CWC-II Rules Errata (Open)

[sultanbev]

I am thinking of planning an all day game river assault scenario next month, with a wide river (30cm wide)

30cm = 600m, so given the data I posted about, it would take around 5 hours to build a pontoon bridge across that, using a battalion's worth of men, so about 9 stands

Most amphbious AFV and ferries do about 10kmh in water, so whatever the slowest vehicle is in the data charts, use that as the speed in water. A quick view of a few lists show 15cm as the slowest AFV.
Assault boats that outboard motors can do around 30kmh, so perhaps 30cm, but they can only carry foot troops and heavy weapons like MMG, recoiless rifles, ATGW teams.

Snorkelling tanks -
"Naturally, there are qualifiers to using a tank snorkel. The river depth at the crossing site cannot exceed five meters. The river bottom has to be suitable (sand, pebbles) so the tank will not get stuck; the river cannot be more than a kilometer in width; and the current has to be two meters/second or less. The entry and exit banks cannot exceed 25 degrees and the river bottom slope cannot exceed 15 degrees.7"

https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2019/Fall/4Grau19.pdf
How that fits into the game setting I'm not sure, but shows the route has to be thoroughly pre-checked out by engineer-recce units beforehand, so no snorkelling across a contested river battle.
More info here:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/engineer-river.htm

I suspect snorkelling speed to be even slower than amphibious vehicles.

If 3x bridgelaying sapper units are used to build one pontoon bridge can they combine their efforts and build the bridge at a revised rate of 3 x 5cm = 15cm/Initiative Phase?

The answer should be no I would have thought, unless you are operating from both sides of the river at the same time.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Chris on snorkeling tanks it is now though that it was not a battlefeild tactic. Preparation would take about an hour, removal at least 20 mins on exit.

Ferries - order or initative move to load, order to move, not anticipating Mark but sugesst infantry pace and measure from near bank.

Amphips - order to entre, order to move, again I'd use infantry speed (experiance swimming 432 and Stalwart) and order to leave.

Assault boats, depends on powered or not - we used 30HP outboards so say 20cm per move, rowed would be infantry pace again. Also order to board, order to disembark.

AFV bridgelayer initaive order to lay and may be used on same turn.

The timings Mark B has given are not for tactical bridges, would only be built once you had secured both banks.

Final note all armies hate assault river crossings as costly and complex operations.

[Big Insect]

Hi Mark

I am thinking of planning an all day game river assault scenario next month, with a wide river (30cm wide) but have a few questions as I cant find the answers in the rules (if the info is missing then it may need to be added to the rules and to unit stats tables).

What speed do the following move across a river:

- vehicles with the amphibious special ability, such as BMPs/BRDMs?
> 10cm (Amphibious) in water or wetlands
- assault boats  (and assume they are Transport (1) - limited to infantry or engineer unit)?
> 30cm (Aquatic capability) - can only carry 1 x INF: designated unit - there are some stats in the US Vietnam list, but the (about to be published) Iranian & Iraqi list have not only assault boats but also hover-crafts (as does the Soviet Naval Infantry list)
- ferries carrying vehicles?
> 10cms - most military ferry units will not move that quickly over a short distance like 30cm
- snorkelling tanks?
> 5cm but Sultanbey's comments are correct - it is highly unlikely you'd be using snorkelling in an active hostile battlefield situation. Snorkelling is a good way to get armoured units across a river in your rear area, where bridges might not be strong enough to take their weight, but they would be very vulnerable in a close combat situation. I have used snorkelling Leopard IIs in a game, but it was vanity really, as I had the models available    ... in practice it would have taken far to long to prepare them to make the river crossing

It is understood that all targets in water are classed as being in the open, but does the water affect the enemy's chance to hit targets while crossing water?
> Yes, target are classified as being one profile less - so Average becomes Low. Most units cannot shoot when they are in Amphibious mode - unless they are specifically designed as amphibious assault vehicles.

If the Bridgelayer special ability is given to a Sapper unit (at cost of 5pts, as page 91) they then have the ability to lay 5cm of bridge per Initiative Phase.  If 3x bridgelaying sapper units are used to build one pontoon bridge can they combine their efforts and build the bridge at a revised rate of 3 x 5cm = 15cm/Initiative Phase?

> Itheriol's comments are a good example of the challenge here. I'd suggest you could have 2 Sapper units, one on each bank, working towards each other, but any more than that wouldn't work practically.

Regards

Chris

Answers in-line in bold above Chris.
Cheers
Mark

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

First off comments were by me, not Mark Bevis. Times on bridge building did it on an annual camp, both MGB and Bailey. could construct both in 3 hours, bailey taking much longer. We were using around 15 bodies for each and working from one side and it was a dry obsticle.

Snokeling tanks is much harder than it seems at first glance. Apart from the preparation time the river bed would often need prparation removing bolders etc. Then the entry and exit points need grading to ensure the slope isn't too steep. The tank has virtually no vision so keeping a straight line is very hard. Finally the vehicle will have limited traction as it has some bouyancy which means it's hard to steer.

[Superscribe]

Hi

Thanks for all the useful info and feedback about bridging etc. Noted about snorkelling tanks and building a pontoon bridge will be very difficult initially, until Soviets have created a bridgehead and engineers can then work from both banks.

Amphibious vehicles such as IFV with infantry on board will plainly be important.

The Soviets will have the Divisional Engineer Battalion with its pontoon bridging company, which besides being able to build a bridge, they can also build 3x 110 ton ferries, which enables them a simultaneous lift of nine medium tanks (three platoons). So, in CWC this would equate to a single 110 ton ferry able to carry a company of 3 tanks.  3x T-64 nose to tail need minimum length of 15cm of ferry to transport them. How many Initiative Phases would it take the engineer company to build this raft? Would it be 3 turns (3x 5cm)?

Once loaded with tanks the raft moving at 10cm would reach the opposite bank in 2 successful command throws and then tanks can exit the ferry on the 3rd successful command throw. Does that sound about right?

[Superscribe]

Mine plows are Mine clearance A - so they clear 5cm x 5cm sections in an Initiative move

Hi Mark

Sorry to continue the debate.  The Minefield Clearance para on p68 says that 'mine clearing vehicles' can clear minefields at 5cm x 10cm rate. Doesnt a tank with plough fitted qualify as such a vehicle, rather than sappers on foot?  As I understand it tanks can plough at an average rate of 5kph and with a game turn in CWC2 of 30 mins that equates to 2.5kph in 30 mins, which suggests they should be able to clear more than 5cm in a turn.

If however this is incorrect can I suggest the para on p68 be amended to say '......engineers on foot and tanks with mine ploughs fitted'

Regards
Chris

[Big Insect]

Hi Mark

Sorry to continue the debate.  The Minefield Clearance para on p68 says that 'mine clearing vehicles' can clear minefields at 5cm x 10cm rate. Doesnt a tank with plough fitted qualify as such a vehicle, rather than sappers on foot?  As I understand it tanks can plough at an average rate of 5kph and with a game turn in CWC2 of 30 mins that equates to 2.5kph in 30 mins, which suggests they should be able to clear more than 5cm in a turn.

If however this is incorrect can I suggest the para on p68 be amended to say '......engineers on foot and tanks with mine ploughs fitted'

Regards
Chris

The rules are that mine-clearance vehicles (unless they are specialist units that use things like rocket assisted clearance) clear mines at 5cm x 5cm per initiative action Chris.

As stated earlier (above) some of the more recent list versions & newer lists have the option to buy MBTs with mine-plows/flails in the Engineering section, with the 5cm x 5cm Mineclearer A, designation.

I've deliberately kept the rules for Mineclearance as simple as possible - just 2 types.
The 5cm x 5cm designation for MBTs with mine-ploughs etc. is, in my view, adequate to reflect how they worked in practice and what works best in a game play context.

Thanks
Mark

[Superscribe]

The rules are that mine-clearance vehicles (unless they are specialist units that use things like rocket assisted clearance) clear mines at 5cm x 5cm per initiative action Chris.

As stated earlier (above) some of the more recent list versions & newer lists have the option to buy MBTs with mine-plows/flails in the Engineering section, with the 5cm x 5cm Mineclearer A, designation.

I've deliberately kept the rules for Mineclearance as simple as possible - just 2 types.
The 5cm x 5cm designation for MBTs with mine-ploughs etc. is, in my view, adequate to reflect how they worked in practice and what works best in a game play context.

Hi Mark
No prob - many thanks
Rgds
Chris

[Superscribe]

Hi Mark

This may have been covered previously but in case it hasn't ..... on p43 the 7th para talks about Close Assault by IFV without dismounting its passengers, and to use its own CA value and +1 for its passengers in support (3 + 1). However table on p45 shows IFV with mounted infantry has CA of 6. Which is correct?

Rgds

Chris

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Chris - we played as the 2nd. The other thing that is unclear is IFV with mounted infantry assaulting AFV's. According to current rules they can, but Mark intended they couldn't.

[Big Insect]

The basic principle of the rules is that armour (of any sort) CANNOT assault enemy armour - that includes half-tracks, APCs, Armoured Cars, IFVs and MBTs, even armoured lorries (of which there are a few about in the lists).
Any vehicle that has a Saving throw is (usually) classified as being a 'Hard/Armoured' target.

An IFV gets a higher factor in assault as it is usually armed with a better weapon - than say an APC, half-track etc. And it's weapons are specifically designed to fight in assault - unlike an MBT.

An IFV can fight in Assault in 4 ways:

1). using its own factors - (against enemy Infantry in the open for example) - without any Infantry supporting it (they might already have been KO'd for example) and when doing so it has a factor of +3

2). with its passenger infantry dismounted, but in support and the IFV making the assault (+3 for the IFV and +1 for the supporting passenger infantry) NB: it can receive support from other friendly units not otherwise engaged in assault as well

3). in support of its own infantry - that have dismounted to fight ahead of it in an assault (usually against enemy infantry in cover) - here it adds its support (+1) to the Infantry assault factor (+4)

4). with its infantry passengers mounted - when it fights with an assault factor of +6

The wording on Page 52 may be confused/confusing. But the above is how it should work.
Thanks
Mark

[Superscribe]

Hi Mark

Can you confirm if I have attack stats correct for British Abbot 105mm and Soviet 2S1 122mmm:

On table Direct Fire AP4/100 AT4/100H (as table on p52)
On table Indirect Fire AP3/100 AT3/100 (as listed in Brit & Soviet PDFs) No H
Off table Indirect Fire AP3 AT3 (based on stats of equivalent arty stats in PDFs)

Regards

Chris

[Big Insect]

Hi Mark

Can you confirm if I have attack stats correct for British Abbot 105mm and Soviet 2S1 122mmm:

On table Direct Fire AP4/100 AT4/100H (as table on p52)
On table Indirect Fire AP3/100 AT3/100 (as listed in Brit & Soviet PDFs) No H
Off table Indirect Fire AP3 AT3 (based on stats of equivalent arty stats in PDFs)

Abbots are a Factor 3 across the board.

1). on-table = AP-3/100 AT-3/100H
2). off-table = AP-3 AT-3

Broadly the on-table and off-table numbers of dice should be the same and the 100cm range is standard for most (all) on-table equivalents.

The 122mm should all be:
1). on-table = AP-4/100 AT-4/100H
2). off-table = AP-4 AT-4

The gun calibres are 'lumped' into broad categories - as otherwise you start to get into the challenges around artillery ammunition, fire-doctrine, etc. etc. etc.

Cheers
Mark

Regards

Chris

[Superscribe]

Hi Mark
I did think this was the case but table on p52 seems to contradict what you said about Abbot. It lists 100-122mm as 4/100H. Abbot is 105mm so is it 3/100 as you posted above or 4/100 as table on p52?
Rgds Chris

[Big Insect]

Hi Mark
I did think this was the case but table on p52 seems to contradict what you said about Abbot. It lists 100-122mm as 4/100H. Abbot is 105mm so is it 3/100 as you posted above or 4/100 as table on p52?
Rgds Chris

Hi Chris - this is m,e answering without access to the rules - if the rules state 100-122mm is 4/100-4/100H then that is the correct figure and the Soviet 122m is also 4/100 - 4/100H