AS it entered service in 63 it's unlikley that the Indian Army had any in 65, but am open to persuation.

Quote from: Thomas on 03 January 2025, 09:48:18 PMHi. I have a question about the army list for India 65-71.
The SA-6, SA-8, SA-9 are on it from 1970+. Were they actually used in the '71 war? The only sources I can find suggest the SA-6 was acquired in the mid-70's, and the SA-8 and -9 in the 80's.
Also, the BM-21 is listed without a year, suggesting it was used in both '65 and '71. Is there please any reference to these being used in either?
Thank you.

With the Indo-Pakistan/Sino-Indian Wars lists, the lists only really cover the units that we know actually fought - as it is a conflict specific list, rather than a more general country specific list.

The SA-6/8/9 may have come out of the original CWCI set of lists - so could be an error - having now checked I can find no historic corroboration of their actual use in the conflict. So you can sensibly ignore them.

I suspect the BM-21 was available but not used. Wiki (notoriously unreliable and in this case without a source) quotes the first use of the BM-21 as the Sino-Soviet War/Border Conflict in 1969, so it is possible that if India had any they might have used them in '71. But again I can find no historical corroboration.

Cheers
Mark

I have the following in service dates for India
ZSU-23-4   1978
Sa-6 Gainful   1976
Sa-9 Gaskin   1980

Don't know about the Sa-8 and BM-21.

SIPRI data shows 1975 for the BM-21, 200 delivered over the years 1975, 1976, 1977.

Sa-8 9M33 Osa shown as 3000 delivered over 1984-1985-1986-1987-1988-1989-1990 (presumably actual missiles not launchers)

And confirms the dates for the others, with ZSU-23-4 stated as 1976.

Thank you!
I'll ignore the SA-6/8/9, BM21 and Shilka.
But will add the Su-7 Fitter, for '71.

Hi. I have seen the excellent news about updated army lists. How soon do you plan to upload Brit/WG/Soviet/VDV?

Rgds
Chris

The lists will all get uploaded at the same time, so should be a couple of weeks away.  I've done the final edits on 10 out of 47, so should be able to blitz through the others over the next few days.

 

Hi Leon

Thanks for the update. How will you announce their release? Just in this channel?

Ta

Quote from: Superscribe on 05 August 2025, 11:06:26 PMThanks for the update. How will you announce their release? Just in this channel?

They're all done now so I'll get them uploaded to the Dropbox tonight/tomorrow and then we'll announce it in all of the usual places.

Brilliant

What is D in army list notes?

Realised its for 'Dedicated'.....

The updated Army Lists are now available for free download here: https://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,21713.0.html 

Great Stuff!

Let the fun begin...

my initial comments on the "2025ColdWarSovietUnion1946-1990" list:

1. This is a massive effort. Well done on incorporating so many different systems and options.

2. Under "Recce" and under "Armour", was, in fact, the PT-76 air droppable by parachute?  I've never seen any evidence to suggest that it was.

3. Under "Infantry Upgrades", the AT rating of the RPG-29 must surely be a mistake.  This weapon is huge and has by far the largest diameter HEAT warhead of any of the weapons listed here.  Yet it is given an AT rating worse than a RPG-7.

3. Under "Support", it doesn't make much intuitive sense that an SPG-9 recoilless gun is only identical in HE and AT range to an RPG-7 shoulder fired weapon (4/40 and 4/40H).  Why would the Soviets have a heavy weapons team in each battalion with this recoilless gun if it only had the same range as the RPGs every one of their squads carried?  I'd also note that the almost identical 73mm low pressure gun on the BMP-1 is rated as 4/50 later in the lists.

4. Under "Support", it is unclear why the "82mm Mortar 2B9 Vasilek, GAZ-66" only has an HE rating of 6/100, when the 2B9 systems immediately above and below it on the table have a rating of 6/200.  I would suggest they all should have the same HE rating.

5. Under "Armour", was, in fact, the BMP air portable by parachute (as opposed to the BMD, which certainly was)?

6.  Under "Armour", the T-54A is a curious beast.  It is rated as having better firepower statistics (4/90 and 4/80) than many very similar tanks that appeared later.  Is it really the case that the 100mm gun or ammunition or optics on the T-54A was better than the later T-55AM with its 100mm gun? (rated 5/80 and 4/80) Equally, the date of introduction given for this T-54A (1976+) does not match what most sources give as the date of introduction of the T-54A (around 1955).

7. Under "Armour", it is unclear why the earlier T-62 has a better AP range rating (6/95) than the later T-62A and on. (6/90 or worse).

8. Under "Armour", it is unclear why the later T-62M with the missile  and also the T-62MV with the missile have an inferior AP rating (5/80) to the T-62M immediately above it without the missile (6/90) or the earlier basic T-62 (6/95).

9. Under "Armour",  the T-72A had composite armour. But it did not enter service until 1979.

10. Under "Armour", it makes no sense that the premium tank T-64A and T-64B have a poorer range weapon than the mass production T-72 series.  The T-64 was fitted with far better optics and a better gun than all the early T-72s.

11. Under "Anti tank dedicated" it isn't clear why the 100mm towed anti tank guns have so much better range performance than their equivalents mounted on tanks. Nor why they roll different amounts of damage dice. Similarly, the SU-100 is given far better stats for its 100mm gun than the same gun mounted on a T55.

12. Under "Air defence dedicated", it isn't clear why a 57mm S60 AA gun gets to roll 4/80 for AT and yet a 100mm anti tank gun on a T-55 only rolls 4/60 and a 85mm anti tank gun on a T34/85 only rolls 3/60.