Share
Go down
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 196
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Sun Feb 18, 2018 10:07 pm
Here's a spot for you to put any feedback/comments/suggestions or questions regarding the BG:NORTHAG British Lists.

Thanks

Richard
nickdives
Posts : 79
Join date : 2018-02-12

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:51 pm
Just looking at the FV432 Inf section, surely it should be 8 Riflemen and 2 man GPMG team, although the section 2I/C would normally command the gun group.
nickdives
Posts : 79
Join date : 2018-02-12

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:33 pm
Who does the "TOC" represent? If it has the 439 then a Ptarmigan vehicle, 3 scaleys (And a stack of yellow handbags) providing Comms relay. Def no EW or Arty Spotter. A Brigade Commander had a TAC Panzer (436) which he could use to go forwards and run the battle (As an Int Corps L/Cpl I drove ours a few times as the Veh commander was a good mate!)
avatar
Fitz
Posts : 106
Join date : 2018-02-12
Age : 56
Location : Christchurch, New Zealand
http://mojobob.com

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:40 am
I have a question regarding the structural terminology of the lists.

I'm looking at the mechanised infantry platoons:
  • platoon command is described as 6 men AND a 51mm mortar
  • rifle section is described as 5 men AND a Carl Gustav
  • GPMG section is described as 3 men WITH GPMG

What I want to clarify is exactly what AND means in this context. Does it mean "x number of men, plus a man with [equipment]", or does it mean "x number of men, one of whom is equipped with [equipment]"?
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 196
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:25 am
nickdives wrote:Just looking at the FV432 Inf section, surely it should be 8 Riflemen and 2 man GPMG team, although the section 2I/C would normally command the gun group.

Hi Nick

So if the 2IC (commanding the gun group) comes out of the 8 men, should it read:

3 Rifle Sections
Unit Composition: 7 men and a L14A1 MAW
Transport: FV432

Options:
Add a MG Turret to a FV432 . . . . . . . . .   + 5 pts
May take up to 2 M72A2 LAW . . . . . . . .  + 5 pts each

3 GPMG Sections
Unit Composition: 3 man with a L7A4 GPMG
Transport: Transported in the platoon’s other vehicles

It's been a while since I put this list together so I'm guessing I settled on 8 men in total per section to represent what I've read about the difficulty British units had in keeping units at full strength. Happy to be corrected.

nickdives wrote:Who does the "TOC" represent? If it has the 439 then a Ptarmigan vehicle, 3 scaleys (And a stack of yellow handbags) providing Comms relay. Def no EW or Arty Spotter. A Brigade Commander had a TAC Panzer (436) which he could use to go forwards and run the battle (As an Int Corps L/Cpl I drove ours a few times as the Veh commander was a good mate!)

Lucky you!  The TOC is really just a generic representation of the additional command assistance that might be available to the Forward HQ.  I very much doubt it will make it into the final version of the list, but I wanted something that gave NATO forces better command options (a second senior officer and radio communications network) at a lower level to the WARPAC nations, in an attempt to provide NATO with more flexibility.  To be honest I've never used one in a game yet even in my largest games.

The artillery observer is just part of the senior officer's functionality not a separate team - but it would be rarely used because you wouldn't want this unit anywhere near the firing line or line LOS of any enemy unit.

I'm happy to remove the EW detachment as it can be purchased elsewhere separately.

Thanks for the super useful feedback

Richard
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 196
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:34 am
Fitz wrote:I have a question regarding the structural terminology of the lists.

I'm looking at the mechanised infantry platoons:
platoon command is described as 6 men AND a 51mm mortar
rifle section is described as 5 men AND a Carl Gustav
GPMG section is described as 3 men WITH GPMG

What I want to clarify is exactly what AND means in this context. Does it mean "x number of men, plus a man with [equipment]", or does it mean "x number of men, one of whom is equipped with [equipment]"?

Hi Fitz

Great question. To fit everything into this format (using Word) I had to seriously abbreviate what I had written for each unit composition. It all makes perfect sense in my head..... but not so clear to others I'm afraid. What I was trying to say is this.

If a description says "5 men AND a Carl Gustav" it means there are 5 figures and each is armed with the standard small arms of that nation - so in this case it might be 1 NCO with a Sterling SMG and 4 chaps with SLRs. In addition this unit has a Carl Gustav MAW - so 1 of those figures should ALSO be equipped with the CG MAW.

If the description says "3 men WITH a GPMG" it means the units primary weapon is the GPMG - so that is 1 chaps only weapon. The other 2 figures are armed with the standard small arms of that nation.

Hopefully I've tried to keep this consistent but looking back I doubt it.... sorry. However above is certainly my intended meaning.

You never know I might get a chance to play a game with you sometime in the future - planning on moving back to NZ later this year.

Richard
avatar
Fitz
Posts : 106
Join date : 2018-02-12
Age : 56
Location : Christchurch, New Zealand
http://mojobob.com

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:11 am
RichardC wrote:You never know I might get a chance to play a game with you sometime in the future - planning on moving back to NZ later this year.

Very Happy Who knows, maybe I might have actually finished building a usable force by then.
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 196
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:58 am
Fitz wrote:Very Happy Who knows, maybe I might have actually finished building a usable force by then.

If your doing it in 6mm you might need two forces! I'm a 20mm guy!

R
sediment
Posts : 94
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Chester, U.K.
https://sedimentswargameblog.blogspot.co.uk/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:18 pm
My reading, can't speak from personal experience, suggests a mechanized infantry section has 9 men, of which 8 were dismounts, one lucky chap stayed in the FV432 to drive it. The 8 dismounts were subdivided into a 3 man GPMG team (incl section 2-i-C) and a 5 man rifle section (with section commander) with Carl Gustav and as many LAWs as they could carry/expected to need, pretty much as you have it Richard. All my 20mm Brits are based that way and that's how Elheim sell them as sections.

Cheers, Andy
nickdives
Posts : 79
Join date : 2018-02-12

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:03 pm
My wrong, should be 9 men, the confusion was that the GPMG team would be in the same 432, not have separate transport.
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 196
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:44 pm
OK - so it should read:

3 Rifle Sections
Unit Composition: 6 men and a L14A1 MAW
Transport: FV432

Options:
Add a MG Turret to a FV432 . . . . . . . . . + 5 pts
May take up to 2 M72A2 LAW . . . . . . . . + 5 pts each

3 GPMG Sections
Unit Composition: 3 man with a L7A4 GPMG
Transport: Transported in the platoon’s other vehicles

That right?
nickdives
Posts : 79
Join date : 2018-02-12

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:05 pm
The Gun Group is part of the rifle section, the 3rd man usually the section 2IC. In the attack and defence they would deploy as directed by the Section Commander, then re join the section at the reorg. This all changed with the advent of the SA80 and use of fire teams etc.
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 196
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:08 pm
So do you think it would be better to run it as a single 9 man unit with the Fireteam special rule, which means the player can split it up anyway he chooses before or during the game?

Richard
avatar
Fitz
Posts : 106
Join date : 2018-02-12
Age : 56
Location : Christchurch, New Zealand
http://mojobob.com

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:37 pm
The "Fire-team" rule would better describe the way we used the gun back in the day, except for its inability to recombine. We would move as a unit to within reach of the objective, split off the gun team, neutralize the objective, and then recombine to move on to the next objective.

I should note that this was under ideal (i.e. exercise) conditions. I never saw combat (thank goodness), so I don't really know if the same thing applied when Bad People were shooting back, but it was certainly meant to.
nickdives
Posts : 79
Join date : 2018-02-12

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:52 am
Yes Richard, however as Fitz mentions the section would recombine after an objective was achieved. The gun team were nos7,8,9 of the section and would move and deploy as part of the section, until directed to a position to provide fire support. Once the section fought through the objective they would reorg and the gun team would rejoin. (Members of the section would also carry spare link for the GPMG) For a platoon objective the platoon commander might direct a number of gun teams to move to a pre-determined position, the whole thing could be quite flexible.
sediment
Posts : 94
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Chester, U.K.
https://sedimentswargameblog.blogspot.co.uk/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:46 am
I still don't think there were 9 dismounts for a mechanised section, there'd be no one to drive the 432.

In the context of the game, there wouldn't be much call to recombine the GPMG team and rifle section after an objective was taken, unless you're playing a larger game with a campaign element. You could allow recombination if they remount the transport vehicle perhaps, it would give a natural opportunity to reorganise.

Cheers, Andy
avatar
Fitz
Posts : 106
Join date : 2018-02-12
Age : 56
Location : Christchurch, New Zealand
http://mojobob.com

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:54 am
I don't think it would harm game balance too much to allow recombination, especially if it was treated as an order action. So, both portions of the section would be doing nothing else that turn, and you'd be spending two orders on them (one "Reform" order each) to get them back together at a designated point — the section transport, probably, but it could just be a rally point somewhere within move reach.

With that sort of action cost to recombine the section, you'd have to make a deliberate decision about whether it's actually worth your while, considering the tactical situation.
Smee106
Posts : 14
Join date : 2018-02-17

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:48 pm
Sorry a little later to this than I’d planned real life and work have a way of getting in the way.

I’ve got a few points which hopefully will help and not mystify. As I’m not totally conversant with the rules some points might be to do with game play, and most of what I’m posting is from memory and a lot of beer was drunk at the time and since.

Marines
1. Extra point cost for BV’s in Norway this was the vehicle that was used are the points for the increased mobility ?
2. There were no dispatch riders in Norway
3. No Bv206 I’m not sure when they came into service (definitely both were in use in 1992)
4. The Charley G was on;y issued as 1 per platoon
5. The 81mm mortar was also man portable (the marines I spoke to weren’t very impressed when OC had made them prove it)
6. The Marines used navy medics
7. The CVR(T)s were only attached to AMF who were further south as far as I’m aware there was no recce Regt if you’ve got better info happy to stand corrected
8. The engineers would either be the pioneer section in the support platoon or 59 cdo RE
Smee106
Posts : 14
Join date : 2018-02-17

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:27 pm
Armoured Infantry
1. FOO was in a spartan I believe
2. The HQ had a 51mm mortar and there were still some 2” still around but only with smoke and illumination
3. MCT is very year dependant
4. The Artillery also had 175mm, 203mm, Lance missile and later MLRS
5. The German based artillery had no towed guns
6. FASCAM was in later, the Engineers were responsible for all mine laying and clearing
7. DIPCM wasn’t in till later
8. Armoured brigades only had CVR(T) for recce
9. An engineer section was 8 men and had an LMG (a rebarrelled Bren) as it’s gun group
10. The CET was amphibious
11. No ranger anti personnel launchers in the lists
12. Anti tank mine fields could also have off route mines that attacked the side armour
13. For bridging it was a bridging Troop not section (you need 4 men per panel then a pin man per side)
14. Helicopter transports were from the RAF chinooks etc are missing
15. An infantry section was 8 men split into to 2 groups (rifle group which included a Charley G and a gun group commanded by the 2ic) the driver stayed with the 432. The introduction of the SA80 brought about a change the section it still had 8 men split into 2 groups with 3 SA80s and 1 with a LSW in each
16. LAW80 was brought into replace both the Charley G and the 66
17. The M72 was known as the 66 in the British Army never as an M72
18. You have no Recce Regt as a base unit
19. MFC was in a 432
20. For info there were 24 Milan posts or later 20 posts and 4 MCTin the infantry support company
nickdives
Posts : 79
Join date : 2018-02-12

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:50 am
With the introduction of the SA80 the section was split into two 4 man fire teams, a practice in use in NI for some time.
FOO could be Spartan or with the RA still 432.
BV202 and we ,had a Recce Sqn (I was attached to A Sqn 16/5L in 82) as part of AMF, however they would be in the North supported the main effort against the perceived threat.
Smee106
Posts : 14
Join date : 2018-02-17

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:49 am
Nick I was detached to the Marines in 92, 93 and 94 way up north (bardufoss, narvik and harstad) and never saw any CVR(T)s
Yep the 202 and 206 were both in use at the same time, part of the deployed kit
nickdives
Posts : 79
Join date : 2018-02-12

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:31 am
We were based in Trondheim for training, then moved to the far north for the main exercise.
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 196
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:34 am
Hi Smee106

Thanks for the great observations on the British lists. I really appreciate you going through it so carefully so thanks again. I'll try and comment on each question/point starting with the Royal Marines.

1. Extra point cost for BV’s in Norway this was the vehicle that was used are the points for the increased mobility ?
Yes – extra cross country mobility. I guess I approached this thinking players may want to set there games in summer or winter. I made an assumption that in summer they troops would more likely be moved around in trucks. It’s just my assumption based on no knowledge whatsoever! If, based on your experience, you think I should remove the trucks altogether and just have the BVs,, I’m happy to do that.

2. There were no dispatch riders in Norway
OK, thanks – I will remove this.

3. No Bv206 I’m not sure when they came into service (definitely both were in use in 1992)
Sorry – I really can’t remember why I stuck with the BV202. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

4. The Charley G was on;y issued as 1 per platoon
I did wonder about this – and part of the reason I did it was because during the Falklands campaign I understand that the Marines grabbed everything they could lay their hands on to increase their firepower (including Bren guns). Hence the options for brens and second GPMGs in the section. I assumed that knowing they could be facing armour they may have taken more Charley Gs. Did they have additional weapons in war stocks?

5. The 81mm mortar was also man portable (the marines I spoke to weren’t very impressed when OC had made them prove it)
Ha! In that case (and for the Milan Team) I’ll reduce the cost and make the transport optional.

6. The Marines used navy medics
Great. I’ll change that.

7. The CVR(T)s were only attached to AMF who were further south as far as I’m aware there was no recce Regt if you’ve got better info happy to stand corrected
I did have some info on what made up 3 Commando Brigade and I’m sure it had some info about CVR(T)s. I’m sure it was in an old Armed Forces magazine which I’ll try and find and post it up.

This is from the Fire and Fury (Battlefront WW2) British 1980s army list – which is a gold mine! R. Mark Davies seems to know his stuff.
“3 Commando Brigade only had a Reconnaissance Squadron following the 1982 reorganisation, when it received the squadron that had previously been allocated to the AMF(L) Battlegroup. The squadron was equipped according to UK scales of equipment, with mixed troops of Scimitar and Scorpion.”

8. The engineers would either be the pioneer section in the support platoon or 59 cdo RE
Any additional info would be great, but I’ll change the name to RM Pioneer Section.

Thanks

Richard
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 196
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:47 am
Now onto Smee106's comments re the BAOR Armoured Div list

1. FOO was in a spartan I believe
Spartan and FV432 are there as options – but I think it’s important to give the player a cheaper, unarmoured choice as a starting point.

2. The HQ had a 51mm mortar and there were still some 2” still around but only with smoke and illumination
Sounds similar to the West Germans who have a Carl Gustav in their Platoon Command, but in reality it was only used for illumination. I’ll keep it as is – players can use the optional night-fighting rules for illumination. Smoke is another story….

3. MCT is very year dependant
True. Available in my 86/87 setting but may not be available if we go pre-85.

4. The Artillery also had 175mm, 203mm, Lance missile and later MLRS
True. All available as Additional Fire Support and some available as Timed Strikes which seems appropriate.

5. The German based artillery had no towed guns
Thanks. I'm pretty sure I originally included it for the 19th Infantry Brigade, but as they are now covered by the BAOR infantry division list I’m happy to remove it.

6. FASCAM was in later, the Engineers were responsible for all mine laying and clearing
Do you have an introduction year? This will upset a few British players!

7. DIPCM wasn’t in till later
Again – do you know when it was introduced? Very useful option…

8. Armoured brigades only had CVR(T) for recce
So no recce in Land Rovers? No Ferrets?

9. An engineer section was 8 men and had an LMG (a rebarrelled Bren) as it’s gun group
Very useful. Thank you

10. The CET was amphibious
Thanks. I currently have it lists as Amphibious with preparation. Do you mean it is 100% amphibious all the time?

11. No ranger anti personnel launchers in the lists
No. I consider this type of combat engineering task is meant to take place before the battle rather than during it, so didn’t include it in the list apart from the mixed ant-tank/anti-personnel minefield in defences. Should there be a more specific type of minefield to better represent it?

12. Anti tank mine fields could also have off route mines that attacked the side armour
True. I’m aware of these mines but haven’t worked out if they need to be represented separately or how to best do it without further complicating the rules.

13. For bridging it was a bridging Troop not section (you need 4 men per panel then a pin man per side)
Great. Thanks!

14. Helicopter transports were from the RAF chinooks etc are missing
They will be included in the 6th Airmobile Brigade list.

15. An infantry section was 8 men split into to 2 groups (rifle group which included a Charley G and a gun group commanded by the 2ic) the driver stayed with the 432. The introduction of the SA80 brought about a change the section it still had 8 men split into 2 groups with 3 SA80s and 1 with a LSW in each
Thanks. I think all of that is reflected in the list.

16. LAW80 was brought into replace both the Charley G and the 66
OK. The list has no CG or 66 in the Armoured Infantry Platoon. I guess if I wanted to be super representative I could have had a modernised version of the Mechanised Infantry Platoon with SA80s, LSWs and LAW-80. For simplicities sake I didn’t.

17. The M72 was known as the 66 in the British Army never as an M72
OK – so if I call it a 66mm LAW that’s OK?

18. You have no Recce Regt as a base unit
No – BG typically doesn’t operate that way – but there is no reason in the future we could not do a Recce Regiment List. On the other hand there’s no reason you can’t construct a Recce Regiment force using the correct elements already in the list. We do that sort of thing fairly often.

19. MFC was in a 432
OK – I’ll remove the Spartan option and replace it with a FV432.

20. For info there were 24 Milan posts or later 20 posts and 4 MCTin the infantry support company
Thanks

Phew!!

Again - really appreciate that

Richard
nickdives
Posts : 79
Join date : 2018-02-12

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:53 am
No recce landrovers in BAOR, only UK based.

I was with the Recce Sqn in 1982 mixed Troops of Scimitar and Scorpion and a Boot Troop with Spartan, BV 202 and ZB498

By the 80s the ferret was used for liaison, SSM ride and possibly still for Engr Recce.
Sponsored content

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum