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the M26 Pershing (a copying error) which of course made up a large % of the post WW2 German armour (even though it was withdrawn in 1951).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, 08:09:03 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!"

 

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 03 September 2022, 06:39:44 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, 09:36:38 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, 08:57:53 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, 01:20:08 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, 01:28:18 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 

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