On this day 40 years ago. What if…..? Part 1

 40 years ago today, was Saturday 16 August 1986.  Looking back, in my alternate history it’s the day my alternate historians have labelled the start of World War Three.  But in many ways though, it’s really just one of many culmination points.  WW3 didn’t just happen, a switch wasn’t just flicked and we’re off.  It was more like a rolling series of incidents that when looked back upon seem to led inextricably to war.  At the time through, perhaps not so much.  Let's have a look at what might of happened in this first part on my alternate history.

What if . . . . Mikhail Gorbachev never became General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

What if . . . . In September 1984, Mikhail Gorbachev as chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee is heading back to Moscow after a trip to Sofia, Bulgaria, with his his wife, staffers and other Soviet dignitaries.  Suddenly there is an explosion and the plane crashes to the ground in Ukraine.  Ironically, the military and state security delegates had been meant to fly back with Gorbachev were held up in meetings with their Bulgarian counterparts and were unable to make the flight.

What if . . . . In the aftermath of the tragedy, KGB and the Bulgarian DS (Secret Police) quickly arrest 2 Bulgarian dissidents and a Polish émigré who had been working at the Vrazhdebna airport and are charged with somehow managing to smuggle an explosive device on to Gorbachev’s flight.

What if . . . . In late October 1984, the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs provides the world’s media with (grainy) photographic evidence of the Pole and one of the Bulgarian dissidents meeting with a Finnish diplomat in Sofia.  The Minister claims the “diplomat” is actually from Supo, the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service.

What if . . . . The Kremlin actively blame the Government of Finland and the Polish Solidarity union movement for the death of their dear friend, Comrade Gorbachev and the other Soviet delegates.

What if . . . . Early November 1984 the Soviet Politburo demands that the “Pro-NATO, Nazi Government in Helsinki” immediately resign and the new elections are held, supervised by officials of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.  They also demand that all Supo staff be suspended pending investigation and that the KGB be allowed to carry out that investigation.  The Kremlin also announces that all Finnish-Soviet military cooperation, contracts, trade and services will be put on hold until Finland has complied with the Soviet requests.

What if . . . . At the same time, the Soviet leadership demand the Polish Government immediately disband Solidarity and arrest Lech Walesa and the rest his hated activists.  If this is not done post haste by the Poles, the Soviet army will become involved.

What if . . . . The Finns deny any involvement in the tragedy and reject entirely all Soviet demands.  The Finnish Prime Minister calls for an independent UN led investigation into the incident and pledges complete transparency with such an inquiry.

 What if . . . . Mid November 1984, the Polish Government stumble into action and attempt to crush Solidarity once and for all.  Thousands are arrested over the next few weeks, but not Lech Walesa or any of the union’s key members who have all gone underground.  Massive strikes start to roll across Poland and the country’s economy rapidly begins to grind to a halt.  In a bid to save his own government and stay in power, Wojciech Jaruzelski, Poland’s Chairman of the Council of State invites the KGB to assist Poland’s SB (Security Service) in finding and arresting Solidarity’s leadership.

What if . . . . From November 1984 onwards, Finnish businesses within the Soviet Union begin to be systematically boycotted, vandalised and even fire bombed. Owners are attacked and arrested as “Agents of the West”.  KGB Border troops start making crossing into Finland increasingly difficult short of closing the actual border.

What if . . . . In the lead up to Christmas 1984 on at least two occasions, Finnish citizens, trying to return from the Soviet Union to Finland are shot attempting to cross the border. 

What if . . . . On New Years Day 1985, the Soviet Embassy in Helsinki is surrounded by massed protests which appear to be settling in for a long stay.  Several other Soviet related entities in Helsinki, such as the Soviet Institute and the HQ of the Finland-Soviet Society are also closed due to protests.  The Helsinki Government calls for calm.

What if . . . . at midnight on 12 January 1985 shots appear to be fired into crowd from the Soviet Embassy which had remained effectively under siege.  While the crowd disperses from around the Embassy the Soviet Institute and the Finland-Soviet Society’s premises are extensively damaged by fire.

What if . . . . on 13 January 1985, the Finnish Government recalls its Ambassador from Moscow.  The families  of diplomatic staff also leave the Soviet capital while those Finnish staff that remain prepare to close the Embassy.  Meanwhile the Kremlin declares all Finnish embassy staff to be persona non-grata and gives them 48hrs to leave the country.

What if . . . . on 16 January 1985 shots are exchanged between KGB and Finnish border guards.  Both governments announce the next day that all border crossings between Finland and the Soviet Union closed.  In response to the Kremlin’s diplomatic decisions the Finnish Government requests all Soviet Embassy staff and associates leave the country immediately. 

What if . . . . Early February 1985 during a clear night, a Soviet Baltic Fleet Kotlin-class Destroyer “Spokoyny” collides with and sinks a Finnish Navy Turunmaa-class Corvette “Karjala” in international waters.  27 Finnish crew members are lost and the Spokoyny does not render assistance.  Swedish and Finnish Navy assets manage to rescue the surviving crew.  The next morning  Soviet fighters from the PVO Baltic Air Defgnce District shot down a Finnish Air Force DKF/35FS Draken fighter which they said and flown into Soviet Airspace and “locked-up” a civilian Aeroflot airliner preparing to land in St Petersburg.  Interestingly the Draken wreckage was found by the Police near Vaalimaa, Finland, several kilometres within Finnish border.

What if . . . . Mid February, frustrated by the lack of progress by the KGB and SB to arrest Solidarity’s leadership, Moscow announces the activation of the Soviet Northern Group of Forces.  The annoucement states that this is being done “to help our fraternal Polish brothers deal with these CIA funded terrorists” and to finally stop the nation-wide industrial action.

What if . . . . On the death of Konstantin Chernenko in March 1985, Yegor Ligachev is elected General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.  Previously Secretary for Ideology, Chernenko was thought to be somewhat of an ally of Gorbachev.  Now as Chairman he retains Andrei Gromyko as Foreign Minister, Dmitry Ustinov as Defence Minister, Viktor Chebrikov as KGB Chairman and Vitaly Fedorchik as Interior Minister.  All well-known anti-Western conservatives.

What if . . . . In May 1985 the new leadership team of the Kremlin, know in the West as the “Triumvirate of Five” announce that their patience with the pro-Western Nazi Government in Helsinki is running out.  In addition to the original demands, Moscow now demands that under the terms of the Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, Finland now must also submit to KGB official investigating every Government Department and Agency to root all anti-Soviet pro-Western agents in every Finnish Government department and agency.  They also demand that, the Soviet Armed Forces undertake a similar investigation in the Finnish Army, Navy and Air Force for the mutual benefit of Finland and the Soviet Union.  Soviet “advisors” must be present beside all Finish military leadership positions.  Finally, huge financial and territorial reparations similar in scope to those paid after the end of the Second World War are called for.

 What if . . . . Once again Finns deny any involvement in the tragedy and again reject all Soviet statements as baseless.  In a televised speech, the Finnish President states that Moscow, for some reason that only they can know, seem intent on punishing Finland and seek to destroy the Finns national sovereignty – something that the Soviet Union had committed to uphold since 1945.  He reiterates Finland’s neutrality and desire to live in peace with the neighbour and until recently, Soviet friends.  He states that Finland never would and never will initiate offensive action against another country but will actively defend every inch of it’s territory.  At the end of his speech The Finnish President mobilises the reserves of the Defence Forces and announces  for an independent UN led investigation into the incident and pledges complete transparency with such an inquiry.

That's it for Part 1.  To be continued...

Thanks for looking

Richard

Updated West German Panzer & Panzergrenadier Division Battlegroup List

It started as a simple exercise.  Having recently finished the Fallschirmjager list, I needed to finalise the West German Jaeger Battlegroup list.  For one thing that list was close to being finished and I needed to get it done.  For another thing the FJ list only allowed Armour to be taken from the Jaeger list - and with no list, no armour!

So I dove into the Jaeger list and the more I read the more I realised it actually needed to be two different lists - otherwise it just became too complicated.  The first list would cover the two Heimatschutzebrigaden (HSB 51 and HSB 56) that were permanently committed to the Field Army.  They were better equipped than more "standard" Heimatschutzebrigaden, including Leopard 1s and in the case of HSB 56 Marders and Jaguars.  The other list would cover remainder of the '5th series' HSB and all of the '6th series' HSB for reasons that will become obvious when you see the lists.

Somehow I ended up down a rabbit hole about Marder Platoons and I became worried that my original West German Panzer/Panzer Grenadier lists might be wrong.  Fortuantely they were correct as to the number of dismounts in a Marder Platoon, but I found they could be made more accurate.  So I decided to change them.  Then I started fiddling with the rest of the Panzer/Panzer Grenadier list until I had basically pretty much revamped it.

I've added a FHQ unit and removed the GSR Team to the Recon units.  I've adjusted the Marder platoon with additional options for each squad, including upgrades to the Marder 1A3.  I deleted the SF MG3 team from their platoon support options.  I adjusted the M113 Pzrgren platoon, deleted a couple of artillery options, added a couple of recon options and made som,e simple changes, made a couple of minor changes to engineers and logistics and upped the size of the Jaguar teams from 2 to 3.  I also introduced the Redeye as the standard MANPADS with the Stinger as an upgrade.

You can find the new West German Panzer/Panzer Grenadier List here and it will replace the V2 list in the NATO Lists TAB above.

As always I'm seeking any constructive feedback, so fire away.

Finally, doing all this made me want to revisit my ideas from a few years back for a complete revamp of the way army lists look & work for AirLand Battlegroup.  So in addition to the V3 Panzer/Panzer Grenadier List and the two new Jaeger list, I'm also working on a AirLand Battlegroup 2 Panzer/Panzer Grenadier sample army list to see what you all think of a new approach.

Thanks for looking

Richard

F-5 Freedom Fighters - W-I-P Part 1

 Just a quick update today.  Back in March I finished a Hasegawa Norwegian F-5 which you can see here.  I was so chuffed with the little guy, that I decided to start on the 2 other F-5s I had in my stash.

They are another ancient (1975) Hasegawa F-5A kit

and an almost as ancient (1991) Matchbox CF-116 (F-5B) kit

These are as I've said - older kits, and have mostly raised panel lines and odd issues like no cockpit - which I was a little surprised at.  The Hasegawa kit comes with a pilot but a very basic chair, while the Matchbox kit has no crew figures and the ejector seats look like comfy Lazy-Boy chairs.  No other cockpit details are provided so I had to make them from scratch.

For the Matchbox kit this included adding such fundamental things as the cockpit floor!

Anyway - their built now and look like this prior to undercoating:

The Matchbox F-5B (two seater) is the white one on the left and it will be painted in Canadian colours and armed with 4 AIM-9 Sidewinders.  I'll be using some very nice looking Hasegawa sidewinders from one of their weapons sets.

The Hasegawa one is in grey - it will be in Dutch colours and armed with 4 AIM-9 Sidewinders, 2 bombs and a central fuel tank.  I like the idea of this one being totally loaded for bear.  Not to far to fly to engage the enemy so it can afford to have every station armed.  I hope the Dutch F-5 to eventually look something like this:

I really like this simple, subtle scheme in the right timeframe for what I'm doing.  All these scheme's come from the 1/48 scale Kinetic Models F-5s plans.

The Canadian one is a bit different.  I don't want to paint it in the standard scheme Canadian Air Force scheme but rather paint it up as an Agressor aircraft, that been drafted straight into action with no time for a repaint.  I have options for this one and am stuggling with which to choose.  Here are the choices:

This is probably my least favourite option

So this is probably the easist one to paint - I do like my greys...

I probably think this one is the coolest - but also likely to be the hardest to paint.

So I'm struggling to decide what to do.  Throw your 2 cents in and help me decide!

Thanks for looking

Richard

US Speculative Armoured Fighjting Vehicles

Hi everyone.

Today I'm uploading a set of AFV Data cards of Speculative Weapon systems of the US Army. This set combines some of the cards previouisly seen in the USAEUR set and the 9th (Motorized) ID set into one and adds a few new vehicles. These come from a range of sources - from Twilight 2000 to a model kit company to the US Armor magazine.

You can find the cards here or in the Cards Tab above.

So you can now field this from Twilight 2000:

This from Magic Factory Model Kit Company (in 1/35th scale I'm afraid)

and this from US Armour Magazine(July-August 1996)

or this - straight out of real life:

The last two have so many weapon systems I had to make extra large cards!

It's all just to add a bit of fun to the game system. I really like these speculative systems which allow you to manipulate history in anyway you want to turn your imaginary Cold War conflict into anything you want.

Some of these vehicles are available to purchase or print, others can be converted by mashing a couple of things together. If interested I'd be happy to post up ideas and options for the models.

I'd be interested to know what you think about including these sorts of systems in the game. Are you a:

• Purist that thinks if its not fielded in 1986 (for instance) I'm never going to stick it on the tabletop, or
• Pragmatist that wonders what would have happened if country X had continued pursuing an idea or had put a particular peice of euipment into production.

I mean we are playing a game about a war that never happened so it will always be 100% a "What If" kind of game.

Please let me know what you think!

Draft Unguided Rocket Playtest rules

Unguided Rockets can be fitted to many of the CAS aircraft and helicopters used by both NATO and WARPAC forces.
 
Unguided rockets are fired from pods installed on CAS aircraft or helicopter, typically on wing hardpoints.  If 2 pods are carried, one will be on each wing.
 
When triggered, each pod fires 2 rockets.  All pods on the CAS aircraft or helicopter must fire an equal number of rockets at once.  So, a CAS 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 in the Sample Unguided Rocket table below.
 
Unguided rockets always attack the Top armour of targets.
 
Unguided rockets use a unique variation of the Indirect Artillery Fire rules.  They work as follows for CAS Aircraft:
1.       Place the CAS Aircraft on the table approximately 20” from the target.
2.       Give the CAS Aircraft the Roll-In & Attack order and determine the number of unguided rockets that will be fired.
3.       Roll an Observation Check to observe the target.  If successful, place a point-of-impact marker on the target.
4.       Draw an imaginary line from the CAS Aircraft to and through the point-of-impact marker.
5.       Roll 1D6 on the Unguided Rocket Accuracy Table
  

Unguided Rocket Accuracy Table – D6

D6           Result

1-2          Drop Short.  The pilot fires the unguided rockets from too far away and they drop short of the target.  Roll 2D6 and move the point-of-impact marker the indicated distance down the imaginary line towards the aircraft.  This is where the unguided rockets will hit.

3-4          Hit!  The unguided rockets are accurate and impact centred on the point-of-impact marker.

4-6          Overshoot!  The pilot has been flying too fast and the unguided rockets overshoot the target.  Roll 2D6 and move the point-of-impact marker the indicated distance down the imaginary line away from the target.  This is where the unguided rockets will hit.

6.       Use the Artillery Barrage Accuracy Table to determine misses, potential pins and hits.
 
Helicopters
The only difference with helicopters is that Helicopter must be given the Manoeuvre and Fire order and end its movement in the 20”-30” range band away from its target.
 
Forward Air Controllers and Unguided Rockets
If using a FAC, he can place the point-of-impact marker using the Request Close Air Support order for a CAS Aircraft or Helicopter strike.  This means the pilot does not have to roll to observe the target
 

 

 

Could you please have a read or even better a playtest! Do the rules as written make sense? Do you think they reflect the reality of 1980s unguided rockets? Are they confusing? Do they break Battlegroup?

I am worried that these rules make rockets too powerful, so feedback on that is also welcome.

Let me know what you think.

I've also uploaded a PDF of these rules here and in the Rules tab at the top of the page.

Thanks

Richard

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