Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists
+4
sediment
RichardC
Fitz
nickdives
8 posters
Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists
Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:57 pm
Gun-Pit Paul wrote:In the Inf Div list (pg. 2), the Motorised Infantry Section is list as '15pts 2-r BR'
Should be '15pts 2-i BR'
Hi Paul
Thanks - well picked up again!
Fixed
Richard
Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists
Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:02 am
Smee106 wrote:There were LAW80’s in every section, it was a cheaper option compared to the Charlie G it also at the time was said to be able to penetrate any tanks armour (don’t know how true it actually was)
nickdives wrote:If i recall, LAW80 appeared late 80s early 90s.
Hi Guys
The British Infantry Div List has two infantry options which are basically my view of the 86/87 period as a changeover point in the British Army. The first option is representative of the motorised infantry platoon prior to the introduction of the LAW-80 (and L85 & L86) whilst the Saxon Infantry Platoon is representatvie of the platoon post introduction of those weapons. There you will find LAW-80 available to every section and fireteam.
Thanks
Richard
- Hated
- Posts : 15
Join date : 2018-04-04
Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists
Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:43 pm
Hi Richard
i may be missing something here but cant seem to find the stats for the land rover Wombats gun.
are you able to point me in their direction or alternatively tell me what you expect the stats would be for it?
best regards
Nath
Edit: ah never mind I found the rules in the rulebook but now have a different query
I've noticed you've only given it an AP value of only 2 yet in real life the 120mm HESH round it fired was capable of penetrating(well not penetrating as HESH doesn't penetrate but causes spalling) 400mm of rolled homogenous armour making it a much more viable anti tank weapon than it currently is.
https://www.tanks.net/anti-tank-weapons/united-kingdom-l6-wombat-120mm-recoilless.html (there are other sources detailing it's armour penetration values as well but don't want to spam links)
Is the ap2 an oversight or a deliberate balancing move?
Cheers
Nath
i may be missing something here but cant seem to find the stats for the land rover Wombats gun.
are you able to point me in their direction or alternatively tell me what you expect the stats would be for it?
best regards
Nath
Edit: ah never mind I found the rules in the rulebook but now have a different query
I've noticed you've only given it an AP value of only 2 yet in real life the 120mm HESH round it fired was capable of penetrating(well not penetrating as HESH doesn't penetrate but causes spalling) 400mm of rolled homogenous armour making it a much more viable anti tank weapon than it currently is.
https://www.tanks.net/anti-tank-weapons/united-kingdom-l6-wombat-120mm-recoilless.html (there are other sources detailing it's armour penetration values as well but don't want to spam links)
Is the ap2 an oversight or a deliberate balancing move?
Cheers
Nath
Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists
Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:11 am
Hi Nath
I think you might be reading the table on page 9 incorrectly. None of the weapons in that table have an AP value as they are all HEAT weapons of some description - they all use HE against armoured targets. The Wombat has a HE penetration value of 17 from 0 - 40". That's the highest value on the table.
The only weapons with a penetration value of 2 on the table are the AGS-17 and the MK-19 grenade launchers.
Hope that helps
Richard
I think you might be reading the table on page 9 incorrectly. None of the weapons in that table have an AP value as they are all HEAT weapons of some description - they all use HE against armoured targets. The Wombat has a HE penetration value of 17 from 0 - 40". That's the highest value on the table.
The only weapons with a penetration value of 2 on the table are the AGS-17 and the MK-19 grenade launchers.
Hope that helps
Richard
- Hated
- Posts : 15
Join date : 2018-04-04
Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists
Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:23 am
Ah I see, thanks Richard, I hadn't thought to check the launcher table. I'd been looking at the NATO guns list instead and couldn't see it but instead on page 17 found the recoiless rifle paragraph that stated it was ap 2 so I think that's where my confusion came from
Thanks for clarifying for me
Cheers
Nath
Thanks for clarifying for me
Cheers
Nath
Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists
Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:20 pm
Hi Nath
All good - thanks for pointing out the issue with the Recoilless Rifle paragraph. I think there are still a few errors in that section on Weapons of the Cold War that I need to fix.
Richard
All good - thanks for pointing out the issue with the Recoilless Rifle paragraph. I think there are still a few errors in that section on Weapons of the Cold War that I need to fix.
Richard
- alicks
- Posts : 24
Join date : 2018-04-03
Location : UK
Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists
Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:08 am
Hi Rich, just been looking through the British lists as i have some interest there, and noticed that the warrior platoons are quite expensive for not very much gear.
And the only thing they have over a soviet bmp2 platoon is the extra warrior, a handfull of guys, and abit more Battle Rating. But then the soviets come equipped with RPG's and the bmp has its AT4 launcher.
Just wondering about your thoughts behind the cost? could they be worth reducing?
Many thanks
Alex
And the only thing they have over a soviet bmp2 platoon is the extra warrior, a handfull of guys, and abit more Battle Rating. But then the soviets come equipped with RPG's and the bmp has its AT4 launcher.
Just wondering about your thoughts behind the cost? could they be worth reducing?
Many thanks
Alex
Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists
Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:50 am
Hi Alex
Yes it's always worth revisiting things for another look. The British Armoured Div list was one of the first I wrote so going back for a second (or third or fourth) look is always worth it. I always wanted and expected NATO front line forces to be significantly more expensive than Soviet forces. The idea was to get a balanced game despite the NATO player basically fielding platoons versus the Soviet player who fields companies. I'm not sure that goal has been totally achieved, but we are somewhere along the journey.
Richard
Yes it's always worth revisiting things for another look. The British Armoured Div list was one of the first I wrote so going back for a second (or third or fourth) look is always worth it. I always wanted and expected NATO front line forces to be significantly more expensive than Soviet forces. The idea was to get a balanced game despite the NATO player basically fielding platoons versus the Soviet player who fields companies. I'm not sure that goal has been totally achieved, but we are somewhere along the journey.
Richard
Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum