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, 10:03:36 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, 02:57:18 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, 02:12:12 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 

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 ?   

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!!! 

Answers in-line in Bold
many thanks
Mark

Quote from: dylan on 27 May 2022, 11:30:06 PMLured 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, 05:07:18 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