POST WAR CHAIN OF COMMAND

Image

 

DSC01717

As some of you may know, I have been busy working away on a Post War version of Chain of Command in conjunction with Richard Clarke of TooFatLardies and I thought it about time I gave an update, so here goes!!

The first thing to say is that the structure and time periods are not yet set in stone. We will be covering the period from about 1960 – 1990 but we need to see whether the period between 1945 and 1960 is best done as supplements to the WW2 version of the rules or as supplements to the Post War ones. With the latter period, it is also a question of how far the rules will stretch to cover and at what point we need to stop.

At the moment, the plan is a core set of rules backed up by conflict specific scenarios – The Cold War, Vietnam and Indo China being the ones at the top of the pile, but with others to follow after that.

And what stage are we at? Initial playtesting. We have a mature enough set of concepts to expose them to some real action testing and so the next couple of months will be devoted to that. For me, that means lots of Cold War action. My Brits will face off against the Soviet horde on Friday (report to follow) with further engagements planned for the 26th of Feb and the 19th of March. So stay tuned for more over the coming weeks!!

Monty the Desert Rat

 

6 thoughts on “POST WAR CHAIN OF COMMAND

  1. Chris Corman

    I have read several comments and websites on different miniature systems about stepping up from WWII to modern times. Many people seem to think you would just add tons of dice for the firepower of large weapons and the use of assault weapons by every soldier. I don’t see it that way. Yes your armor and anti-tank weapons become more powerful, but the effect of the weapons at squad/platoon levels are not really any different. A Sherman 75mm HE round would be just as good in anti infantry as the 120mm round from a Abrams. The same goes for an RPG7, it rips through an up-armored HMMWV or LAV, just like a Bazooka against an Sdkz250. The only real difference is how different individuals fire there individual infantry weapons. The MGs of WWII fired about the same rates as they do now in some cases less. The MG42 had a higher rate of fire than the 240G does now.
    For individual soldiers you just need to realize that the quality of the shooting is just as important as the rate of fire of the weapon. Yes AKs and M16s toss out lots of rounds, but I can tell you from personal experience, that just holding the trigger down does little to effect the outcome of small unit tactics. Just set up time breaks and don’t try to match times against each other, they should each be a separate section and don’t overlap.

    • morr2212@yahoo.co.uk

      Hi Chris,

      Very much so. In fact, many modern tanks are worse against infantry as they only have an AP round and a HEAT round – the Brits are pretty unique in keeping HESH. So MBTs against infantry, at least as far as the main gun goes, is not as vicious as one might think. You’re also so right about firepower – the equation of higher rate of fire = more effect is so wrong. If anything, it makes suppression rather than casualties more likely, something that seems to be borne out by veterans’ accounts.

      But lots of work still to do – we’ll see how it goes tonight with my first game with others!!

      Kind regards,

      Monty

      • Interesting debate Monty. Personally as an ex-armourer it always strikes me just how little firearms technology has actually changed in the last 100 years or so. A modern-era LMG isn’t really that different functionally from some of its WW2 forebears (eg: MG34/42) and in many cases they’re largely the same gun made with modern production techniques and a different calibre. So the idea that modern weapons are “better” across the board isn’t a given when it comes to small arms.

        However, modern units should in many cases be putting out more effective fire than their early forebears. A modern two fireteam squad with two minimis should indeed be putting out just as much firepower out to 300m or so as WW2 PzGrens. The reason armies have moved towards that structure is because it’s more effective on the battlefield. It’s evolutionary.

        Regarding rifles I’d say that a well-trained rifleman using aimed fire from an assault rifle shouldn’t be producing much more firepower than his bolt-action armed predecessor. What limits the effectiveness of fire is the man’s ability to locate the enemy and accurately deliver his shots, not the cyclic rate of the weapon. Where you will get a big difference is in poorly-trained troops. Give the average sketchily trained militiaman an AK and the first time he gets frightened he’ll be spraying lead all over the place. Automatic weapons encourage panic fire. Lads use them to make themselves feel braver. It would be interesting to see a mechanic along the lines of pinned green troops with assault rifles only being able to use covering fire at effective range (but letting them fire normally at close range).

        • morr2212@yahoo.co.uk

          Agree totally – to me an assault rifle combines the semi auto rifle and the SMG. The SMG bit really only comes in in close combat – trench clearing, house clearing, stuff like that. A shorter and fully auto capable weapon is handy in those circumstances compared to the good old SLR. But at battle ranges, single aimed shots are the way and the ROF is little different, bolt action, semi auto or AR.

          And agree fully on the new structures, the real change being the introduction of a belt fed LMG that can be operated by one man i.e. the Minimi.

          Interesting thought on Green troops and ARs – that needs some thinking about.

  2. Mike Leese

    I’m thinking of the lates conflict.
    Such as Ukrain 2016. This appears from news clips of very modern weapons.
    It is still infantry when push comes to shove.
    Modern artillery accuracy appears to have increased but it’s the infantrymen’s weapons like the SA80 II, AT weapons, mortars, ant aircraft weapons.
    Body Armour and the awareness the well trained men should be more carefully deployed. Officers are better trained/prepared.
    All this makes it worth a play test, perhaps with the ground scale at 1/150th. Still play with the same toys but be aware that the scale is for 10mm figures but 15 or 20mm are ok.
    The fun is going to be the modern weapons wher reality has overtaken SF in some cases.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *