CWC-2 Army Lists

[Alien242]

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.

[Big Insect]

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.

Well spotted - we'll get that fixed
Many thanks
Mark

[HogansHeroes]

If I may, could I ask some questions about the Swedish list too. First, the 1989 version of the Ikv-91 sees a big jump in AT firepower from 5/100 to 9/100. I was just wondering why?

Second, with the Strv 103 S-Tank the armour seems very low. 4 hits and a save of 5. This is the same as the T-34/76 and the M4A3 Sherman. I am no expert, but is this right?

Finally the Swedes don't have counter battery capability in the list. I have read that Swedish artillery battalion HQs had counter battery flash spot and sound ranging equipment. Is this enough to count as counter battery capability?

Great work!   
 

[Raider4]

Second, with the Strv 103 S-Tank the armour seems very low. 4 hits and a save of 5. This is the same as the T-34/76 and the M4A3 Sherman. I am no expert, but is this right?

This hasn't changed from CWC1. Not saying it's wrong or right, but it has always been that way.

[flamingpig0]

I wonder if the M48 (FJR.40/Wachregiment) in the Warsaw Pact grade 1 list might be better classed as a recon element. At the moment the temptation would be to use it as long range support for the T55s rather than as an advanced element.

[Big Insect]

I wonder if the M48 (FJR.40/Wachregiment) in the Warsaw Pact grade 1 list might be better classed as a recon element. At the moment the temptation would be to use it as long range support for the T55s rather than as an advanced element.

I'll look into that - thank you - it was a bit of a long-shot adding it in TBF - as there is/was a lot of speculation around its exitance in any number. But it adds a bit of 'colour' 

[Leon]

6 new lists added today!

Cold War 1946-90
- Australian
- Belgian
- Canadian
- Finnish
- Netherlands
- Norwegian

Next up will be the Arab-Israeli lists to go with our new range.  I'll try and get these released this coming week but with another show coming it might need to wait until we get back on Sunday.

[Itinerant Hobbyist]

Nice start to the lists and thank you. I will be interested to see the long term impact of having them posted online vs in the book.

[kustenjaeger]

Definitely looking forward to the Arab-Israeli lists though I suspect I may do more in 1:1. 

Currently worrying about the potential to have to have one of each of a Magach 3 [M48 with 105mm gun], M50/M51 and Sho't [Centurion] company for Sinai in 1973 i.e. 11 MBT at TO&E.  At least the Egyptians only mainly have T-55 plus T-62 in the independent armoured brigades.

Edward

[Leon]

Nice start to the lists and thank you. I will be interested to see the long term impact of having them posted online vs in the book.

Me too, I know there were some folks who really wanted them in the print version but I think this is much more efficient for everyone.  No limitations on how many lists we release, easy updates when we need to tweak things, and the smaller rulebook alleviates the increased printing/shipping costs we're seeing at the moment. 

[dylan]

If I may, could I ask some questions about the Swedish list too. First, the 1989 version of the Ikv-91 sees a big jump in AT firepower from 5/100 to 9/100. I was just wondering why?

Second, with the Strv 103 S-Tank the armour seems very low. 4 hits and a save of 5. This is the same as the T-34/76 and the M4A3 Sherman. I am no expert, but is this right?

Finally the Swedes don't have counter battery capability in the list. I have read that Swedish artillery battalion HQs had counter battery flash spot and sound ranging equipment. Is this enough to count as counter battery capability?

Great work!   
 

I think the 1989 Ikv-91 AT value is a mistake. 

The S-tank is one of those Cold War tanks that people frequently overestimate the protection of.  It looked cool and all, but it had 50mm of frontal armour (at a considerable angle to be sure).  The strv 103's heavily sloped but not all that thick front armor which offered good protection against 1960's armor-piercing rounds was also completely insufficient against newer 1970's "long rod" penetrators.  A post-Cold War test by the Swedes using Soviet 125mm ammunition saw the rounds go right through the tank from front to back!  It did have a nifty screen against HEAT rounds though.  It also had a long 105mm gun, not the standard L7.

[flamingpig0]

Nice start to the lists and thank you. I will be interested to see the long term impact of having them posted online vs in the book.

I think it will be very positive, and I was sceptical at first.

[Big Insect]

I think the 1989 Ikv-91 AT value is a mistake. 

The S-tank is one of those Cold War tanks that people frequently overestimate the protection of.  It looked cool and all, but it had 50mm of frontal armour (at a considerable angle to be sure).  The strv 103's heavily sloped but not all that thick front armor which offered good protection against 1960's armor-piercing rounds was also completely insufficient against newer 1970's "long rod" penetrators.  A post-Cold War test by the Swedes using Soviet 125mm ammunition saw the rounds go right through the tank from front to back!  It did have a nifty screen against HEAT rounds though.  It also had a long 105mm gun, not the standard L7.

Thanks dylan
One of the factors effecting the 'S' tanks protection is its very low profile and lack of a turret.
But I will review both the Ikv-90 and strv 103's stats.
Mark

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Mark the Swedish 105 is better than the L7/M68 but not by much. The other thing is getting a sticky hit, the extreme slope would have meant that it was quite likely any rounds hitting would bounce off rather than penetrating. A better save would seem to be in order.

[Big Insect]

If I may, could I ask some questions about the Swedish list too. First, the 1989 version of the Ikv-91 sees a big jump in AT firepower from 5/100 to 9/100. I was just wondering why?

> this may be a typo/errata - I am looking into it

Second, with the Strv 103 S-Tank the armour seems very low. 4 hits and a save of 5. This is the same as the T-34/76 and the M4A3 Sherman. I am no expert, but is this right?

> interesting comment as another post seems to imply that the armour is too good  - I will check that.

Finally the Swedes don't have counter battery capability in the list. I have read that Swedish artillery battalion HQs had counter battery flash spot and sound ranging equipment. Is this enough to count as counter battery capability?

> do you have any dates for the counter-battery capability equipment please - as I couldn't find anything?

Great work!   
 

Comments above in bold - thank you
Mark