Posts
Welcome back to Round Down Range: Modern Wars. As I told you in my last post I'm in the process of collecting and organizing my 6mm collection for some Cold War Gone Hot gaming. I know a lot of people wrestle with which part of the Cold War to do. Many do the part with the coolest tanks, while others do what they know like their own units. I've decided to go back to my 80's reading list and pick out a book I happily remember:
How can you miss with an author like this?
Anyway, I will be using Hackett's World War III as my main resource for my campaign. Yes, I know, there are a lot of errors in that text, but that's okay! I'm not so much trying to create reality as I am experiencing a book through the medium of miniature gaming.
So to kick things off I've been collecting miniatures from a number of sources. Mainly Ebay and directly from GHQ. I know GHQ is pretty expensive but you do get what you pay for and GHQ is among the best. Besides I'm not raising whole 1:1 battalions! Just a few companies will suffice so that I can play games like the sand table game I mentioned in my last post.
For rules I've decided to take the leap of faith and go with Nordic Weasel's 5 Core Company Commander. I know that there are rules out there that are more complete with full lists of forces and stats on everything, but I have to say that I love the feel that I get from reading 5 Core Company Commander. This game literally is a simple tool box that I can use to build my own games. Just Jack of TMP fame has been using them for a while and his AARs are real gems to read. So if they work well for him then they'll be just fine for me.
However there is one sticky issue I have to sort out before I can even start to game: I have to assign stats to my units. 5 Core is deliberately vague when it comes to statting out vehicles. That job is very firmly left in the hands of the gamers so that the game can be flexible enough to cover many periods without creating a ton of extra rules.
So what I've attached here are my thoughts on how the vehicles of Hackett's WWIII would interact with each other on the battlefield. I started out with what I thought were the two basic vehicles of the two forces: the T-62 for the Soviets:
...and the M-60A1 for the US.
I then compared and contrasted all of the other vehicles against these two. I also took some liberties with equipment to create what I think would make the vehicles at least a bit different from each other. I tried to use Sir John's book as my main source material, but I liberally used Wikipedia and my own background knowledge to plug in holes. I'm sure I've made mistakes here and there or have been inconsistent as well.
But that's okay with me. I'm looking for more of a beer and pretzels game than a hard core simulation. So feel free down load these stats, play with them, change them, whatever. But do leave feedback. I want to clean them up a lot before I put metal on the table.
Thanks for stopping by! Time now Charlie Mike.
Tgunner's Cold War Gone Hot armor table for 5 Core Company Commander
M60 A1
|
M60 A3
|
M1 IP
|
M2/M3
|
M113
|
M551
|
HUMVEE
|
T62
|
T72
|
BTR60
|
BMP1
|
BMP2
|
BRDM2
|
|
M60 A1
|
O
|
K
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
M60 A3
|
O
|
K
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
M1 IP
|
O
|
O
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
M2/M3
|
T/O
|
T/K
|
T/K
|
K/O
|
K/O
|
K/O
|
O/O
|
K/O
|
T/K
|
O/O
|
O/O
|
K/O
|
O/O
|
M113/901
|
T/O
|
T/O
|
T/K
|
T/O
|
K/O
|
K/O
|
O/O
|
T/O
|
T/K
|
K/O
|
K/O
|
T/O
|
K/O
|
M551
|
K/O
|
K/O
|
K/K
|
O/O
|
O/O
|
O/O
|
O/O
|
K/O
|
K/O
|
O/O
|
O/O
|
O/O
|
O/O
|
HUMVEE
|
T/O
|
T/O
|
T/K
|
T/O
|
K/O
|
T/O
|
K/O
|
T/O
|
T/O
|
K/O
|
K/O
|
T/O
|
K/O
|
T62
|
K
|
K
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
K
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
T72
|
O
|
O
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
BTR60
|
T
|
T
|
T
|
T
|
K
|
T
|
K
|
T
|
T
|
K
|
K
|
T
|
K
|
BMP1
|
K/O
|
K/K
|
T/K
|
K/O
|
O/O
|
K/O
|
O/O
|
K/K
|
T/K
|
O/O
|
O/O
|
O/O
|
O/O
|
BMP2
|
T/O
|
T/O
|
T/K
|
K/O
|
O/O
|
O/O
|
O/O
|
K/O
|
T/K
|
O/O
|
O/O
|
O/O
|
O/O
|
BRDM2
|
T
|
T
|
T
|
T
|
K
|
K
|
K
|
T
|
T
|
K
|
K
|
T
|
K
|
TOW
|
O
|
K
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
Dragon
|
O
|
K
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
SAGGER
|
O
|
K
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
AT-4
|
O
|
O
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
RPG-7
|
K
|
K
|
T-K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
K
|
K
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
LAW
|
K
|
T-K
|
T-K
|
K
|
K
|
K
|
O
|
T-K
|
T-K
|
O
|
O
|
K
|
O
|
Left Column = Shooter Top Row = Target
Example: A T62 engages a M60A1 so it would roll a shock die and a kill die because it is a Killing shot.
Example: A M2 engages a T62 with its missile so it would roll 2 Kill dice because it is an Over Kill shot.
Example : A Soviet rifle squad fires frontal RPG shot against a M1 so it would roll a Shock die for a Threatening shot.
Left of / Main Gun
Right of / Missile
T-K: Frontal shots Threaten, flank shots Kill
Notes
All tanks have a HMG, Co-ax LMG
HUMVEE either has TOW or M2HB so it either uses the gun OR missile rating.
Vehicles that use missiles cannot move during the same turn they shoot their missiles.
The Russian T72 can fire missiles, however I think it only adds to range. My stats for the T72 assume it has advanced armor or reactive armor. I'm aware that Soviet forces in Germany used the T64 so my games simulate Hackett's book, not real life.
I broke from Hackett to use the M1IP. However there aren't too many differences between the XM-1 or the M-1. In fact many of them were later pulled into depots and upgraded to the IP standard. This was under way by 1985 so I think it's reasonable to use the M1IP for these games. Plus it did win the Canadian trophy in 1985!!
Flank and rear is determined by the hull's facing. Front 180 degrees is frontal. The rear 180 is rear. M113 stats are for the PC and all variants. The M901 may fire missiles.
All M-113 variants have the M2HB (except M901) and use the gun rating above.
The M1, M60A3, M2/M3, TOW, and M901 have thermal sights and may see through
smoke and at night and suffer no ill effects.
T = Threatens
K = Kills
O = Overkill
Finally I rated friendly vehicles against each other for hypothetical games.
