CWC-II Army List Errata/Suggestions (Open)

[Raider4]

I suspect there are a lot of things tied up in the whole platform performance as well as the actual gun on its own.

The Americans made several 'upgrades' to the the basic 105mm L7 gun.

Ammunition is another probable factor, the US M829 series ammunition may account for the difference in the various 120mm platform performances (as well as all the other associated variables - stabilisation, ranging, elevation damping etc etc.)

At the level of abstraction or granularity that CWC runs at, would there be a difference between a 105mm on an 1965 Centurion and a 105mm on a 1980 M60A1 (or even a 1985 M1 or Merkava)?

Or is it just a 105mm has these stats, whatever? The later tanks have - presumably - better targeting systems at least? So, possibly extra range, but same damage, maybe?

[dylan]

I suspect there are a lot of things tied up in the whole platform performance as well as the actual gun on its own.

The Americans made several 'upgrades' to the the basic 105mm L7 gun.

Ammunition is another probable factor, the US M829 series ammunition may account for the difference in the various 120mm platform performances (as well as all the other associated variables - stabilisation, ranging, elevation damping etc etc.)

As for the Chieftain - probably is overrated if Iraqi views on its performance in the Iran Iraq war are believable (are they?), but it probably depends on which Chieftain and which Leopard 2 we are talking about.

Generally I'd go with the lists ratings as they are but I wouldn't quibble if someone wanted to tweak say the Chieftain Mk9 and earlier.

Let's take these in turn:

1) Alleged American "upgrades" to L7 gun.  Not sure that was the case in any meaningful way for the American M68, but even if it was, as I noted, the CWC-II lists give a 1962 M60 better performance than 1970s Leopards.  I can't see how that can be.

2) Ammunition.  Certainly could be a reason for better AT attack dice (although remember that we're talking about early M829s for the basic M1A1 of the 1980s - the "Silver Bullet" wasn't introduced until the end of the Cold War and probably should only be determining the ratings of the M1A1HA in the CWC-II lists). I don't see how the AT ammunition country of origin results in an almost doubling of effective range for a 120mm gun.  It just isn't credible to argue that an American M829 120mm round had a substantially longer range than a German DM23 or DM33.  They are all 120mm APFSDS using very similar technology - except the US round had a DU core penetrator.
The other argument advanced here is about stabilisation (note that this is already taken into account in CWC-II through an entirely separate rating, the "S1" or "S2" in the Notes column) and fire control.  Is it really credible to argue that American fire control was so much more advanced than German that it gives an almost doubling of effective range?  German optics and fire control is very good.  All the 120mm tanks have laser rangefinders integrated into their fire control system.  There just isn't a huge degree of difference in CWC-II terms there.  I could understand a substantial rating difference if one still had optical rangefinders or a ranging machinegun while the Americans were using lasers, but that isn't the case.

3) Chieftain.  The base armour didn't change, regardless of Mark.  The Stillbrew add-on to the turret of the later Marks is already accounted for in a separate factor in the Notes column.  The hits/saves should stay the same for all Chieftains.  And I'd suggest it should be 6/4.   

[Big Insect]

Let's take these in turn:

1) Alleged American "upgrades" to L7 gun.  Not sure that was the case in any meaningful way for the American M68, but even if it was, as I noted, the CWC-II lists give a 1962 M60 better performance than 1970s Leopards.  I can't see how that can be.

2) Ammunition.  Certainly could be a reason for better AT attack dice (although remember that we're talking about early M829s for the basic M1A1 of the 1980s - the "Silver Bullet" wasn't introduced until the end of the Cold War and probably should only be determining the ratings of the M1A1HA in the CWC-II lists). I don't see how the AT ammunition country of origin results in an almost doubling of effective range for a 120mm gun.  It just isn't credible to argue that an American M829 120mm round had a substantially longer range than a German DM23 or DM33.  They are all 120mm APFSDS using very similar technology - except the US round had a DU core penetrator.
The other argument advanced here is about stabilisation (note that this is already taken into account in CWC-II through an entirely separate rating, the "S1" or "S2" in the Notes column) and fire control.  Is it really credible to argue that American fire control was so much more advanced than German that it gives an almost doubling of effective range?  German optics and fire control is very good.  All the 120mm tanks have laser rangefinders integrated into their fire control system.  There just isn't a huge degree of difference in CWC-II terms there.  I could understand a substantial rating difference if one still had optical rangefinders or a ranging machinegun while the Americans were using lasers, but that isn't the case.

3) Chieftain.  The base armour didn't change, regardless of Mark.  The Stillbrew add-on to the turret of the later Marks is already accounted for in a separate factor in the Notes column.  The hits/saves should stay the same for all Chieftains.  And I'd suggest it should be 6/4.   

Many thanks all .... an interesting debate ... jumping into my time machine and going back to CWC-I - it looks like this 'difference' was not there back in CWC-I.
It may have stemmed from the fact that I was/am not the only person creating the basic lists for CWC-II (sadly I cannot take all the credit). So we have got a number of what I am choosing to call 'continuity' errors across lists.
Generally, as Raider 4 states very eloquently, at the level of abstraction we are playing at here there shouldn't really be any difference between any of the NATO 105mm guns.
There might be a difference between a NATO 105mm and its comparable Chinese 105mm (& both were rifled) but even then I am inclined to go for continuity.

Where I do try to manage things is where doctrine enters the arena - and that applies particularly with Soviet, WarPact and client state armies - as the effective range of many tank guns was ignored for what I call the "whites of the eyes" approach     

Having just completed my most recent batch of army lists (which are now in Leon's tender care to format) - one of my next tasks is to create a comprehensive 'continuity' spreadsheet. You'd be amazed (for example) just how many versions of the Sherman there are across all the lists, and again trying to accommodate the granularity of these variations is enough to drive a man to complete distraction.

But all these examples are very helpful and much appreciated. I suspect that as time passes and list errata is corrected, things will inevitably settle down. It took a few months with BCKIV - but as stated previously that was only 44 army list - not the proposed 70+ (I've found a couple more I need to consider now that I have just completed the Chinese PLA list - as is the way of things - I think i know somebody who might be interested in the Royal Thai Army - for instance  )

Many thanks
Mark

[sultanbev]

I just had a quick look at my gunnery data charts, and here is what I have for the 120mm guns:
Using the "Maximum Effective Range" I thought I had mentioned above, but not sure if I hadn't deleted the post now
In the research I've done gun ranges are named
point blank (90% hit chance)
effective range (70% hit chance)
Maximum effective range (30% hit chance)
Maximum range (10% hit chance)

For the purposes of CWC2 and similar rules, I'm guessing people are using the Maximum effective ranges, so I'll quote them here.

120mmL44 Rheinmetall (1979) 30% at 3250m, penetration at 2km = 38cm with DM13 FSAPDS
120mmL44 M256 (1986) 30% at 3600m, penetration at 2km = 45cm with M827 DU (note in service date 7 years after the German gun, and DU ammo, so not surprising it's a bit better at the long range end of the spectrum)

Although note both have 2500m Effective Range (70% hit chance)

However the Germans receive DM23 in 1983 penetrating 47cm at 2km
then DM33 in 1987 penetrating 55cm at 2km
The US receiving M829 DU from 1988 penetrating 54cm at 2km
As the Leopard 2 was upgraded in 1983 (2A1), 1985 (2A2), 1986 (2A3), 1988 (2A4, substantially uparmoured) it is likely the FC was updated to be on a par with the American gun during that time. Although, tactically it wouldn't be any different given ranges possible in Germany. If of course you're doing DAK v2 with Leopard 2s prowling round Libya or Iran, then it might be important...

Make of that what you will.

[sultanbev]

As for the 105mm L7/M68 guns, I have that they are identical in accuracy. So it's fire control and ammo type that make the difference.
105mm L7 firing APDS
RMG 70% at 1800m, 30% 2500m
Optical 70% at 2000m 30% at 2800m
Laser 70% at 2300m 30% at 3300m
IFCS 70% at 2500m 30% at 3750m

NB: % hit chances are based on halted target in the open, halted firer, no suppression effects in place. And probably not raining nor strong winds, and crews having had a good lunch 
I do have all the hit % for the other ammo types, but too many to list here.

[flamingpig0]

A lot of the Swedish transport vehicles don't appear to have been given a transport value.

[Big Insect]

A lot of the Swedish transport vehicles don't appear to have been given a transport value.

Lord knows how that happened - we seem to be having some gremlins when transcribing across from the spreadsheets to the formatted lists.
I'll double check but it's easily rectified and I know they were there originally - modern technology!!!
Can't live with it ... can live without it
Cheers
Mark

[Big Insect]

My fault - I clearly hadn't checked it thoroughly enough.

Until we get it sorted the correct Transport stats are that all should be Transport (2) with the exception of:
M29 Weasel
Bv.202/206
BvS10AUT
All of which are Transport (1) - and the Bv.202/206 & BvS10AUT are correctly labelled as such.

Many thanks
Mark

[Sandancer76]

Looking at the Soviet list the T64 and variants are all listed as (9) meaning as I understand a max of 9 models in the entire battlegroup. I fail to understand this as these tanks where the standard tank in GSFG during the critical years of the cold war.
Try having 3rd Shock Army take on the BAOR with this restriction!

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Welcome Sandancer - just ignore that, I suspect it's a typo.

[Big Insect]

Looking at the Soviet list the T64 and variants are all listed as (9) meaning as I understand a max of 9 models in the entire battlegroup. I fail to understand this as these tanks where the standard tank in GSFG during the critical years of the cold war.
Try having 3rd Shock Army take on the BAOR with this restriction!

Good spot - there should be no [9] against any of the main Soviet battle tanks - they & the BMPs should all be -/9 - so a max of 9 per 1,000 points spent.

Thanks for the 'spot'
Mark

[Smartbomb]

I'm thinking the OT-62 TOPAS under Grade 1 Warsaw Pact might need to have its Transport stat upped. It has a Transport 2 and can carry 16 passengers. The AAVP7A1 can carry 21 and has a transport of 5. I'm thinking maybe a Transport 3 or 4 for the TOPAS?

[Caratacon]

Hi Mark,
I'm curious about the choice of nomenclature used to describe a lot of Soviet/WarPac vehicles. Things like AT missiles are listed only by their Soviet designations and not using the much better known NATO names that were used in CWC1, e.g. 9M14 Malyutka rather than AT-3 Sagger. It's not helpful, especially to newcomers who may well be discouraged by this. It isn't even consistent, as NATO names get used in other places, like helicopters & aircraft, even the odd missile.
I really noticed this when I was trying to update my CWC1 East German lists to CWC2. In the WarPac 1 list for CWC2, it looks like German terms have been used where known (although not always accurately), but not Polish, or Czech terms (e.g. German SPz BMP-1, but not Czech BVP-1 or Polish BWP-1 for the same thing, a BMP-1), although they are also nations in this list. Very odd and makes the lists difficult to read and use (and I know the terms!), so somewhat counter-productive - heaven help somebody who doesn't already know what all this kit is, or who has reading difficulties.
The Warpac 2 list seems to mostly just use Soviet terms and is therefore much easier to use, with the exceptions of things like Soviet-named-only missiles and the like.
I would plead for these to use the best known terms to make them most accessible to the most readers, e.g. just BMP-1, etc. Yes, a SA-18 may be a 9K38 Igla, but the SA- designations are much better known, so please use them, as CWC1 did, or use both, but not just the Soviet name alone. Consistency when naming kit would also be very helpful for all users of these lists.
Thanks,
Mark J

[Superscribe]

I agree - use of the more commonly-known NATO names as used in CWC1 would be very helpful

[Big Insect]

I agree - use of the more commonly-known NATO names as used in CWC1 would be very helpful

Thanks for the feedback Gents - that is actually a very big task and we changed the CWC-II naming conventions specifically because we had had feedback that the rules were far too NATO/Western focused.

My own personal view ... for what it is worth ... is that whether it is called a Sagger or an 9M14 Malyutka doesn't really bother me. It is the effect on the table top I am concerned with.

We already have the challenge that some unit types have multiple 'common' name designations depending upon who is 'looking' at them. For example, some of the Chinese unit types have 2 different local Chinese designations (leaving out their Cantonese script variant), plus a number of Western designation (US, Nato, Soviet, etc) and often a wider export market designation. Calling a particular unit a Type 69 (for example) just doesn't work, as Type 69 was applied by the Chinese to items as diverse as a rifle and a main Battle tank.
CWC-I took quite a simplistic view on that front (nothing wrong with that) but equally it was incorrect and misleading.

Also ... a new player to the period will have no preconceived notions that a Sagger is not a 9M14 Malyutka.
I'd suggest that it is us 'old hands' who have that issue (maybe).

This might be one of those Abraham Lincoln things ... "about pleasing some of the people all of the time & all of the people some of the time, etc" ... but I do agree about the continuity/consistency observation. That we can address.

But the nomenclature issue is one for wider debate hopefully ?
I might start a separate thread on that.

Thanks
Mark