Forum Replies Created
One has to consider what makes a battle ‘decisive’. To be so classed must mean that it resulted in massive change or prevented such change, e.g. the rise or fall of a state, empire, dynasty or religion. I would argue that very few would fit such a test. Ones to consider:
1. Plataea – final end to the Persian threat to Greece. Marathon just delayed it for 10 years.
2. Gaugamela – ended the Persian Empire and spread Hellenistic culture eastwards.
3. Yarmuk -the reverse could have stopped the spread of Islam.
4. Saratoga – it brought French involvement that proved crucial to the rebels.
5. Trafalgar – Britain became undefeatable by Napoleon and had 100 years of unchallenged naval supremacy.
6. Teutoberger Wald – no Roman expansion past the Rhine and a division of Europe created.
7. Bosworth – brought in the Tudors without whom there would have been no reformation in England, the effects of which were massive.
8. Marne – stopped the Germans from winning in 1914.
9. Tannenberg – stopped the Germans from losing in 1914!
10. Ayn Jalat – see OP above.
Few CG/Pzfst44 hits, the BMPs were hit by Milans as the smoke cleared so the infantry piled out sharpish. Those carefully planned exercise drills don’t always survive first contact with the enemy!
Almost certainly not happening. The website only mentions 2017, and I’ve been told that traders have not been sent booking forms and the venue used last year has confirmed that the booking for the event has been cancelled.
I’d say the Soviet calculations are based on some very dodgy data and assumptions. A British division (4-5 armoured regiments with 44 or 58 Chieftain/Challenger and 9 Swingfire each, 72 guns, and 80 Milan) is not much better than a Danish (120 Leopard 1, 44 guns, and around 90 TOW). Hmmm.
Certainly shocking about the lack of knowledge. They’re not all like that though. This week we’ve got a ceremony commemorating a VC winner who was born in our village (complete with a regimental march past and visiting bigwigs) , exactly 100 years after he won his gong. The boys have been learning all about it at school – not even a Blackadder-esque Lions and Donkeys version either.
Good stuff. The Argentines have some useful kit with the possibility of interesting ‘What ifs’ with Chile and Brazil. To help out I’ve added the TAM, SK105 and VCTP to the Main Datasheet:
Actually I just sorted the KMT-6 and sent it to Chas, and we have the KMT-8 which I’ve told him to cast up [/quote
So… with the PBV302 in the factory, the M114 almost done and the IKV91 and CV90 well on the way… I’m wondering what to do next. Anyone fancy the Patriva AMV?
KMT mine clearers
Infantry for the IKV, Strv and PBV.
I’ve just painted some of your superb ERC90S, so if you’re impressed they must be good.
25/11/2015 at 12:30 in reply to: Forces for Modern Africa Part 2 – Peter Pig French Foreign Legion #34909
- It’s taken from 1950, the start of the first shooting war of the of the Cold War. The rules allow for Bolt Action Rifles and the datasheets have Shermans, T34s and Stug 3s amongst other old kit, some of which has amazing longevity. I have been asked about a WW2 version several times but that’s at least a couple of years off.
- Low level COIN looking for arms caches while avoiding IEDs is outside the scope of the rules. Taking on VC Mainforce, holding off the Vietminh at Dien Bien Phu or flying Blackhawks into Mogadishu are all viable. There are allowances for appalling training and morale for warlord and militia-type forces and an ‘Irregular’ category that I intend to develop further with campaign ideas. Oh for more time!
Got a whole company of VABs plus a platoon of ER90S completed:
Just the infantry to finish.22/11/2015 at 15:37 in reply to: Forces for Modern Africa Part 2 – Peter Pig French Foreign Legion #34767
I’ve got a company of these plus VABs underway. I’ll be running FFL intervention games.
Always good to see an Ultramodern army put together, and not one of the ‘usual suspects’ either. Nicely done. Have you got any opposition ready?
Is there any other scale Geoff?
Newly updated Rapid Deployment caters for infantry. Free download from:
Going through the final rounds of playtesting and getting to grips with formatting ready for publishing the rules in July.
The beta of the full version is being tested. We’ve had fun with USMC Cobras, Egyptian Hinds, Trophy-equipped Merkava IVs and Iranian Basijs amongst other things. The bugs are being well and truly hunted out.
I found it via Yahoo when searching for suitable images. It’s the subject of a discussion here:
BTW – your photo is a good painting reference for crewmen.
Great stuff from Gamecraft. Does anybody know of a UK (or at least European) provider of similar?
There’s typically a company per side, which may be weakened if defending or strengthened if attacking. A mechanised infantry company is usually between 10 and 14 vehicles, each carrying a pair of fire teams of around 4 men ( or figures) each. This might be reinforced, for example, by a tank platoon (most are 3 0r 4 strong), an anti-tank section (2-4 vehicles), and/or a recce section (a couple of vehicles).
We’ll have comprehensive equipment listings for the full version. In the meantime we’ll add equipment to the datasheet via the website. This will include modern Chinese not least because we’ve been playing with them. The first AAR is at http://www.sabresquadron.com/reports.html
Automatic weapons get to re-roll a near miss against vehicles at close range. HRF is for multi-barrel weapons such as Shilka and Vulcan – and possibly other weapons if the rate is extremely high – and means that extra hits can be scored. There are none listed yet because I didn’t put any AA weapons on the datasheet, but that will be rectified in time.
Don’t take it out on Mike; he’s just the messenger. The buck stops here!
I don’t mind a few comments, even if immediate, as long as they’re considered. In fact they enable me to provide more detail as to the thinking behind the rules.
To answer each comment in turn:
- Scale is mentioned in 1.1.3 Scales. It is not precise deliberately as few things are ( for example, in 1973 no Israeli tanker parked his tank 499 metres from a Sagger and thought he was safely within its minimum range). We are emphasising the overall effect so have adjusted ranges and distances as required to allow most weapons to be used and to give a representation of relative effectiveness, even if these are not precise. This is not to everyone’s taste but what is?
- Using inches is quite common in wargames rules produced in the ‘Anglobubble’, from which over 90 per cent of the requests for copies have been received. If I’d used centimetres there would probably to be similar comments, a bit of a no win really so one makes a decision. As for using metres and a conversion, the use of a imprecise ground scale would have led to to the “you’ve made the minimum range of ATGM X Y metres when Wikkipedia says it’s Z metres” type of comments. There’s nothing wrong with suspending disbelief, one can still make the appropriate noises when turning turrets.
- KE and CE are handy terms. The plethora of jargon and technical terms have put many people off the period so we’ve tried to keep them to a minimum.
- The link I sent was to show that ‘Sabre Squadron’ appears in the US Army nomenclature so might not be confusing stateside, although Armored Cavalry organisation still confuses me! I think most wargamers realise that different armies use different terms to mean the same thing or the same terms to mean different things, and the term is defined in 1.1.2 Armies.
- The Datasheets will be expanded and will allow for ammunition developments.
- Actually it might be that the Scorpion is low. One for the Action List.
Thanks for the positives John. This is a first release so wanted it to be a quality publication. The thinking behind the rules is something that was important to get across from the first. And I’m very pleased with the name!
Thanks for the comments