|
I have made four posts on the Battlegroup NORTHAG forums talking about tank models and Norwegian Cold War equipment and ORBATs. 
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 07:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
Fish and Chimps posted:Whatever happened to BG:NORTHAG? Last I heard was they planned for an October release. No idea, really. I was just informed the game was in development, glanced at an army list, noticed about two dozen errors, and started writing them messages about their errors in depicting late-production sixth series Leopard 2A4 models. :P
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 09:29
|
|
|
Polikarpov posted:Give me a second to unfuck the formatting, I have a TOE for 80s Soviets I don't think RPG-16 were in the Motor/Rifle companies, and there were only nine RPG-18s per Motor/Rifle company, so having "up to" eight per squad is a bit of a stretch.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
The process of looking up ORBATs, squad compositions, and obscure facts about vehicles has made me really interested in the concept of a Cold War game that lets me play an ad hoc French-Spanish CENTAG battlegroup, but I suspect I'd never actually play it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I have veeeeeery sloooooowly been adapting the Epic Armageddon rules to do a massively over complicated Cold War game with logistics trains because I clearly hate all hypothetical players, and this is in part the end goal. Having weird ad-hoc formations composed of a company of this, two of that, one platoon of lost yanks etc seems like the kind of thing that'd reasonably happen in a gone hot situation. A French-Spanish CENTAG battlegroups is not quite that ad hoc, since the plan was for the Spanish 1st Armoured to meet up with the French and deploy into CENTAG. But some war games get into the gritty of individual corps and specific theatres, and I think some cross-national ones might be fun. In addition to the ad hoc French-Spanish there was the US VII Corps in CENTAG which had the 4CMBG/1CID attached to it, HQ LANDJUT had the Danish Jutland forces backed up by German anti-aircraft assets and the British 2nd Infantry Division in support of LANDJUT's 6th PzGrenDiv (and the US 9th Infantry Division might have supported them), there's the UKNL Landing Force with its Royal Marine/Korps Mariniers structure and the Dutch Whiskey company directly integrated in 3 Commando's command structure, there's the AMF(L) commitments... Lots to pick from!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:I'm a bit concerned about the balance between the platoons; the US Army platoon has a ton of dudes, with a ton of weapons. Meanwhile, the USSR Motor Rifle Platoon has very few mans, very few leaders, but it has two BMPs. The BMPs are pretty nice, but it seems they'd not survive very long. Poor US Light Infantry, having to go up against a Soviet BMP platoon all by themselves.  ---- Edit: Arquinsiel posted:From my reading the Motor Rifle Platoons should have three squads with BMP transport for each, but also the driver and gunner form part of the squad so hypothetically you could do three nine-man squads as a dismounted platoon and allow them to purchase BMPs with support. Things changed wildly though, so it might be best to pick a year and declare that this is the TO&E as of 19X5 to ensure that you're not matching wildly different eras together. LatwPIAT fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Mar 6, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:You are right though, there is a LT over the platoon (so a senior leader) and a sergeant in each section. You're not all that wrong, though: the LT would generally be tasked with personally leading his own squad too, as the Sgt. in the first squad was the Platoon 2ic, who'd be busy using the platoon radio set.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2019 02:59
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Ah, but it's not a long movie They look great for something made in 1977! It's a great film! > 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2019 06:29
|
|
|
Does anyone know a decent, fairly simple system for late C17 early C18 warfare? Muskets and cavalry and voltigeurs and grenadiers and all that? I got to thinking about how the very first edition of Dungeons & Dragons integrates with Chainmail, and I've had this vague idea of trying to do a kind of C17/18 take on D&D, big armies included.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
How would Pike & Shotte work for representing individual heroic efforts? One of the things that fascinated me about the D&D integration was how, in a game where each individual soldier rolled 1d6 towards the effort of murdering other people, a Level 4 player character counted as four soldiers, and could only die from four simultaneous hits. It made for a game where instead of being rendered insignificant by the scale, player characters could level significant contributions to a fighting unit. I realize now I should have added this requirement in my original post. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
Anarcho-Commissar posted:I'd rather that than the rule we all know they'd write otherwise. Whenever a unit with a commissar attached attempts to execute an order, roll 2d6: 2-7: The order is executed normally. 8-9: The commissar and commanding officer disagree on exactly how to execute the order. The unit may take no actions other than defensive fire. 10-11: Last battle this commissar executed a "coward" in the unit. This was a very unpopular decision and the commissar was quietly moved to another unit to stop him from executing more skilled soldiers. Roll 1d6: On a 1-4, replace the commissar with a new one from Table 14.5.a.iii(revision 2): Commissar Generation, Autumn 1942. On a 5-6, the commissar trades places with another commissar you control. 12: The commissar shoots the unit's commanding officer over exactly what constitutes a retreat. The soldiers then shoot the commissar. Remove the commissar and the highest ranking officer in the unit, if possible. Errata, December 5 2019: If no eligible officers or commissars are available to execute or move, select the next highest step. Errata, May 10 2020: Replaces DEC 2019 errata. To the end of option 12, add "If no officers are eligible for removal in the unit, treat as 10-11." To the end of option 10-11 add "If you control no other commissar, treat as 8-9." Errata, May 23 2020: If you roll 10-11, 5-6 multiple times for the same commissar in a single combat, you must choose a new commissar each time. Errata, August 25 2020: In option 10-11, 1-4, the new commissar has all the same status effects as the commissar leaving the table.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:Does anyone have any serious(...ish) writings on potential Cold-War-Hot points of divergence? Operation Argon succeeds, causing major American casualties and losses of revenue at Chevron-Gulf's facilities in Cabinda. Between pressure from Chevron-Gulf and the deaths being a major blow-up in the news media, Reagan pulls all US support for UNITA and tells the CIA in no uncertain terms to stop aiding South Africa. Without US money or weapons backing them up, UNITA quickly collapses. By 1987 MPLA is in total control of Angola and is supporting SWAPO's campaign to liberate South-West Africa. South Africa responds by conducting a public nuclear test detonation. Instead of intimidating SWAPO, the display of power only convinces Angola, Cuba, and East Germany to launch a full-scale invasion of South-West Africa, hoping to liberate the country before South Africa can complete their nuclear weapons programme. Seeing communist forces pushing towards Cape Good Hope, Reagan declares his support for Namibian independence and deploys a Marine Expeditionary Unit, a carrier group, and the XVIII Airborne Corps to South-West-Africa with a two-part mandate: drive the communists back across the border and prevent the SADF from reestablishing control in South-West Africa. On the 2nd of June, 1987, a reconnaissance platoon from the 101st Airborne (Air-Assault) is fired upon by elements of Luftsturmregiment 40 and Wachregiment Felix E. Dzehrzinsky, bringing the United States into direct conflict with the German Democratic Republic.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2019 06:20
|
|
|
I was a bit disappointed to see that their preview document contains very strange ratings for various British vehicles.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Squads that comprise anything but eight soldiers in two fireteams are to be regarded as suspicious and probably heretical.  (Actually I find the diversity in how squads and platoons are organized to be absolutely fascinating.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Not a big fan of flexibility or ease of command, eh? I mean when you put it that way, the optimal squad is of course the Norwegian (  ) 8-soldier squad organized according to situation at the platoon and squad leader's initiative. None of this rigid 'fireteam' crap, just train to organize as the situation demands.  Ilor posted:I think it stems from a variety of reasons. Two that leap immediately to mind are that the riflemen of the squad were expected to contribute to the weight of fire (as opposed to chilling out and letting the MG34/42 do all the work, which was largely how the Germans rolled) I know that French squad tactics and doctrine are or at least were heavily influenced by their experience that the battlefield is so chaotic that you cannot rely on squad-level weapons to do the fighting: command and control will deteriorate and squads will be dispersed, and the ability of each soldier to continue to fight effectively in that situation is emphasized. If I were to speculate, I'd say that the Soviet experience might have been a bit similar: you can't rely on the squad leader always being in a position to command the squad machine gun, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
Cessna posted:You realize you can do that with a 13-man rifle squad too, right? I'm not being very serious when I declare everything but 8-soldier squads heresy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2019 04:50
|
|
|
90s Cringe Rock posted:I think you mean squad leader, six rifles, special weapon, and a two-person heavy weapons team that can be detached from the squad to provide support.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2019 09:09
|
|
|
Ilor posted:I dunno, none of that strikes me as particularly off-the-mark. Yes, South Africa was created by colonization, but during the time in question was not a "colonial government" (i.e. one that is administered by a colonizing country), and had been independently sovereign since 1934. The populace of South Africa patently did NOT think of themselves as British, that's for sure. In the context of modern African colonization, whether the white minority ruling over the unfree local population that had been colonized had nominal independence from the metropolitan country or not is an academic quibble, and South Africa (and Rhodesia) is rightly recognized as, if not a colony, certainly a government of colonizers. South African's illegal rule of unfree South-West Africa is, no matter how much the author tries to downplay it, itself also an example of colonization. Yeah, it was rule by mandate: a League of Nations mandate to transfer a colony to South Africa. That doesn't make it not colonization and South Africa's decision to continue this practice until 1989 was extraordinary in its cruelty. Further, the heavy emphasis on downplaying the colony angle implies a political agenda that is, shall we say, not good. Ilor posted:Similarly, this bit: Uh, yeah, that's more of that framing that implies a really, really bad political angle. (In fact, your own framing and phrasing here mirrors a lot of colonial apologia and you should probably reflect on why!) The idea that the "downtrodden native oppressed by the evil white colonialist" is a leftist mantra is like... OK so until the mid-nineteen-fifties, fascist Portugal ran their colonies as virtual slave plantations, and when they started fighting independence movements in the sixties they did so by dropping napalm on rebelling villages. Rhodesia was an outright white supremacist state, and South Africa was under apartheid, one of the most vile political institutions ever instituted. This isn't leftist political maneuvering, it's naked fact: white colonialists were oppressing the native population (and the non-white immigrant population too!). Was it a complex situation? Yes. Was it nonetheless an example of white oppression of everyone not white? Also yes. Ilor posted:Finally, it's tough to argue Russia/Cuba's involvement in the independence movements/wars of places like Angola, Namibia, and Mozambique. SWAPO and the People's Liberation Army of Namibia were absolutely Soviet proxies, and Mozambique descended into almost 20 years of civil war because Russia supported hard-line Marxist guerillas after the post-independence government wasn't breaking the way they wanted. And they are absolutely still paying the price for it today. Mozambique's civil war was caused by South Africa funding the conservative and brutal RENAMO guerilla to destabilize Mozambique. That wasn't about the Soviet Union supporting hard-line Marxist guerillas, it was about South Africa funding terrorists and warlords against the FRELIMO government that had arisen after Portugal withdrew in 1975. Further, I'd be careful about characterizing MPLA, FRELIMO, SWAPO, etc. as Soviet proxies. They were, certainly, funded and assisted by the Communist Bloc, and in that sense were proxies in the Cold War proxy wars, but even Osprey books from the 80s acknowledge that this was basically just nationalist movements taking help where they could find it, whose actual communism was halfhearted. When the author further dismisses this as manipulation by Havana and Moscow, and not actual expressions of a desire for independence (FNLA in Angola was not even a communist movement but nonetheless took up arms against Portugal because they were sick and tired of colonial oppression!), it's a pretty clear sign of where their politics lie. By which I mean I'm pretty sure they like to jerk off to the Rhodesian flag. Loomer posted:Maybe it's because of the influence of Maoism on some of the African communist rebel groups? JcDent posted:I think the book spends some time discussing Maoist insurgency tactics as template for what African independence movements did. Mugabe's ZANLA ran on the Maoist principles of a protracted people's revolution and Jonas Savimbi, the leader of UNITA, had been trained in Chinese guerilla warfare techniques. Even FRELIMO had some branches that ran on Maoist principles. I don't agree with the assertion though: Maoist revolutionary principles certainly worked and would have worked in southern Africa. For one, Portugal's ancient colonies were the exception rather than the norm and it's important to distinguish between the colonies from the late 1400s, and the territory under Portuguese control in 1961. (Portugal had established themselves along the coast in the 1400s, but this is also not the same as having 500 years of integration with the entire country. The loci of Portuguese colonial power lay in specific, often urban, ethnic groups, and they had far less good will in areas like the Angolan lowlands and interior Mozambique.) And let's not forget that ZANLA ended up ruling Zimbabwe after the Rhodesian Bush War ended.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
Cessna posted:All of this makes me want to wargame the subject even more. It's incredibly fascinating! Sadly it's not very easy to make or play games about it because the subject matter attracts white supremacists like moths to a flame.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
Cessna posted:As does US Civil War, as does WWII. I'm partial to ZIPRA. They spent less time mutilating other black people, spend less time after the war committing genocide, and I'd get to have the 2000-strong Women's Brigade ready to fight ferociously against the Rhodesian SAS.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
Class Warcraft posted:This would fit into their worldview, which seems to be that many of these independence movements were driven by communists taking advantage of Africans. Surely no one would ever rebel against The Empire unless they had been hoodwinked by those meddling commies! This of course, also manages to deny the Africans any agency of their own - they are relegated to being Cold War pawns instead. A staple of Rhodesian propaganda!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I picked up a pdf copy of Bush Wars for Force on Force as a starting point. Guerilla Set 1 comprises 1 of each of the 17 different ZANLA models from the first run Eureka did, in other words: 1x Guerilla Leader (AKM) 4x ZANLA Guerilla In Beret (AKM) 4x ZANLA Guerilla In Peaked Cap (AKM) 4x ZANLA Guerilla Bare-Headed (AKM) 1x ZANLA Guerilla With RPG-2 (RPG-2) 1x ZANLA Guerilla In Sun Hat (AKM + Grenade) 2x ZANLA Guerilla With RPD (RPD) At a guess, the 14 figures in Set 2 are 4x SKS, 4x Bolt-Action Rifle, 4x PPSh-41, and 2x DP-28. It seems like the 2-figure DShK-crew set is sold separately, but the spotter with a slung rifle and binoculars in hand would make for a sweet commander... 2x Set 1 should get you most of the way to your goal with 2x RPG-2s, 4x RPDs, and 28x AKM guys. (If you're a stickler for ~authenticity~, you can get some SKS guys to act as squad rifle-grenadiers.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
Cessna posted:That is VERY helpful. I couldn't find that info on their site, thanks for digging it up. No problem, I'm glad to help. For some reason it seems to only be mentioned on their The Miniature's Page forum preorder announcement thread. I'm excited by the prospect of seeing someone put care and attention into modelling the guerilla side of that conflict.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
Class Warcraft posted:So the Western Desert campaign book for Bolt Action allows British players to take Royal Engineers with a flamethrower option. Since Britian didn't really field any flamethrowers until 43-44 what would be t he most accurate way to depict it? Lend-leased American unit? Captured German unit? The most realistic is prooobably the sappers asking the local American detachment very nicely if they could borrow some US flamethrowers the Americans weren't using anyway. Broadly, neither the British nor the Americans used infantry flamethrowers in North Africa. The British Army had developed the Madsen Flamethrower, but it was not liked and most if not all of them ended up with the Home Guard. The US Army had flamethrowers on the books in the Mediterranean, but chose not to issue them in North Africa. Germany and Italy did issue flamethrowers in North Africa, and it's theoretically possible that a Royal Engineer unit could have captured and put these into use (I've not heard of this happening) - but the British and American choice to not use flamethrowers in Africa was less because they didn't have them, and more because they didn't need them. The terrain just wasn't all that suited for it, with stone fortifications and long distances that made the short-ranged, heavy, and cumbersome flamethrowers impractical. zokie posted:It's a bit painful to listen to as Rich sounds like a libertarian sperglord and the others try to give him hints but he ain't taking it. Please don't.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
moths posted:Is this still a thing now that Aspergers isn't? It may no longer be the diagnosis in vouge, but the attitude behind it, where a way people behave because their brains are wired slightly differently, is used as a pejorative, to indicate unwanted behaviour, has not become any less cruel.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Hmm I kind of like the idea of one (very big) board in 6mm and doing something like invading a Pacific island as a club/exhibition sort of game. It'd look incredibly impressive. You could probably do Tarawa or Attu with a large enough map, and the Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu–Tanambogo could probably fit on a standard kitchen table at a decent scale. Tulagi & Gavutu-Tanambogo is one of my favourites for this kind of thing because it's such a sharply defined battlefield. Anarcho-Commissar posted:Everyone always wants to do D-Day or the Pacific fit beach landing, never Estonia or Finland. The Aelutian campaign (the battle for Attu specifically) is one option, but I also quite like the campaign for Scheldt, which has Canadians performing a semi-island-hopping campaign in the Netherlands, crossing canals and shooting Germans. LatwPIAT fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Aug 1, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:And many Anime fans are also predominantly Wehraboos so they already fanboy the Wehrmacht. <snip> they lack COOL TANKS; see War Thunder and World of Tanks taking forever to add in Japanese tanks. The lead designer of the Japanese module for ASL lamented how hard it was to find good sources on Japanese WWII tanks, noting that even Japanese-language sources were scant on the subject because Japanese tank nerds preferred to read about German tanks. (And WarThunder's primary researcher on Japanese tanks ended up being a Korean woman.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:And just gently caress Waffen SS getting special rulesets or army lists. If you really have to play SS, if you're recreating some specific battle or some poo poo, there's literally no reason for these guys to have rules that differ significantly from mainline Wehrmacht. I'll make an exception if your SS-specific rules make them out to be incompetent and fanatical losers, though, but that never seems to be the case. I really want to see a wargame do the early-war Waffen-SS up as they really were , that is, worse equipped than the Heer because they're running around with a menagerie of captured machine guns because there's not enough MG34s to run around, and fanatical and/or status-conscious Nazi officers committing their troops to costly and dangerous frontal attacks in order to look better than the Wehrmacht. Really, use Russian rules for the Waffen-SS. Political officers having soldiers executed for cowardice, disastrous human wave attacks... Anarcho-Commissar posted:Meanwhile, the Soviets had been fighting just as long, and yet are always rated as green conscripts. But the ones at the end of the war would've been people who survived, and therefore had experience, but hey, endless Asiatic hordes I guess. The Soviet Union apparently did have some issues with retention of their infantry. I think the book Cessna recommended me, Ivan's War, talked about an average time to KIA/WIA of the regular frontovik of only a few weeks by 1944 (in part caused by Stalin's insistence on aggressive attacks on a wide front, according to something else I read) or something like that. That said, by January 1943 the average RKKA soldier should be a disciplined and capable soldier far ahead of the terrified, underequipped conscript without effective leadership of summer 1941.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
spectralent posted:The Soviets, though? They got the (book-admittedly largely fictional) shtraf company, and then everything else is the same lists, just whether or not you wanted them in Fearless Trained or Confident Trained. They got a couple of digital-only special-case lists in Berlin, but it always felt very token. That's terribly disappointing, because there's a wealth of different units to pick from. The Naval Rifle Brigades come to mind as renowned for their heroism, there's the paratroopers which the Soviets pioneered as a concept (pre and post reorganization), there's the regular and Guards units, cavalry forces, tank brigades versus rifle brigades, the elite and well-equipped reconnaissance troops, NKVD troops...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
Separate list for 4th Guards Division with half their squads allowed to take double the usual number of DP-28s, plx!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
tomdidiot posted:Isn’t the decreased survivability of Soviet tanks somewhat justified because autoloaders are less safe than non-autoloaders because of how the ammo is stored? Would probably apply to French tanks as well. The way ammunition is stored in the T-64, T-72, and T-80 series of tanks have been identified as a weakness that leads to decreased survivability (as there's a whole bunch of explosives on the floor of the fighting compartment and you can't exactly submerge it for wet storage), but this is in comparison to modern tanks like the M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2, which endeavoured to keep ammunition out of the fighting compartment. Older NATO tanks like the M48/M60 series, the Leopard 1, the AMX, the Centurion, and the Chieftain, all have ammo stores in the fighting compartment, even in the turret itself, which presents a similar if not increased hazard of ammo detonation. And also the T-55 and T-62 exist and don't have autoloaders.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2019 07:35
|
|
|
Cessna posted:"Hans! Send zose Panzers back to das factory! Zey are the wrong shade of dunkelgelb!" "Opa, what did you do during the war?" "I would travel the length of the North African deserts in my kubelwagen looking for panzers of a slightly wrong shade of yellow and have them repainted." "What did my Opa Heinrich do?" "Heinrich was a very important man. He packed all the helmets in paper so they could be stacked without scuffing the hand-painted markings."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
It seems like Richard C. no longer is working on it with PSC having taken over all their duties and moved things in a slightly new direction. Going to be interesting to see what the PSC does with Norway...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
Endman posted:TMP is a horrible place worthy of only derision and scorn. I've found them an occasionally decent resource of TO&Es.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:43 points for a Chieftain, 32 points for the historically very much superior T-64B 38 points for the T-80B, which is better in every way, and that's before you consider the GLATGM.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
spectralent posted:There's this bizarre fetish for the Chieftain I see now I've gotten into cold war stuff and I've honestly got no idea where it comes from. It is the biggest and baddest NATO tank from the late 60s into the early 70s. It's not without flaws, but until 1979 it has no equal in armour and a gun that can slice through most Soviet tanks without effort. There's a certain childlike joy in it being the biggest, punchiest tank in NATO.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2019 14:43
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:The Chieftans have the special gunnery rules, which might account for the difference in points. It's still silly though. "Vehicle with the Advanced Gunnery special rule have the latest in ballistic computers, laser rangefinders, improved optics, and gun stabilization. Advanced Gunnery means the vehicle gains +1 to hit with all Aimed Fire. It has no effect on Suppressing Fire." Chieftain Mk.9, T-64B, and T-80B should all reasonably qualify for this. "A unit with the Advanced Sights special rule gains +1 to its Observation check when attempting Aimed Fire. A unit with Advanced Sights is not affected by a smoke screen and doesn't suffer the -1 to Observation whilst a smoke screen is present." This seems to describe a thermal imagining system, but the Chieftain Mk.9 wasn't actually fitted with one. Yeah. Silly.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
OK, so I should perhaps say that the Chieftain Mk.9 and T-80B are fairly equal with the T-80B having a few edges, before taking the GLATGM into account, than say it's better in every way. And perhaps that makes getting the Chieftains as 'vanguards' reasonably priced. But, still, the T-80BV has better armour and a lower profile, and also a GLATGM, as well as a very good autoloader. I suspect the GLATGM is something you have to pay for, but even then it's a bit weird that the better tank is cheaper.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
JcDent posted:The really bizarre decision is putting MK9 chieftains, creme-de-la-creme of 1979 (or so the wiki tells me), against T-55's fat cousin from 17 years ago. As late as 1985 T-62s were still present in the 11th Guards Tank Division and the 20th, 27th, 39th, and 57th Guards Motorised Rifle Divisions of the Group Soviet Forces Germany. These were primarily going to face CENTAG, but reinforcements from the 1st Guards Tank Army could plausibly be deployed to face NORTHAG. It's also possible that some T-62s were sticking around in the NORTHAG or LANDJUT-facing forces as late as 1983. (That'd be the 3rd Combined Arms Army, 20th Guards Army, and 2nd Guards Tank Army if you want to look them up.) And don't knock the T-62, it's a reliable workhorse and in 1983 has just received an armour and fire control upgrade!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2019 14:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
JcDent posted:For 1985, I'd expect more T-72s, really. Where are they, anyway? They're stationed in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. You'd also see them in the tank divisions of the various Non-Soviet Warsaw Pact nations, who started fielding them en masse from 1982 onwards.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2019 15:25
|
|