Unguided Rockets

 There has been some recent discussion on the AirLand Battlegroup Facebook page on the rules for Unguided Rockets - meaning these:

Originally the Cold War rules for these very much reflected the rules for nnguided rockets in WW2 - as in these:

Obviously things have changed in the 40+ years since WW2 and some people think the current rules make unguided rockets into poor precision weapons rather than what they were in reality - more of an area effect weapon.

On Facebook I provided some updated rules for unguided rockets along these lines:

"The Unguided Rockets rules are exactly the same as Battlegroup WW2 Rockets rules with the following exceptions: 

Unguided rockets are fired from pods installed on aircraft or helicopter hardpoints.  When triggered, each pod fires 2 rockets.  All pods on the aircraft or helicopter must fire an equal number of rockets at once.  So, an aircraft or helicopter with 4 pods would fire a minimum of 8 rockets a turn.  Note, multiple salvoes can be fire at once.  The total number of rockets per pod is shown on the table below. 

Unguided rockets and targeting systems have become more accurate over time.  They always hit on a 5 or 6.

Unguided rockets attack the Top armour of targets."

These rules basically conform to the Battl;egroup WW2 rulebook, but give the unguided rockets a better chance of hitting the target.

Then on Facebook I put up a poll - which is there now if you go for a look - which gives a couple of options.  Option 1 is to leave things as they currently are with the new update.  Option 2 is to change the rules to allow use of the Artillery Barrage Table to better reflect the area effect of the rockets impacting on the target area.

I decided to test out both options - which I have now done,

I’ve decided to use a Sepecat Jaguar GR.1 as the attacking aircraft.  It is equipped with 2 SNEB rocket pods (one on each wing with 6 rockets in each pod).  

For the sake of the experiment we’ll make 3 attacks against a Soviet tank column with the centre T-72A being the target point in each attack.  In the first attack the Jaguar will be firing 4 rockets, the second attack will be with 8 rockets and the final attack with 12 rockets.

Option 1 – the current updated rules.

In this option the player chooses to use Aimed Fire with HE shells. He successfully observes the Soviet tank column and chooses to target the centre T-72A.

First attack – Rolling 4D6 I score: 2,3,6,6 = two hits on 1 tank

Second attack – Rolling 8Dg I score: 1,1,2,2,3,3,5,6 – two hits on 1 tank

Third attack – Rolling 12D6 I score: 1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5,6,6,6 – six hits on 1 tank

AP 6 vs Top Armour 2 = need a 5 on 2D6 to penetrate. 

1^st – 8, 3 = 1 penetrating hit = dead tank

2^nd – 2, 4 = 1 immobilising hit. 1 glancing hit = 2 morale tests and the tank isn't going anywhere

3^rd – 5, 4, 9, 5, 4, 7 = 2 penetrating hits = doubly dead tank.

Option 2.  Place the target point on the target - which will be the centre tank.  Any enemy unit within 10” of the target point has a chance of being hit.  Roll for each rocket fired on the “Artillery Barrage Accuracy Table”. On a 1, the rocket simply misses. 2-5 are potential pins. 6 is a hit. Allocate pins and hits using the Indirect Artillery Fire rules. If a successfully hit target is armoured, use its Top armour. Follow the standard HE rules.

Same rolls as previous example

First attack – 2,3,6,6 – two hits, two potential pins – 2 tanks are hit, same 2 tanks are potentially pinned as well.

Second attack – 1,1,2,2,3,3,5,6 – two hits, four potential pins, two misses – 2 tanks are hit, all 3 tanks are potentially pinned, with the centre tank is potentially pinned twice.

Third attack – 1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5,6,6,6 – six hits, four potential pins, two misses – all 3 tanks are hit, all 3 tanks are potentially pinned, with the centre tank is potentially pinned twice.

Roll for hits first AP 6 vs Top Armour 2 = need a 5 on 2D6 to penetrate.  For the sake of this example I need a HE size for the rockets and I decide to classify all rockets as Medium, except for S-13 which I'll classify as Heavy.

1^st – For the hits I roll - 8, 3 = 1 penetrating hit = 1 tank KO'ed.  2^nd tank must make a morale test. I roll a 2 on the suppressing fire effect table so the tank is not pinned (unless it is already pinned from the morale test).  

2^nd – For the hits I roll - 2, 4 = 1 immobilising hit and 2 morale tests.  For my pinning tests I roll badly and none of the tanks are pinned (unless they are already pinned from the morale tests - which may have led to the crew abandoning the immobilised tank).

3^rd – For the hits I roll - 5, 4, 9, 5, 4, 7 = 2 penetrating hits = 2 KOed tanks.  The surviving tank must make 2 morale tests.  Once that's done it tests to see if it's pinned (let's assume it only has 1 potential pin).  I roll a 5 and it is pinned.  Depending on the results of the 2 morale test this may lead to the abandonment of the tank.

So using the Artillery Barrage Table and rules option makes unguided rockets significantly more powerful.  More powerful than bombs even!

That's something to think about...

More on this shortly.

Thanks if you made it this far!

Richard

S&S Models TPz Fuchs

 A while back a mate sent me a couple of S and S Models Fuchs to paint up for him.  A good while back...  So, rather than be embarrassed any longer with how with how bad a friend I am, I recently pushed these to the top of the ridiculously long paint queue and now they're done.

Here they are:

It's a good solid model which comes with a wide selction of stowage options - I've only used a few of those options here - and I think it comes up really nicely.

I also decided to try something different when painting them.  I airbrushed on the base NATO Green colour and then used make-up sponges to add in the NATO Black and Brown.  I think it came out quite well and was pleased with my first attempt at sponging a NATO cam pattern.  I think because they are fairly hefty/solid models, the sponge works well.  I'm not sure I'd use it on a plastic Revell Fuchs though.  I don't think it could stand the punishment of the way I sponged these.

Anyway - that's it for now.  Thanks for looking

Richard

Final UK Para Figures

Because I recently published a list for using UK Paratroopers in AirLand Battlegroup - my unofficial Cold War Battlegroup variant - I decided to finish off my remaining old Liberation Miniatures Paratroopers.  There wasn't many and they had been sitting half finished for probably a year or more, so if there was any time to do it - it was now.

Here they are:

Pretty sure the guy with the Blowpipe is not a Liberation Miniatures figure - maybe Platoon 20? - but he got a bit of an update as well.  Poor bloke probably has 3 different beret colours going on there!

Here's all my LibMin Paras together now:

If I add in a few standard BAOR infantry to the mix, a basic Para Platoon looks something like this:

And when you add some platoon support options it might look a bit like this:

So that's it for today.  A double dose of posts.  Next time I might go through the various Para Section and Platoon TO&Es for AirLand Battlegroup.

Thanks for looking

Richard

ZSU-57-2

 A few days ago I was contacted and asked about the ZSU-57-2 and if I planned on featuring it in the game. I don't think it's shown up in any of my previously published lists, although the AZP S-60 AA gun does show in at least the East German Paramilitary list.

I have looked at it ages ago and decided that it would not have been present in any Soviet Category A divisions and it looked like it was out of service in the WARPAC nations I've done so far. The plan was to include it when I got to the Category B lists of some odd bod nation that might still use them.

But... someone asked for it so I thought why not and so here is the data card for the ZSU-57-2.

Obviously this includes the stats of the 57mm Very Heavy Autocannon as well.

If you have an AFV that you think should be available in the game and the stats are missing - just let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Thanks

Richard

Dispatch Riders!

 

Just the other day I was reading an old Armed Forces magazine from December 1989 which had a report of Exercise “Roaring Lion” which was a 5^th Airborne Brigade exercise on Salisbury Plain.  Towards the end of the article the CO states the following:

“Command and control generally came together reasonably well, including the use of an aircraft as a command post.  Imposition of radio silence worked especially beneficially and that, and the inevitable communication glitches illustrated the continuing need for dispatch riders and liaison officers to get round such problems”

It got me thinking about Dispatch riders in Battlegroup and that maybe they needed a few more options in AirLand Battlegroup

Here’s the WW2 Dispatches Special Rule:

If radios and telephones won’t work, send a messenger.  A unit with the Dispatch special rule automatically passes a Communications check, because they have gone in person.  Remove the unit from play once they have been used.  It costs one order to send a Dispatch unit.

Currently in AirLand Battlegroup a unit with the Dispatches special rule looks like this:

I’m thinking of increasing the cost of a Dispatch Rider by about +5 points and making them Unique. I’m also thinking of replacing the Dispatches special rule in AirLand Battlegroup with this:

If radios and telephones won’t work, send a messenger.  A unit with the Dispatches special rule is Unique.  A unit with the Dispatches special rule can be used once per game.  Remove the unit from play once they have been used.  It costs one order to use a unit with the Dispatches special rule.  The employing player must select one of the following options:

- Automatically pass a Communications check as per the standard Battlegroup Rules

- Re-roll an Orders Dice after a roll of +3 on a D6

- Re-roll a D6 to determine the number of units arriving from reserve after a roll of +3 on a D6

This gives the Dispatch rider more of a role in Command and Control, rather than just dealing with Indirect Fire.  It will cost a bit more, but gives you some more options – with dice rolls so it doesn’t guarantee outcomes.

What do you think?

Thanks for looking

Richard