Feedback/Comments/Questions on American Lists

Here's a spot for you to put any feedback/comments/suggestions or questions regarding the BG:NORTHAG American lists.

Thanks

Richard

Hi Richard

looking at the American armoured list, do the manpad teams in the specialist support section not get a transport?

could they not get a Mutt to run them round in?

cheers

alex

Alex

They can have a M996 HMMWV for +5 points.

Paul


One for Rich....
Why are there two 'Feedback/Comments/Questions' things for the Americans?

I was hoping for something not in a humvee really.

cheers

alex

alicks wrote:looking at the American armoured list, do the manpad teams in the specialist support section not get a transport?

could they not get a Mutt to run them round in?

Hi Alex

Paul is correct - they can get a HMMWV for 5 pts.  Of course if you want to use a MUTT instead that would be fine as well. If I was to go back and edit the US Armoured list (which I might at some point in time) then I'd give the MUTT as an option.

Gun-Pit Paul wrote:Why are there two 'Feedback/Comments/Questions' things for the Americans?

Coz I'm an idiot!  One of these threads was supposed to be for "Other" lists - I just mislabeled it..... sigh.....

R

Judging by the amount of people playing Americans by the amount of comments, etc. maybe we don't even need ONE section!
Respectfully,
Gunny:study:

"Coz I'm an idiot! One of these threads was supposed to be for "Other" lists - I just mislabeled it..... sigh....."

Rich, don't worry. So are most (all) of us! or we wouldn't be playing with toy soldiers

Hi Richard

Can you please run through for me the procedure to launch the Apache or Cobras Hellfire missiles.

Is it:

Forward Air Controller is ordered to carry out a grout attack.

This can be done by passing a communication check with a Laser Designation Team within 10" of the FAO on a 3+.

This can be interrupted by ambush at this point.

The helicopter is ordered to fire, and can shoot the designated target from behind cover.

All this costs 2 orders, one for the FAC and one to open fire.

Is this right?

thanks

Alex

Are US AFV data cards available? Or a blank template for the cards?

Thanks,

Joe

Hi Joe

A very fine chap in the UK called Greg Hannah developed the British, German and Russian Data Cards and sent them to me as pdfs. I believe when he originally did them he was planning on creating US Data Cards but must not have gotten around to doing it.

I was also going to do something similar...

I'm sure he probably used Excel or something like it to create that cards - so it shouldn't be too hard to do.

Sorry - not much help!

Richard

Thanks, Richard. I have a template for BG cards I can modify, but Greg's look a lot more professional.

I've begun working on American data cards.  They are not as nice as Greg's but I'll send them to you when finished.

A couple of points:

The M48A5 had the same 105 mm main gun as the M60A1/A3s and should have the Advanced Gun trait.  The  A5 model brought the M48 up to the same accuracy and lethality as the M60A1, but without stabilization.  The designation should be M68A1 on most of the M60 series, the M1 and the M1IP.

The M48A5 should have an MG- Pintle for the loader. (When the 2ID in Korea replaced their M48s with M60A3s, all these extra MGs got lost in the shuffle and eventually found their way onto our M60s.)

The M1 should have Advanced Optics.

The M60A1 and A3 (not the TTS) should have an IR/WSL.

I'm torn on whether the M60s should have Advanced Stabilization.  I had the privilege of commanding companies of A1s and A3s, plus spent some time on M1s at Knox.  The M60A1 and A3 had the same stabilization system and as much as I enjoyed shooting the M60s, there is no comparison between the M60s and the M1's.  At 5 mph on a level surface, the M60 could hit a stationary target at 2,000 meters, but was almost useless above that speed or on an incline.  The M1 had a true shoot-on-the-move capability.  In fact, testing on the initial production models showed the M1 was just as accurate at 45 mph as sitting still.  Maybe the solution is to apply the Advanced Stabilization if the M60 moved half or less, but that might be unnecessary complexity.  I should be ready for some games next weekend, so will try both ways.

Thanks again for all the work you've put into these rules.

Joe

Hi Joe

Cold Steel wrote:I've begun working on American data cards. They are not as nice as Greg's but I'll send them to you when finished.

That's great - thanks very much!

The M48A5 had the same 105 mm main gun as the M60A1/A3s and should have the Advanced Gun trait. The A5 model brought the M48 up to the same accuracy and lethality as the M60A1, but without stabilization. The designation should be M68A1 on most of the M60 series, the M1 and the M1IP.

Agree - thanks for the pick up

The M48A5 should have an MG- Pintle for the loader. (When the 2ID in Korea replaced their M48s with M60A3s, all these extra MGs got lost in the shuffle and eventually found their way onto our M60s.)

OK - I'll add that

The M1 should have Advanced Optics.

My understanding was that the original M1's fire control system was not as good as the M60A3 TTS and that this was upgraded in the M1IP. Bear in my that my understanding is only based on what I have read - no hard facts. I'd appreciate your views on that.

The M60A1 and A3 (not the TTS) should have an IR/WSL.

OK - will fix that. Thanks

I'm torn on whether the M60s should have Advanced Stabilization. I had the privilege of commanding companies of A1s and A3s, plus spent some time on M1s at Knox. The M60A1 and A3 had the same stabilization system and as much as I enjoyed shooting the M60s, there is no comparison between the M60s and the M1's. At 5 mph on a level surface, the M60 could hit a stationary target at 2,000 meters, but was almost useless above that speed or on an incline. The M1 had a true shoot-on-the-move capability. In fact, testing on the initial production models showed the M1 was just as accurate at 45 mph as sitting still. Maybe the solution is to apply the Advanced Stabilization if the M60 moved half or less, but that might be unnecessary complexity. I should be ready for some games next weekend, so will try both ways.

That's really great information. From what you are saying I think I should be deleting Advanced Stabilizer from all the M60's. Happy to hear about how your play throughs go.

Thanks again for all the work you've put into these rules.

No worries!

Richard

"My understanding was that the original M1's fire control system was not as good as the M60A3 TTS and that this was upgraded in the M1IP. Bear in my that my understanding is only based on what I have read - no hard facts. I'd appreciate your views on that."

The A3 thermal sights were superior to the original M1, but not the fire controls. Yes, the A3 thermals were added to the M1IP. For stationary firing, there was little difference in performance between the 2 systems. Problems during gunnery qualifications in the first M1 battalions were blamed on the tank, but they were ultimately determined to be training-related. The tank was a generational leap in technology. Crews and leaders had trouble making the corresponding mental leap with just a couple weeks of training. A platoon of M60A3s beat an M1 platoon in the Canadian Cup the first year the M1s competed. The difference was the M60 platoon trained their back sides off, while the M1 platoon relied primarily on hubris. But its easier on the career to blame the new technology when a favored unit doesn't perform as expected.

When initially fielded, the M1 was such a technological leap, the entire US Army had trouble dealing with it. Everything we knew or learned since 1941 went out the window. Logistics, tactics, training, recruiting, maintenance, command and control, strategic and tactical deployment all had to be re-engineered. Careers were lost because a lot of leaders could not adjust their thought process to how fast the new battlefield operated. How do you resupply a battalion that is attacking faster than the truck convoy behind it? I remember an Infantry LTC who accused us of lying when we told him how fast an M1 company could attack. He looked like he saw a ghost when his M113 finally caught up to us.

The M60A1 RISE is a different model from the RISE/PASSIVE.  The RISE used infrared sights instead of passive and had no smoke launchers or generators. The RISE was the most common tank in Reserve/National Guard units and war reserves through the mid-80s.

I’m not sure of your methodology on missile reloads, but by simply counting on-board spares:
-The M2 and M2A1 carried 2 TOW reloads.
-The M3 and M3A1 carried 3 TOW reloads.
-The M48 Chaparral carried 2 reloads.
-The M901 carried 5 reloads.
-The M150 carried 10 reloads.

Officially, the M113 ACAV did not exist.  In the late 70s, the Army ordered all the ACAV kits to be removed and turned in but most of the kits somehow disappeared in the process.  Once the Pentagon stopped looking for them, all those missing kits magically reappeared, primarily in the Bn Scout Platoons. The ACAV should be an option for the Cavalry Scout Platoon or Patrol, but the squads should lose the 2 men with M249 SAW.

The M901 should have an MG-Pintle instead of an HMG and the Dismount ATGM special.  

The M981 should have an MG-Pintle instead of an HMG and Advanced Imaging.  The laser designator can be dismounted.

The M551 and almost all versions of the M113 are amphibious.  The only preparation they need is to flip down the trim vane and the driver turn on the bilge pump.  The procedure is the same as the BMP and PT-76, which are rated Amphibious.

The original M2 and M3 Bradleys did not have an NBC protective system.

The HMG on the M728 CEV should be Turret.

The M578 had an HMG instead of an MG.

The Dragon ATGM and all versions of the TOW have a minimum range of 65m, so I extended their AT value to 5” or more.