The Commander Series Forum

I've noticed the rule book (CWC updated April 2009) page 104, Special Rules, lists the US only thermobaric delivery system as aircraft while using the forum's Battlegroup generator allows only artillery to deliver thermobaric strikes. Which is correct? It makes a huge difference against the Soviets who can use either delivery system.
Thanks, Will

I need to correct my statement above... For both the US and the Soviets thermobaric munitions are only delivered via artillery under CWC rules, which as noted by "sultan" were in reality primarily delivered by aircraft until the TOS system was developed, which has a fairly short range, and is designed for delivering a version of the RPO system.

Is it the intention of this rules system to have standard range thermobaric artillery, ...which can dominate a battlefield where available, which does not appear to be historically accurate.

"Thermobaric artillery ate my army" was a quote from stfan last night in his game with Steve Shilcock at Portbury Knights! Both of them had a look of shock on their faces when they sauntered over to my game to check that thermobarics really were that devastating. I'm sure they will give more details, but it did seem to be rather effective to say the least.

Yes, I to can confirm the horror of thermobaric, especially if it is then followed up by chemical rounds in the same area.

Yes, my first use of thermobaric's with the soviets left both me and Stefan somewhat shocked!

To be clear, we played as follows.

FAO calls in 2 x SP arty batteries firing thermo as a concentration, roll for command and deviation as normal and then everything under the template takes:

12 attacks (6 per battery)?!
As if in the open?!?!
NO SAVE?!?!?!

That means on average rolls nothing in the box survives!

what i had was an FAO upgraded to CV7 and 2 x 152mm SP batteries - 300 points total that could cause absolute carnage every other turn (assuming half the command rolls are successful)

I take on board the earlier comments regarding delivery systems, i didn't know that at the time (i like to think i have passable knowledge of modern weaponry but this doesn't extend much to artillery munitions beyond the more common ones).

But by the rule book, and the notes in the army list, nothing we did on the night seems wrong. Unless i've missed something obvious...

Steve

Have been reading up on FAE today!

Is there any evidence that the soviet Uragan 220mm rocket system can carry thermobarics? The Russians claim it can but that may just be hype.

Steve

Think about a battery firing thermobaric rounds over an area the size that is reflected by a 20 CM diameter circle or square in this scale. If you look at the Soviet artillery firing tables that provide details regarding the number of rounds necessary to suppress a hectare (something very near 2.4 acres for US readers) the numbers range from 60 rounds for a 240mm tube to 250 for a 76mm tube over a matter of minutes (up to 30 minutes depending on rate of fire and number of guns) the current thermobaric rule allows almost any battery in the Soviet arsenal to be "super effective" and properly used basically becomes a "game ender".

It is possible for a good planner to eliminate even the vaunted US M-1's before they can get into range using a couple batteries of 122mm or smaller guns dedicated to a Soviet HQ, using that HQ's potentially plussed up command rating and the plus 1 SPG bonus making Thermobaric attacks almost automatic, ...not that I mind as a Soviet player, but the use of this type of battlefield tool needs to be more costly in my opinion, ...or more restricted. Will

I should only be allowed by me.......

1) So, basically, the Soviet BM-22 MRL is the only artillery that can use Thermo in c1989?
2) As to it's effect verses trees:-
a] Does it eliminate them?
b] Do they keep the 5-to-hit attack {Partial cover}, and make the tree area 'Low Area Terrain'? or
c] It has no effect on the trees themsalves?
Paul

'...themsalves?'
Doh! should be '...themselves?'
Paul

Another question about Thermobaric attacks.

If three batteries all fire Thermobaric rounds on the same predesignated point how many attacks are generated?

My answer is 18 attacks per target. An observer of our game last night said it was only 6 per target because all the rounds arrive at the same time so there should only be "one" attack.

I will be interested in your comments... Will

If it's a concentrated attack, you'll get 18, as the effects are cumulative. 18 attacks is gonna hurt what ever it hits!

Might need a Pete ruling.....but (and this only a soviet perspective)..

Page 29 states they may not be called in by an HQ so that limits the use by soviet armies using the upto 3 122mm rule thingy ma bob...and I don't know how the soviet SPG rule affects page 27 about on table guns only firing vs LOS but I think that rule is so that they always are allowed on table.

They may not be concentrated against a single unit so this causes the possible recipient to spread out a bit but means you cannot have more than 6 hits and means that the targetting rule on page 26 also applies as does the rule for barrages.

300pts for 2 guns plus FAO? would be 180 points for the maximum of 3 shots of Thermo plus the 120 for the 152mm (170 if SP variant) plus the FAO even if you were allowed to field it.

Kiwi is correct about the cumulative effect on scheduled fire as far as I can tell, I haven't come across anything else

Si

CWC is essentially a brigade sized game,multiple brigades are feasible (max 2 brigades a side),but division sized games are very much the exception rather than the rule (unless you have a lot of space/time and loads of extra gamers).So does anybody think that thermobaric weapons would be held at brgade or even division during the 80s (I think not).

Any thrmobaric weapons available at the time would be air delivered.Thermobaric weapons would be very rare and most probably saved for very high value targets such as fixed C3 installations and airfields.

As were on the subject of ACMs in CWC,has anyone considered the political aspect of large scale ACM use by NATO in the deep strike role.Because ACMs can accomplish an ever-increasing number of nuclear missions, the Soviets thought that their combat employment on the battlefield (or deep behind it) would ensure a higher nuclear threshold (not good for anybody).If you take into account NATOs preferred method of fighting the Soviets, Air-Land Battle/Follow on Forces Attack,you can see that the ACM possess such order-of-magnitude increases in precision,depth and lethality that the Soviets viewed them as comparable to tactical,operational and even strategic nuclear weapons.This political reality kept the stockpiles of ACMs low/very low during the 80s and early 90s (what % of NATOs ACM stockpile do you think were used during GW1?).

Or perhaps they just did not work that well until the mid 90s.....

So in other words.NATOs follow on forces attack could be so devastating that it prompts a massive responce from the Soviets along the IGB (probably chemical/biological).If Nato plays its ace the Soviets would retaliate with an ace as well..

In conclusion I would say that ACMs should be very limited during a game of CWC until the mid 90s...

Suggested limits for ACMs in CWC 1980-95.

USA.
Aircraft PGM max 1 strike per game (not 1 per aircraft).

Cluster bombs. Roll saves as normal for tanks 1980-95.After 1995 no saves.

FASCAM.Only 1 minefield per game.

Thermobaric.Fairy tale weapons.No use before 1995.

Soviets.

Cluster bombs as USA.

FASCAM as USA.

PGM none before 1995

Thermobaric as USA

Mark you have lost me......

How can a Frog 7 deliver ICM,whats its CEP......

I was trying to help,but hey stick to your Hollywood lists.Time for me to find another forum me thinks.....

All of it..........

Guys this is a friendly forum...

Unhappy, your angst appears to be that irrepective of scale of game (remembering that CWC can cover 1:1 to Div level) you can have the same type of weapons. That is a fair observation but the system has always allowed you to play how you want it. If you want to restrict the availability and your oppo agrees then it doesn't affect the balance. AFAIK this isn't competition central with people trying to find the "unbeatable" army.

Si

Mark, As far as I’m concerned you’re quite blameless in terms of introducing heat to the above mini-spat.

Rob, insofar as it’s any of my business to suggest how another adult should behave, you might want to tone it down a notch. Debate by all means - it’s what we’re here for after all - but let’s try to keep our teddies in the pram whilst doing so.

As Simon says, this is a friendly forum

"let’s try to keep our teddies in the pram"

ROTFLMAO

From a Yank across the pond. I'm going to have to remember that statement. It was absolutely priceless!! Thank YOU!!!

Rob,
I have no dog in this fight but
'How can a Frog 7 deliver ICM,whats its CEP......'
I'd suggest this as a reliable if not necessarily definitive source to answer this
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/...

Just 'cos it doesn't make sense doesn't mean the military industrial complex of some nation or other won't make it.
Guy

OK, none of this really matters since the rules appear to specify the "special capabilities" of each list overrides basic rules allowing a soviet HQ to control three 122mm or smaller batteries without limitation on what they can do other than the ammo limitations.

So, a soviet player can purchase 27 thermobaric strikes with 9 122mm batteries of which 3 can be SP giving them a better chance to answer the call for a cost of 810 points plus the cost of the guns. If said soviet player uses an advancing barrage he can reduce an area approximately 24" (60CMs) wide by 48" (120CMs) long in 6 (or three if properly plotted) turns leaving 9 strikes available for other pre-plotted targets or he can double up some specific points with pre-plotted fire. DEADLY.

TO Pete: Is this what you intended? Thermobaric strikes properly deployed are game changing? Was there a specific justification in your mind when the rules were designed? An answer of some sort or a reference from which you drew your conclusions on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Will

I would read it that special munitions may only be requested by an FAO/FAC (p29 para 1 lines and 2 and 3).

On the face of it thermobarics do seem deadly.

If I recall correctly, I have only used napalm once or twice in a game, I did not go OTT.

I say chaps, if you don't like something in a rule set - don't use it.
We're not competition gaming are we?
Opsctr asked 'Is it the intention of this rules system to have standard range thermobaric artillery, ...which can dominate a battlefield where available, which does not appear to be historically accurate.'
I don't know.
But if I didn't like the idea I'd simply not use that part of the list that allowed it.
Does that make sense?
Mark and others have commented on their belief about the non-availability of artillery delivered thermobaric weapons in the period covered by the rules.
So I would refer Opsctr to the primary rule of wargaming
"Nothing may be done contrary to what could or would be done in actual war." Fred T. Jane.
Stop playing the list to its limit - look at what Pete says in his designer notes when referring to discrepancies between the lists and player knowledge - 'go with the information you have'
Reasonable?
Guy

Ok guys
1) Here's a quick question, how many of these rounds would be deployed within the DivArty?
2) How about limiting Thermobarics to: a) 1 per aircraft/arty unit, or, b) 3 each per type per game (ie. 3x arty and 3x aircraft total per Bde/Regt sized game)?
3) Same for Chemicals, except a) 2 per arty unit and 1 per aircraft unit, or, b) 6 per arty unit and 3 per aircraft unit, for the Warsaw Pact forces only.
The reason that the WarPact forces have double arty chemicals, is that they viewed chemicals as normal munitions.
Paul

Paul, ...reasonable suggestion. I will propose a limit of one Thermobaric asset per delivery system per game but suggest leaving the chemical systems the same as it can do damage to both sides and its use becomes more of an area denial system after initial impact.

Thanks to all for your input. Will