CWC-II Army List Errata/Suggestions (Open)

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Mark following your logic thee should only be M24 and PT-76 in the lists as most fighting was in Bangladesh, and the MBT's were not used there. Please put the Vijanta back, it's about 1/3 of the Indian tank fleet. Also I have quite a few models and am going to use them in a coming big game.......along with OT64's. THey were ceratinly used, I can remember seeing them on newsreel footage at the time.'

[Big Insect]

No idea of reliability of the source but page 171 of the War of the Twins by Krishna Chandra Sagar (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XM5oZYYvEmYC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=Vijayanta+tank+in+action&source=bl&ots=tFP_Hors0c&sig=ACfU3U0RoUN6M6PUCvknpfdM2B_UBBHERQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9kOayjp75AhXOYMAKHa3KBm4Q6AF6BAg_EAM#v=onepage&q=Vijayanta%20tank%20in%20action&f=false)  refers to operational use of three squadrons of the Vijantaya in 1971 in the western theatre.

Edward

Thanks Edward - it's a claim I had seen previously, but unfortunately I've been unable to substantiate it.
The sources/references in the book are not very good - a lot of secondary sources - and there is no back-up for the actions that the author claims took place from any official sources. Hence my doubts about its authenticity.

Unfortunately, this statement by the author is also being used to justify the inclusion of Vijantaya in the list of MBTs quoted by WIKI as having fought in the conflict.

Thanks
Mark

[Big Insect]

Mark following your logic thee should only be M24 and PT-76 in the lists as most fighting was in Bangladesh, and the MBT's were not used there. Please put the Vijanta back, it's about 1/3 of the Indian tank fleet. Also I have quite a few models and am going to use them in a coming big game.......along with OT64's. THey were ceratinly used, I can remember seeing them on newsreel footage at the time.'

Ian ... you appear intent on ignoring my point.
Putting the Vijantaya in is about as logical as saying that the British Falkands list should include Challengers!

If you can find me that newsreel footage or anything official that states categorically (& I mean primary sources) that they were used in action or even deployed to the battlefront then I'm very happy reconsider my position.

And making statements such as "THey were ceratinly used,"  ... and "Also I have quite a few models and am going to use them in a coming big game.......along with OT64's." is hardly what I'd call a historical research based approach!!!

If you want to play 'sci-fi' that is fine by me - but I wont be including equipment that was not used in a historical conflict in a list that depicts a historical conflict.

Many thanks
Mark

NB: India had c.300 x OT-64A (the version fitted with BRDM-2 turret) ordered from Czechoslovakia in 1969 and delivered between 1971 and 1974. Pakistan had 6 x OT-64A (version fitted with BRDM-2 turret) ordered & delivered from Slovakia 1993, these were surplus Slovak units. As the OT-64A performs almost exactly like a BRDM, especially with the addition of the BRDM-2 turret, I'd suggest that replacing some of the BRDMs in either list with OT-64A models is perfectly acceptable.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Mark I'm not ignoring your point I do not accept it. The lists we are preparing are supposed to be GENERAL and include all possible kit that could have been used in the Theartre. As the Vijanta made up a substantial part of the Indian tank fleet it should be included. You seem to have ignored my last point, if you are doing a specific list it should be split east and west, the eastern list PT-76 and M24 as the only tanks. Yes I agree that the Falklands list would look silly with Challengers but an Indian list  omitting a substantial part of their tank fleet is equally silly, particularly since fairly reliable secondary sources put it in action, albeit in small numbers. Please re-instate.

[Big Insect]

Mark I'm not ignoring your point I do not accept it. The lists we are preparing are supposed to be GENERAL and include all possible kit that could have been used in the Theartre. As the Vijanta made up a substantial part of the Indian tank fleet it should be included. You seem to have ignored my last point, if you are doing a specific list it should be split east and west, the eastern list PT-76 and M24 as the only tanks. Yes I agree that the Falklands list would look silly with Challengers but an Indian list  omitting a substantial part of their tank fleet is equally silly, particularly since fairly reliable secondary sources put it in action, albeit in small numbers. Please re-instate.

Each to their own Ian ... but I hold the 'pen' on the list 
And a specific list for a specific war should include only those units that fought in that conflict ... not some mythical "what if..." scenario.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

You shot yourslef down there Mark, the Indian list covers 2 wars, so should be General, inculding the Viyjantas. Afterall you took it from a list I wrote. 

[Big Insect]

Afterall you took it from a list I wrote. 

Incorrect Ian - unfortunately (like a lot of the lists you submitted) I had to bin your Indian list, as it was incorrect, incomplete, was missing the dates, a lot of equipment in it was very vague, the stats were wrong and there were no Points costs against the units either.

TBF Ian - I'm reconstructing most of the new lists from my own research and the great work done by Ben Fiene in Australia (who's a proper unsung hero). With some occassional sterling cross-referencing & double-checking by Mark Bevis.

The Indian Indo-Pakistani war list can actually covers 4 conflicts, as you can use it (with the suggested recommended changes/restrictions) to reconstruct the Sino-Indian Boarder conflict as well as the Annexation of Portuguese Indian - along side both the Western & Eastern Theatres of the Indo-Pakistani conflicts.  However, the Viyjantas appears in none of these in a combat capacity.

But I'm not adding the Viyjantas to the list Ian - not until somebody can provide me with some solid evidence that these tanks were actually used in the conflict. I can find no record of them firing a single shot.

The fact that you might 'want' it to appear in the list bares no real weight I'm afraid.
It will appear in the larger more generic stand alone Indian list that will go through to the 1990s, when I get around to doing that (at some point).

Thanks
Mark

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Keep insulting me Mark. I spent considerable time on all the lists I havew submitted. I WILL ACCEPOT YOUR APPOLOGY.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

This will be formated all over the place but is copied from my original word docs, note the last coloumn Mark :-

AMX-13   50   AFV   30   3/80   3/50   3   3   6      IRNF
M4A4 Sherman   60   AFV   20   4/80   3/50   3   4   5      1960-67
Centurion Mk 7   130   AFV   20   4/100   5/100   3   6   4      1960-78 IRNF, S2
T-55   110   AFV   25   6/100   6/100   3   6   4      1960-1980
Vijayanta   145   AFV   25   1/50   -   3   5   4      1975-1995 IRNF
T-72M1   205   AFV   30   6/80   -   3   5   4      1980+ S2, IRNF
Arjun   235   AFV   30   4/120   6/120   1   6   3      1990+ Composite armour, TI, S1
ZSU-23/4    70   AFV   25   4/80   2/30   3   3   6      AA: 6/40
BMP-2    110   IFV   30   3/60   2/60   3   3   6      1980+ AT-4 or Milan
BTR-50   25   VEH   20   1/50      3   3   6      1960-1975
OT-64   35   VEH   25   2/50      3   3   6      1965-1995?
FV-432   30   VEH   25   1/50      2   3   6      1965-1995?

Those look remarkably like dates to me.

[Steve J]

Gentlemen, can we please keep this civil and to the point?

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Steve I appologise but as you can see Mr Fry has made another termilogical inexatitude,.

[John Cook]

I really don't have a dog in this fight but just an observation.  I used the early iteration of BKC some years ago and ignored the lists for my SCW and early WW2 games, which were pretty much based on historical OBs and not artificial points based lists.
Similarly where there were omissions in kit I just added my own or modified them where I didn't like or agree with them.  It didn't alter the game play one jot or iota and I am just a bit bemused by what seems, to me, to be nothing but gratuitous and slavish adherence to detail.
If a piece of kit isn't included, just add it, keep playing and carry on.  Perhaps there is something fundamental I'm missing but it all seems a bit unnecessary. 

[Big Insect]

I suppose it comes down to a fundamental principle John, as to whether you try and create a historically accurate list for a specific historical campaign or you don't.

My view around the lists is that where there is a known OOB for an actual campaign, I try and keep the lists to match that. Again, I come back to my Falklands analogy - the British had all sorts of equipment that they 'could' have potentially deployed in the campaign, some of which might have assisted them greatly, but ultimately they didn't use that equipment. Likewise, I expect they had some equipment that they actually wished they hadn't had!
But the British Falklands list (IMHO) needs to attempt be accurate to allow players the option to replay the campaign as accurately as possible, if that is their desire.

TBF -If Ian wants to do a 'what-if' 1971 Indo-Pakistani game using Vijantaya MBTs (that were most likely never used in the war) then that is up to Ian. However, his individual 'need' does not mean I 'must' oblige and break the fundamental principle upon which I am creating historical campaign lists and include stats for the Vijantaya in the list.

Cheers
Mark

[Steve J]

I would expect the lists to be 'historically accurate' (if there is ever such a thing)as per Mark's Falklands War analogy, so that if I wanted to re-create the campaign or a battle, I would have a good starting point. Points are a useful guide to start with but after some experience (certainly with BKCII) I tend to ignore them. However the lists are always my starting point.

However if I wanted to do a 'what if?' of the campaign, then I would use the lists as said starting point and then add in other kit that might take my fancy. Nothing wrong in that as far as I'm concerned.

That's just how I approach my projects, whether it be WWII or the cold War.

[sultanbev]

There was a comment somewhere about Israeli Centurions being all Mk.5

Here is a list I have, taken from Israeli & SIPRI sources
16x Centurion Mk.3 or Mk.5 in 1959 armed with 20pdr
14x Centurion Mk.8 in 1960 with 20pdr
60x Centurion Mk.5 in 1961 with 20pdr
(32x Centurion ARV 1963)
45x Centurion Mk.5 in 1962 with 20pdr with 105mm upgrade kits to make them Mk.5/2
45x Centurion Mk.5 in 1964 with 20pdr with 105mm upgrade kits to make them MK.5/2
70x ex-Dutch Centurion Mk.7 1963 20pdr
License to build British 105mm and APDS ammo received c1965
= 250 tanks, another 130 received by 1967 war, possibly of the following order:
250x Centurion Mk.3 upgraded to Mk.6 1964 105mm, uparmoured hull

400x Centurion Mk.9 in 1968, 105mm, uparmoured hull
400x Centurion Mk.9 in 1974, 105mm, uparmoured hull
122x Centurion Mk.5 and Mk.7 1971-72 ex US MDAP, 20pdr*
122x ex-Dutch Centurion Mk.5/2 & Mk.7 1971-1972 with 105mm*

* might be same tanks reported twice.... as in May 1967 the US agreed to supply diesel engines for the 380x Centurions then in service.

List doesn't include other ex-Dutch and ex-British Centurions bought 1975-1979.