CWC-II Army List Errata/Suggestions (Open)

[Big Insect]

Comments in-line below, in blue.
If there are no specific comments we can pick up the corrections in the next errata update.
Cheers
Mark

Hi,

I finally perused some lists and found some stuff I think are errata or something I am not overly persuaded...

US Vietnam:

Infantry: The infantry units are weird for several reasons, why the USMC are elite?
> this is one of those 'Abraham Lincoln' type things! If they are not made elite in a set of lists the author gets bombarded by players (often ex-marines) claiming that the USMC we 'better' than the ordinary conscripts etc.etc.etc. This type of debate went on & on (on & off forum and on Facebook for years with FOW). TBF - at the level at which we play the game, the difference between one type of infantry and another, unless there is something spectacular is probably negligible. Are UK Guards or Paras really any better than standard UK regulars - it depends very much who you are asking! Certain units - such as Chinese PVA in Korea or NKPA units can quite easily be classified as Fanatic, but they were also quite brittle. Similarly, how do you classify French Foreign Legion fighting in Indo-china or Algeria? It is all very subjective.
Likewise - the lists are not specifically designed to cater for specific drafts of troops & there are instances of 'Fresh' US troops just collapsing and running on their first engagements with the enemy, especially in dense jungle.
I have no issues with players choosing to make their own 'house' adjustments if they so desire.

There is no evidence the marines were better than the Army in any way. There were good and bad USMC units as there were good and bad Army units. The main difference was organization, with larger USMC platoons, with their 14 men (Squad leader, 1 grenadier, three 4 men fire teams), but except for the Special Naval Landing Forces, battalions were routinely understrength and rarely the platoons were per ToE. One has also to mention the Marines did not switch to M16 from M14 until 1967, and the switch was completed by 1968. Also both the Army and the Marines used the draft. I do not subscribe to the idea pre 1968 US infantry was 'reluctant'. They were quite dashing, if not because this is the period when whole units were sent to Vietnam. To a certain extent they had more cohesion and more unit training. Often NCO were WW2 and Korea veterans. Except in the very late period, post 1971 when units were pulling back, and no one wanted to be the last one dying, I do not see any use for the reluctant trait. One thing that instead could have been overlooked is the fact that several units deployed with M-14 rifles in 1965 and 1966. Considering the standard version was unable of full auto fire, it is a better use for the 3 firepower unit. If one want to keep at least three categories, I would say:
M14 equipped infantry (3/30 until 1967)
M16 equipped Infantry (4/30) those should be the standard units)
M14 equipped Fresh Infantry (3/30 but elite)
M16 equipped Fresh Infantry (4/30, elite to represent very good units)
and keep the SF as they are.
> to be honest - at the level of abstraction that the rules operate to there is no real difference between the M14/M16 from a stats perspective

Vehicles:

The US Army did not use M41 in Vietnam. Only the ARVN.  > Agreed - we can alter that
The same is valid for the M114. A small group was delivered to the ARVN in before 1965 for field trial, but were deemed unsuitable for Vietnam. They should not be in the list. 

> From 1962 the ARVN used the M114s in their Recce squadrons and whilst they proved to be highly unsuccessful they were used in some numbers, they were not withdrawn until 1964 - to be replaced by the M113 ACAVs, which was already in service, and were much more reliable and mine resistant.

The M59 and M75 had already been withdrawn from service, they should be out of the list.
> small numbers of M59 were deployed in Vietnam but its replacement (the M113) was not deployed until 1962. Happy to remove the M75

LTVP... the version used in Vietnam was the LVTP-5, it was armed with a single .30 machine gun, but could carry 34 people. It should be a 20 movement, 1/30 AP no AT, available from 1962. Carry 8 as per ARVN version is fine > this is actually an error - it should read that it can only carry 3 Inf:LI (as the general rule is that 10-12 actual passengers equates to a single base of Inf:LI), hits and save could be either 4/6 or, considering it was literally unarmored, 3/6. > 3/6 is the most consistent approach as its armour was as good/bad as the M113

By the same token, the 105mm howitzer version was operation from 1962 and landed at Da Nang in 1965.

M48A2/3 AT should be standard not H. They fired both HEAT and AP round (plus HE-FRAG and Canister).

V100 Armoured car is missing.
> The V100 or Cadillac Gage Commando was originally deployed to South Vietnam in Sept 1963 for use by the U.S. Army Military Police, United States Air Force, United States Marine Corps and allied forces including the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN). The US Army started using it in June 1967. Mainly used for armed convoy escort duties, numbers deployed were low. However, if a player wishes to use them they should use the cost/stats for the M113, but wheeled and with a Transport (1) capability

Helicopters: The AH-1 was never equipped with missiles in Vietnam. The ATGW were trialed on Standard UH-1. I 1972 two UH-1B with TOWs were deployed to South Vietnam. The Gunship version of the Huey should be called Hog, not Cobra. Plus why the AC-47, a plane, is in the helicopter list? (>a typo - we can pick that up as well)

That is all.

General question.... why there are ANZAC units in the US list, while there is also a separate Anzac list?
> Because some ANZAC units operated in close cooperation with US units and the original list was produced before a separate ANZAC list had been created. That can be edited in the next errata updates.

I will post more later...

Best,
Arrigo

[Big Insect]

AC-47 Spooky was the AC-47, a C-47 cargo with miniguns on one side. It was the prototype fixed wing gunship that spawned the AC-119 and the AC-130. Now re-reading the list there is also the AC-47, but called 'puff', should be Puff the Magic Dragon, but it was a nose art name on an AC-47. Indeed the list is confusing and has plenty of errors. Also realized it lacks the M56 Scorpion. Only 5 were deployed, but they were used in combat. Considering we have TOW equipped helicopters... (2 used), they should be in...  other omission were the TOW armed M151 deployed in 1972 in Kontum.

Happy to add the M56 Scorpions (at next errata update) but only (1) maximum. Likewise the TOW armed helicopters - whilst deployed and 'tested' appear never to have seen action - but are included for completeness. Happy to do the same with the TOW armed M151s.

The nick-names Spooky and Puff (the Magic Dragon) were radio call-signs used by infantry to bring in the AC47 'gunships'. It is just to add 'colour' to the lists.

Cheers
Mark

[Rhys]

General question.... why there are ANZAC units in the US list, while there is also a separate Anzac list?

1 RAR served under the 173rd brigade from May 1965 to May 1966. 5 RAR was under command from May to June 1966 when 1 ATF assumed command for the local area and operated as its own brigade command.

[Arrigo]

Got the point with USMC veterans... had a couple of them as students...  nice chaps, but... I also get the point about the platoon variations. To be quite honest I would not bother that much with M14 vs M16, it was mainly trying to find an use the existing stats...  so to not ask too many changes. Maybe switching to grades rather than branches should be better in plenty of army lists. I am a bit worried about the 'conscripts' thing. Considering even the PAVN was conscript but they have no special conscript trait... Also there is some sort of bias against conscripts in wargame rules... My impression is that is not so much the enlisted that counts, but the NCOs making the difference, thus, the trait could have sense in the post war soviet Army with his lack of professional NCOs, but not that much in armies like the US, or  National Service UK/CW. Also we do not have 50 years old privates anymore... privates tend all to be young and relatively fresh from training.

[Andrew T]

I have a few questions/comments about the West German list please:

The HS30 really ought to be classed as an IFV rather than transport: it was basically the first modern IFV. It was also tiny so should have a carrying capacity of just 1.

Until 1986 the German M109G only has 3 attack dice, despite it being a 155mm gun. Is there any particular reason for this?

What is your source for the mine roller engineering tanks please? From what I can see, the Leopard 1A4MP is an Israeli design and not used by the Germans. It also didn't come into service until after the Cold War. There is an anti-mine vehicle based on the M48 hull but it did not come into service until after the year 2000. I'd love to be wrong but it looks as though the West Germans never had a mine clearing vehicle.

Some of the aircraft seem to be under or over powered. The Fouga Magister had 2 hardpoints and a carrying capacity of just 140kg yet has 4 attacks. Meanwhile the F104G Starfighter had 7 hardpoints and could carry 1,800kg but also has 4 attacks. The Alphajet had 5 hardpoints and could carry 2,500kg but only has 3 attacks. Was there a method behind the aircraft stats?

Thanks

[sultanbev]

The West Germans used standard M48A2C with minerollers or ploughs in the 1980s, a section of 4 in some brigade engineer companies. Source Digest No.3 Bruce Rea-Taylor, TableTop Games (1986)

Having said that, I can't find a photo of one, and even the Tankograd 5011 on the M48 in West German service doesn't mention them. it does say 53 tanks equipped with dozers had their gun removed and issued as Armoured Engineer Vehicles, but that is with dozer blade, not mine ploughs.(Unless they had them available in store but not regular issue?) So it may well be an error.

Mark

[Big Insect]

Answers below in-line. Thanks
Mark

I have a few questions/comments about the West German list please:

The HS30 really ought to be classed as an IFV rather than transport: it was basically the first modern IFV. It was also tiny so should have a carrying capacity of just 1.

> I agree that the capacity of the Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 should be Transport (1) - that can be altered.
On the matter of it being an IFV - its design is such that the crew cannot fire from under cover, they must do so by opening ports on the roof of the vehicle. The ability to fire from under cover is one of the specific requirements of an IFV.

Until 1986 the German M109G only has 3 attack dice, despite it being a 155mm gun. Is there any particular reason for this?

> the German M109G should have the same attack dice as the US deployed version, so the 3 is probably an errata. Please use the US stats

What is your source for the mine roller engineering tanks please? From what I can see, the Leopard 1A4MP is an Israeli design and not used by the Germans. It also didn't come into service until after the Cold War. There is an anti-mine vehicle based on the M48 hull but it did not come into service until after the year 2000. I'd love to be wrong but it looks as though the West Germans never had a mine clearing vehicle.

> TBF I'd need to go back to the primary contributor(s) for the West German list for that information. However, a lot of the NATO information is often based on highly variable or unreliable or uncorroborated information, and any information on the internet is highly unreliable. I'll make the enquiries, but in the meantime maybe some of our other Forum members (who are more knowledgeable about Bundeswehr matters) might be able to step in here?

Some of the aircraft seem to be under or over powered. The Fouga Magister had 2 hardpoints and a carrying capacity of just 140kg yet has 4 attacks. Meanwhile the F104G Starfighter had 7 hardpoints and could carry 1,800kg but also has 4 attacks. The Alphajet had 5 hardpoints and could carry 2,500kg but only has 3 attacks. Was there a method behind the aircraft stats?

> the challenge with all aircraft is that ultimately we have the limits of operating within a D:6 driven system.
Also the whole aircraft element of the game is very secondary to the core rules, and many of the stats are based on the nearest comparatives - so much like the off-table artillery you will end up with groups of similar aircraft 'lumped together' as far as stats are concerned. Sadly, there is no exact formula for the aircraft stats which  I inherited from the original author. 

Thanks

[Big Insect]

Thinking about the Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30, overnight.

I can see your point about it being classified as an IFV. The fighting doctrine is that of an IFV and it does only carry a single squad of infantry*, with limited room for additional infantry support weapon systems.

I think in this case the fact that the passengers must expose themselves to shoot, is probably acceptable. However, I'd probably make it easier to hit by +1 in an assault against enemy infantry, if the passengers are also adding to the melee (e.g. fighting mounted).

*the challenge between what is an IFV and what should be classified as an APC is very borderline and subjective. Transport capacity is one factor; ability of the crew to fight mounted and be protected is another; the actual tactical doctrine is a third and having a reasonably high caliber offensive weapon is the fourth.

As is how many units can be transported, the M113 is a good case in question here.
Generally, I have tried to work on the basis that up to 10 passengers (excluding crew) is Transport (1) and 10+ is Transport (2) (20+ = Transport (3) etc.).
The challenge comes with vehicles such as BMPs - where there are 8 passengers (+ 3 crew) but there are also added support weapons (SAM-7s etc). To overcome this challenge I usually suggest that any Infantry support weapons are carried as a Reserve with the formations HQ and deployed out of Reserve when the infantry de-bus.
NB: infantry upgrades don't count towards transport space.

Likewise with an M113 the number of passenger range between 11 & 15 depending upon what is being carried - so it is designated as Transport (2) but I'd usually suggest that that represents a single INF:LI base + an Infantry Support weapon of some sort (GMP or Dragon etc.) as generally the infantry squads were quite heavily equiped.

Thanks
Mark

[Andrew T]

Hi Mark

Thanks for the reply. I take your point about the HS30 not really being an IFV. By that rationale, the Warrior could be classed as not an IFV as it's not designed for the troops to fight from onboard. Except that the Warrior is quite clearly an IFV! Happy to keep the HS30 as an APC.

Now that I know what I'm looking for, I can see the 'Nam era M48 with mine rollers. It'd be nice if I could get a brace of them added to the West German horde. I shall continue the research.

Thanks

[Jordi]

Hi some questions about Notes/abilities
Column.
What does the A (M75 APC on page116) mean?
What does the O (M-3 Halftrack on page116) mean?
What does the R (90mm M56 Escorpió on page 114) mean?

Thanks.

[Raider4]

'A' - Amphibious
'O' - Open-topped
'R' - Restricted view

[Jordi]

Ok. Thanks.
I think it  could be usefull to white it somewhere in the army list.
Thanks.
Just a suggestion.

[ingtaer]

Where are all these rules listed out? I seem to recall a long list of them but could not find them in the rulebook nor army lists. Is it split up amongst different sections of the book or did I just dream it?

[Big Insect]

Where are all these rules listed out? I seem to recall a long list of them but could not find them in the rulebook nor army lists. Is it split up amongst different sections of the book or did I just dream it?

No dream  - there is a whole section called Special Abilities (Page 91-95) CWC-II
There are also some specific abilities that only apply to a single list (or very few) and these can be found under each army list in the Abilities or Special Rules sections.

Cheers
Mark

[Huntsm]

Why is there no entry for a T62 in the Arab armour list 1956 to 82?

Are there any plans to add it?

Thanks

Stephen