With the updated army lists now being available, we've created this new thread for any tweaks, queries or feedback on the updated lists.

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


If you spot an issue with any of the lists please explain which list, section, unit you're referring to.  Any suggested changes are very helpful too.

With all of the lists being online, it's a lot easier to update them but we'll still aim to do this in regular batches to avoid constant tweaks.

I am pretty sure the Ethiopians had T34s

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 02 September 2025, 05:26:55 PMI am pretty sure the Ethiopians had T34s

There is a photo of a captured/damaged Somali T34 on Wiki - so it is conceivable (particularly early in the war) that some might have been repaired and reused by the Ethiopians. But I suspect the numbers would be very small.

My research indicates that the T-34 tanks were deployed by Somalia; the Ethiopian forces were supported by modern Soviet equipment, including tanks and artillery, while Somalia primarily used its older Soviet T-34 and newer T-54/55 tanks.
But, as always, I am happy to be enlightened if I am wrong.
Cheers
Mark

1) All the Sherman entries that show (75mm) armed variants have A/T = 3/90, which is for the 76mm armed Sherman.
2) Churchill Mk.IV in Korea? Not heard of that.
3) There was at best only 1 Comet in Korea, and that narrative is based on one dodgy photo. 4) Centurion Mk.3 not Mk.2 in Korea, although stats would be same at this level. The Mk.2 was a bit of an oddball in that it had thicker hull front armour (118mm) compared to 76mm of Mk.1, Mk.3-8.

4) 120mm Wombat in Vietnam? No, 'Wombat Gun' was the Aussie nickname for the 40mm M79 grenade launcher. They actually were issued 90mm M67 RR but they weren't used in action much.
5) Danes used tracked Roland? wut?
6) 40mmL60 towed Bofors more effective (4/100 cf 2/100) than twin 40mm Bofors on M19 and M42? Ooops
You are not going to convince me that a Bofors gun, L70 even with radar, is as good as a ZSU-23-4. Longer ranged, yes.

I think taking out the AA factor from the notes and letting people pick the best of A/T or A-P factors for AA factors was a mistake. For instance a 100mm KS19 AA gun is going to have reasonable A/T and A-P factors, but poor AA factors at very long range.

7) The Soviet ISU-122 has same gun as Is-2/3/4, so should be A-P = 5/70, A/T = 4/60
8 ) IT-122-54 has a gun similar to the T-10, so A-P = 5/70, A/T = 6/60
9) The T-10 series has HMG coax with its 122mm, so it's A/P factor should not be LESS than the earlier Is-2/3/4, should be at least the same.
10) The 100mm M1944 ATG has same ammo as Su-100, so A/T = 4/60
11) End date for Su-100 is at least 1996.
12) The 125mm 2A45 ATG never entered service (as of 2015 at least).

13) Composite armour; In the West German notes it says these give normal saves to IATW and ATGW. That looks about right, I always thought a 5+ save is miserly.
In all other notes it has (older rule?) that Composite only gives a 5+ save versus IATW and ATGW. And yet the rule book doesn't state that armour gets no save against IATW, only ATGW.

14) Wonder why Challenger ERA is 2+ save whereas everyone elses is 4+ save?
15) Vigilant ATGW - the range correction to 65cm has been picked up for the ground mount, but not for the vehicle mounted variants.
16) British SPAT: What is restricted ammo (due you mean arc?), and why is 17pdr Valentine SP Archer with less stats than 17pdr ATG and M10 17pdr SP Achilles? They all use same ammo.
17) Arab and other lists. You can't use RPG-6 anti-tank grenades against infantry, just no!
18) Some lists still have some IATW with double the ranges they had in real life, sorry, you can't hit a point target with an RPG-7 at 800m (40cm). Don't know what thats about.
What is worse is that within one list you'll have some with correct ranges, and some with incorrect ranges, eg the British:

So the PIAT, No.94 rifle A/T grenades, and Carl Gustav are roughly correct (the latter for S550 700m range version from sometime in the 1970s, not the earlier M2) but the others are pure fantasy:
3.5" M20 range 110m (10cm being generous, in line with PIAT)
66mm LAW 300m (not 800m hahah) so 15cm
94mm LAW80 500m (not 1200m even more hahhaha) so 25cm
NB 84mm M2 from 1963 has 450m range, so about 25cm

What happened?

T-34/85 was used by Ethiopia according to the Osprey NV20. Janes' Armour and Artillery picks it up as in service by the 1985 edition. SIPRI lists 56 delivered in 1977. A SIPRI entry is good confirmation.

Ah, they appear in MicroMark List AF80M, with 2 indpendent tank battalions with Yemeni crews, from late 1977.

The  ever wonderful wwiiafterwwii gives info

https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2023/06/24/the-t-34-in-somalia/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Not serious but several dates are wrong. The 432/Rarden should be 74/5 - 2LI had a full issue of 1 per platoon at that time. School of Infantry probably had the other 4.

Quote from: sultanbev on 02 September 2025, 07:36:33 PM1) All the Sherman entries that show (75mm) armed variants have A/T = 3/90, which is for the 76mm armed Sherman.
> Yes - the difference between the two is primarily its armour penetration ability. But reducing the AT to 2/90 which is the only option seems to under-gun the 75mm considerably. But I'm happy to debate alternative options?

2) Churchill Mk.IV in Korea? Not heard of that.
> Info from a conversation with Tank Museum (Bovingdon): "the Churchill tank, including Mark IV variants, was used in the Korean War, although the British Army primarily deployed later marks, like the Mark VII Crocodile flamethrower tank. Its direct combat use in Korea was limited, with Armour Recovery Vehicles (ARVs) and Bridge Layers of the Churchill type mainly seeing service.
 
3) There was at best only 1 Comet in Korea, and that narrative is based on one dodgy photo.
> The image, along with one taken of British units in Hong Kong ahead of embarkation to Korea, is as you say debatable. And I'd be happy to remove it, until any other more solid evidence.

4) Centurion Mk.3 not Mk.2 in Korea, although stats would be same at this level. The Mk.2 was a bit of an oddball in that it had thicker hull front armour (118mm) compared to 76mm of Mk.1, Mk.3-8.
> Noted - thanks

4) 120mm Wombat in Vietnam? No, 'Wombat Gun' was the Aussie nickname for the 40mm M79 grenade launcher. They actually were issued 90mm M67 RR but they weren't used in action much.
> a good shout on that - thanks

5) Danes used tracked Roland? wut?
> No, that is an transcription error on my part.

6) 40mmL60 towed Bofors more effective (4/100 cf 2/100) than twin 40mm Bofors on M19 and M42? Ooops
You are not going to convince me that a Bofors gun, L70 even with radar, is as good as a ZSU-23-4. Longer ranged, yes.
> yes, the whole issue of AA factors v Ground targets is a challenge but the stats are incorrect and will be ammended.

I think taking out the AA factor from the notes and letting people pick the best of A/T or A-P factors for AA factors was a mistake. For instance a 100mm KS19 AA gun is going to have reasonable A/T and A-P factors, but poor AA factors at very long range.
> I am in total agreement and I am working on an errata that will resolve that problem.
The challenge caused by the use of AA guns against ground targets is common to many sets of rules and not easily solved. Cutting the AT/AP effect and ranges against ground targets by 50% seems overall to have the desired effect - but I am still playtesting that.

7) The Soviet ISU-122 has same gun as Is-2/3/4, so should be A-P = 5/70, A/T = 4/60
> Noted - thanks
8 ) IT-122-54 has a gun similar to the T-10, so A-P = 5/70, A/T = 6/60
> Noted - thanks
9) The T-10 series has HMG coax with its 122mm, so it's A/P factor should not be LESS than the earlier Is-2/3/4, should be at least the same.
> Noted - thanks
10) The 100mm M1944 ATG has same ammo as Su-100, so A/T = 4/60
> Noted - thanks

11) End date for Su-100 is at least 1996.
> which list are you looking at - as all the Soviet/Warsaw Pact lists should end in 1991?

12) The 125mm 2A45 ATG never entered service (as of 2015 at least).
> OK - Wiki has it as in service from 1989 - but no source.

13) Composite armour; In the West German notes it says these give normal saves to IATW and ATGW. That looks about right, I always thought a 5+ save is miserly.

In all other notes it has (older rule?) that Composite only gives a 5+ save versus IATW and ATGW. And yet the rule book doesn't state that armour gets no save against IATW, only ATGW.
> They should all be same as the West German notes - that is a transcription error - good spot

14) Wonder why Challenger ERA is 2+ save whereas everyone elses is 4+ save?
> an error - that can be corrected

15) Vigilant ATGW - the range correction to 65cm has been picked up for the ground mount, but not for the vehicle mounted variants.
> thanks - good spot

16) British SPAT: What is restricted ammo (due you mean arc?), and why is 17pdr Valentine SP Archer with less stats than 17pdr ATG and M10 17pdr SP Achilles? They all use same ammo.
> 'restricted ammo' refers to the fact that a number of 'tank-hunter' SPATs only carried a limited amount of specific ammo, usually HE. I needed a way to reflect this. The Valentine SP Archer and Achilles should be the same stats - will correct that

17) Arab and other lists. You can't use RPG-6 anti-tank grenades against infantry, just no!
>

18) Some lists still have some IATW with double the ranges they had in real life, sorry, you can't hit a point target with an RPG-7 at 800m (40cm). Don't know what thats about.
What is worse is that within one list you'll have some with correct ranges, and some with incorrect ranges, eg the British:

So the PIAT, No.94 rifle A/T grenades, and Carl Gustav are roughly correct (the latter for S550 700m range version from sometime in the 1970s, not the earlier M2) but the others are pure fantasy:
3.5" M20 range 110m (10cm being generous, in line with PIAT)
66mm LAW 300m (not 800m hahah) so 15cm
94mm LAW80 500m (not 1200m even more hahhaha) so 25cm
NB 84mm M2 from 1963 has 450m range, so about 25cm
> The whole IATW 'thing' is/was the stuff of nightmares  - but some of what you've spotted is actually manual copying errors on my part. Even getting some of them correct is a bonus IMHO. But I'll take a specific look and see what I can do quickly on them.

What happened?

As always - thank you for the detailed feedback Mark.
Answers to the various points are outline above (in bold).

In answer to you last question "What happened?" - as Leon (& I) have previously stated (on a number of occasions) this has been a massive logistical and highly manual process (a real challenge) as a lot of the original stats made absolutely no sense and were not logical in the way they had been constructed.
But the good news is that now all the lists are digital - it's a relatively easy process to update and amend them.
Yes, there will still be errors. Yes, there will still be omissions and mistakes (like the Danish Roland for example) but they are easily excised 

Cheers
Mark

NB. British armour in Korea
Official History vol.1 Appendix N gives 8 Hussars a total of 64 Centurions (3 Sabre squadrons @20 + RHQ), 6 Cromwells (OP I think), 3 tank dozers (Centurion I think), 3 Churchill ARV, 3 Churchill bridgelayer, 4 carriers, 18 scout cars.

C Sqn 7 RTR is given as SHQ (2 Churchill VII, 2 Churchill ARV, 4 troops @ 4 Churchill Crocodile

45 Field Regiment RA also had 6 OP Cromwells (which were combined with those of 8H to form Cooper force).

Cromwells in Korea had replaced the Stuarts in the Recce troop. Yes the Churchills were Crocs, but the trailers were left at home, so same as VII but no hull MG. 

1) All the Sherman entries that show (75mm) armed variants have A/T = 3/90, which is for the 76mm armed Sherman.
> Yes - the difference between the two is primarily its armour penetration ability. But reducing the AT to 2/90 which is the only option seems to under-gun the 75mm considerably. But I'm happy to debate alternative options?

No, stats are okay, what I meant to say is that several Sherman entries are mislabeled as Sherman (75mm) when they should be Sherman (76mm).

11) End date for Su-100 is at least 1996.
> which list are you looking at - as all the Soviet/Warsaw Pact lists should end in 1991?
There was film footage of Russian some Su-100 being used in one of their excursions into the ex-Soviet Republics, Kazakstan or whereever, at the time that the US and Russia were co-operating on anti-terrorist operations c1996.

Re Churchill in Korea, the Mk.IV has a cast turret, so would be immediately photo-obvious compared to Churchill VII, which has the welded turret. A 'defrocked' Crocodile is a MkVII. Any Crocodiles without flamethrowers would be command tanks in any case, so they wouldn't appear as a combat item in the lists. Same with the Comet, you could allow it as a command stand model, but not a fighting unit.

Am tempted to do a list of all IATW on one sheet with correct ranges to help inform list writing.

Regarding 'restricted ammo', doctrine for British anti-tank was 40% HE, 60% AP by 1945, similar to tanks, so I wouldn't worry about it at this level of gaming.

You could perhaps use restricted ammo for AFVs that carry very little, eg a Charioteer at 8x HE and 17x APDS, or a 100mm MT12 with 20 rounds in total - 10x FSAPDS, 6x HEAT, 4x HE.

Quote from: sultanbev on 04 September 2025, 11:03:26 AMAm tempted to do a list of all IATW on one sheet with correct ranges to help inform list writing.

If you could be bothered Mark, that would be helpful and appreciated. 
 
Some of it is also very subjective. Such as the RPG-6 stuff (for example), as there are enumerable quotes of them being a very effective AP weapon because of the c.20m blast radius of the fragments.

Cheers
Mark

Great Stuff!

Let the fun begin...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Big Insect on 04 September 2025, 01:22:34 PM

QuoteAm tempted to do a list of all IATW on one sheet with correct ranges to help inform list writing.

If you could be bothered Mark, that would be helpful and appreciated

Just to let you know I've started this, it might be a while but I've got a lot of material to go through. I've been collecting this kind of data for nearly 50 years, much of it from books before the internet became common. Should be an epic spreadsheet when finished, it's turning into one sheet per country.....

Quote from: dylan on 04 September 2025, 08:47:55 PMGreat 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.

Thanks dylan. I'll take a look.
FYI.
There can be no correlation between AT guns & MBT guns (as we're back to the issue of doctrine). Likewise you cannot compare AA guns with similar calibre guns on tanks etc.That is partly due to how many time a gun can fire in a game turn & the intended game-balance effect looking to be achieved by the stats.
Cheers
Mark

Quote from: Big Insect on 06 September 2025, 08:15:40 PMThanks dylan. I'll take a look.
FYI.
There can be no correlation between AT guns & MBT guns (as we're back to the issue of doctrine). Likewise you cannot compare AA guns with similar calibre guns on tanks etc.That is partly due to how many time a gun can fire in a game turn & the intended game-balance effect looking to be achieved by the stats.
Cheers
Mark

Good points. I understand what you're saying.

Please note, however, that (partly) I'm talking about the differing Range stats.  How is that an anti-tank gun that is basically the same as the main gun just fitted on a tank, has a longer range?

Quote from: dylan on 06 September 2025, 09:43:03 PMGood points. I understand what you're saying.

Please note, however, that (partly) I'm talking about the differing Range stats.  How is that an anti-tank gun that is basically the same as the main gun just fitted on a tank, has a longer range?

Bear in mind that the ?KC series, and Warmaster which inspired them, are not interested in input but in outputs. So, as an entirely fictional example, if doctrine dictates that towed artillery open fire at longer range than tanks and tracked artillery then even though it is the same gun firing exactly the same ammo the stats should be different. One reason, among a myriad of others, that might apply.

Quote from: Ithoriel on 06 September 2025, 10:34:11 PMBear in mind that the ?KC series, and Warmaster which inspired them, are not interested in input but in outputs. So, as an entirely fictional example, if doctrine dictates that towed artillery open fire at longer range than tanks and tracked artillery then even though it is the same gun firing exactly the same ammo the stats should be different. One reason, among a myriad of others, that might apply.

Yup that is a fair point, although I'm not sure that is the case for Soviet postwar AT guns/SP guns.  I'd want to see the specific references to justify such a position for these weapons.

My initial comments on the "2025ColdWarUSA1946-1990" list:

1. Again, this is a great collection of information and reflects a lot of hard work. Well done.

2.  I'm confused by the title of the list ("United States - 1946-1990") and the presence of things from post-1990.  Also some of the Notes column notations specially *only* apply to post-1990!

3. Under "Recce", the M8/M20 Greyhound is given an AP rating of 1/60.  I was under the impression that the canister round of the 37mm gun was quite highly rated for anti-personnel work, even in Vietnam.  Yet in CWC the 37mm is pants, and you'd actually be better off with a .50cal (which also raises the question of why the M20 which did have the .50cal on a ring-mount is only 1/60 when other vehicles with the same weapon have a rating of 2/50)

4. Under "Recce", if the M551 is classed as Fragile, I'm pretty sure the M114 and M114A2 should be also. Everything you read about them says they were all dogs.

5. Under "Recce", why are all the Bradleys given the characteristic Wheeled?

6. Under "Recce", where is the characteristic Misfire (given to M551) described in the rules?

7. Under "Recce", the M3A2 is listed twice.  I think the first listing should actually be the basic M3 Bradley CFV, not the M3A2.

8. Under "Recce", all the Bradleys are noted to be "Armoured Cavalry only". In fact M3 CFVs were used in mech battalion recce platoons of the headquarters company as well as armoured cavalry units.

9. Under "Recce", although the M113ACAV is listed, actually a lot of armoured cav units used the basic M113 (especially those in Europe). ACAV was pretty much a Vietnam-only thing.

10. Under "Support", I believe the Super Dragon (aka Dragon-III) was only ever used by the USMC.

11. Under "Engineers", the M60 AVLB was in service from 1963. And I think the M48 AVLB was in service from the 1950s.

12. Under "Armour", the LVTH-6 entered service from 1957.

13. Should the M3 CFV be repeated under "Armour"?  They're only issued to recon units.

14. Under "Armour", how come the M551 listed here doesn't have the characteristics in the Notes of the M551 under "Recce"?

15. Under "Armour", the M60A3 TTS came into service in 1979 (and most tankers say its optics/TI were better than the Abrams)

16. Under "Armour", the M48A2/A3 wasn't significantly better armoured than the M48A1.  Not sure why it gets a better saving throw number. In fact, it is a bit confusing to have an M48 listed as "M48/M48A1-A3 Patton" and then immediately below it an "M48A1/A3 Patton". Why the second listing?

17. Under "Armour", was in fact the M26 better protected than the M46 or the M47?  It has a better save number.

18. Under Armour, it isn't clear why the M60A3 TTS and the M60A3 RISE ERA have a better AT value than the 105mm armed Abrams variants. Should be the same.

19. Under "Anti-Tank [Dedicated]", the M901 Improved TOW Vehicle was introduced in 1979, and it should be armed with the I-TOW (hence its name!), not the earlier TOW variant it is listed with the first listing here.

20. Under "Transport & Vehicles", were the M113A3 and the M113ACAV really significantly more heavily armoured than the basic M113?

21. Under "Helicopters", I'm not sure what the Bell UH-1 Cobra actually is - have never heard of such a beast introduced around 1992.

22. Under "Helicopters", I don't think the tiny OH-6A Cayuse should get a Transport(2) rating.

23. Under "Air Support", there are a few eyebrow raising ratings, but I don't really understand them so will just suggest a quick scan to make sure they are as intended.