CWC-II Army List Errata/Suggestions (Open)

[Phobos]

SU-100, not 122, my fault.

You are right about the chieftain question, 45 captured, but don´t know if they deployed them actively.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

They did use Cheiftain ARV's but no record for the tanks. Ammo supply would have been a problem.

[sultanbev]

They could have got ammo off the Jordanians for the Chieftains. They were issued to one of the Special Republican Guard units in the 2nd Gulf War, about a company's worth - most were shipped to Jordan and swapped for other kit like APILAS.

Mark

[Big Insect]

They could have got ammo off the Jordanians for the Chieftains. They were issued to one of the Special Republican Guard units in the 2nd Gulf War, about a company's worth - most were shipped to Jordan and swapped for other kit like APILAS.

Mark

Ok - sounds like a limited numbers and very limited deployment.

[Phobos]

Right, i think [3] would be more than enough.

[Phobos]

An small issue that puzzled us today in the game. T55A in the Iran List is 10 points more expensive and has 4/110 & 3/90 vs the soviet T55A with 100pts and $/80 & 4/80. Errata or intended? Seems weird an export version being bit better than the original.

[Leon]

I'll need to check with Mark on that one as soon of the popular vehicle stats have been adjusted with the newer lists.

[Big Insect]

I'll need to check with Mark on that one as soon of the popular vehicle stats have been adjusted with the newer lists.

As previously stated in earlier replies to similar questions.
 
All of the US, Soviet, UK and French MBT costs are under review, and will be put through a 'continuity' process.
If there are no difference in stats or capabilities for a specific tank and there is a points cost difference shown in a particular list when compared with the main Country Manufacturer list, for now please revert to the main Country manufacturer list. That cost might be more or less, but the differences are usually quite minor.

This issue has occurred due to multiple list sources.

Many thanks
Mark

[dylan]

Just had cause to go through the VDV Soviet Airborne online list.  A couple of comments:
1)  Although a good collection of BMDs is included the BMD-1P is absent.  This should be included.  It was an important variant used in the 1980s and beyond, especially by air assault brigades.  I'd suggest adding the BMD-1P to both the recce and armour sections of the list.  It is a BMD-1 with the 9M113 or 9M111 ATGW instead of the Malyutka.
2)  As others have posted earlier, the IATW section seems a bit FUBAR.  I understand that will be tidied up.
3)  The off table artillery section gives the D30 an ICM capability but the Assets section does not give the army an ICM option.
4) Not sure why the whole battlegroup is limited to only nine IFV stands.
5) There are the usual discrepancies between the on-table 120mm mortar in the Support section and the on-table 120mm mortar in the Artillery [on table] section.  I assume these will be cleaned up at some point.
6) Under Transport & Vehicles I'd suggest including the 1V119 "Rheostat" as transport for FAOs.  I would also suggest including the LuAZ-967M amphibious transport vehicle which was widely used by the late 1980s in air assault units.
7)  The BMD-2 was stabilised.

[sultanbev]

RPG-7 - 30 Upgrade - 3/30 3/30 H - - -/- 1961-88
RPG-16D - 30 Upgrade - 4/50 4/50 H - - -/- 1972-96
RPG-18 Mukha - 25 Upgrade - 3/50 3/50 H - - -/- 1972-93
RPG-7V1 - 50 Upgrade - 4/30 4/30 H - - -/- 1977

Those ranges are a joke if 1cm = 20m.
I've noticed this before, a lot of the infantry weapons ranges are all over the place, but have refrained from commenting previously as it's beyond my ken as to why they got to such values.

The actual ranges are (and these are maximum ranges where you are on at best 20% to hit a halted target and no-one is firing at you):
RPG-7 500m (25cm)
RPG-16 700m (35cm)
RPG-18 200m (10cm)
RPG-7V1 500m (25cm)

I think it is important to get these right, as too long a range beyond real life values creates a "dead-zone" radius in front of an infantry base, giving them capabilities far beyond what they should have, which alters game play significantly I would imagine.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

I susoect the ranges are tactial use ones, an RPG-7 may well range 500m but is only used at 200m. Certainly the Charlie G can fire 5000m but is not used over 500m for example.

[Big Insect]

Those ranges are a joke if 1cm = 20m.
I've noticed this before, a lot of the infantry weapons ranges are all over the place, but have refrained from commenting previously as it's beyond my ken as to why they got to such values.

The actual ranges are (and these are maximum ranges where you are on at best 20% to hit a halted target and no-one is firing at you):
RPG-7 500m (25cm)
RPG-16 700m (35cm)
RPG-18 200m (10cm)
RPG-7V1 500m (25cm)

I think it is important to get these right, as too long a range beyond real life values creates a "dead-zone" radius in front of an infantry base, giving them capabilities far beyond what they should have, which alters game play significantly I would imagine.

As I have previously states Ranges in the lists are not necessarily those quoted officially or by the manufacturers.
If you went by that you'd have a lot of Soviet MBT guns outranging their NATO opposite numbers and you'd distort the game-play in the rules - as any sensible Soviet player would just sit off and blow NATO to pieces, whilst NATO was forced to move forward to shoot.
The RPG & IATW ranges fall into a similar bracket. Ability to actually hit (effective range) with an RPG is as important as with an MBT gun.

The ranges in the lists are in effect the actual realistic battlefield ranges, as most Soviet trained crews (even the best) were not expected to be able to fire and hit anything at the maximum ranges. In fact they were not trained to fire at these ranges. RPGs appear to be very similar.

Longer ranges to guns/RPGs also means a much greater points cost, so you'd end up with Soviet tanks etc. all starting to cost a lot more, thus making the idea of superior numbers v NATO unworkable.

Any idea that we can ask a player not to fire a weapon at its maximum range - having included that maximum range in the actual army list stats - is unworkable and unrealistic (IMHO) hence the fact that an effective range has been calculated and is what appears in the lists.

There are some known anomalies in the points costs, ranges etc and continuity between lists (especially with IATWs) for the same weapon-type in the lists. There is an ongoing project to identify and rectify these.

I hope that that helps clarify things 
Thanks
Mark

[Arrigo]

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? 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.

Vehicles:

The US Army did not use M41 in Vietnam. Only the ARVN.  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. The M59 and M75 had already been withdrawn from service, they should be out of the list.

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, hits and save could be either 4/6 or, considering it was literally unarmored, 3/6. 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.

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?

That is all.

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

I will post more later...

Best,
Arrigo

[Raider4]

. . . Plus why the AC-47, a plane, is in the helicopter list?

The ACH-47 is an up-armoured/armed version of the CH-47. Only four converted. Should be 1966-1968. Never heard it called "Spooky".

[Arrigo]

The ACH-47 is an up-armoured/armed version of the CH-47. Only four converted. Should be 1966-1968. Never heard it called "Spooky".

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.