armour didn't change, regardless of Mark.  The Stillbrew add-on to the turret of the later Marks is already accounted for in a separate factor in the Notes column.  The hits/saves should stay the same for all Chieftains.  And I'd suggest it should be 6/4.   

Many thanks all .... an interesting debate ... jumping into my time machine and going back to CWC-I - it looks like this 'difference' was not there back in CWC-I.
It may have stemmed from the fact that I was/am not the only person creating the basic lists for CWC-II (sadly I cannot take all the credit). So we have got a number of what I am choosing to call 'continuity' errors across lists.
Generally, as Raider 4 states very eloquently, at the level of abstraction we are playing at here there shouldn't really be any difference between any of the NATO 105mm guns.
There might be a difference between a NATO 105mm and its comparable Chinese 105mm (& both were rifled) but even then I am inclined to go for continuity.

Where I do try to manage things is where doctrine enters the arena - and that applies particularly with Soviet, WarPact and client state armies - as the effective range of many tank guns was ignored for what I call the "whites of the eyes" approach  :D   

Having just completed my most recent batch of army lists (which are now in Leon's tender care to format) - one of my next tasks is to create a comprehensive 'continuity' spreadsheet. You'd be amazed (for example) just how many versions of the Sherman there are across all the lists, and again trying to accommodate the granularity of these variations is enough to drive a man to complete distraction.

But all these examples are very helpful and much appreciated. I suspect that as time passes and list errata is corrected, things will inevitably settle down. It took a few months with BCKIV - but as stated previously that was only 44 army list - not the proposed 70+ (I've found a couple more I need to consider now that I have just completed the Chinese PLA list - as is the way of things - I think i know somebody who might be interested in the Royal Thai Army - for instance  :D )

Many thanks
Mark

I just had a quick look at my gunnery data charts, and here is what I have for the 120mm guns:
Using the "Maximum Effective Range" I thought I had mentioned above, but not sure if I hadn't deleted the post now
In the research I've done gun ranges are named
point blank (90% hit chance)
effective range (70% hit chance)
Maximum effective range (30% hit chance)
Maximum range (10% hit chance)

For the purposes of CWC2 and similar rules, I'm guessing people are using the Maximum effective ranges, so I'll quote them here.

120mmL44 Rheinmetall (1979) 30% at 3250m, penetration at 2km = 38cm with DM13 FSAPDS
120mmL44 M256 (1986) 30% at 3600m, penetration at 2km = 45cm with M827 DU (note in service date 7 years after the German gun, and DU ammo, so not surprising it's a bit better at the long range end of the spectrum)

Although note both have 2500m Effective Range (70% hit chance)

However the Germans receive DM23 in 1983 penetrating 47cm at 2km
then DM33 in 1987 penetrating 55cm at 2km
The US receiving M829 DU from 1988 penetrating 54cm at 2km
As the Leopard 2 was upgraded in 1983 (2A1), 1985 (2A2), 1986 (2A3), 1988 (2A4, substantially uparmoured) it is likely the FC was updated to be on a par with the American gun during that time. Although, tactically it wouldn't be any different given ranges possible in Germany. If of course you're doing DAK v2 with Leopard 2s prowling round Libya or Iran, then it might be important...

Make of that what you will.

As for the 105mm L7/M68 guns, I have that they are identical in accuracy. So it's fire control and ammo type that make the difference.
105mm L7 firing APDS
RMG 70% at 1800m, 30% 2500m
Optical 70% at 2000m 30% at 2800m
Laser 70% at 2300m 30% at 3300m
IFCS 70% at 2500m 30% at 3750m

NB: % hit chances are based on halted target in the open, halted firer, no suppression effects in place. And probably not raining nor strong winds, and crews having had a good lunch  :)
I do have all the hit % for the other ammo types, but too many to list here.

A lot of the Swedish transport vehicles don't appear to have been given a transport value.

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 05 June 2022, 06:26:05 PMA lot of the Swedish transport vehicles don't appear to have been given a transport value.

Lord knows how that happened - we seem to be having some gremlins when transcribing across from the spreadsheets to the formatted lists.
I'll double check but it's easily rectified and I know they were there originally - modern technology!!!
Can't live with it ... can live without it
Cheers
Mark

My fault - I clearly hadn't checked it thoroughly enough.

Until we get it sorted the correct Transport stats are that all should be Transport (2) with the exception of:
M29 Weasel
Bv.202/206
BvS10AUT
All of which are Transport (1) - and the Bv.202/206 & BvS10AUT are correctly labelled as such.

Many thanks
Mark

Looking at the Soviet list the T64 and variants are all listed as (9) meaning as I understand a max of 9 models in the entire battlegroup. I fail to understand this as these tanks where the standard tank in GSFG during the critical years of the cold war.
Try having 3rd Shock Army take on the BAOR with this restriction!

Welcome Sandancer - just ignore that, I suspect it's a typo.

Quote from: Sandancer76 on 06 June 2022, 10:10:24 PMLooking at the Soviet list the T64 and variants are all listed as (9) meaning as I understand a max of 9 models in the entire battlegroup. I fail to understand this as these tanks where the standard tank in GSFG during the critical years of the cold war.
Try having 3rd Shock Army take on the BAOR with this restriction!

Good spot - there should be no [9] against any of the main Soviet battle tanks - they & the BMPs should all be -/9 - so a max of 9 per 1,000 points spent.

Thanks for the 'spot'
Mark

I'm thinking the OT-62 TOPAS under Grade 1 Warsaw Pact might need to have its Transport stat upped. It has a Transport 2 and can carry 16 passengers. The AAVP7A1 can carry 21 and has a transport of 5. I'm thinking maybe a Transport 3 or 4 for the TOPAS?

Hi Mark,
I'm curious about the choice of nomenclature used to describe a lot of Soviet/WarPac vehicles. Things like AT missiles are listed only by their Soviet designations and not using the much better known NATO names that were used in CWC1, e.g. 9M14 Malyutka rather than AT-3 Sagger. It's not helpful, especially to newcomers who may well be discouraged by this. It isn't even consistent, as NATO names get used in other places, like helicopters & aircraft, even the odd missile.
I really noticed this when I was trying to update my CWC1 East German lists to CWC2. In the WarPac 1 list for CWC2, it looks like German terms have been used where known (although not always accurately), but not Polish, or Czech terms (e.g. German SPz BMP-1, but not Czech BVP-1 or Polish BWP-1 for the same thing, a BMP-1), although they are also nations in this list. Very odd and makes the lists difficult to read and use (and I know the terms!), so somewhat counter-productive - heaven help somebody who doesn't already know what all this kit is, or who has reading difficulties.
The Warpac 2 list seems to mostly just use Soviet terms and is therefore much easier to use, with the exceptions of things like Soviet-named-only missiles and the like.
I would plead for these to use the best known terms to make them most accessible to the most readers, e.g. just BMP-1, etc. Yes, a SA-18 may be a 9K38 Igla, but the SA- designations are much better known, so please use them, as CWC1 did, or use both, but not just the Soviet name alone. Consistency when naming kit would also be very helpful for all users of these lists.
Thanks,
Mark J

I agree - use of the more commonly-known NATO names as used in CWC1 would be very helpful

Quote from: Superscribe on 08 June 2022, 11:38:48 AMI agree - use of the more commonly-known NATO names as used in CWC1 would be very helpful

Thanks for the feedback Gents - that is actually a very big task and we changed the CWC-II naming conventions specifically because we had had feedback that the rules were far too NATO/Western focused.

My own personal view ... for what it is worth ... is that whether it is called a Sagger or an 9M14 Malyutka doesn't really bother me. It is the effect on the table top I am concerned with.

We already have the challenge that some unit types have multiple 'common' name designations depending upon who is 'looking' at them. For example, some of the Chinese unit types have 2 different local Chinese designations (leaving out their Cantonese script variant), plus a number of Western designation (US, Nato, Soviet, etc) and often a wider export market designation. Calling a particular unit a Type 69 (for example) just doesn't work, as Type 69 was applied by the Chinese to items as diverse as a rifle and a main Battle tank.
CWC-I took quite a simplistic view on that front (nothing wrong with that) but equally it was incorrect and misleading.

Also ... a new player to the period will have no preconceived notions that a Sagger is not a 9M14 Malyutka.
I'd suggest that it is us 'old hands' who have that issue (maybe).

This might be one of those Abraham Lincoln things ... "about pleasing some of the people all of the time & all of the people some of the time, etc" ... but I do agree about the continuity/consistency observation. That we can address.

But the nomenclature issue is one for wider debate hopefully ????
I might start a separate thread on that.

Thanks
Mark

There is (of course) always the AT-3A Sagger A 9M14 Malyutka or all things to all men approach - but that might just be a lot of work for no less confusion.

Having grew up in the Cold War I still use the NATO names a lot, and they generally make more sense. BMP-R is a recce version of the BMP, whereas BRM could well be anything. BRDM-3 I know as a BRDM-2 with AT-5 Spandrel on it, but 9P148 with 9M113 Konkurs is completely alien, and a mouthfull that doesn't even mention the carrier vehicle*.
Neither does the M150, M730 and M163, but at least it is a pattern of 3 numbers that follow M113, so has a sort of intuitive feel to it making it easier to remember.
We have to admit that the Russian naming system is really crap, and they could have done themselves a lot of favours by naming vehicles and planes like the British do. So NATO had to do it for them. Meh.

*Turns out the BRDM-3 is a recce version of the BTR-80, so now I call it BRDM-2 Spandrel.

Type 69 is no excuse. The US has M1 everything in WW2 and we all manage. I am sure there is enough room in the text box in the army list to write Type 69 tank or Type 69 rocket launcher or whatever.

If you're going to use the new-fangled Russian names from 50 years ago then the NATO reporting name should be alongside.
How do you even pronounce Malyutka?  :)

Quote from: Big Insect on 08 June 2022, 04:56:36 PMThere is (of course) always the AT-3A Sagger A 9M14 Malyutka or all things to all men approach - but that might just be a lot of work for no less confusion.

I think the question is how far to take it. I personally do the above NATO and Russian. But for example:

9K31 Strela-1?
9K31 Strela-1/SA-9?
9K31 Strela-1/SA-9 Gaskin?
9K31 Strela-1/SA-9 Gaskin (BRDM-2)?

I'd go for #1 if anything. At some point, you are going to have to do some book keeping, and Id rather effort go into stat revisions,, new lists,, etc. Personally, I just look units up on Wikipedia and made notes that made sense to me.

And the various "types" are generally self-explanatory to people interested in those lists. Type 63 in Recon? The PT-76ish light tank. Type 63 in Off Table Arty? MLRS. Transport? APC.

being another who started playing Moderns in the early 80's I also have a hard time following the Russian designations. From your list I'd pump for option 2 as to me an SA-9 is the AA version of the BRDM-2. Likewise the BRDM 3 was the BRDM-2 with Spandrel.
The other thing about back in the day was we had no access to any information about over the fence (or this side of the fence for that matter).

How do you pronounce malyutka? Easy
Малютка
 :D
Still seems weird calling a Sagger: 'Baby'

I'd also vote for using the NATO terminology - it's what I'm familiar with, I suspect it what most people are familiar with, it matches the way model manufacturers typically name their units, and it means you can guess at many unit's roles without knowing he specific unit (e.g. a SA-13 Gopher is a SAM, because it has the prefix SA and a name starting with G. What's a 9K35 Strela-10? No idea!)

With regard to the point about it being too western-centric... this is a wargame published in English, aimed primarily at western gamers. That said, you could easily have two versions of the same army list - one with Soviet designations and one with NATO - if you really wanted to be even handed!

Great work. 😎
Just find a minor error on the Swedish list. According to the list Jas 39 Gripen is avaible +1972. First test flight 1988, but it was first 6 june 1996 Gripen it was introduced officially to the Swedish Air Force for activ duty.

Quote from: Alien242 on 09 June 2022, 04:17:00 PMGreat work. 😎
Just find a minor error on the Swedish list. According to the list Jas 39 Gripen is avaible +1972. First test flight 1988, but it was first 6 june 1996 Gripen it was introduced officially to the Swedish Air Force for activ duty.

Many thanks - we can get that sorted.
Appreciate the input
Mark

Quote from: Big Insect on 08 June 2022, 04:56:36 PMThere is (of course) always the AT-3A Sagger A 9M14 Malyutka or all things to all men approach - but that might just be a lot of work for no less confusion.

As a relative newbie my preference follows through a chain of trying to match things up, OOB > Army List > Miniature Manufacturer. I'd love if the reference used in all of those 3 were the same, not likely to ever happen mind you, but the less googling I have to do to get the match ups the better.

I know there is some concern with transport(2) in the game but in the Soviet lists the BMP has only Infantry(1) should this not be (2) as they carried the same number of dismounts as BTR60/70.

Please ignore this just read the post on infantry basing that for IFV Infantry (1) is intended.

I was wondering if an Indonesian army list could be added one day covering the Malayan emergency era through to East Timor in the 90's.  Request from left field but would give me an excuse to paint an Aussie army for East Timor.  I would use the Vietnam era 10mm figs for the Indonesians so actual army options are a reality in the Pendraken store.

Quote from: Sandancer76 on 10 June 2022, 03:41:39 AMI know there is some concern with transport(2) in the game but in the Soviet lists the BMP has only Infantry(1) should this not be (2) as they carried the same number of dismounts as BTR60/70.

Please ignore this just read the post on infantry basing that for IFV Infantry (1) is intended.

No - IFVs are only ever Transport (1) - it is a long-standing game mechanism (even some of the bigger US LVTP type vehicles are classified as APCs rather than IFV's deliberately). 
Also, there are only 8 infantry in a BMP. I am aware that a number of NATO APCs also only have space for c.10 infantry and are classified as Transport (2) but that is primarily to allow them to carry their support weapons. And they behave differently in the rules - whilst Bradley's, Warriors and Marders behave like BMPs (all all are IFVs).
BTR's generally carry c.14 passengers (& are APCs) and so they have Transport (2).
Some smaller APCs are only Transport (1) - as are all 4x4s/Jeeps etc and they are usually restricted to INF: only designated units.

The challenge is that there is no real design standard across vehicles, let alone armies - but generally, anything under 10 is Transport (1), 10+ is Transport (2). etc.

Hope that helps?
Mark

QuoteI was wondering if an Indonesian army list could be added one day covering the Malayan emergency era through to East Timor in the 90's.  Request from left field but would give me an excuse to paint an Aussie army for East Timor.  I would use the Vietnam era 10mm figs for the Indonesians so actual army options are a reality in the Pendraken store.

It is in the back of my mind - I had planned a early Malayan Emergency list as one of my 'small wars' lists anyway (as my Grandfather fought in it  :) ) but there is logic for an Indonesian List - especially as I will be producing a Portuguese Colonial list as well. I'll add it to that 'batch' that covers China, Taiwan, Vietnam and will also add a Thai and Burmese list as well.

Any thoughts/research from yourself would always be much appreciated (but please can you start a new thread to do so - so that I don't lose it in future - thank you). There is a long and honourable tradition of players suppling their own researched lists to be posted up on the forum (the old one anyway) and I'd hope we'd be no different with CWC-II.
In fact, the bulk of the Spanish NATO and Yugoslavian lists I am working on currently have come from a player supplied set of lists off the old CWC forum.

Keep reminding me though - as I have a lot of 'core' lists to get through at present.
Cheers
Mark

Quote from: Big Insect on 16 June 2022, 09:59:29 AMIt is in the back of my mind - I had planned a early Malayan Emergency list as one of my 'small wars' lists anyway (as my Grandfather fought in it  :) ) but there is logic for an Indonesian List - especially as I will be producing a Portuguese Colonial list as well. I'll add it to that 'batch' that covers China, Taiwan, Vietnam and will also add a Thai and Burmese list as well.

Any thoughts/research from yourself would always be much appreciated (but please can you start a new thread to do so - so that I don't lose it in future - thank you). There is a long and honourable tradition of players suppling their own researched lists to be posted up on the forum (the old one anyway) and I'd hope we'd be no different with CWC-II.
In fact, the bulk of the Spanish NATO and Yugoslavian lists I am working on currently have come from a player supplied set of lists off the old CWC forum.

Keep reminding me though - as I have a lot of 'core' lists to get through at present.
Cheers
Mark

The Indonesian list would be "interesting" to create. Lots of varying equipment there - PT-76s, AMX-10Ps, AAVP7-A1s, Leopards, some Casspirs, etc. A mix of French, US, Chinese, German, UK, indigenous gear with some South Korean, Czech, Brazilian, Swedish, etc. gear mixed in.

A lot of the 'smaller' armies are like that - the Portuguese has almost as many armoured car variants as they had armoured cars (I exaggerate to make a point). But being one of the poorer NATO members they were grateful for what they could get, at the time.

The mix of the different suppliers can make for very interesting armies - that was always the fun of an Iraqi army from the Iran-Iraq war or the matched-pair from the Indo-Pakistani wars.

These armies are also all a lot more Infantry and 'soft' vehicle orientated - so you'd be fielding Motorised rather than Mechanised formations more often than not.

I'm planning on doing a few of these in 10mm and play them in smaller points games. But you have to be careful where you end up ... as the East Timor 'incident' between Portugal and Indonesia was a very one-sided affair, very much as the Indo-Portuguese was. But in both cases, the Portuguese (mainly infantry forces) put up a brave show against overwhelming odds - even if they lost in the end.

So I brought in a 3 unit concentrated barrage of chemical weapons. How does that work with regards to how many hits I roll? Chemical rolls 6 per target unit... so is it 18 cos I have 3 platforms concentrating fire, or still 6 per unit, and I have wasted two artillery pieces?

Quote from: JcDent on 17 June 2022, 10:50:04 AMSo I brought in a 3 unit concentrated barrage of chemical weapons. How does that work with regards to how many hits I roll? Chemical rolls 6 per target unit... so is it 18 cos I have 3 platforms concentrating fire, or still 6 per unit, and I have wasted two artillery pieces?

Firstly - you cannot have a "concentrated barrage' - you can either have a concentration or a barrage - there is a difference (Page 54).

In the case of a concentration, even with Chemical weapons, the process work exactly the same way as HE works - number of guns/air craft x number of hits, per unit under the template.

Likewise, if you want to use a Barrage of Chemical ammo - you follow exactly the same process as outlined on Page 54.
If you have bought enough Chemical assets (see the availability in the Assets section of each Army List) you could even attempt to deliver a rolling barrage of Chemical weapons (see page 55).


However, remember that any guns or aircraft that are allocated to use Chemical weapons cannot fire any other type of ammo (throughout the game) - see Page 65.

Thanks
Mark

Some inconsistencies/oddities in heavy mortar stats in PDFs for Bundeswehr and Soviets...and some weapons are listed twice... under support and under on-table arty:
Soviet
Support
120mm Mor AP 4/200 AT 3/100
On-table arty
120mm Mor AP 4/100 AT 4/100*
Bundeswehr
Support
12cm Mor AP 4/200 AT 1/200
On table arty
12cm Mor AP 4/100 AT 2/100
What are correct stats for both weapons?

These are points that came up in a recent game. Note that it has been posted previously and I do not appricate not getting answers. Be aware that all 3 people involved in this are official playtesters, and one has considerable experiance in rules writing.

[6:41 am, 18/06/2022] Ian Shaw: See below for comments about on-table templates.
[7:00 am, 18/06/2022] Andy: Stats would seem an issue then.  Aircraft hitting on 6 makes one of NATOs big assets pretty crappy.  Giving the Hind D 1st gen ATGM hitting on 6 means they are really crappy and nothing to be feared.  Sagger et al hitting on 6s means they aren't the killer of Israeli tanks as they were.  No BRDM-3 in lists.  Some weird stats for sov tanks.  Mixed NATO and Soviet names for things makes the lists difficult to use.  No BMP-1s for Sov recce, despite them using 2 in every 3 as recce as there weren't enough BTRs to go around.  ATGMs still very vulnerable, Andy managed to shoot his Jaguar HOT once last night and thanks to T64B company armour it didn't kill, nor did the Milan.  Leo 2s virtually unkillable!  T-64Bs pretty tough nuts.  Strikes by 2 Phantoms, twice, and 2 Sukhois resulted in a only a couple of 6s.  Not worth the bother of calling in.  M113s with 4 hits compared with 3 on FV432, BRDM2, BMP, BTR etc.  Just what came up on Thursday.

I am aware that the 432/M113 is an old debate, most games we use 3 hits for the 113.

Look forward to YOUR ANSWERS MARK

[6:41 am, 18/06/2022] Ian Shaw: See below for comments about on-table templates.
[7:00 am, 18/06/2022] Andy: Stats would seem an issue then.  Aircraft hitting on 6 makes one of NATOs big assets pretty crappy. 
> As stated elsewhere previously - this is a deliberate change from CWC-I - air had become far too dominant, it distorts game-play and shifts the focus of the game away from the main table-top infantry and vehicle action.
NB: I believe Andy is more than capable of voicing his own question BTW rather than you doing so for him

Giving the Hind D 1st gen ATGM hitting on 6 means they are really crappy and nothing to be feared.  Sagger et al hitting on 6s means they aren't the killer of Israeli tanks as they were. 

> as stated previously elsewhere - if you attack with a line of unsupported tanks, in the open, against vastly superior numbers of dug-in Sagger teams - you will still get the same effect as the Egyptians and Syrians did against the IDF tanks. Wargamers play games with the superior knowledge of hindsight.

> Hinds were much feared in CWC-I - but where they much feared in reality for their ATGWs - I think not. It was their rocket-pods and cannon and their armour that made them feared. The changes to ATGW in CWC-II are designed to replicate this and also reflect the interaction between armour development and ATGWs.

No BRDM-3 in lists.

> a great spot Ian - shame you didn't pick it up in the list proof reading!

Some weird stats for sov tanks. 

> Yes???? Not exactly detailed feedback Ian - what is weird and do you have any suggestions about correcting whatever is 'weird'?

Mixed NATO and Soviet names for things makes the lists difficult to use. 

> More repetitive feedback Ian, that has been answered previously on this thread. This kind of thing is not helpful, wastes my valuable time, that could be used to sort errata and convert the new lists etc.


No BMP-1s for Sov recce, despite them using 2 in every 3 as recce as there weren't enough BTRs to go around. 

> a good spot - but again - you were a list proof-reader and you failed to bring it to my attention ahead of publication. The good news is that we can pick it up easily on the on-line lists - when we make the changes.

ATGMs still very vulnerable,
> and you point is???

Andy managed to shoot his Jaguar HOT once last night
> why was that Ian - did he fail command rolls? Was it suppressed? Was it knocked out by Soviet artillery? Did the crew get lost down the local brothel?!!! - please be more specific

and thanks to T64B company armour it didn't kill, nor did the Milan. 

> well that is no surprise - as the rules have been adjusted (as a result of feedback from CWC-I) that we were not adequately taking into account the levels of sophistication in soviet tank armour development. This is one of those Abraham Lincoln things ... players want granularity around armour but also want to be able to kill tanks just as easily!

Leo 2s virtually unkillable!  > No sh*t Sherlock! That is more realistic than it was in CWC-I, but again it reflects a request from players to more accurately reflect the nuances of armore development, such as ERA, Composite armour etc.

T-64Bs pretty tough nuts.  Strikes by 2 Phantoms, twice, and 2 Sukhois resulted in a only a couple of 6s.  Not worth the bother of calling in. 
> this is a combined arms game Ian and as stated above there has been too much reliance on air in the game, which is (as stated repeatedly previously on this and other threads) unrealistic - as we have seen in Ukraine.
In the Gulf, not only was allied airpower overwhelming the majority of enemy targets were aged, vulnerable and with little or no AA cover.
There might be an argument for 'tank-buster' planes (such as Warthogs) to be actually classified as on-table units and to allow them multiple attack-runs in a game turn, but that is a highly complex rules change.
I can certainly look at adjusting air attack - but going back to hitting armour on a 4-5-6 in the open is unlikely. But you can always play it as a house-rule if you like

M113s with 4 hits compared with 3 on FV432, BRDM2, BMP, BTR etc. 
> again this has been raised repeatedly (by you and others) and it is a known error and known errata.

Just what came up on Thursday.

I am aware that the 432/M113 is an old debate, most games we use 3 hits for the 113.
> yes ... you have stated this previously and it has been noted.

Look forward to YOUR ANSWERS MARK

These are points that came up in a recent game. Note that it has been posted previously and I do not appricate not getting answers. Be aware that all 3 people involved in this are official playtesters, and one has considerable experiance in rules writing.

> You make the point very well Ian - YOU were a playtester and an official proof reader!!!
[/quote]


To be frank Ian - it is hard to answer queries written like this as it is so vague and full of generalisation, and with no context! I've just wasted an hour doing this.

But my comments are in-line above and to summarise below:
1) you feel that the changes to aircraft hitting on a 6 (from the CWC-I 4-5-6) is too harsh
2) the interplay between the new armour classifications and ATGW is in favour of the tanks rather than the ATGW
3) there are a few missing vehicle types in the Soviet list and the M113 stats are incorrect.

Mark[/quote]

Quote from: Superscribe on 18 June 2022, 10:17:28 PMSome inconsistencies/oddities in heavy mortar stats in PDFs for Bundeswehr and Soviets...and some weapons are listed twice... under support and under on-table arty:
Soviet
Support
120mm Mor AP 4/200 AT 3/100
On-table arty
120mm Mor AP 4/100 AT 4/100*
Bundeswehr
Support
12cm Mor AP 4/200 AT 1/200
On table arty
12cm Mor AP 4/100 AT 2/100
What are correct stats for both weapons?

Many thanks Chris - it is good to have the examples.
The correct stats for 120mm/12cm mortars are AP:4/100 | AT:2/100 - this is on the list for the bif 'sweep' up errata activity.

NB: whilst we are at it all Naval Support should be costed at 200pts (not 100pts as in some lists) - that is to take into account the 8 hits and save on a 3. But I'll put that info out in a separate thread later today.

Thanks
Mark

Quote from: Big Insect on 19 June 2022, 10:59:09 AMTo be frank Ian - it is hard to answer queries written like this as it is so vague and full of generalisation, and with no context! I've just wasted an hour doing this.

But my comments are in-line above and to summarise below:
1) you feel that the changes to aircraft hitting on a 6 (from the CWC-I 4-5-6) is too harsh
2) the interplay between the new armour classifications and ATGW is in favour of the tanks rather than the ATGW
3) there are a few missing vehicle types in the Soviet list and the M113 stats are incorrect.

Mark

But I didnt write it, just uploaded. I note my correction for the evade roll has disappeared.

It does seem that some people are forgetting that it is a platoon of 4x Jaguar-1 versus a platoon of 3 (or occasionally 4) x T-64B.
To expect a single salvo of 4x ATGW to knock out an entire platoon of tanks in one go is a bit much. Using the data I've used for 40 years, a platoon of 4x Jaguar-1 would only KO a whole T-64B platoon 10% of the time, assuming both sat still in the open. Comparing CWC2 statsof 9D6 attacks for HOT1 versus 5 hits at 4s to save for the T-64B, that's probably about right. 9D6 at 4+  is on average 4 hits, of which 2 will be saved. So meh, yeah. But if you rolled 5-9x 4+ on your attack dice, and the opponent fluffed 5 of their saves, odds on you are going to kill the T-64B model, so it can be done. (Can't remember just now what the bonus for composite armour is in this example)

Anyway,
an idea for those that think the firing isn't quite right or effective enough. You can use the dice more.
For every pip on each D6 you get over what you need, have an extra hit. So if you are hitting on 4+, any 5+ rolled is an additional hit, every 6 rolled is 2 extra hits. And so on.

Similarly for saves, things like Chobham armour and APS systems could give you extra saved hits in certain circumstances if you roll over what you need.
Just a thought.

Mark B - first the Composite, Chobham, Spaced or ERA armour allows a save vs ATGM in the frontal arc, otherwise there are none. The extra hit idea won't work and adds complication. The time scale allows more than one volley of missiles to be fired. A table kill is not necessarily a kill in real life, 2 of your mates blowing up alongside will not engender confidence in the other platoon vehicles will it. In CWC you have to remember that Kill is not Dead, its out of action. 

I wonder if we need a Twitter campaign - "I stand with Big Insect"

Quote from: Big Insect on 19 June 2022, 11:02:25 AMMany thanks Chris - it is good to have the examples.
The correct stats for 120mm/12cm mortars are AP:4/100 | AT:2/100 - this is on the list for the bif 'sweep' up errata activity.

NB: whilst we are at it all Naval Support should be costed at 200pts (not 100pts as in some lists) - that is to take into account the 8 hits and save on a 3. But I'll put that info out in a separate thread later today.

Thanks
Mark

NB: I also forgot to mention Chris - the use of 120mm mortars (in this specific instance) across Support, On-table Artillery and Off-Table Artillery is not unusual. It is an attempt to replicate the doctrine of a specific army. The US (for example) would use their 120mm mortars right upfront in support of an assault, but also use them as a longer-range divisional or battalion assets as well. Other armies held them back, using them only as longer-distance support.

With minimum ranges for large mortars, having them too close to the front is counter productive though.
There should also be Max unit restrictions on the larger mortars in some lists to avoid a player buying an unrealistic number of them. Some of these may have slipped through the editing 'net' but will be picked up as we correct the errata.

Thanks
Mark

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 19 June 2022, 03:32:31 PMI wonder if we need a Twitter campaign - "I stand with Big Insect"

 :D  :D  :D  ;)
shame I wouldnt see it as I dont use Twitter or Facebook ... but I appreciate the sentiment

Good evening.
A few observations...

Finns:
  Armour
  BMP2 with ATGW at 110 points, bargain!
Note, this was their primary ATGW carrier and as such would not have had any (meaningful) dismounts.  I don't know if the IFVs in the armour section are supposed to have a transport capacity but a BMP1 with no infantry or ATGW!

  T72M1S  No S2.  It's more poorly equipped than the T55!
Note, The T55s were use to bolster the infantry and the T72s held in their Tank formations.

United States:

Abrams.The M1A1 costs 240. The M1A1 (HA) costs 260, a 20 point cost for TWICE the armor save! (Fail on a 1 or 2 vs fail on a 1)

And thank you for your efforts on this forum.  We ALL appreciate it in our own way!

Cheers  H

QuoteGood evening.
A few observations...

Finns:
  Armour
  BMP2 with ATGW at 110 points, bargain!
> maybe - but they can only fire the ATGWs once per game-turn - so are not as costly as a full ATGW unit.
But I will double check that, usually it is a good call to look at the 'master' list for something like this - which would be the Soviet list online.

Note, this was their primary ATGW carrier and as such would not have had any (meaningful) dismounts.  I don't know if the IFVs in the armour section are supposed to have a transport capacity but a BMP1 with no infantry or ATGW!

> NB: a lot of BMPs fielded by 'client states' or foreign buyers were not supplied with ATGWs. But again, I'll check my reference material.

> all IFV's are Transport (1) - so this must be an omission - although as all IFVs are Transport (1) technically we shouldn't need to put Transport (1) in the notes - but we'll get that fixed.

  T72M1S  No S2.  It's more poorly equipped than the T55!
Note, The T55s were use to bolster the infantry and the T72s held in their Tank formations.

> yes, thanks - this has been picked up previously and will get resolved when we do the big list errata 'sort out' - in a while.

United States:

Abrams.The M1A1 costs 240. The M1A1 (HA) costs 260, a 20 point cost for TWICE the armor save! (Fail on a 1 or 2 vs fail on a 1)
> is this the book or the on-line list please? - I suspect that it is probably a typo. but will check.

And thank you for your efforts on this forum.  We ALL appreciate it in our own way!

> a pleasure - I try not to 'snap my jaws' too often ...  :'(  :'(  :'(

Cheers  H

Hi H - comments above in-line - thanks for the contributions.
Mark

It's correct that the Finn BMP1s did NOT have Saggers.  The BMP2s were their tank killers not transport.

Arab-Israeli lists
Israel
1) The M3 H/T with 90mm - only 4 built, so maximum 1
2) Achzarit HAPC missing, the most common one! T-55 hull with 14 tons of Composite armour added, so about same as Challenger 1 armour, 1989+, armament 1 MG.
3) Why do the other HAPC have 4/50 A/I factor when they are unarmed or only have an MG or two?
4) The M10 Achilles, were actually Wolverines with worn out 3" guns - these were removed and 1 armed with 17pdr that promptly broke, then 20 rearmed with French 75 CN75-50, same as AMX-13/75 which is coincidentally the same A/T stat; they only had 20, were going to issue 1 platoon per infantry battalion, so limit would be 1 I guess?
2A) Puma HAPC has composite armour

Arabs
5) Hetzers in the Arab list? Oooops, should be Jagdpanzer IV 75mm L48, limit 1 I think
(The Hetzer could have been in the Israeli list, as they were planning to build them at first, but then opted for turreted tanks instead.)
6) M52 has an armoured roof
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/105mmsphm52/105mmsphm52.html#M52TOP11
7) Syrian T-34/85 pillbox thingy only applies after c1965.
8) Remove the T-10, it was never exported, not sure why this keeps coming up in Arab lists.
9) Jordanian Hunter missing from aircraft list fot what it's worth.
10) The Egyptian Valentine was the 2pdr armed variant, although by 1956 they were gunless OP/HQ tanks for the Archer batteries. A/I stat should be 1/50 surely with 2pdr HE and 1 coax MG?
11) Remove the Syria only comment from the T-34/85 and T-54/55....
12) M113 should say Jordan only, not Egypt & Syria only
13) Is not 2P26 Schmel and AT-1 Snapper 4x4 the same vehicle? They have no MG so A/I = 1/40 is a bit generous for a couple of SMG/AK47 and pistol from the crew.
14) You could add the Hummel for the 1950s Syrian list, although limit = 1
15) curious about the "Restricted Ammo" rule for Archers and Charioteers, what is that meant to represent?
16) The T-34/100 and similar but missing T-34/122 were really artillery pieces, not tank destroyers or assault guns, so should be moved to the on-table artillery and off-table artillery sections.

Mark

QuoteArab-Israeli lists
Israel
1) The M3 H/T with 90mm - only 4 built, so maximum 1
> thanks

2) Achzarit HAPC missing, the most common one! T-55 hull with 14 tons of Composite armour added, so about same as Challenger 1 armour, 1989+, armament 1 MG.

> It is down as an APC at the end of the Transport/Vehicle section - it's an interesting debate about whether these HAPCs are classified as APCs or IFVs - they tend to be used more by the IDF in an APC role - but that probably reflects their current operational needs. I'll also look at the armour classification

3) Why do the other HAPC have 4/50 A/I factor when they are unarmed or only have an MG or two?

> that looks like it might be a copying error - I'll pick that up

4) The M10 Achilles, were actually Wolverines with worn out 3" guns - these were removed and 1 armed with 17pdr that promptly broke, then 20 rearmed with French 75 CN75-50, same as AMX-13/75 which is coincidentally the same A/T stat; they only had 20, were going to issue 1 platoon per infantry battalion, so limit would be 1 I guess?
> thanks - getting the numbers available to 'feel' right can be tricky at this level, especially with so many variants to work with.

2A) Puma HAPC has composite armour
. OK thanks

Arabs
5) Hetzers in the Arab list? Oooops, should be Jagdpanzer IV 75mm L48, limit 1 I think
(The Hetzer could have been in the Israeli list, as they were planning to build them at first, but then opted for turreted tanks instead.)
> great - thanks

6) M52 has an armoured roof
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/105mmsphm52/105mmsphm52.html#M52TOP11
> no idea how that happened - good spot - thanks

7) Syrian T-34/85 pillbox thingy only applies after c1965.
> yes of course

8) Remove the T-10, it was never exported, not sure why this keeps coming up in Arab lists.
>  :)

9) Jordanian Hunter missing from aircraft list fot what it's worth.
> indeed ... but it is good to attempt to be thorough

10) The Egyptian Valentine was the 2pdr armed variant, although by 1956 they were gunless OP/HQ tanks for the Archer batteries. A/I stat should be 1/50 surely with 2pdr HE and 1 coax MG?
> that might explain why I could find limited info on them - thanks

11) Remove the Syria only comment from the T-34/85 and T-54/55....
> can do - but did the Jordanians use them?

12) M113 should say Jordan only, not Egypt & Syria only
> yes ... that was my brain working the wrong way around!

13) Is not 2P26 Schmel and AT-1 Snapper 4x4 the same vehicle? They have no MG so A/I = 1/40 is a bit generous for a couple of SMG/AK47 and pistol from the crew.
> good spot - I think I was getting all worked up around the nomenclature debate at that point in time!
There is an interesting discussion to be had around the AP stats for MANPAD SAMs, INF:ATGS and 4x4 ATGWS - I had originally given most of them 1/30 to represent their small arms capabilities - a sort of last resort self defense option. I am also likely to adjust the AP stats for SAMs anyway - as the AP v AT is the same - that will allow me to add proper AP stats to all the INF:SAM, SP:SAM units - as applicable

14) You could add the Hummel for the 1950s Syrian list, although limit = 1
> good call

15) curious about the "Restricted Ammo" rule for Archers and Charioteers, what is that meant to represent?
> lack of HE ammo carried when compared to AT ammo - there appear to be records of crews widely not bothering with the HE rounds, when operating in the SPAT role - but I need to dig up the sources to corroborate that for you - the research was done a while ago, so not fresh in my brain.

16) The T-34/100 and similar but missing T-34/122 were really artillery pieces, not tank destroyers or assault guns, so should be moved to the on-table artillery and off-table artillery sections.
> good call

Mark

Thanks Mark - insightful as always - comments in-line above.

The debate about the IDF HAPCs is one for a separate thread maybe - should they be IFVs or APCs - or maybe they should appear in both sections, but with a restriction that they can only operate in one role in a battle-group?

Likewise - what stats to use for the small-arms for man-packed ATGW and SAMs. A lot of the 4x4 launchers do appear to have an MG, even if it is a light one.

Much appreciated
Mark

The Jordainain Hunter is in my original copy, 3 enrty in the aircraft section underneath the two AH1 varients.

Quote from: Big Insect on 20 June 2022, 09:53:29 AMThe debate about the IDF HAPCs is one for a separate thread maybe - should they be IFVs or APCs

I would treat them as APCs, seeing as they only have one MG generally and troops exit just like any other APC, out the back or over the sides, they don't have firing ports. You can't really do an armoured assault with them.

The whole issue of IFV is a challenging debate, professional wargamers that are ex-servicemen as well as me have found them completely useless if even one enemy tank is about. The Israelies are the only ones that came up with a solution with the HAPC. And note they deliberately left off any heavy armament. IFVs with heavy weapons tend to get used as light tanks with disastrous results, especially by wargamers!

They would however make great tank destroyers and not-bad recce vehicles - a BMP-1P or Bradley with the back stuffed full of ATGW reloads would have been far superior to the M901 or BRDM-2 Spandrel. Anyway, ours is not to reason why (government accountants have a lot to do with it....)

Oh, forgot, the American M901 ITOW vehicle, if it moves over 8kmh cross-country the sites misalign and have to be reset when it next halts, don't know if you have an unreliable or similar rating in CWC2. In my own games I make them do an activation to reset the sights before they can fire.

Quote from: Big Insect on 20 June 2022, 09:53:29 AM11) Remove the Syria only comment from the T-34/85 and T-54/55....
> can do - but did the Jordanians use them?

No, so should say Egypt and Syria only.

Quote from: sultanbev on 20 June 2022, 10:46:41 AMI would treat them as APCs, seeing as they only have one MG generally and troops exit just like any other APC, out the back or over the sides, they don't have firing ports. You can't really do an armoured assault with them.

The whole issue of IFV is a challenging debate, professional wargamers that are ex-servicemen as well as me have found them completely useless if even one enemy tank is about. The Israelies are the only ones that came up with a solution with the HAPC. And note they deliberately left off any heavy armament. IFVs with heavy weapons tend to get used as light tanks with disastrous results, especially by wargamers!

They would however make great tank destroyers and not-bad recce vehicles - a BMP-1P or Bradley with the back stuffed full of ATGW reloads would have been far superior to the M901 or BRDM-2 Spandrel. Anyway, ours is not to reason why (government accountants have a lot to do with it....)

Oh, forgot, the American M901 ITOW vehicle, if it moves over 8kmh cross-country the sites misalign and have to be reset when it next halts, don't know if you have an unreliable or similar rating in CWC2. In my own games I make them do an activation to reset the sights before they can fire.
No, so should say Egypt and Syria only.

Thanks - I wasnt aware of that. There is an 'Unreliable' Special Ability, but I am inclined to consider making the M901 ITOW a Slow Firing vehicle to replicate this. As it limits what it can do in a turn, but I'll check that out.
Cheers
Mark

Arab lists
1. BRDM-2.  Used in 1973 by Egypt and Syria
2. RL-83 Blindicide. In use by at least Egypt in 1956 as 10 launchers captured by British. Source: Hansard
3. RPG-7. In at least limited use in Six Day War by Egypt and en masse by Syria and Egypt in 1973 so dates need fixing
4. BMP-1 deliveries to both Egypt and Syria in 1973 prior to use in October War. Not used prior as far as I know.
5. T-34/85 extensively used in 1967 fighting by Egypt. 
6. T-54/55 used by Egypt and Syria as previously noted
7. M113 user should be Jordan

IDF comments later.

Hope this helps.

Edward

IDF lists

1. AMX-13. Never airportable by IDF. 
2. 3.5" M20 Superbazooka I assume covers a lot of other kit such as 82mm Marnat, 73mm LRAC Mle 50 and some RL-83 Blindicide (source https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/44554-blindicide-info/)
3. RPG-7 in Israeli inventory from 1967 but probably limited use?
4. ATGW Entac and SS-11 - all the comments I have seen say that this was out of use by 1973?
5. BMP-1 captured - must be 1973+ (and after October War so maybe 1974+)?

Edward

Some comments on dates. Frankly these are very difficult to decide. In the basic lists I sent to Mark F the first note is Dates are speculative in many cases. Please bear that in mind as we only have limited information to go on. Also lots of kit is kept in storage, we ceratinly were making spares for Centurions in the early 90's which would indicate that stuff was in storage.

I certainly left out 3 items - Israli M3's with SS11  as there were very few - 4 to 10, same argument applies to the M3 with 90mm , the Sherman with AMX-13 turret, the Egyptians had 10 as experiments.

Quote from: kustenjaeger on 20 June 2022, 11:31:04 AMArab lists
1. BRDM-2.  Used in 1973 by Egypt and Syria
2. RL-83 Blindicide. In use by at least Egypt in 1956 as 10 launchers captured by British. Source: Hansard
3. RPG-7. In at least limited use in Six Day War by Egypt and en masse by Syria and Egypt in 1973 so dates need fixing
4. BMP-1 deliveries to both Egypt and Syria in 1973 prior to use in October War. Not used prior as far as I know.
5. T-34/85 extensively used in 1967 fighting by Egypt. 
6. T-54/55 used by Egypt and Syria as previously noted
7. M113 user should be Jordan

IDF comments later.

Hope this helps.

Edward

All very helpful stuff Edward - thank you - backing up and adding to Mark B's observations.

If I remember correctly (need to check my notes) I think I did wrap the RL-83 Blindicide up with the Bazooka - for both lists

Thanks
Mark

Quote from: kustenjaeger on 20 June 2022, 11:48:12 AMIDF lists

1. AMX-13. Never airportable by IDF. 
2. 3.5" M20 Superbazooka I assume covers a lot of other kit such as 82mm Marnat, 73mm LRAC Mle 50 and some RL-83 Blindicide (source https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/44554-blindicide-info/)
> yes - TBF at the scale we operate at the difference are negligable
3. RPG-7 in Israeli inventory from 1967 but probably limited use?
> agreed but we can include maybe on a -.-[1] basis
4. ATGW Entac and SS-11 - all the comments I have seen say that this was out of use by 1973?
5. BMP-1 captured - must be 1973+ (and after October War so maybe 1974+)?
> yes - good shout

Edward

Replies above - in-line & in-bold

Again appreciated Edward
Thanks
Mark

QuoteSome comments on dates. Frankly these are very difficult to decide. In the basic lists I sent to Mark F the first note is Dates are speculative in many cases. Please bear that in mind as we only have limited information to go on. Also lots of kit is kept in storage, we ceratinly were making spares for Centurions in the early 90's which would indicate that stuff was in storage.

I certainly left out 3 items - Israli M3's with SS11  as there were very few - 4 to 10, same argument applies to the M3 with 90mm , the Sherman with AMX-13 turret, the Egyptians had 10 as experiments.

The Shermans with AMX-13 turrets are in the lists Ian - the list as published is a composite of yours, mine, and a couple of others - that might account for some of the omissions and date changes.

I chose to keep a specific Arab States list, at this time, to coincide with the Pendraken figure launch. There will also be a specific Suez-Crisis list, a separate Iraqi list and larger Egyptian and Syrian lists (amongst others). This is all part of the program to allow players (that want to) to easily focus on specific 'smaller' scale conflicts more easily. Which is why we have separate set of Vietnam lists or Falkland lists or a Portuguese Colonial list (in the works) for example.

With the IDF list, it was just simpler to run it through from 46+. But I suspect that once I (ultimately) get started on the Lebanese's Civil War list, the IDF will reappear as a limited subset of forces.

Thanks
Mark

I posted detailed notes on Israeli ATGW previously, going to have to retype it all again.

Virtually all the early ATGW were in one battalion, the 755th AT Battalion.

SS-10 36 launchers arrived in 1957 in 755th AT Battalion, 6 Batteries@ 6x SS-10 launchers (hence max =6)
1960-1962 added or replaced by 8x quad SS-10 on back of Dodge 4x4 truck (hence max = 2)

1963 replaced by SS-11 on M3 H/T, plus one platoon of 4 in 9th Mech Battalion 1964-1965

By 1967 the 755th AT Battalion had:
1st Battery: M3 + SS-11, attached to 38th Division (number per battery not known, possibly 6, or 3 pltns@ 4)
2nd Battery: M3 + SS-11, on Jordanian front
3rd Battery: M3 + SS-11 on Golan
#th Battery: 6x Jeep/SS-11
~th Battery: Cobra 1600 on Jeeps, used in 1967 war, not after.
35th Para Brigade, had 1 platoon of 6x Jeep/SS-11 and 12x Jeep/106mm M40 in it's brigade AT company in 1967 war.

M3+ 90mm MECAR, 1 platoon in 9th Battalion, 1968
Cobra 2000 were received in 1968, but no data on issue.


In 1969 the 755th A/T Battalion lost M3 H/T+ SS-11, and reformed as:
2 Coys@ 3 platoons@ 4x 2P26
2 Coys@ 3 platoons@ 4-5x Jeep/SS-11
total 27x Jeep/SS-11, 24x 2P26

By 1973 the 755th A/T Battalion had:
1 Company: 12x 2P26
2 Companies sharing 27x Jeep/SS-11 attached to 275th Territorial Brigade on Bar Lev line.

Also, Israel received 6000x M72 LAW on 11th October 1973. They had 50x 84mm M2 Carl Gustav in the navy.

Source since deleted War Online article, previously posted, translated from Hebrew to Russian to English

I do have a lot of Egytian artillery dates, from SIPRI and other sources
122mm M38 howitzer (1959)
122mmL46 M31/37 gun
122mmL54 D74
122mmL40 D30 how (1966)
100mm M1944 BS3 (1961)
25pdr 87mm field gun (194#)
152mm D1 howitzers (1962)
82mm M37 mortar
120mm M43 mortar (1956)
160mm M60 mortar (1966)
240mm M53 mortar
240mm BM-24-12 (1964)
Sa-2 unguided 700mm HE (1973)
130mm M51 (32x 130mm)
132mm BM-13-16 (1959)
122mm BM-21-40 (1968)
130mm M46 (1962)
100mm KS19 AA (1961)
85mm KS12 AA (1958)
140mm BM-14-16 (1962)
152mm D20 (1965)
Frog-7 (1968)
180mm S23 (1972)
9P117 Scud-B (1972)

Mark

Here we go, Egyptian AMX-13/75, just at the end of video
https://youtu.be/FSZXZ4ux_3s
Mentioned in here:
https://www.academia.edu/39505313/SUEZ_1956_NOTES_ON_PLANS_ORDERS_OF_BATTLE_AND_EQUIPMENT

I'm glad you've left out the Egyptian Centurions, because although they had 41 of them in organised service, they only had 10x APDS per tank, Perfidious Albion and all that, so could never see useful combat.

With the Arab States list, I believe that the Jordanians had 105mm Centurions from 1970

USA
Helicopters
In the notes I can buy 4 Transport helicopters.
But in the lists I can only buy 1 UH1...
In fact I can never buy All of my helicopters of one type.  Is this intentional?

Cheers  H

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 20 June 2022, 08:51:13 PMWith the Arab States list, I believe that the Jordanians had 105mm Centurions from 1970

This is something I have had difficulty confirming. Currently my notes say:
From 1972 the Centurion Mk7 were upgraded to Mk7/2 with 105mm L7 guns. These were in the 40th Brigade. It is not known if the Mk5 were upgraded to 105mm at the time of the 1973 war.

Quote from: sultanbev on 20 June 2022, 11:05:49 PMThis is something I have had difficulty confirming. Currently my notes say:
From 1972 the Centurion Mk7 were upgraded to Mk7/2 with 105mm L7 guns. These were in the 40th Brigade. It is not known if the Mk5 were upgraded to 105mm at the time of the 1973 war.

It  is in Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991 (Studies in War, Society, and the Militar) (Studies in War, Society, and the Military) Kindle Edition
by Kenneth M. Pollack


"In 1970 it boasted 70,000 men, of whom two-thirds were Jordanian Bedouin and the remainder either Palestinians or other Hadari. As always, the Bedouin dominated the armored formations, several infantry brigades, and most of the officer billets in the combat units, while the Palestinians manned the technical-support branches and the enlisted ranks of the other infantry brigades. The army had replenished its tank strength with 300 of the latest American M-6os and improved British Centurions (equipped with new engines and the outstanding L7 105-mm gun)"


I don't know enough about Centurions to say if he is right or not

Well the L7 was designed to fit the 20pdr mount. Would need to change the ammo racks. The engine swap indicates that it's refering to the Tariq upgrade.

QuoteUSA
Helicopters
In the notes I can buy 4 Transport helicopters.
But in the lists I can only buy 1 UH1...
In fact I can never buy All of my helicopters of one type.  Is this intentional?

Cheers  H

Hi Huey

The thing about the army-lists is that they are primarily a guide and an attempt 'stop' players creating unrealistic forces - such as a US force that is only M1s, with all the supporting infantry in Helicopters, for example. But they are not as proscriptive as in some other sets of rules.

Most CWC players tend to base their forces on historical Orders of Battle (OOBs) and use the lists and points system as a way of balancing games, so that it isn't all about putting all your 'toys' out to overwhelm your opponent - no matter how much fun that is  :)

I'd suggest that if you have a specific US formation you are wanting to create, the best thing to do is use the OOB and build your own list to that. I very often use a 1985 US Airborne. With that I use far more helicopters than the maximums - and also use more Sheridan's than the list would normally allow, but I am very careful not to take any other units that are not part of the formation, or that did not support it, no matter how tempting that might be.

I'm playing in a game on Saturday (25th June) coming up and I'll be using a 103 Dutch Recce company - this is a weird mix of Leopard A2s; Lynx and M113 M&C upgraded APCs, with elite infantry units, - all in Recce Support mode - plus a bridging unit. It's a fun small force - designed specifically for armoured recon in-force - but it bears little relationship to the Dutch NATO list (although all the component parts of it are in the list). It is based on a great resource - a full Dutch OOB that is on-line: https://www.orbat85.nl/reference/unit-organisation-and-equipment.html

Hunting across the web will find you more of these sorts of assets.

Hopefully that is helpful? As an aside I intend to put out a US Airborne list (along with a US High Tech Light Infantry list - another of my favorites) once I have the bulk of the core lists published. However, if you want me to ping you my Airborne list - message me directly on the forum (with your email address) and I will send it across to you.

Cheers
Mark

Quote from: Big Insect on 17 June 2022, 10:51:31 PMIn the case of a concentration, even with Chemical weapons, the process work exactly the same way as HE works - number of guns/air craft x number of hits, per unit under the template.

Right, my bad. So if I roll with concentrated attack with three MLRS units, I'm rolling 3x6 - 18 dice per unit in the target area?

Thats correct, our moderator has managed 66 dice per model before now.  :'(  :'(

Quote from: JcDent on 21 June 2022, 02:28:14 PMRight, my bad. So if I roll with concentrated attack with three MLRS units, I'm rolling 3x6 - 18 dice per unit in the target area?

Yes - as stated that is the correct way of doing it.

There are some limitations applied to Air-strikes, where you can choose to focus all attacks in the zone on a single unit (rather than on all the units in the zone). This increases the numbers of attack dice further (see Page 58)- but you cannot do that with area denial munitions such as: Chemical, Napalm, Thermobaric or Smoke (not that you'd probably want to deliver your Smoke that way  :D )

The game is primarily orientated towards Off-table artillery and once you get the hang of it and use your FAOs, boosted by a +1 from your Recce - you can cause havoc with them - I've see a whole Soviet MRR where the infantry had dismounted to attack a small defended village (with a handful of stalwart Canadian infantry defenders in it) get totally annihilated by repeated off-table artillery, called in by the Canadian FAO and his supporting Recce, both also in the village. Without their infantry the soviet BTR-60s were sitting ducks to the Canadian IATWs.

Hope that helps.
Cheers
Mark

Hi Mark. In PDF all Soviet tanks from T54 through to T80 save on 4, including those with Composite Armour. The rules state Composite Armour save on 5+ against frontal attack from ATGW. Are stats listed correctly, as surely Composite Armour should be an improvement, with a better save factor rather than a worse one?!

P.50 - 'Units hit by ATGW do not get armour saves, unless they have composite or explosive reactive armour' [my italics]

So tanks without Composite armour will not get ANY saves against ATGW - so the armour does convey an advantage. (the list saves are against other munitions hits - apds etc)

(P.91 - Special abilities says the composite armour save against atgw is only against frontal attacks)

I think! :)
Someone may be along in a minute to correct me.

Hi Gwydion.

Ha I missed the no saves v ATGW so now makes sense 😊😅

Quote from: Gwydion on 21 June 2022, 09:02:15 PMP.50 - 'Units hit by ATGW do not get armour saves, unless they have composite or explosive reactive armour' [my italics]

So tanks without Composite armour will not get ANY saves against ATGW - so the armour does convey an advantage. (the list saves are against other munitions hits - apds etc)

(P.91 - Special abilities says the composite armour save against atgw is only against frontal attacks)

I think! :)
Someone may be along in a minute to correct me.

Not at all Gwydion ... spot on ... the nuances of combining types of armour will be the thing that drives me to my grave I am sure  ;D

No T-62 in the Arab states list?

Thanks Matt

No obvious reason why it was omitted - that looks like a copying error - we'll get that rectified.
The states will be the same as the Soviet list T62, but with a 1973+ date :

T-62 |100 | AFV |25|6/95|5/60|4|4|-/9| 1973+ R/IR (Syria and Egypt only)

Thanks
Mark

The Swedish Type 66 Infantry Brigades used the Strv 74 for recon after 1970. Could the Strv 74 be added to the recon list for the Swedes (it is currently under armour)?

Also Swedish Type 66 Infantry Brigades sometimes used tractors and trailers to motorise. Could these be added to their transport options, mostly just for flavour? It could just be a slightly slower truck (maybe speed 15?).

Looks to be an invented weapon on both the ANZAC and Indian Lists, OQF 20pdr towed. Never heard of a towed mount for it only Cents and Charioteers. Am prepared to be corrected on it but seems to be unlikley since the 17pdr was thought to be too heavy.

I suspect that this is an error Ian.

Probably a misunderstanding because the OQF 17pdrs were known as as 17/25-pounders and given the codename Pheasant early on in their development.

The 17pdrs were replaced by the BAT, MOBAT and 120 mm L6 WOMBAT series of recoilless rifles in their ATG role.

Easily resolved.

Only the first few 17pdr, in Tunisia. Also you mised one on the 120's COMBAT, a reworked Mobat with an L4 LMG as ranging gun. Just as an aside and not checked lists for this but MOBAT, COMBAT and WOMBAT all fit in the back of a LWB Landrover. No doubt some one will pop up to say I'm wrong on that, but observed several times. 

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 24 June 2022, 09:32:10 AMOnly the first few 17pdr, in Tunisia. Also you mised one on the 120's COMBAT, a reworked Mobat with an L4 LMG as ranging gun. Just as an aside and not checked lists for this but MOBAT, COMBAT and WOMBAT all fit in the back of a LWB Landrover. No doubt some one will pop up to say I'm wrong on that, but observed several times. 

I'm not sure that the differences between the COMBAT, MOBAT, WOMBAT are significant enough to differentiate them in the lists, but I will check.

If the Landrover variants could be fired whilst mounted in the vehicle, then that is an omission (which can be corrected) but if they are just transported in the Landrovers, then that option is covered by having the 4x4s in the Transport section. As the COMBAT, MOBAT, WOMBAT are all classified as INF:AT they can be carried by the Landrover (classified as a 4x4).

Thanks
Mark

Quote from: HogansHeroes on 23 June 2022, 10:36:00 PMThe Swedish Type 66 Infantry Brigades used the Strv 74 for recon after 1970. Could the Strv 74 be added to the recon list for the Swedes (it is currently under armour)?

Also Swedish Type 66 Infantry Brigades sometimes used tractors and trailers to motorise. Could these be added to their transport options, mostly just for flavour? It could just be a slightly slower truck (maybe speed 15?).

You can easily convert a vehicle to Recce by adding 20pts. But we'll look to add the Strv 74 in the Recce section _ I will just need to check the service dates.

The tractors are an easy add - there are stats for these in the British Falkland list - but they are classified as 'Prime Movers' so can tow things but not act as transports - although if the Swedes had them towing large trailers they might be able to move INF: units as well - but they'd be classified as a VEH.

Cheers
Mark

Hi Mark. I am sure some of this will have been covered in previous posts and apologise if I am repeating anything unnecessarily, but could you clarify stats for on-table medium mortars and artillery.

In a previous post you said stats for 12cm/120mm mortars were AP 4/100 and AT 2/100 for British, Bundeswehr and Soviets. Maybe the same for other nations too. However in the PDFs medium mortar ranges and attacks seem to vary considerably e.g. Brit 81mm/Bundeswehr 8cm AP 3/120 AT 1/120*, Soviet 82mn AP 3/120 AT blank, 82mm BTR-152 AP 3/120 AT 2/100* and 82mm Vasilek AP 6/200 AT2/100*. What is the correct range and attacks for these classes of mortar?

For on-table artillery (and I assume this refers to towed and SP artillery, not mortars) the rules state that the attacks listed in the table on p52 should be used and not the ones in the army lists. Almost all the on-table artillery attacks for British, Bundeswehr and Soviets are therefore incorrect e.g. British 155mm/Soviet 152mm/Bundeswehr 15.5cm need to be changed from 4/100 to 5/100H and British 105mm/Soviet 122mm change from 3/100 to 4/100H. However the off table equivalents remain 4 and 3 hits respectively. To avoid any confusion can you please confirm if the table on p52 should take precedence over all on-table artillery stats shown in army lists, without exception, or advise otherwise.

Rgds

Chris

Quote from: Superscribe on 25 June 2022, 11:01:01 PMHi Mark. I am sure some of this will have been covered in previous posts and apologise if I am repeating anything unnecessarily, but could you clarify stats for on-table medium mortars and artillery.

In a previous post you said stats for 12cm/120mm mortars were AP 4/100 and AT 2/100 for British, Bundeswehr and Soviets. Maybe the same for other nations too. However in the PDFs medium mortar ranges and attacks seem to vary considerably e.g. Brit 81mm/Bundeswehr 8cm AP 3/120 AT 1/120*, Soviet 82mn AP 3/120 AT blank, 82mm BTR-152 AP 3/120 AT 2/100* and 82mm Vasilek AP 6/200 AT2/100*. What is the correct range and attacks for these classes of mortar?

For on-table artillery (and I assume this refers to towed and SP artillery, not mortars) the rules state that the attacks listed in the table on p52 should be used and not the ones in the army lists. Almost all the on-table artillery attacks for British, Bundeswehr and Soviets are therefore incorrect e.g. British 155mm/Soviet 152mm/Bundeswehr 15.5cm need to be changed from 4/100 to 5/100H and British 105mm/Soviet 122mm change from 3/100 to 4/100H. However the off table equivalents remain 4 and 3 hits respectively. To avoid any confusion can you please confirm if the table on p52 should take precedence over all on-table artillery stats shown in army lists, without exception, or advise otherwise.

Rgds

Chris

Not at all Chris - yes - all noted and all due to be picked up in the big errata correction - the statement about Artillery only really applies to guns (which tend to have the same AP/AT stats & ranges on-table) - but I agree it is confusing. Generally, the army list stats will 'trump' the general stats in the book, which are designed as a catch-all.
I'll look at the stats for the 81mm mortars - we will have to attempt to accommodate 61mm, 100-107mm, 120mm and 155mm+ mortars, so you might find that some of the 'granularity' you might be looking for disappears. But I'll do my best to accommodate that.
Cheers
Mark

Cheers
Mark

Quote from: Big Insect on 25 June 2022, 09:49:42 PMI'm not sure that the differences between the COMBAT, MOBAT, WOMBAT are significant enough to differentiate them in the lists, but I will check.

If the Landrover variants could be fired whilst mounted in the vehicle, then that is an omission (which can be corrected) but if they are just transported in the Landrovers, then that option is covered by having the 4x4s in the Transport section. As the COMBAT, MOBAT, WOMBAT are all classified as INF:AT they can be carried by the Landrover (classified as a 4x4).

Thanks
Mark

Entire series - BAT - with gunsheild, only towed
MOBAT - sheild removed - often towed but fits in back of a LWB landrover - can be fired when Portee.Optical sights. May be fitted to 432's

Wombat - does not stand for anything, fitted with 0.5" Ranging gun so longer effective range. Never towed and can fire from Landrover or 432

CONBAT - moderenised MOBAT fited with L4 LMG as ranging gun. Can't think of any improvement it made except higher rate of fire. 

Thanks Ian

No problem - CONBAT is TA only.

Incedentally you may find TA compoanies consisting entirly of MILAN platoons, Mortar Platoons and SFMG platoons. Those are composites for training purposes and belong to several battalions.

Quote from: Big Insect on 26 June 2022, 08:47:00 AMNot at all Chris - yes - all noted and all due to be picked up in the big errata correction - the statement about Artillery only really applies to guns (which tend to have the same AP/AT stats & ranges on-table) - but I agree it is confusing. Generally, the army list stats will 'trump' the general stats in the book, which are designed as a catch-all.
I'll look at the stats for the 81mm mortars - we will have to attempt to accommodate 61mm, 100-107mm, 120mm and 155mm+ mortars, so you might find that some of the 'granularity' you might be looking for disappears. But I'll do my best to accommodate that.
Cheers
Mark

Hi Mark
So, based on what you have said we will continue to use the stats for on-table arty and mortars as listed in their army lists (ignoring table on p52) and look forward to the detailed errata when it comes out in due course. 

Could you just clarify stats for Brit 81mm mortars as they are shown as AP 3/120 and AT 1/120* compared to shorter range of 4.2"/12cm/120mm mortars with AP 4/100 and AT 2/100. Should medium mortars have longer/equal/shorter range than the heavy mortars?

Ta

Chris

Real world ranges : 81mm L16 - 5650m, 120mm M39/43 5.7 km. The 120mm bomb is roughly 4 times that of the 81mm one. ROF - 81 sustained 4-8 rnds min, 120 2 rnds min.

Hi Mark. This may have already been posted, but Munitions are missing from notes column for all Btitish and Bundeswehr aircraft. I am sure this will get picked up in the errata. Chris

Thanks Chris - we will pick that up.  :)

Now I have the CWCII rulebook, I'm just playing catch up on all the trheads that have been generated. I'm glad to see under the Optional Rules the Static Hits option. We have used this for years in our BKCII games and find, for us, it makes for a better game.

One that that irked us with CWCI with hits coming off both sides at the end of the Turn, was that it was often really hard to KO anything during a game. As an example, in a campaign lasting  4-5 games, my British lost only one Chieftain tank (without Still brew) throughout. It didn't feel right to us. Some lucky die rolls here and there might have helped, but not to the extent of them lasting for so long.

So I'm looking forward to seeing how things play out using the Static Hits option with the new rules. First I just need to sort out my OOB and then place some orders :)

Quote from: Steve J on 02 July 2022, 06:56:54 PMNow I have the CWCII rulebook, I'm just playing catch up on all the trheads that have been generated. I'm glad to see under the Optional Rules the Static Hits option. We have used this for years in our BKCII games and find, for us, it makes for a better game.

One that that irked us with CWCI with hits coming off both sides at the end of the Turn, was that it was often really hard to KO anything during a game. As an example, in a campaign lasting  4-5 games, my British lost only one Chieftain tank (without Still brew) throughout. It didn't feel right to us. Some lucky die rolls here and there might have helped, but not to the extent of them lasting for so long.

So I'm looking forward to seeing how things play out using the Static Hits option with the new rules. First I just need to sort out my OOB and then place some orders :)

Hi Steve
We played a big CWC-II game up at 'The Unit' last weekend (or was it the weekend before) and I lost a load of armour, including a couple of Dutch Leopard 2s - to massed T62 fire and also to some long-distance ATGW shooting. We were playing the 'Hits come Off' rule - so I suspect if you are playing 'Hits Stay On' you'll see a lot more damage.
I 'KO'd' a number of Soviet MBTs with massed artillery shooting but my Leopards were part of an armoured recon formation - so were out and about in singles - so probably not as deadly as a proper battalion would have been.

I'll be interested to hear how you get on.
Cheers
Mark

But were also playing the '2 hits = suppressed' optional rule for off-table Artillery & Air.

Hi Mark. p93 has special ability Generate Smoke but I cant seem to find it listed in any Army List. I assume this maybe because all AFVs can use it (p15).

However does this not apply to those armoured transports and on table SP artillery that have smoke dischargers fitted, such as FV432s and the Abbott SP gun? Can you update army lists to show which vehicles can generate smoke.

Ta

Chris

QuoteHi Mark. p93 has special ability Generate Smoke but I cant seem to find it listed in any Army List. I assume this maybe because all AFVs can use it (p15).

However does this not apply to those armoured transports and on table SP artillery that have smoke dischargers fitted, such as FV432s and the Abbott SP gun? Can you update army lists to show which vehicles can generate smoke.

Ta

Chris

To be honest Chris - that is a major job (huge piece of research) - which is why I generally went with the view that players do need to use their own research and discretion on that matter. It is a 'free' ability - and my view is that we are covering so broad a range of vehicles and time period that I hadn't the time/energy to invest in it (at present).

The challenge is not as simple as: "does this vehicle have smoke dispensers or not?", because a lot of Soviet/Communist built vehicles had the inherent ability to create a dirty black/oily smoke screen, without the need for dispensers. e.g. from the T54 onwards (maybe earlier - with upgraded T34/85s or SU-100s etc),T-54/T-55, T-62, T72, T80 etc, Communist tanks had ability to create a smoke screen by injecting diesel fuel into the exhaust system. This was copied by the Chinese, Yugoslavians, North Koreans and Vietnamese in their various 'lookilikey' AFVs as well.

Also - some vehicles had detachable smoke dispensers, so a South African Ratel IFV - could have 2x2 80mm smoke grenade dispensers attached - but often, as it was not fighting other AFV's (for most of the time) - these were not attached. But they could be attached when necessary.

As a general rule - I'd suggest that all AFVs (& that includes MBTs, IFVs, APCs and even Armoured Cars and on table armoured SP Artillery - but not half-tracks for some odd reason) in this era would normally have some sort of fixed array smoke dispensers/launchers, or be able to use the fuel-injection smoke system.

Some very early tanks that 'carried-over' from WWII (or earlier) - such as the T-26's used by Spain up to the 1950s for example - might be an exception. But Shermans - for example do have the ability to add dispensers, if required. But the lists are not really designed to be a totally comprehensive list of all vehicles and all  equipment carried. They cannot be - or they will just become far to unwieldy.

Vehicles such as Trucks and 4x4s (pre.1990) don't generally have smoke generation capabilities (although some HMMWV's can).
Motorcycles, Mules, Bicycles don't either.
Neither do a lot of Amphibious transport vehicles - such as DUKWs - although the LVT family does.
Early US armoured car variants (Whites and Greyhounds) don't generally appear have smoke dispenser, but from the Ferret onwards UK ones do.
M24 Chaffee's had a turret mounted 81mm smoke mortar during WWII, that some operators removed in post war service (like the US) whilst other retained it (but never used it).

So, I suspect that your going to need to come to a broad agreement amongst your playing group on this matter - but the general rule (particularly if you are playing c.1980s Cold War gone Hot European games) is that this ability/characteristic applies to: AFV (including all MBTs), AC, IFV, APC designated units (whether they are Armour, Transport or Recce), on-table armoured SP guns - but not to half-tracks.
And that is probably the best way to apply this, broadly.

Long answer to a short question, but I hope it helps.
Thanks
Mark
Cheers
Mark

Hi Mark. As always a very interesting and in-depth reply. Thankyou.

Yep quite a complex subject. I agree your reasoning for 1980s games and smoke capabilities of the various armoured vehicle types. Perhaps the answer is to amend the rule on p15 to something along the lines of what you said above "this ability/ characteristic applies to: AFV (including all MBTs), AC, IFV, APC designated units (whether they are Armour, Transport or Recce), on-table armoured SP guns - but not to half-tracks"

Regards

Chris

A good call Chris ... some units like Soviet bridging units based on the T55 or T62 core chasses may/may not also have had the fuel injection smoke-screen capability (likewise SPAAGs like the various ZSUs etc) as they were all based on an MBT tank chassis - but again we don't appear to know (for certain) if they used the injection capability or not.

Cheers
Mark

Mark fairly general rules - vehicles of British and German origin have Smoke dischargers, most French vehicles likewise after 1970. US started fitting in or after 75. Isreaeli refits have them added if not already fitted. WEstern WWII tanks have smoke mortars, often replaced in refits with SD.

Soviet / Russian tanks from T44? and certainly after it are fitted with engine generators. These leave the lead vehicle exposed so I'd house rule that the 1st wave should be hit as if in cover, on a 6. Not certain on the APC's, doubt it was fitted to any wheeled ones, although the 60/70/80 got SD from roughly 1980. BMP's may have engine generators fitted. All refit/new build tanks from the early 80's add smoke generators.

See if you can get hold of the old tabletop "modern equipment handbook" it lists al the kit up to the late 90's

Thanks Ian - but my comment still stands - this is a level of detail that I am leaving to individual players to research themselves.

It is not always clear-cut by date or nationality. Most of the pre-60's British armoured cars (for example) do not have smoke dispensers as standard (pre-Ferret) and the US are also very inconsistent - M60s for example could have them but very often they were detached. A lot of the US, British, French & Soviet kit that was sent abroad, was without dispensers - so you cannot always assume that an M113 in Arab/Iranian service would have dispensers.

Thanks
Mark

The Chinese list has an omission, the Type 89 Japanese tank - had one or 2 btn from 1944/5 to 1947/8? No combat use but could have.

Just wondering why the T62 is not available in the Arab Israeli Wars list? The Egyptian 25th Armoured Brigade used them exclusively during the Yom Kippur War.  They were ambushed and engaged the Israelis on the western side of the canal in a night tank battle with Centurion's of the Israeli 162nd Reserve Armoured Division on 17 October.  And lost. Only 5 T62s escaped.

Been doing a lot of reading on the campaign.  Apparently the 25th Armoured was an Elite unit. Sent in as a last ditch effort to destroy the Israeli bridge crossing.

It's in the list I wrote for Mark, assume that it's an editing problem. stats are :

T62   100   AFV   25   5/100   5/60   3   4   4      >1985 R

Thanks Lord Kermit.

QuoteIt's in the list I wrote for Mark, assume that it's an editing problem. stats are :

T62 100 AFV 25 5/100 5/60 3 4 4 >1985 R

That's different from the Soviet list.

Quote from: Raider4 on 09 July 2022, 05:05:08 PMThat's different from the Soviet list.

Does the Soviet list for 1983 have predominantly T62 or T72 tanks?

Quote from: pbeccas on 09 July 2022, 09:19:22 AMJust wondering why the T62 is not available in the Arab Israeli Wars list? The Egyptian 25th Armoured Brigade used them exclusively during the Yom Kippur War.  They were ambushed and engaged the Israelis on the western side of the canal in a night tank battle with Centurion's of the Israeli 162nd Reserve Armoured Division on 17 October.  And lost. Only 5 T62s escaped.

Been doing a lot of reading on the campaign.  Apparently the 25th Armoured was an Elite unit. Sent in as a last ditch effort to destroy the Israeli bridge crossing.

Yes - thanks - this has been picked up previously as an editing error - we'll get them added in when we do the major list edit. Cheers
Mark

QuoteYou can easily convert a vehicle to Recce by adding 20pts. But we'll look to add the Strv 74 in the Recce section _ I will just need to check the service dates.

The tractors are an easy add - there are stats for these in the British Falkland list - but they are classified as 'Prime Movers' so can tow things but not act as transports - although if the Swedes had them towing large trailers they might be able to move INF: units as well - but they'd be classified as a VEH.

Cheers
Mark

Thanks Mark, I have found multiple sources mentioning Type 66 Brigades would use requisitioned civilian tractors and trailers in a conflict for transporting infantry. Makes sense, because local tractors would be well-suited to winter conditions. I couldn't find a Swedish picture, but here is the Finnish army in the 1970s using tractors and trailers. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FGKCCHXXwAA5vod?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Quote from: Raider4 on 09 July 2022, 05:05:08 PMThat's different from the Soviet list.

It's coppied direct from CWC 1, I don't subscribe to the overpowered Soviet guns and saw no reason to change then current stats.

Quote from: Raider4 on 09 July 2022, 05:05:08 PMThat's different from the Soviet list.

That's Ian view.

I'll be using the stats from the base-line Soviet list for the T62 etc.in the Arab list. And I'd suggest that that is the right way to approach this.

The challenge you have - if you believe the manufacturers stats on Soviet tank guns - is that they end up with longer ranges than most NATO tanks. If that was carried through to on-table stats most gamers using Soviet equipment would just sit back and shoot at NATO outside of NATO's range. Gamers being gamers.
That is however not the way that Soviet MBT tactics worked. It is all about attacking in-force.

Also, the 'reality' of these longer stats in actual combat was proven to be that the poorer quality optics and ranging, plus a general propensity for soviet trained crews to want get a lot closer to shoot it out with the enemy, means that the stats for soviet guns have been adjusted to take into account these factors. You can argue that maybe that choice should be left to individual gamers - but in that case you might as well be playing Warhammer or chess not CWC-II.

Thanks
Mark (the author)

The 'correct' stats for the T62 in the Arab States lists will be:

T-62 100pts AFV MV:25 AP:6/95 AT:5/60 4 4 -/9 1975*+ R/IR (Syria and Egypt*)

(*I'll need to double check the dates and numbers available for each country)

Thanks
Mark

Hi Mark

At first CWC2 is a great system! I like it very much and army lists looking great!
But I have question about IFV's like a French VAB family, USA LAV-25's or Soviet BTR's family and all kinds of BRDM.
We have threat them like a whealed vehicles? I'm asking becouse in rules is state that all AFV's are tracked. And in lists some armored vehicles have this "whealed" adnotation and other not. How to treat them (BTR VAB and LAV)? For terrain obstacles like a whealed but without this road movment bonus?
The addnotation in army lists is not a problam becouse I know what kind of particural system have a traction but I have to know if this AFV's what have this adnotation "wheealed" have this road bonus movement and this rest what is whealed but without this adnotation don't. Also Trucks and 4x4 have this road movement bonus?
I'm looking forward for Iraqi wars Army lists.

Thank you for a great work on this lists.
Darek

While I'm not sure what the rules say the LAV's of the New Zealand army are quite happy running at road speeds (~100 kph) as I see them on a regular basis on the way too and from work.

 :) I also not sure but in the rules we have to threat them like a whealed or not?

I get it Rhys! I needed a couple of minutes to get allusion ;D English is not my native language so I faster get in english when someone speak to me plain like a for Labrador :)
So yes they are whelaed.
Thank you!

Hi there

If an AFV is wheeled - like a BTR-60 (for example) - it is classified as Wheeled - so gets the road move advantage and the penalties associated with wire.

The wording should say something along the lines of 'most AFVs are tracked' ... we'll get that sorted in the errata edit.

If you can identify the page that it says that one, that would be very helpful.
Thanks
Mark

Hi Mark

I'm okay with that. Now I know if we have real world vehicle on wheels we treat them that they have this ability.
I suppose that trucks and 4x4 jeeps also.
Distiction in rules for APC's and IFV's is wonderfull.
Yes I saw this sentence 'most AFVs are tracked' probablly in the end of the rules in descritption and chracteristic of the paricular unit types.
Anyway great army lists!

Thank you for tremendous work on this army lists.
Darek

A pleasure Darek - I'm glad you are enjoying the lists and rules.  :D
Welcome to the forum and the world of Cold War Commander.
KR
Mark

Mark the Viyjanta is missing from the Indian list. Stats are in the lists folder. It was in service from 1965 roughly. 

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 29 July 2022, 09:46:35 AMMark the Viyjanta is missing from the Indian list. Stats are in the lists folder. It was in service from 1965 roughly. 

It is not missing Ian.

The Indian list is an Indo-Pakistani War list and the Vivyjanta was never used in combat with Pakistan (or deployed anywhere near the front line) despite what WIKI appears to claim (with no references).

Including it in the Indian Indo-Pakistani War list would be a bit like including a Challenger tank in the Falklands list  :D

Mark you put in a very rare 1/2 track for the Isralies, and no doubt the Indians could well  have used the Vijanta as it was a substantial part of their tank fleet it should be included. Would also help with a few notes on models, Indian T54/5 had oil drums added to thier barrels for recognition purposes so could be represented by T62. The M4A3 Shermans are E2? versions with 76mm guns. These are sometimes reported as Fireflies but are re-guned 75mm versions produced post war, should be represented by Fireflies.

No idea of reliability of the source but page 171 of the War of the Twins by Krishna Chandra Sagar (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XM5oZYYvEmYC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=Vijayanta+tank+in+action&source=bl&ots=tFP_Hors0c&sig=ACfU3U0RoUN6M6PUCvknpfdM2B_UBBHERQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9kOayjp75AhXOYMAKHa3KBm4Q6AF6BAg_EAM#v=onepage&q=Vijayanta%20tank%20in%20action&f=false)  refers to operational use of three squadrons of the Vijantaya in 1971 in the western theatre.

Edward

QuoteMark you put in a very rare 1/2 track for the Isralies, and no doubt the Indians could well  have used the Vijanta as it was a substantial part of their tank fleet it should be included. Would also help with a few notes on models, Indian T54/5 had oil drums added to thier barrels for recognition purposes so could be represented by T62. The M4A3 Shermans are E2? versions with 76mm guns. These are sometimes reported as Fireflies but are re-guned 75mm versions produced post war, should be represented by Fireflies.

Where a list is for a specific historical conflict Ian, my policy is to limit the equipment (as best as possible) to what was actually known to be used (not necessarily what was available). In a more generic list, the options to use a particular vehicle is left to the players own discretion. Hence why we have a generic British list and a specific list for the Falklands conflict (for example).

The fact that the Indians had lots of Vijanta available to fight Pakistan, but chose not to use them is an interesting question as to why not? Maybe it was a 'fear' that they might be captured by the Pakistanis or that they would not perform well and so provide the Pakistanis with a propaganda coup ... who knows!

There are extensive records/memoirs of the historic Indo-Pakistani tank fighting - from both sides point of view - and neither mention the Vijanta in action, and there are no reports of any damage to Vijanta or them causing any 'kills' on Pakistani tanks either. But as the Indian Indo-Pakistani list is specific to the conflict, the Vijanta has deliberately not been included. I will at some point in the future produce a generic Indian list that will include some of the more modern Indian MBTs etc. The Vijanta can be included in that.

My aim is to provide players with sets of lists that as accurately as possible allow them to depict the forces that actually fought (in an actual historic conflict) - not what might have happened or been possible.

With the NATO v WARSAW PACT 'cold war' potential war scenario there is much more room for flexibility. Is it right to stop the Canadians from potential using the Grizzly (APC), as the published OOB for the Canadian forces in Europe did not include it? I'd argue not, as in the heat of a major Cold War conflict, if the Canadians needed the Grizzly's, they'd have been deployed. It is the same argument about much of the Soviet/WarPact/PLA 'reserve' equipment.
But a Cold War battle in Europe was a 'what-if'. Unlike the actual Indo-Pakistani wars.

The issue about 'rarity' is one that has been much debated on this very forum many times in the past - in association with BKC as well as CWC. Again, my policy is that players like to know that even if a very small number of such units were deployed (or was available to be deployed) by an army, that these at least have the stats available to be used. Should the players want to do so.

In the PLA list - for example - there is a self-propelled AA vehicle (AA, Twin 37mm Type 63 - copy of US 'Duster'+T-64/84 hull) that may be a one-off vehicle - but I've included it as it allows a player an option to use it in an appropriate scenario.

Thanks
Mark

Mark following your logic thee should only be M24 and PT-76 in the lists as most fighting was in Bangladesh, and the MBT's were not used there. Please put the Vijanta back, it's about 1/3 of the Indian tank fleet. Also I have quite a few models and am going to use them in a coming big game.......along with OT64's. THey were ceratinly used, I can remember seeing them on newsreel footage at the time.'

QuoteNo idea of reliability of the source but page 171 of the War of the Twins by Krishna Chandra Sagar (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XM5oZYYvEmYC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=Vijayanta+tank+in+action&source=bl&ots=tFP_Hors0c&sig=ACfU3U0RoUN6M6PUCvknpfdM2B_UBBHERQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9kOayjp75AhXOYMAKHa3KBm4Q6AF6BAg_EAM#v=onepage&q=Vijayanta%20tank%20in%20action&f=false)  refers to operational use of three squadrons of the Vijantaya in 1971 in the western theatre.

Edward

Thanks Edward - it's a claim I had seen previously, but unfortunately I've been unable to substantiate it.
The sources/references in the book are not very good - a lot of secondary sources - and there is no back-up for the actions that the author claims took place from any official sources. Hence my doubts about its authenticity.

Unfortunately, this statement by the author is also being used to justify the inclusion of Vijantaya in the list of MBTs quoted by WIKI as having fought in the conflict.

Thanks
Mark

QuoteMark following your logic thee should only be M24 and PT-76 in the lists as most fighting was in Bangladesh, and the MBT's were not used there. Please put the Vijanta back, it's about 1/3 of the Indian tank fleet. Also I have quite a few models and am going to use them in a coming big game.......along with OT64's. THey were ceratinly used, I can remember seeing them on newsreel footage at the time.'

Ian ... you appear intent on ignoring my point.
Putting the Vijantaya in is about as logical as saying that the British Falkands list should include Challengers!

If you can find me that newsreel footage or anything official that states categorically (& I mean primary sources) that they were used in action or even deployed to the battlefront then I'm very happy reconsider my position.

And making statements such as "THey were ceratinly used,"  ... and "Also I have quite a few models and am going to use them in a coming big game.......along with OT64's." is hardly what I'd call a historical research based approach!!!

If you want to play 'sci-fi' that is fine by me - but I wont be including equipment that was not used in a historical conflict in a list that depicts a historical conflict.

Many thanks
Mark

NB: India had c.300 x OT-64A (the version fitted with BRDM-2 turret) ordered from Czechoslovakia in 1969 and delivered between 1971 and 1974. Pakistan had 6 x OT-64A (version fitted with BRDM-2 turret) ordered & delivered from Slovakia 1993, these were surplus Slovak units. As the OT-64A performs almost exactly like a BRDM, especially with the addition of the BRDM-2 turret, I'd suggest that replacing some of the BRDMs in either list with OT-64A models is perfectly acceptable.

Mark I'm not ignoring your point I do not accept it. The lists we are preparing are supposed to be GENERAL and include all possible kit that could have been used in the Theartre. As the Vijanta made up a substantial part of the Indian tank fleet it should be included. You seem to have ignored my last point, if you are doing a specific list it should be split east and west, the eastern list PT-76 and M24 as the only tanks. Yes I agree that the Falklands list would look silly with Challengers but an Indian list  omitting a substantial part of their tank fleet is equally silly, particularly since fairly reliable secondary sources put it in action, albeit in small numbers. Please re-instate.

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 29 July 2022, 02:58:51 PMMark I'm not ignoring your point I do not accept it. The lists we are preparing are supposed to be GENERAL and include all possible kit that could have been used in the Theartre. As the Vijanta made up a substantial part of the Indian tank fleet it should be included. You seem to have ignored my last point, if you are doing a specific list it should be split east and west, the eastern list PT-76 and M24 as the only tanks. Yes I agree that the Falklands list would look silly with Challengers but an Indian list  omitting a substantial part of their tank fleet is equally silly, particularly since fairly reliable secondary sources put it in action, albeit in small numbers. Please re-instate.

Each to their own Ian ... but I hold the 'pen' on the list  :D
And a specific list for a specific war should include only those units that fought in that conflict ... not some mythical "what if..." scenario.

You shot yourslef down there Mark, the Indian list covers 2 wars, so should be General, inculding the Viyjantas. Afterall you took it from a list I wrote. 

QuoteAfterall you took it from a list I wrote. 

Incorrect Ian - unfortunately (like a lot of the lists you submitted) I had to bin your Indian list, as it was incorrect, incomplete, was missing the dates, a lot of equipment in it was very vague, the stats were wrong and there were no Points costs against the units either.

TBF Ian - I'm reconstructing most of the new lists from my own research and the great work done by Ben Fiene in Australia (who's a proper unsung hero). With some occassional sterling cross-referencing & double-checking by Mark Bevis.

The Indian Indo-Pakistani war list can actually covers 4 conflicts, as you can use it (with the suggested recommended changes/restrictions) to reconstruct the Sino-Indian Boarder conflict as well as the Annexation of Portuguese Indian - along side both the Western & Eastern Theatres of the Indo-Pakistani conflicts.  However, the Viyjantas appears in none of these in a combat capacity.

But I'm not adding the Viyjantas to the list Ian - not until somebody can provide me with some solid evidence that these tanks were actually used in the conflict. I can find no record of them firing a single shot.

The fact that you might 'want' it to appear in the list bares no real weight I'm afraid.
It will appear in the larger more generic stand alone Indian list that will go through to the 1990s, when I get around to doing that (at some point).

Thanks
Mark

Keep insulting me Mark. I spent considerable time on all the lists I havew submitted. I WILL ACCEPOT YOUR APPOLOGY.

This will be formated all over the place but is copied from my original word docs, note the last coloumn Mark :-

AMX-13   50   AFV   30   3/80   3/50   3   3   6      IRNF
M4A4 Sherman   60   AFV   20   4/80   3/50   3   4   5      1960-67
Centurion Mk 7   130   AFV   20   4/100   5/100   3   6   4      1960-78 IRNF, S2
T-55   110   AFV   25   6/100   6/100   3   6   4      1960-1980
Vijayanta   145   AFV   25   1/50   -   3   5   4      1975-1995 IRNF
T-72M1   205   AFV   30   6/80   -   3   5   4      1980+ S2, IRNF
Arjun   235   AFV   30   4/120   6/120   1   6   3      1990+ Composite armour, TI, S1
ZSU-23/4    70   AFV   25   4/80   2/30   3   3   6      AA: 6/40
BMP-2    110   IFV   30   3/60   2/60   3   3   6      1980+ AT-4 or Milan
BTR-50   25   VEH   20   1/50      3   3   6      1960-1975
OT-64   35   VEH   25   2/50      3   3   6      1965-1995?
FV-432   30   VEH   25   1/50      2   3   6      1965-1995?

Those look remarkably like dates to me.

Gentlemen, can we please keep this civil and to the point?

Steve I appologise but as you can see Mr Fry has made another termilogical inexatitude,.

I really don't have a dog in this fight but just an observation.  I used the early iteration of BKC some years ago and ignored the lists for my SCW and early WW2 games, which were pretty much based on historical OBs and not artificial points based lists.
Similarly where there were omissions in kit I just added my own or modified them where I didn't like or agree with them.  It didn't alter the game play one jot or iota and I am just a bit bemused by what seems, to me, to be nothing but gratuitous and slavish adherence to detail.
If a piece of kit isn't included, just add it, keep playing and carry on.  Perhaps there is something fundamental I'm missing but it all seems a bit unnecessary. 

I suppose it comes down to a fundamental principle John, as to whether you try and create a historically accurate list for a specific historical campaign or you don't.

My view around the lists is that where there is a known OOB for an actual campaign, I try and keep the lists to match that. Again, I come back to my Falklands analogy - the British had all sorts of equipment that they 'could' have potentially deployed in the campaign, some of which might have assisted them greatly, but ultimately they didn't use that equipment. Likewise, I expect they had some equipment that they actually wished they hadn't had!
But the British Falklands list (IMHO) needs to attempt be accurate to allow players the option to replay the campaign as accurately as possible, if that is their desire.

TBF -If Ian wants to do a 'what-if' 1971 Indo-Pakistani game using Vijantaya MBTs (that were most likely never used in the war) then that is up to Ian. However, his individual 'need' does not mean I 'must' oblige and break the fundamental principle upon which I am creating historical campaign lists and include stats for the Vijantaya in the list.

Cheers
Mark

I would expect the lists to be 'historically accurate' (if there is ever such a thing)as per Mark's Falklands War analogy, so that if I wanted to re-create the campaign or a battle, I would have a good starting point. Points are a useful guide to start with but after some experience (certainly with BKCII) I tend to ignore them. However the lists are always my starting point.

However if I wanted to do a 'what if?' of the campaign, then I would use the lists as said starting point and then add in other kit that might take my fancy. Nothing wrong in that as far as I'm concerned.

That's just how I approach my projects, whether it be WWII or the cold War.

There was a comment somewhere about Israeli Centurions being all Mk.5

Here is a list I have, taken from Israeli & SIPRI sources
16x Centurion Mk.3 or Mk.5 in 1959 armed with 20pdr
14x Centurion Mk.8 in 1960 with 20pdr
60x Centurion Mk.5 in 1961 with 20pdr
(32x Centurion ARV 1963)
45x Centurion Mk.5 in 1962 with 20pdr with 105mm upgrade kits to make them Mk.5/2
45x Centurion Mk.5 in 1964 with 20pdr with 105mm upgrade kits to make them MK.5/2
70x ex-Dutch Centurion Mk.7 1963 20pdr
License to build British 105mm and APDS ammo received c1965
= 250 tanks, another 130 received by 1967 war, possibly of the following order:
250x Centurion Mk.3 upgraded to Mk.6 1964 105mm, uparmoured hull

400x Centurion Mk.9 in 1968, 105mm, uparmoured hull
400x Centurion Mk.9 in 1974, 105mm, uparmoured hull
122x Centurion Mk.5 and Mk.7 1971-72 ex US MDAP, 20pdr*
122x ex-Dutch Centurion Mk.5/2 & Mk.7 1971-1972 with 105mm*

* might be same tanks reported twice.... as in May 1967 the US agreed to supply diesel engines for the 380x Centurions then in service.

List doesn't include other ex-Dutch and ex-British Centurions bought 1975-1979.

Quote from: Big Insect on 30 July 2022, 09:55:32 AMI suppose it comes down to a fundamental principle John, as to whether you try and create a historically accurate list for a specific historical campaign or you don't.

I empathise.  If you are going to provide army lists, then they ought to be as accurate as possible.  I just wonder why they are necessary at all.  However, as the Cold War is not my period, I suppose I should keep my nose out really.

Points based Army lists are useful if you are:

• new to the period
• short of time for research (or not interested in research)
• if you are playing against different people and are not sure of their and your research skills
• playing in competitions
• looking for an overview of the troop types in the period
• looking to understand how troop types are represented in the rules
• trying to get an initial idea of the relative strength of forces

If you play with the same group of people who are all familiar with the period and rules then you can choose not to use the lists/points
I just wonder why some people consider having them is a negative

Paul army lists for CWC and CWC II are not so much lists as data charts for the equipment as in the table below :-

AMX-13   50   AFV   30   3/80   3/50   3   3   6      IRNF
M4A4 Sherman   60   AFV   20   4/80   3/50   3   4   5      1960-67
Centurion Mk 7   130   AFV   20   4/100   5/100   3   6   4      1960-78 IRNF, S2
T-55   110   AFV   25   6/100   6/100   3   6   4      1960-1980
Vijayanta   145   AFV   25   6/100   6   3   5   4      1975-1995 IRNF
T-72M1   205   AFV   30   6/80   -   3   5   4      1980+ S2, IRNF
Arjun   235   AFV   30   4/120   6/120   1   6   3      1990+ Composite armour, TI, S1


Some things we dont know so can either be left blank or guessed at I do both. Copy above is a tad messy due to conflicts between formats but should give the idea. One can almost generalise the unit structure - a battalion sized unit will have 3 combat sub units with most infantry having a support sub-unit. The sub-unit will have mostlty 3 elements - some Tank ones have 4. For CWC you dont often have to go below that level. Studies have shown that platoon size in tank elements is not a factor in combat which is very counter intuative.

The other point is that using unit specific lists is very difficult even when not in combat, See my post on 2 LI a couple of months ago. In the mid 70's they were a mechanised Btn but the brigade was a test unit. It's air squadron had Gazelle and Lynx, whilst the unit had 4 438, 6 432/Wombat and at least 4 Milan firing posts. This was well before most of this kit entred service of course. This points to my contention that unit specific lists do'nt work too well and you need to follow the offical outline. It may well be wrong but unless you were there you can't know what was the actual astuff present. It's an approach which has worked reasonably well for the last 40 or so years. 

Quote from: paulr on 31 July 2022, 02:43:18 AMIf you play with the same group of people who are all familiar with the period and rules then you can choose not to use the lists/points
I just wonder why some people consider having them is a negative

Not negative, just unnecessary.  But, in the context of this conversation they do almost seem more trouble than they are worth. 

John, I understand you see them as unnecessary, I have seen some other people consider them a negative
Apologies for any confusion

In the context of this conversation I'm not sure its the lists that are the trouble ;)

Quote from: sultanbev on 30 July 2022, 09:31:51 PMThere was a comment somewhere about Israeli Centurions being all Mk.5

Misread Mark what I said was all Isralie Cents WERE called Mk 5, regardless of what they actually were, and the same applied to 1/2 Tracks called M3 but more? were M5 from UK sources.

As one who deploys fictional forces, with plausible but not necessarily historical compositions, with "one-offs" being fictional battles set on the  fringes of actual actions I find army lists useful to give a reasonable balance to a scenario. That said, I can't say I've ever had problems slotting in a "what if" unit to an army list - the Maus tanks in my "Last Stand at Kummersdorf" scenario for example.

So, I'd like things that could have been used, but weren't, listed in an army list but will happily add them if they are not.

"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men." ― Douglas Bader 

Seems like it you don't like the original rules, just alter them to your liking?

Vets being suppressed on 4+ and raw troops on 6+ didn't make sense to me so I just changed it. Same with the organization of the rulebook - I reorganized, removed, shuffled, and consolidated things that made better sense to me.

The company has their money, you have the product. If you want to deploy M1 Abrams in 1971 Congo, how are they going to stop you? ;D

I'm not taking a side here, just seems like a lot of heat for something that's easy to fix.

Quote from: Smartbomb on 31 July 2022, 06:29:29 PMVets being suppressed on 4+ and raw troops on 6+ didn't make sense to me so I just changed it. Same with the organization of the rulebook - I reorganized, removed, shuffled, and consolidated things that made better sense to me.

The challenge with the Vets suppressed on a +4 and Conscripts on a +6 is an interesting debate.

Generally Vets are more cautious - they know just how dangerous a situation is and will (generally) keep their heads down in a fire-fight - using their experience to improve their chances of survival as well as their ability to get the job done. Conscripts will keep going, regardless of their ability to succeed. Both of which are actually quite hard to replicate.
The rules are generally constructed to use a mechanism to attempt to achieve the correct/historical outcome, rather than what necessarily looks to be right.

One alternative is to use optional Experience rule Chris, which also allows the equivalent of Vets to re-roll scores to hit that might otherwise have been misses. So it increases they combat effectiveness.
Just a thought

Mark

Sir, thanks you did explain that before.

My thought process is more that Raw troops will sometimes freeze in contact, they forget to communicate,  they're confused. If they don't freeze, raw troops are likely going to find cover and hunker. Thus no more actions due to suppression. This is doubly true when they take casualties.

Vets will certainly get low, but training, experience, muscle memory, experienced NCOs, etc. will mean they are returning fire, getting out of the killing zone, suppressing and flanking. They're cautious, but not immobilized. Casualties are a concern, but not a pause button.

I'm not lobbying for a rules change and the rules laid out for vets make sense given your thought process im more just making the point that this was something that did not make sense to me, so I changed it. Just like if someone wants rules for a unit, they can make them and add them to their lists.

Thanks for the Chinese Cold War army list.  It is a fine attempt at a difficult subject.  As the Chinese PLA is one of my specialist subjects, I hope a few comments and suggestions aren't out of place....
1) Sniper Team.   I wonder if the 1989+ and Para/Marine only restriction in the Notes is a little tough?  Chinese had the SVD sniper rifle and their own versions of it for many years prior to that.  Chinese snipers were renowned in the 1980-88 "continuation war" against Vietnam that eventually ended in a winning draw for China.
2) Type 63A/M (WZ213).  This has a 105mm high pressure gun in a new turret.  The current 3/80 and 3/80 attack stats don't reflect that.
3) Under Support, the most common late Cold War mortar in PLA infantry service was the 100mm.  It is not currently listed.  But normally there is a battery at battalion level.  Light Infantry and the like might use the 82mm instead.  The PLA didn't purchase the SP mortar you have listed - it was for export.  The first PLA SP mortar only appears after the period of these lists.
4) Type-86-I (WZ505) APC should not have Red Arrow ATGW.  It had a Marder/AMX10P-style turret with a French 25mm autocannon only.
5) No Chinese IFV or APC had TI night vision in this period (in fact, it has recently been revealed that only the most recent version of the Type-04 IFV has TI).
6) Type-90/WZ551A IFV.  The autocannon is not/not stabilised.  Remove the S1 or S2 ratings from these two entries.
7) I'm not sure why there are two different Type 63 tanks listed with the earlier one better than the later one.
8) I would have added the Type-59-II MBT with a 105mm main gun, stabilisation, night vision and better fire control for the 1980s onwards period.
9) I don't believe the Type-69-II ever served with the PLA (it was an export tank) but there you go.  As it was only a few hundred Type-69s of any version served with the PLA as it was an unsuccessful design.
10) The Type-69-III/Type-79 MBT entered production in 1984 not 1986.
11) I'm very confused by the Type-88A and Type-88B MBT listings.  Essentially these are wrong.  They never had ATGWs, for instance.  Nor did they have composite armour.  They were both upgraded versions of the Type-79 but using Chinese 105mm main guns.  The Type-88A had the long-barrel ZPL-94, while the Type-88B had the normal barrel ZPL-83 (same as NATO L7 105mm and should have same CWC stats as Type-79).  The Type-88A had a supercharged engine for use at high altitudes (think Tibet).
12) Type 96 MBT did not have a laser disruption device (you have maybe confused it with the later ZTZ-99).  If it fires an ATGW through the barrel it would be a Chinese version of the AT-11 Sniper not/not the currently listed Red Arrow.  But there is little/no evidence of this ever being fitted.
13) The Type 89 (Tank Destroyer) had a German 120mm main gun (the current listing is completely inadequate).  It was, however, unstabilised.
14)  I think your rating of the HJ-9 (WZ550) is very generous.  But I'll take it!
15) As noted previously, the 100mm mortar was the main weapons.  It should be available in the Artillery [on table] listings.
16) The main AA gun of army formations 1990+ was a copy of the German twin 35mm towed.  It doesn't appear in the lists currently.
17) The Type-89 (ZSD-89) IFV and APC appear to have been omitted from the lists entirely.  This vehicle is in very widespread service, so this is a serious omission.
18) The Xian JH-7 fighter-bomber appears to have been omitted from the aircraft listing.
19) The Harbin H-5 Beagle appears to have been omitted from the aircraft listings.
20) As noted previously, the 100mm mortar should appear in the Artillery [off table] lisitngs.

Quote from: dylan on 04 August 2022, 11:59:39 PMThanks for the Chinese Cold War army list.  It is a fine attempt at a difficult subject.  As the Chinese PLA is one of my specialist subjects, I hope a few comments and suggestions aren't out of place....
1) Sniper Team.   I wonder if the 1989+ and Para/Marine only restriction in the Notes is a little tough?  Chinese had the SVD sniper rifle and their own versions of it for many years prior to that.  Chinese snipers were renowned in the 1980-88 "continuation war" against Vietnam that eventually ended in a winning draw for China.
2) Type 63A/M (WZ213).  This has a 105mm high pressure gun in a new turret.  The current 3/80 and 3/80 attack stats don't reflect that.
3) Under Support, the most common late Cold War mortar in PLA infantry service was the 100mm.  It is not currently listed.  But normally there is a battery at battalion level.  Light Infantry and the like might use the 82mm instead.  The PLA didn't purchase the SP mortar you have listed - it was for export.  The first PLA SP mortar only appears after the period of these lists.
4) Type-86-I (WZ505) APC should not have Red Arrow ATGW.  It had a Marder/AMX10P-style turret with a French 25mm autocannon only.
5) No Chinese IFV or APC had TI night vision in this period (in fact, it has recently been revealed that only the most recent version of the Type-04 IFV has TI).
6) Type-90/WZ551A IFV.  The autocannon is not/not stabilised.  Remove the S1 or S2 ratings from these two entries.
7) I'm not sure why there are two different Type 63 tanks listed with the earlier one better than the later one.
8) I would have added the Type-59-II MBT with a 105mm main gun, stabilisation, night vision and better fire control for the 1980s onwards period.
9) I don't believe the Type-69-II ever served with the PLA (it was an export tank) but there you go.  As it was only a few hundred Type-69s of any version served with the PLA as it was an unsuccessful design.
10) The Type-69-III/Type-79 MBT entered production in 1984 not 1986.
11) I'm very confused by the Type-88A and Type-88B MBT listings.  Essentially these are wrong.  They never had ATGWs, for instance.  Nor did they have composite armour.  They were both upgraded versions of the Type-79 but using Chinese 105mm main guns.  The Type-88A had the long-barrel ZPL-94, while the Type-88B had the normal barrel ZPL-83 (same as NATO L7 105mm and should have same CWC stats as Type-79).  The Type-88A had a supercharged engine for use at high altitudes (think Tibet).
12) Type 96 MBT did not have a laser disruption device (you have maybe confused it with the later ZTZ-99).  If it fires an ATGW through the barrel it would be a Chinese version of the AT-11 Sniper not/not the currently listed Red Arrow.  But there is little/no evidence of this ever being fitted.
13) The Type 89 (Tank Destroyer) had a German 120mm main gun (the current listing is completely inadequate).  It was, however, unstabilised.
14)  I think your rating of the HJ-9 (WZ550) is very generous.  But I'll take it!
15) As noted previously, the 100mm mortar was the main weapons.  It should be available in the Artillery [on table] listings.
16) The main AA gun of army formations 1990+ was a copy of the German twin 35mm towed.  It doesn't appear in the lists currently.
17) The Type-89 (ZSD-89) IFV and APC appear to have been omitted from the lists entirely.  This vehicle is in very widespread service, so this is a serious omission.
18) The Xian JH-7 fighter-bomber appears to have been omitted from the aircraft listing.
19) The Harbin H-5 Beagle appears to have been omitted from the aircraft listings.
20) As noted previously, the 100mm mortar should appear in the Artillery [off table] lisitngs.

Many thanks - I will review and respond (if necessary) or correct as appropriate
Cheers
Mark

If there are differences in point values between the army list in the PDF and rules, which should we take as correct?  Example on p102 Soviet recce BRM-1 is 75 pts and BRDM-2s are 45/50 pts, but in PDF they are 95 pts for the BRM-1 and 65/70 pts for the BRDM-2s.

Quote from: Superscribe on 07 August 2022, 08:44:08 AMIf there are differences in point values between the army list in the PDF and rules, which should we take as correct?  Example on p102 Soviet recce BRM-1 is 75 pts and BRDM-2s are 45/50 pts, but in PDF they are 95 pts for the BRM-1 and 65/70 pts for the BRDM-2s.

You can usually do a quick 'sanity check' Chris.
If the basic unit is XXpts in the lists, the Recce unit version should be 20pts more expensive.

Quote from: Big Insect on 07 August 2022, 10:15:26 PMYou can usually do a quick 'sanity check' Chris.
If the basic unit is XXpts in the lists, the Recce unit version should be 20pts more expensive.

Hi Mark

Understood, but the points above were taken from Recce section in both rules and PDF, which suggests that one of the lists is incorrect.
Rgds
CHRIS

Absolutely Chris (NB: I am answering this without access to the lists or rules in front of me  :D )

So, if you look at the basic unit cost (say of a BMP - in the Armour section) the correct cost of the Recce version will be 20pts more expensive (whatever that is). In some lists BMPs do not have Saggers - and some Recce units even in Soviet or Warsaw Pact armies, did not mount Saggers. But that difference will be visible in the lists as well.

The cost of a BRDM (Recce version) is usually c.65pts - off the top of my head.

The issue with some of the list is/was that this 20pts for Recce was either not added previously or was accidentally added twice in some lists.

Hope that helps?
(NB there is no cost difference between a BRDM1 & a BRDM2 - as, as far as the rules are concerned there is no difference that effects their points).

Thanks
Mark

 :)

Hi Mark

This may have been covered previously but in case it hasn't ..... on p43 the 7th para talks about Close Assault by IFV without dismounting its passengers, and to use its own CA value and +1 for its passengers in support (3 + 1). However table on p45 shows IFV with mounted infantry has CA of 6. Which is correct?

Rgds

Chris

My previous post put in wrong channel! Now in the correct place:)

Now you are confusing me Chris - as this is a rules Errata question (potentially) - which I have just answered elsewhere - not a List Errata question  :)

Hi Mark

I note that the British FV432 81mm Mortar is listed in the Artillery (On-Table) section.  Shouldn't it be listed under Support section alongside the other 81mm mortars, and classed as type SP:Mor like the Bv 202/206?

Regards

Chris

TBF it makes no real difference Chris - they could be in both sections  :)
I've already picked up the fact that it needs the SP:MO designation - but thanks
Cheers
Mark

Ok

Just started playing CWC2 with games set in Germany 1958 (an excuse to use the heavy tanks!). In the last game the US player said he was surprised that the M103 AT stat is the same as the M48 (indeed the M47 too) and notably outranged (by 20cm) by the Soviet heavy, the T-10.

Is there a reason for this, or is it a typo?

QuoteJust started playing CWC2 with games set in Germany 1958 (an excuse to use the heavy tanks!). In the last game the US player said he was surprised that the M103 AT stat is the same as the M48 (indeed the M47 too) and notably outranged (by 20cm) by the Soviet heavy, the T-10.

Is there a reason for this, or is it a typo?

I'll do some double-checking regarding the M103 AT stats v the M47/M48.
Whilst the M103 has a 120mm gun, it had a lower rate of fire due to the double aspect ammunition, than the 90mm gun in the Pershing and Patton MBTs. That will effect its AT values specifically.

With regards to the Soviet T-10 the gun (whilst 120mm) would be equivalent to the IS-3 (122mm gun) in game terms.
So the stats in the book look incorrect. I suggest you use the IS-3 stats.

There were some 'issues' with the Soviet Tank stats - and I'll check but it looks like that was one that was not picked up.

With regards to the West Germans - unless specified as being of a different calibre - the M47 & M48 should be the same gun stats, if both are the 90mm gun version.

The West German list is also missing the M26 Pershing (a copying error) which of course made up a large % of the post WW2 German armour (even though it was withdrawn in 1951).
The Pershing stats can be found in the US list and they had the same 90mm gun as the M46/M47, but the same engine as the Sherman - which reduced their speed significantly (as it was a heavier tank). You could also apply an Unreliable special characteristic to it if you wanted to (at -5pts per unit). You could do similarly for the M103 - as both had a very high instance of mechanical failure.

The whole Pershing-Patton series of tanks is a difficult one to depict, as the range of variation across the Pershing-M46-M47-M48 range can be quite cosmetic, as far as the game mechanisms are concerned. Factors such as the fire effect, armour and movement speeds are the primary drivers for the differences, so unless there is a significant upgrade in gun calibre, or a major drop in rate-of-fire (for example) it will probably have no impact on the AP/AT stats.

So if you wanted to deploy Pershing tanks in your early Bundeswehr I'd suggest using the US list stats.
The Belgians also fielded Pershings in significant numbers from 1952 onwards.

We'll pick all of the above up in the Errata.
Many thanks
Mark

Mark have to agree that the M26-M48 are difficult to quantify, I suspect but have no proof that most 26's were converted to 46's, as its an engine swap.

Indian list, apart from no Vijanta is also missing the Sexton. Was looking through James Armour and artillery - my copy is 1980, and found an entry for Sexton, in service with India only. No idea if used but should be added.

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 02 September 2022, 09:09:03 AMIndian list, apart from no Vijanta is also missing the Sexton. Was looking through James Armour and artillery - my copy is 1980, and found an entry for Sexton, in service with India only. No idea if used but should be added.

Perhaps we need a new catchphrase - "What, no Vijayanta!"

 X_X

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 03 September 2022, 07:39:44 PMPerhaps we need a new catchphrase - "What, no Vijayanta!"

Now who's stirring up a fluff!

QuoteNow who's stirring up a fluff!

I was outraged they don't feature in "The Rings of Power"

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 03 September 2022, 10:36:38 PMI was outraged they don't feature in "The Rings of Power"

Yes, indeed. They were there, but just didn't feature anywhere near the actual combat and Tolkien might, or might not, have not written about them.
So we are safe to exclude them from the action (& army lists) - although Weta have sculpted a model and GW are about to sell it, in packs of 200, at a bargain price of course. However, even though there are stats in the books you are banned from playing with them in all GW tournaments.

I hope that clears things up a bit?

Any way, why do Hobbits have Irish accents and Dwarfs Scottish ones? Isn't that ethnic stereotyping?  (I shall start I new Rings of Power thread - to stop this VIP thread getting clogged up with 'fluff' (& that is as much my fault as anybody elses) !
 

Quote from: Big Insect on 04 September 2022, 09:57:53 AMAny way, why do Hobbits have Irish accents and Dwarfs Scottish ones? Isn't that ethnic stereotyping?  (I shall start I new Rings of Power thread - to stop this VIP thread getting clogged up with 'fluff' (& that is as much my fault as anybody elses) !
 

I wondered about that

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 24 May 2022, 02:20:08 PMThe M60A1 RISE(P) Combat Tank and the M48A5 Patton appear to be identical but are of differing points.

No idea why that might be  :)  I will investigate

Hi Mark

I expect this has been covered previously but with the absence of letter 'D' in the Notes column as suggested on p50, to identify Dedicated ATGW units, can you confirm that ATGW units listed in the Support category for each Nationality, such as British Milan and Soviet Spigot AT-4, are also dedicated ATGW units.

Regards

Chris

Quote from: Superscribe on 21 September 2022, 02:28:18 PMHi Mark

I expect this has been covered previously but with the absence of letter 'D' in the Notes column as suggested on p50, to identify Dedicated ATGW units, can you confirm that ATGW units listed in the Support category for each Nationality, such as British Milan and Soviet Spigot AT-4, are also dedicated ATGW units.

Regards

Chris

You are so right Chris  :D

It was changed so that there are now specific sections in the Army Lists that have the designation 'Dedicated' against them. So ATGW's in that section are classified as Dedicated.
Those in other sections - such as Support (for example) are not Dedicated.

Helicopters are always classified as Dedicated. Some other vehicles (such as Hovercrafts or assault boats) can be specifically classified as 'Dedicated' but that is usually covered in the army list notes.

Many thanks
Mark

Hi Mark

OK so are Milan and Spigot (in Support section) classed as IATW so only get to fire once per GT or can they fire multiple times per GT?

Regards

Chris

They still fire like 'Dedicated' ATGW,  but are not classified as Independent units - so are subject to Command distance penalties. This reflects operating practice primarily and how they are integrated in with the Infantry (generally).
It is why the same unit type can appear in both Support & Dedicated - occassionally.

We can make that clearer in the Errata update.

Generally, 'Dedicated' means they are Independent units - which also applies to Dedicated on-table Artillery, and on-table Mortars as well.

Thank you for confirming what I suspected

BR
Chris

This is not an errata as such but more a question so apologies if it is in the wrong place. I am looking at making a force for Israel in their invasion of Lebanon in '82 and it seems that they are really light on options (especially transports and recce), is this accurate or am I missing something?
Also what would be the best way to include the various not state actors in the conflict? As separate battlegroups or integral?
Cheers in advance.

QuoteThis is not an errata as such but more a question so apologies if it is in the wrong place. I am looking at making a force for Israel in their invasion of Lebanon in '82 and it seems that they are really light on options (especially transports and recce), is this accurate or am I missing something?
Also what would be the best way to include the various not state actors in the conflict? As separate battlegroups or integral?
Cheers in advance.

In '82 you are correct that the IDF has limited options.
M113 APCs, M3/5 half-tracks and a lot of Trucks were used to move infantry. You can even use captured BMP-1s.

For Recce, you can use Infantry Scouts (& remember these can be transported in APCs, half-tracks, jeeps & trucks from the Transport list), jeep mounted recce, captured BDRM2s and PT-76s, and M113 Bardelas A2S.

The Wiki page on the war has some good pictures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War

With regards to opponents - there is due to be a specific Lebanese Civil War army list, but it is not an immediate one on the production list (I probably have another 10-15 on the list ahead of it I'm afraid), and it is not a quick or easy list to produce, as information is scarce and very unreliable.

My intention is to create a single list that covers all the various factions (except the IDF and Syrians who have/will have their own lists) that allows you to build up separate HQ commanded formations to work with either the IDF or Syrians or even US marines etc. It also allows you to use Israeli Air and Marine off-table assets to support formations which represent only one faction on its own. The Afghan-war Mujahedeen list might give you an idea around how to build a Palestinian PLO or Hamas force, but you'll need to adapt it heavily.

Not really sure how helpful all this is. But there will be a list for the Civil War - but to manage expectations, it wont be quick coming, unfortunately.
Thanks

Mark

Hi Mark

Looking at the Soviet VDV list the IATW upgrades dont look correct:

RPG-7 - 30 Upgrade - 3/30 3/30 H - - -/- 1961-88
RPG-16D - 30 Upgrade - 4/50 4/50 H - - -/- 1972-96
RPG-18 Mukha - 25 Upgrade - 3/50 3/50 H - - -/- 1972-93
RPG-7V1 - 50 Upgrade - 4/30 4/30 H - - -/- 1977

RPG-16D is cheaper than RPG-7V1 by 20pts but has 20cm longer range.  Is this correct?

Regards

Chris

Are you looking at the Book or the on-line lists. The online lists are correct. But always cross-check against the Soviet lists (online).

The IATWs were a bit of a muddle when we went to print and so the online lists are a much better representation of the effect and the costs.
But you should be able to cross-reference them against the main (on-line) Soviet or US or UK or French lists and use those costs and stats.
To also be frank - on the table at the scale we are playing at and with the range of stats we have available to us, some of the differences between RPG types are probably irrelevant.  But I'll also check these ones specifically, when I get some time.

There is a major piece of work going on to establish continuity across all the various weapons and vehicles for the main arms suppliers (e.g. USA, Soviets, France, Britain and to a lesser extent China. But it is a way off (unless some kind soul wants to volunteer to do it - without putting their own spin on things?).
The issue with the IATG, and all the Recoilless Rifles, and some howitzer type guns (as used on BMP-1s or Scorpion light tanks or Walker Bulldogs for example) was the (mistaken) belief that because we now had an AP & an AT set of stats, that the need for the 'H' designation disappears (when it doesn't) and that led to some confusion. Correcting that is nowhere near as straight forward as it might look. But most of the later 2nd or 3rd wave of lists have been adjusted (on-line)

All of which leads back to my initial reticence about putting any lists in the printed rules set. But we are where we are  - hey ho :)

Hi Mark

Thanks for the update. I was looking at the PDFs

Regards
Chris

Not sure if someone has pointed it yet, but Iraq army list lacks several units, as SU122, ISU152, SU-17, captured Chieftains... Also, some of the dates look weird. Iraq deploying Shilka BEFORE the Soviet Union?

Quote from: Phobos on 15 November 2022, 01:44:14 PMNot sure if someone has pointed it yet, but Iraq army list lacks several units, as SU122, ISU152, SU-17, captured Chieftains... Also, some of the dates look weird. Iraq deploying Shilka BEFORE the Soviet Union?

Thanks - you are correct about the Shilka - post 1965 - probably 1970 is more realistic.

Capture Chieftains ... I am dubious about the numbers and the amount of ammo available & whether they saw any active service. But happy to be enlightened.

Happy to include SU122 - but can you provide me with some source info as I cannot find anything?

SU17s - Iraq used the export versions (Su-20 and Su-22) of the SU-17 - the SU-22's are in the list and there is not enough difference between the 20 & 22 versions to warrant a separate line.

many thanks - we can pick these up in the errata.

Mark

SU-100, not 122, my fault.

You are right about the chieftain question, 45 captured, but don´t know if they deployed them actively.

They did use Cheiftain ARV's but no record for the tanks. Ammo supply would have been a problem.

They could have got ammo off the Jordanians for the Chieftains. They were issued to one of the Special Republican Guard units in the 2nd Gulf War, about a company's worth - most were shipped to Jordan and swapped for other kit like APILAS.

Mark

Quote from: sultanbev on 15 November 2022, 09:31:33 PMThey could have got ammo off the Jordanians for the Chieftains. They were issued to one of the Special Republican Guard units in the 2nd Gulf War, about a company's worth - most were shipped to Jordan and swapped for other kit like APILAS.

Mark

Ok - sounds like a limited numbers and very limited deployment.

Right, i think [3] would be more than enough.

An small issue that puzzled us today in the game. T55A in the Iran List is 10 points more expensive and has 4/110 & 3/90 vs the soviet T55A with 100pts and $/80 & 4/80. Errata or intended? Seems weird an export version being bit better than the original.

I'll need to check with Mark on that one as soon of the popular vehicle stats have been adjusted with the newer lists.

Quote from: Leon on 21 November 2022, 03:58:00 PMI'll need to check with Mark on that one as soon of the popular vehicle stats have been adjusted with the newer lists.

As previously stated in earlier replies to similar questions.
 
All of the US, Soviet, UK and French MBT costs are under review, and will be put through a 'continuity' process.
If there are no difference in stats or capabilities for a specific tank and there is a points cost difference shown in a particular list when compared with the main Country Manufacturer list, for now please revert to the main Country manufacturer list. That cost might be more or less, but the differences are usually quite minor.

This issue has occurred due to multiple list sources.

Many thanks
Mark

Just had cause to go through the VDV Soviet Airborne online list.  A couple of comments:
1)  Although a good collection of BMDs is included the BMD-1P is absent.  This should be included.  It was an important variant used in the 1980s and beyond, especially by air assault brigades.  I'd suggest adding the BMD-1P to both the recce and armour sections of the list.  It is a BMD-1 with the 9M113 or 9M111 ATGW instead of the Malyutka.
2)  As others have posted earlier, the IATW section seems a bit FUBAR.  I understand that will be tidied up.
3)  The off table artillery section gives the D30 an ICM capability but the Assets section does not give the army an ICM option.
4) Not sure why the whole battlegroup is limited to only nine IFV stands.
5) There are the usual discrepancies between the on-table 120mm mortar in the Support section and the on-table 120mm mortar in the Artillery [on table] section.  I assume these will be cleaned up at some point.
6) Under Transport & Vehicles I'd suggest including the 1V119 "Rheostat" as transport for FAOs.  I would also suggest including the LuAZ-967M amphibious transport vehicle which was widely used by the late 1980s in air assault units.
7)  The BMD-2 was stabilised.

Quote from: Superscribe on 04 October 2022, 06:21:06 PMRPG-7 - 30 Upgrade - 3/30 3/30 H - - -/- 1961-88
RPG-16D - 30 Upgrade - 4/50 4/50 H - - -/- 1972-96
RPG-18 Mukha - 25 Upgrade - 3/50 3/50 H - - -/- 1972-93
RPG-7V1 - 50 Upgrade - 4/30 4/30 H - - -/- 1977

Those ranges are a joke if 1cm = 20m.
I've noticed this before, a lot of the infantry weapons ranges are all over the place, but have refrained from commenting previously as it's beyond my ken as to why they got to such values.

The actual ranges are (and these are maximum ranges where you are on at best 20% to hit a halted target and no-one is firing at you):
RPG-7 500m (25cm)
RPG-16 700m (35cm)
RPG-18 200m (10cm)
RPG-7V1 500m (25cm)

I think it is important to get these right, as too long a range beyond real life values creates a "dead-zone" radius in front of an infantry base, giving them capabilities far beyond what they should have, which alters game play significantly I would imagine.

I susoect the ranges are tactial use ones, an RPG-7 may well range 500m but is only used at 200m. Certainly the Charlie G can fire 5000m but is not used over 500m for example.

Quote from: sultanbev on 22 February 2023, 10:50:16 PMThose ranges are a joke if 1cm = 20m.
I've noticed this before, a lot of the infantry weapons ranges are all over the place, but have refrained from commenting previously as it's beyond my ken as to why they got to such values.

The actual ranges are (and these are maximum ranges where you are on at best 20% to hit a halted target and no-one is firing at you):
RPG-7 500m (25cm)
RPG-16 700m (35cm)
RPG-18 200m (10cm)
RPG-7V1 500m (25cm)

I think it is important to get these right, as too long a range beyond real life values creates a "dead-zone" radius in front of an infantry base, giving them capabilities far beyond what they should have, which alters game play significantly I would imagine.

As I have previously states Ranges in the lists are not necessarily those quoted officially or by the manufacturers.
If you went by that you'd have a lot of Soviet MBT guns outranging their NATO opposite numbers and you'd distort the game-play in the rules - as any sensible Soviet player would just sit off and blow NATO to pieces, whilst NATO was forced to move forward to shoot.
The RPG & IATW ranges fall into a similar bracket. Ability to actually hit (effective range) with an RPG is as important as with an MBT gun.

The ranges in the lists are in effect the actual realistic battlefield ranges, as most Soviet trained crews (even the best) were not expected to be able to fire and hit anything at the maximum ranges. In fact they were not trained to fire at these ranges. RPGs appear to be very similar.

Longer ranges to guns/RPGs also means a much greater points cost, so you'd end up with Soviet tanks etc. all starting to cost a lot more, thus making the idea of superior numbers v NATO unworkable.

Any idea that we can ask a player not to fire a weapon at its maximum range - having included that maximum range in the actual army list stats - is unworkable and unrealistic (IMHO) hence the fact that an effective range has been calculated and is what appears in the lists.

There are some known anomalies in the points costs, ranges etc and continuity between lists (especially with IATWs) for the same weapon-type in the lists. There is an ongoing project to identify and rectify these.

I hope that that helps clarify things  :)
Thanks
Mark

Hi,

I finally perused some lists and found some stuff I think are errata or something I am not overly persuaded...

US Vietnam:

Infantry: The infantry units are weird for several reasons, why the USMC are elite? there is no evidence the marines were better than the Army in any way. There were good and bad USMC units as there were good and bad Army units. The main difference was organization, with larger USMC platoons, with their 14 men (Squad leader, 1 grenadier, three 4 men fire teams), but except for the Special Naval Landing Forces, battalions were routinely understrength and rarely the platoons were per ToE. One has also to mention the Marines did not switch to M16 from M14 until 1967, and the switch was completed by 1968. Also both the Army and the Marines used the draft. I do not subscribe to the idea pre 1968 US infantry was 'reluctant'. They were quite dashing, if not because this is the period when whole units were sent to Vietnam. To a certain extent they had more cohesion and more unit training. Often NCO were WW2 and Korea veterans. Except in the very late period, post 1971 when units were pulling back, and no one wanted to be the last one dying, I do not see any use for the reluctant trait. One thing that instead could have been overlooked is the fact that several units deployed with M-14 rifles in 1965 and 1966. Considering the standard version was unable of full auto fire, it is a better use for the 3 firepower unit. If one want to keep at least three categories, I would say:
M14 equipped infantry (3/30 until 1967)
M16 equipped Infantry (4/30) those should be the standard units)
M14 equipped Fresh Infantry (3/30 but elite)
M16 equipped Fresh Infantry (4/30, elite to represent very good units)
and keep the SF as they are.

Vehicles:

The US Army did not use M41 in Vietnam. Only the ARVN.  The same is valid for the M114. A small group was delivered to the ARVN in before 1965 for field trial, but were deemed unsuitable for Vietnam. They should not be in the list. The M59 and M75 had already been withdrawn from service, they should be out of the list.

LTVP... the version used in Vietnam was the LVTP-5, it was armed with a single .30 machine gun, but could carry 34 people. It should be a 20 movement, 1/30 AP no AT, available from 1962. Carry 8 as per ARVN version is fine, hits and save could be either 4/6 or, considering it was literally unarmored, 3/6. By the same token, the 105mm howitzer version was operation from 1962 and landed at Da Nang in 1965.

M48A2/3 AT should be standard not H. They fired both HEAT and AP round (plus HE-FRAG and Canister).

V100 Armoured car is missing.

Helicopters: The AH-1 was never equipped with missiles in Vietnam. The ATGW were trialed on Standard UH-1. I 1972 two UH-1B with TOWs were deployed to South Vietnam. The Gunship version of the Huey should be called Hog, not Cobra. Plus why the AC-47, a plane, is in the helicopter list?

That is all.

General question.... why there are ANZAC units in the US list, while there is also a separate Anzac list?

I will post more later...

Best,
Arrigo

Quote. . . Plus why the AC-47, a plane, is in the helicopter list?

The ACH-47 is an up-armoured/armed version of the CH-47. Only four converted. Should be 1966-1968. Never heard it called "Spooky".

Quote from: Raider4 on 31 March 2023, 07:24:14 PMThe ACH-47 is an up-armoured/armed version of the CH-47. Only four converted. Should be 1966-1968. Never heard it called "Spooky".

AC-47 Spooky was the AC-47, a C-47 cargo with miniguns on one side. It was the prototype fixed wing gunship that spawned the AC-119 and the AC-130. Now re-reading the list there is also the AC-47, but called 'puff', should be Puff the Magic Dragon, but it was a nose art name on an AC-47. Indeed the list is confusing and has plenty of errors. Also realized it lacks the M56 Scorpion. Only 5 were deployed, but they were used in combat. Considering we have TOW equipped helicopters... (2 used), they should be in...  other omission were the TOW armed M151 deployed in 1972 in Kontum.

Comments in-line below, in blue.
If there are no specific comments we can pick up the corrections in the next errata update.
Cheers
Mark

QuoteHi,

I finally perused some lists and found some stuff I think are errata or something I am not overly persuaded...

US Vietnam:

Infantry: The infantry units are weird for several reasons, why the USMC are elite?
> this is one of those 'Abraham Lincoln' type things! If they are not made elite in a set of lists the author gets bombarded by players (often ex-marines) claiming that the USMC we 'better' than the ordinary conscripts etc.etc.etc. This type of debate went on & on (on & off forum and on Facebook for years with FOW). TBF - at the level at which we play the game, the difference between one type of infantry and another, unless there is something spectacular is probably negligible. Are UK Guards or Paras really any better than standard UK regulars - it depends very much who you are asking! Certain units - such as Chinese PVA in Korea or NKPA units can quite easily be classified as Fanatic, but they were also quite brittle. Similarly, how do you classify French Foreign Legion fighting in Indo-china or Algeria? It is all very subjective.
Likewise - the lists are not specifically designed to cater for specific drafts of troops & there are instances of 'Fresh' US troops just collapsing and running on their first engagements with the enemy, especially in dense jungle.
I have no issues with players choosing to make their own 'house' adjustments if they so desire.

There is no evidence the marines were better than the Army in any way. There were good and bad USMC units as there were good and bad Army units. The main difference was organization, with larger USMC platoons, with their 14 men (Squad leader, 1 grenadier, three 4 men fire teams), but except for the Special Naval Landing Forces, battalions were routinely understrength and rarely the platoons were per ToE. One has also to mention the Marines did not switch to M16 from M14 until 1967, and the switch was completed by 1968. Also both the Army and the Marines used the draft. I do not subscribe to the idea pre 1968 US infantry was 'reluctant'. They were quite dashing, if not because this is the period when whole units were sent to Vietnam. To a certain extent they had more cohesion and more unit training. Often NCO were WW2 and Korea veterans. Except in the very late period, post 1971 when units were pulling back, and no one wanted to be the last one dying, I do not see any use for the reluctant trait. One thing that instead could have been overlooked is the fact that several units deployed with M-14 rifles in 1965 and 1966. Considering the standard version was unable of full auto fire, it is a better use for the 3 firepower unit. If one want to keep at least three categories, I would say:
M14 equipped infantry (3/30 until 1967)
M16 equipped Infantry (4/30) those should be the standard units)
M14 equipped Fresh Infantry (3/30 but elite)
M16 equipped Fresh Infantry (4/30, elite to represent very good units)
and keep the SF as they are.
> to be honest - at the level of abstraction that the rules operate to there is no real difference between the M14/M16 from a stats perspective  

Vehicles:

The US Army did not use M41 in Vietnam. Only the ARVN.  > Agreed - we can alter that
The same is valid for the M114. A small group was delivered to the ARVN in before 1965 for field trial, but were deemed unsuitable for Vietnam. They should not be in the list. 

> From 1962 the ARVN used the M114s in their Recce squadrons and whilst they proved to be highly unsuccessful they were used in some numbers, they were not withdrawn until 1964 - to be replaced by the M113 ACAVs, which was already in service, and were much more reliable and mine resistant.

The M59 and M75 had already been withdrawn from service, they should be out of the list.
> small numbers of M59 were deployed in Vietnam but its replacement (the M113) was not deployed until 1962. Happy to remove the M75

LTVP... the version used in Vietnam was the LVTP-5, it was armed with a single .30 machine gun, but could carry 34 people. It should be a 20 movement, 1/30 AP no AT, available from 1962. Carry 8 as per ARVN version is fine > this is actually an error - it should read that it can only carry 3 Inf:LI (as the general rule is that 10-12 actual passengers equates to a single base of Inf:LI), hits and save could be either 4/6 or, considering it was literally unarmored, 3/6. > 3/6 is the most consistent approach as its armour was as good/bad as the M113

By the same token, the 105mm howitzer version was operation from 1962 and landed at Da Nang in 1965.

M48A2/3 AT should be standard not H. They fired both HEAT and AP round (plus HE-FRAG and Canister).

V100 Armoured car is missing.
> The V100 or Cadillac Gage Commando was originally deployed to South Vietnam in Sept 1963 for use by the U.S. Army Military Police, United States Air Force, United States Marine Corps and allied forces including the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN). The US Army started using it in June 1967. Mainly used for armed convoy escort duties, numbers deployed were low. However, if a player wishes to use them they should use the cost/stats for the M113, but wheeled and with a Transport (1) capability

Helicopters: The AH-1 was never equipped with missiles in Vietnam. The ATGW were trialed on Standard UH-1. I 1972 two UH-1B with TOWs were deployed to South Vietnam. The Gunship version of the Huey should be called Hog, not Cobra. Plus why the AC-47, a plane, is in the helicopter list? (>a typo - we can pick that up as well)

That is all.

General question.... why there are ANZAC units in the US list, while there is also a separate Anzac list?
> Because some ANZAC units operated in close cooperation with US units and the original list was produced before a separate ANZAC list had been created. That can be edited in the next errata updates.

I will post more later...

Best,
Arrigo

QuoteAC-47 Spooky was the AC-47, a C-47 cargo with miniguns on one side. It was the prototype fixed wing gunship that spawned the AC-119 and the AC-130. Now re-reading the list there is also the AC-47, but called 'puff', should be Puff the Magic Dragon, but it was a nose art name on an AC-47. Indeed the list is confusing and has plenty of errors. Also realized it lacks the M56 Scorpion. Only 5 were deployed, but they were used in combat. Considering we have TOW equipped helicopters... (2 used), they should be in...  other omission were the TOW armed M151 deployed in 1972 in Kontum.

Happy to add the M56 Scorpions (at next errata update) but only (1) maximum. Likewise the TOW armed helicopters - whilst deployed and 'tested' appear never to have seen action - but are included for completeness. Happy to do the same with the TOW armed M151s.

The nick-names Spooky and Puff (the Magic Dragon) were radio call-signs used by infantry to bring in the AC47 'gunships'. It is just to add 'colour' to the lists.

Cheers
Mark

Quote from: Arrigo on 31 March 2023, 06:32:34 PMGeneral question.... why there are ANZAC units in the US list, while there is also a separate Anzac list?

1 RAR served under the 173rd brigade from May 1965 to May 1966. 5 RAR was under command from May to June 1966 when 1 ATF assumed command for the local area and operated as its own brigade command.

Got the point with USMC veterans... had a couple of them as students...  :d nice chaps, but... I also get the point about the platoon variations. To be quite honest I would not bother that much with M14 vs M16, it was mainly trying to find an use the existing stats...  8) so to not ask too many changes. Maybe switching to grades rather than branches should be better in plenty of army lists. I am a bit worried about the 'conscripts' thing. Considering even the PAVN was conscript but they have no special conscript trait... Also there is some sort of bias against conscripts in wargame rules... My impression is that is not so much the enlisted that counts, but the NCOs making the difference, thus, the trait could have sense in the post war soviet Army with his lack of professional NCOs, but not that much in armies like the US, or  National Service UK/CW. Also we do not have 50 years old privates anymore... privates tend all to be young and relatively fresh from training.

I have a few questions/comments about the West German list please:

The HS30 really ought to be classed as an IFV rather than transport: it was basically the first modern IFV. It was also tiny so should have a carrying capacity of just 1.

Until 1986 the German M109G only has 3 attack dice, despite it being a 155mm gun. Is there any particular reason for this?

What is your source for the mine roller engineering tanks please? From what I can see, the Leopard 1A4MP is an Israeli design and not used by the Germans. It also didn't come into service until after the Cold War. There is an anti-mine vehicle based on the M48 hull but it did not come into service until after the year 2000. I'd love to be wrong but it looks as though the West Germans never had a mine clearing vehicle.

Some of the aircraft seem to be under or over powered. The Fouga Magister had 2 hardpoints and a carrying capacity of just 140kg yet has 4 attacks. Meanwhile the F104G Starfighter had 7 hardpoints and could carry 1,800kg but also has 4 attacks. The Alphajet had 5 hardpoints and could carry 2,500kg but only has 3 attacks. Was there a method behind the aircraft stats?

Thanks

The West Germans used standard M48A2C with minerollers or ploughs in the 1980s, a section of 4 in some brigade engineer companies. Source Digest No.3 Bruce Rea-Taylor, TableTop Games (1986)

Having said that, I can't find a photo of one, and even the Tankograd 5011 on the M48 in West German service doesn't mention them. it does say 53 tanks equipped with dozers had their gun removed and issued as Armoured Engineer Vehicles, but that is with dozer blade, not mine ploughs.(Unless they had them available in store but not regular issue?) So it may well be an error.

Mark

Answers below in-line. Thanks
Mark

QuoteI have a few questions/comments about the West German list please:

The HS30 really ought to be classed as an IFV rather than transport: it was basically the first modern IFV. It was also tiny so should have a carrying capacity of just 1.

> I agree that the capacity of the Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 should be Transport (1) - that can be altered.
On the matter of it being an IFV - its design is such that the crew cannot fire from under cover, they must do so by opening ports on the roof of the vehicle. The ability to fire from under cover is one of the specific requirements of an IFV.

Until 1986 the German M109G only has 3 attack dice, despite it being a 155mm gun. Is there any particular reason for this?

> the German M109G should have the same attack dice as the US deployed version, so the 3 is probably an errata. Please use the US stats

What is your source for the mine roller engineering tanks please? From what I can see, the Leopard 1A4MP is an Israeli design and not used by the Germans. It also didn't come into service until after the Cold War. There is an anti-mine vehicle based on the M48 hull but it did not come into service until after the year 2000. I'd love to be wrong but it looks as though the West Germans never had a mine clearing vehicle.

> TBF I'd need to go back to the primary contributor(s) for the West German list for that information. However, a lot of the NATO information is often based on highly variable or unreliable or uncorroborated information, and any information on the internet is highly unreliable. I'll make the enquiries, but in the meantime maybe some of our other Forum members (who are more knowledgeable about Bundeswehr matters) might be able to step in here?

Some of the aircraft seem to be under or over powered. The Fouga Magister had 2 hardpoints and a carrying capacity of just 140kg yet has 4 attacks. Meanwhile the F104G Starfighter had 7 hardpoints and could carry 1,800kg but also has 4 attacks. The Alphajet had 5 hardpoints and could carry 2,500kg but only has 3 attacks. Was there a method behind the aircraft stats?

> the challenge with all aircraft is that ultimately we have the limits of operating within a D:6 driven system.
Also the whole aircraft element of the game is very secondary to the core rules, and many of the stats are based on the nearest comparatives - so much like the off-table artillery you will end up with groups of similar aircraft 'lumped together' as far as stats are concerned. Sadly, there is no exact formula for the aircraft stats which  I inherited from the original author. 

Thanks

Thinking about the Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30, overnight.

I can see your point about it being classified as an IFV. The fighting doctrine is that of an IFV and it does only carry a single squad of infantry*, with limited room for additional infantry support weapon systems.

I think in this case the fact that the passengers must expose themselves to shoot, is probably acceptable. However, I'd probably make it easier to hit by +1 in an assault against enemy infantry, if the passengers are also adding to the melee (e.g. fighting mounted).

*the challenge between what is an IFV and what should be classified as an APC is very borderline and subjective. Transport capacity is one factor; ability of the crew to fight mounted and be protected is another; the actual tactical doctrine is a third and having a reasonably high caliber offensive weapon is the fourth.

As is how many units can be transported, the M113 is a good case in question here.
Generally, I have tried to work on the basis that up to 10 passengers (excluding crew) is Transport (1) and 10+ is Transport (2) (20+ = Transport (3) etc.).
The challenge comes with vehicles such as BMPs - where there are 8 passengers (+ 3 crew) but there are also added support weapons (SAM-7s etc). To overcome this challenge I usually suggest that any Infantry support weapons are carried as a Reserve with the formations HQ and deployed out of Reserve when the infantry de-bus.
NB: infantry upgrades don't count towards transport space.

Likewise with an M113 the number of passenger range between 11 & 15 depending upon what is being carried - so it is designated as Transport (2) but I'd usually suggest that that represents a single INF:LI base + an Infantry Support weapon of some sort (GMP or Dragon etc.) as generally the infantry squads were quite heavily equiped.

Thanks
Mark

Hi Mark

Thanks for the reply. I take your point about the HS30 not really being an IFV. By that rationale, the Warrior could be classed as not an IFV as it's not designed for the troops to fight from onboard. Except that the Warrior is quite clearly an IFV! Happy to keep the HS30 as an APC.

Now that I know what I'm looking for, I can see the 'Nam era M48 with mine rollers. It'd be nice if I could get a brace of them added to the West German horde. I shall continue the research.

Thanks

Hi some questions about Notes/abilities
Column.
What does the A (M75 APC on page116) mean?
What does the O (M-3 Halftrack on page116) mean?
What does the R (90mm M56 Escorpió on page 114) mean?

Thanks.

'A' - Amphibious
'O' - Open-topped
'R' - Restricted view

Ok. Thanks.
I think it  could be usefull to white it somewhere in the army list.
Thanks.
Just a suggestion.

Where are all these rules listed out? I seem to recall a long list of them but could not find them in the rulebook nor army lists. Is it split up amongst different sections of the book or did I just dream it?

Quote from: ingtaer on 14 December 2023, 03:26:16 PMWhere are all these rules listed out? I seem to recall a long list of them but could not find them in the rulebook nor army lists. Is it split up amongst different sections of the book or did I just dream it?

No dream  :D - there is a whole section called Special Abilities (Page 91-95) CWC-II
There are also some specific abilities that only apply to a single list (or very few) and these can be found under each army list in the Abilities or Special Rules sections.

Cheers
Mark