Additions, Updates and Improvement’s to Grant’s “Battle” Wargame Rules.

More on Grant’s Battle Rules

As I implied in an earlier post, I really like Charles’ Grant’s World War II rules: “Battle: Practical Wargaming.”  They are a good blend of realism and playability. The problem with them is that they are limited. Grant set the rules in the last year of World War II. As such, he included a small assortment of tanks, artillery and infantry options. Much was based on available models at the time.
This page has a variety of updates, additions and optional rules for playing Battle. You can choose whic h ones you like, adapt them as you see fit, or use them as a jumping-off point foir devising your own improvements.
I decided to use Grant’s rules as the basis for a trio of mini-wargames for model tanks and small scale soldiers. Following his lead, I was able to develop Speeds as well as Defense and Attack values for vehicles and weapons that he did not list. I also made some adjustments to “true up” the list with knowledge I had of armored vehicles.


Expanded charts: The original book gave charts for Defensive Value, Attack Value and Movement for a handful of vehicles. I have expanded that and made a few corrections along the way. These are included in three sets of “mini-rules” I compiled back in `05. I based these on Grant’s system.

Hans Und Panzer covers World War II circa 1943-1945 It covers many tanks and guns not included in the original Battle. Download a copy here:  http://www.thortrains.net/milihistriot/muzzleblastanks.pdf

Hand Und Panzer Afrika Korps covers World War II circa 1939 - 1943 It includes several tanks and weapons used in the early part of the war. One typo: we listed the 45mm gun as German when it should have been Soviet. Get it here: http://www.thortrains.net/milihistriot/muzzleblastafrika.pdf

Krunch a Commie covers the Cold War from 1946 to about 1975. There may be some discrepancies. For instance, we list the Defensive Value of the Centurion at 18 based on an early model. The later model would be 19 or 20. I did not figure guided missiles like the TOW, Sagger or Shillelagh into the rules, nor was there any mention of reactive armor. I may have to work these out in the future along with larger HEAT weapons like the 106mm recoilless rifle.  (I can tell you from experience that firing the 106 is a wonderful experience. Really cool!)  Get it here: http://www.thortrains.net/milihistriot/muzzleblastcoldwar.pdf

Because of information I had, I have corrected a few of the armor values and such. These booklets can be used with Grant’s rules

***************

I use a different system for anti-tank gun hits. The front of a tank is at full Defensive Value. The sides are 2/3 this value, and  the rear is ½. Though most tanks have ½ the armor on the sides, I take into account the skill of the drive ro minimize vulnerability. Otherwise, it would be Front: Full Defensive Value;  Side: Half of Defensive Value;  Rear, 1/3 Defensive value

When determining Defensive Value from sides or rear and you get an oddball number, round up.

Let’s be blunt: you may not agree with all of my Defense and Attack values. No problem. This is a hobby, not a religion or a science. Adapt and improvise as you see fit.

***********

If you want to take into account the skill and leadership of different armies, consider this

The US and Commonwealth armies are the baseline.

Soviet and Italian crews had less training both for troops and officers. However, Italian troops improved during the course of the North African campaign. Soviet troops were rushed through training. This is reflected in both morale and shooting.

Tanks and AT guns and morale:

Italians prior to July 1942 and Soviet crews fire at -1 on the first shot at a target.

Italians prior to July 1942 and Soviet troops get -1 on morale rolls.

Italian troops improved as they gained combat experience. Also, some units in North Africa were retrained by Rommel.

************

Optional horse cavalry rules (Cossacks, etc.) Cavalry moves 10" on road, 6" off road. Cavalry goes through woods at ½ cross-country speed.

***********

The morale rule I included in the mini games was a simple one. Frankly, I think Grant’s system is just as good. In his method, 10 is the base number. Points are added or subtracted and a single die is rolled. If the score adds up to more than 10, the unit is okay. If less, the unit stays in place .It must roll for morale the next turn. If it is nine or less, the unit retreats 1 full turn. It will continue to roll for morale at the beginning of each turn until it either routs off the board or scores 10 or more and operates according to orders. An officer can be sent the intercept the unit and help improve the morale score.


I have yet to work out a rule extending visibility to 60 inches. Such a rule would be very useful for fighting in the Desert (North Afrika, Egypt and Syria) as well as Cold War combat after 1960. In the latter case, improved optics and range finders make a difference. Again, there is also the issue of guided weapons that appeared in the 1970s. TOW and Shillelagh missiles come to mind. The trick is to keep it simple land practical. We do not want to confuse anyone. We have to be considerate.

Likewise. I do not feel confident that I can come up with values for the modern super-tanks such as the M1 Abrams, Challenger, T-90 and Leopard 2. The same goes for guided artillery and rocketry. This is why my games stop around 1975. Military technology has surpassed game play.

**********

Grant’s Additional Rules

In the additional Rules ( chapters 27 to 32, originally printed in Meccano magazine) are rules for terrain. Grant used graduated hills, somewhat like those of little wars, but contoured. Each contour was a rise of 50 feet. Going uphill reduced speed by ½, whether cross country or on  road. Thus, going up a contour, a half move was plotted from the start point on the lower contour to the end point on the next one.

A point about 1 inch over the center of the top contour represents the hilltop. Troops on one side of the hill cannot see troops on the other side of the imaginary top unless one or the other crests the hill.

In Grant’s rules, movement through woods was 2/3 cross-country speed for Infantry. They were impassable to vehicles. There was no penalty for vehicles or men moving on roads through woods.

Rivers could only be crossed at fords and bridges. Smaller streams could be crossed at these rates: 2 moves for infantry and 4 moves for vehicles. The latter includes man-pushed artillery.

**********

Optional scenery / terrain rules: 

Swamps are impassable except for amphibious vehicles. For LVTs, DUKWs, Schwimmwagens, etc, crossing swamps is at ½ cross country speed.

Lakes are impassable to all but amphibious vehicles. These can move at ½ cross-country speed.

Rivers: Amphibious vehicles cross rivers in one move. However, an optional thing is to roll for current. Determine direction of current before the game starts. Roll die for each vehicle. Each pip is 1 inch for small vehicles like schimmwagens and Weasels.  It is ½ inches for larger things like DUKWs and LVTs. This is how far down-stream a vehicle will emerge from the river.

Optional bridge rules: The infrastructure in Europe and Asia was a hit-and- miss thing. This was especially true in Eastern Europe, China, Korea, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, New Guinea, and the Pacific islands. Not all bridges were created equally. Some could handle tanks, some could only handle lighter vehicles, and some could only handle horse carts and men. You can agree to rate bridges before the game:

Class 1: all vehicles
Class 2: medium tanks and lighter
Class 3: light tanks, half tracks and lighter
Class4: wheeled vehicles, armored cars and lighter
Class 5: men, horses, horse carts

A Class 1 would be obvious because of its size and strength. Some bridges should be obvious by their width. Some may not be as obvious. An optional rule is that the strength of Class 2, 3 and 4 might have to be revealed either by crossing them or by sending a scout to check them out first.

Once a vehicle enters a bridge, the bridge’s class is revealed. A scout takes 1/2 move to reveal the class of a bridge.

On crossing, a vehicle two or more classes higher than the bridge will damage it. Roll a die. 1, no damage. 2, 3, 4 moderate damage. The bridge’s class is lowered 1 level (For instance, a Class 3 becomes a Class 4 for the rest of the game). 5, 6 the bridge becomes impassable except by infantry. In the case of a 5 or 6, roll another die to see the fate of  the vehicle: 5 or 6 means it falls in the collapse and is unusable for the rest of the game. 3,4 means it does not cross and must be immobile for 1 move. 1, 2 it crosses but must remain immobile for 1 move.

A vehicle 1 class higher than the bridge does damage thus: roll 1 die. On a 6, the bridge collapses. Roll as above for a collapsed bridge to see if the vehicle gets through.  4, 5, the vehicle cannot cross and the bridge is reduced 1 class. 2 or 3 the vehicle crosses but the bridge cannot take any other vehicle higher than its class without collapsing. On 1, the vehicle gets across without damage to the bridge or itself.

Class 5 bridges are always impassable by vehicles. There is no need to roll a die to determine their class. Class 5 bridges always look impassable to vehicles.

Artillery attacks on bridges: batteries of guns of 75mm or higher can fire to damage bridges. First, they must hit the bridge as per the regular artillery rules. If hit, a die is rolled. If the die roll is higher than the class of the bridge, another die is cast:

1, 2, 3: Bridge reduced 1 class.
4, 5: Bridge reduced 2 classes
6: bridge totally out.

If a bridge is hit several times and is reduced past 1, it is out.

**********

I still prefer the small-scale HO, OO and 1/100 vehicles by ROCO, Airfix, EKO and Roskopf. They are more fun that the 1/285 and 1/300 stuff. I got my start with ROCO and Airfix and tend to favor them. However, there are other makes out there offering good stuff. The soldiers by Caesar and Pegasus look nice. Matchbox  made nice figures and models, too. Esci is okay, but in my opinion, not as good as Airfix.

Back then, I was unaware of Comet / Authenticast 1/108 scale recognition models of military vehicles. Nobody around us imported Roskopf models.  We had what our hobby shops had. In our neighborhood, it was ROCO MiniTanks and Airfix soldiers and tank kits. At the time that Grant wrote his book, things were limited. ROCO had yet to release its German kubelwagen and schwimmwagen (German “jeeps”). Most of the available models and kits were of US and German vehicles. ROCO made two Postwar British tanks and only three World War II Soviet tanks. Most of the MiniTanks artillery was American. Airfix made a few British vehicles and guns.

As for soldiers, Airfix was the main source. The available sets for World War II were German infantry, Infantry Combat Group (British), 8th Army, Afrika Korps, US Marines, Russian Infantry, Japanese Infantry and Russian Infantry. The British Commandos had not yet been released. Our only other sources fo small soldiers were a few small ROCO sets and Giant, a Hong Kong manufacturer. Giant made crude US and German troops.

Since then, we have access to many more models from other makers. Roskopf became available. Matchbox, Fujimi, Hasegawa and Revell made vehicle kits. Matchbox, Revell, Esci, Pegasus and Caesar also made small-scale soldiers. That alone is cause to update the rules.


For info on the tiny tanks and soldiers, click here: http://www.thortrains.net/armymen/minimen/tinymen.html

Grant's "Battle" and World War II Wargaming

I have been re-reading Charles Grant’s “Battle: Practical Wargaming.” It is a good set of rules for World War II wargaming. In fact, three of my mini games are based on it. (Hans und Panzer, Hans und Panzer Afrika, and Krunch a commie - all available here:  http://www.thortrains.net/milihistriot/downloads.html  )

Over the years, I have read and tried several rule sets for the World War II to Modern Era. My first set were the Featherstone rules given in Wargames: Battles and Manoeuvres with Model Soldiers. (British people routinely mis-spell words like maneuvers. They clearly do not understand nuances of the language.)  Nice for a start, but lacking. His second set in Battles with Model Soldiers were actually limited to model vehicles and artillery made by Airfix at the time. So it was on to other rules.

Somehow I had missed Charles Grant’s rules at the time. I did not get a set until almost 20 years ago. Needless to say, I liked them instantly. There were a few bugs, but for the most part, they were excellent. Granted that the original rules were a bit spare, insofar as they only covered a few vehicles in the last year of the War. Extrapolating values for other vehicles and guns was relatively easy. The rules themselves were practical and allowed for a fun game without a lot of useless complexity.

One glitch was how Grant handled the differing armor on the sides and rear of a tank. I prefer a more realistic scenario: In mine, tanks hit frontally are judged by the full Defensive value for that particular vehicle. A side shot is given 2/3 the Defensive Value, and a rear shot is ½ the value.  This takes into account that tank drivers will try to minimize vulnerability insofar as the sides, so that 2/3 is more reasonable than ½. We have to take account of actual armor thickness and the way they were operated. My addition fits the real nature of armored vehicles.

When reading older works, be aware of the hobby situation at the time. There were fewer models available, and that includes vehicles, artillery and infantry. Airfix was the most common source for infantry and 1/76 scale tanks up until the early 1970s. Fujimi emerged around 1972 (that’s when I saw my first Fujimi kit - a King Tiger) Matchbox came a little later. ROCO had the largest line of tanks and had been imported into the US and UK since 1961.
Roskopf was out there, but was not as available in the US.

Everyone made a Sherman or two, Panzer IIIs and IVs, a Tiger, a panther and a T34. You could get them in 1/72 ( Hasegawa ), 1/76, 1/87 and 1/100.  Try to find a Nashorn, Hummel or M7 “priest” and you were out of luck. And while it was easy to get infantry for the major components, they still had not come out with the smaller contingents. You could find US, German and British infantry as well as paratroopers and Commandos, but it was a while before you could find a set of Cafones (Italians) or a Box o’ Bogans (Australians). Folks had to substitute, convert, or make do.

Then there were the “new” 1/285 scale tanks. What fun is wargaming when your tanks are half the size of N scale?

Wargaming itself was about to get cluttered. There were many sets of rules being published. Featherstone, Gygax, Scruby, Grant, Bath, Barker, Quarrie, and a host of others were churning out rule sets for a variety of eras and conflicts. By the mid-70s, there was a glut of rules. All you had to do was walk into the “new” Compleat Strategist and be overwhelmed by the available games and rules.

But I still prefer the old-school rules.

Hans und Panzer, Hans und Panzer Afrika Korps (1939 - 1943) and Krunch a Commie (Cold War ) contain updated Defense Values and Attack Values as well as Speed and Movement tables compatible with Grant’s Battle rules. They cover many of the tanks, other vehicles and anti-tank guns of their respective eras. These games are also compatible with each other.

*********

There are three subtle jokes included in the above article. Did you catch them?

Review: Classic Tim Mee World War II Soldiers

BMC and Tim Mee have been bringing a lot of classic figures back to market. A few months back, they offered recasts of the Lido Combat Soldiers. Now they have issued copies of the Tim Mee World War II soldiers. The set has 11 poses and is cast in olive drab plastic. There are 28 figures in the bag.

These figures did not come from original Tim Mee molds. Back in the old days, two other companies offered their own copies of the Tim Mee figures: Dell and D&K. Jeff Imel, owner of BMC, managed to acquire the D&K mold. The result is a new run of classic figures for a new generation of collectors.

The Tim Mee World War II figures, as well as the Dell and DK copies, were very common  in the 1950s and 1960s. Bags of them could be found in toy stores, 5 & 10s, candy stores and general stores. The only figures as common were Lido “flat feet”. (Marx was only sold in a few select stores.) At less than a buck a bag, you got a lot. There were many poses of infantry in the Tim Mee set. More often than not, there was also another items. A Jeep, a cannon, maybe even a “deuce and a half” truck. Many also came with a paper flag on a thin wooden dowel with a round plastic base that simulated cobblestone.

One thing that made the Tim Mee soldiers desirable was their bases. Lido figures tended to fall over. Tim Mee soldiers stayed up until you deliberately knocked them down.

The D&K copies are a little smaller than those from the Tim Mee mold. Some say they are less detailed, but they look okay to me. Keep in mind I have handled these figures since the 1950s. Good is good, and they are as good now as they were 60 years ago. The Combat Soldiers are toy soldiers. They were never intended to be 100% accurate military miniatures.

These troops look like American soldiers circa 1944 - 1955.  They are great for World War II and the Korean War. We used to have these with the Tim Mee Jeeps and cannons and the Army trucks. This is a good set of soldiers to fill in your collection.


Here is what I got in mine

5 guys with bayonet
5 guys with bayonet overhead
5 officers with pistol
3 minesweepers
2 submahcien gunner
2 marchers
2 heavy machien gunners
1 grenade guy
1 crawling guy
1 prone shooter
1 radio guy

Apparently, you get at least one of each pose. The additional 17 figures are picked randomly, just like they did in the old days.

Soldiers with the Tim Mee Jeep and Cannon

Size is a little smaller than the original Tim Mee figures. The figures are mostly in the 55mm range, with the marcher 62mm from head to foot. Compare sizes with a full-size minesweeper.

Of course, they fit very well with those classic Tim Mee Jeeps and cannons. (And I remember that we used to try to fit the radio guys in the seats.)

Painting? I have the Castings Inc / REB 3 cavity metal molds that make copies of Tim Mee World War II soldiers.  Painting them is rather straightforward. But then, these are classic army men, so paint is not required.

******

To get a feel of the old times I would pair these guys with the Tim Mee reissue Jeeps and cannons. That is how we used to get them. Bags often  included a cannon, jeep or other item.  Remembering back, those were perhaps the most common toy soldier cannons. For Civil War sets, Tim Mee took the same cannon and put red spoked wheels on them.
.
For OMOG Advanced, these figures make a good all-around infantry squad. The machine gun provides heavy weapons fire. You have an officer, a submachine gunner NCO and several riflemen.

The Dell mold has twelve figures. Unlike the DK mold, It does not have the mine sweeper. Dell has the other ten poses plus the bazooka man and man charging gas mask.

These Combat Soldiers are available from Victory Buy at https://victorybuy.com/collections/bmc-toys

Popular Armies for Military Miniature Hobbies

What makes a particular genre more popular among toy soldier and military miniature collectors? I have thought long and hard about this. Several trends are obvious.  The most popular genre in the US at this time are World War II, the American Civil War and the American Revolution.  50 years ago, it was the Civil War, The Revolution, the Wild West and Napoleonics. Since the mid-70s, science fiction has grown into a niche of its own, while the Wild West has receded in the US. Napoleonics are common wargame figures these days, though there are still collectors of 54mm and larger figures. The biggest change is the availability of figures from various eras. Compared to 1968, the selection available to hobbyists is overwhelmingly vast.

The most popular armies from these genre include World War II Germans and both sides of the Civil War and the Revolution.

I had wondered why conflicts such as the Crimean War and Austro-Prussian, Franco Austrian and Franco-Prussian wars were not more popular. They had a wide variety of troop types and uniforms Also, what with the popularity of British Regiments in the hobby, why so few French troops here in the US? The French have an awesome assortment of attractive uniforms and troop types from 1840 to 1925. And what of conflicts such as the Seven Years War?

I have answers:

From the Old Kingdom of Egypt to futuristic Science Fiction, there are figures and people who like to model them. “Niche” is a relative term when discussing any genre of miniature soldiers. Every army and era has its fans. Most hobbyists, myself include, enjoy several eras and armies. Some of the discrepancies can be explained by location. The Seven Years War is mainly a European matter and so is most popular among German, British and French collectors. The facet of it fought in North America and know nas the French & Indian War has a following, but nowhere near as large as in Europe. As a counterpoint, the American Revolution is big in the US but has a small following elsewhere. If you are British or European, ti is the Seven Years War. For Americans, the Revolution.  One might say, “Six of one and half a dozen of the other.”

The American Civil War is very popular in the US. Contrary to the “Blue versus Gray” thing, the uniforms varied and some where quite ornate. There is also a smaller but ardent following in Germany and the UK.

Napoleonics are also a large genre, even if they have waned a bit among US collectors. Napoleonics are popular throughout Europe. Part of that is the fact that most European countries got caught up in that conflict in one way or another.

But why not Crimea or the German wars of the 1860s and 1870s?

For a genre to be popular, a few things are necessary:

1) The war must have lasted more than two years.

2) There must have been a variety of units, troop types, uniforms and equipment.

3) There must be lingering controversies about the war, its conduct (strategies, tactics), or events surrounding it.

4) The war must have been well-documented

You will finds all of these elements in World War II, the American Civil War, the Napoleonic Wars, the Seven Years War and the American Revolution. Things are less controversial with the German-French-Austrian Wars of the 1860s and Crimea. Also, none of the latter wars lasted long enough.

A friend brought up Vietnam,, which is still controversial and lasted over 10 years. However, there is no great variety of uniforms, equipment or troop types. The gear and uniforms on both sides were pretty much standardized. We had M113s, Hueys., Cobras and M48s, green uniforms and M16s. The VC and NVA had PT76s, T55s, green, tan or black uniforms, Ak47s and the SKS. Not much variety. The same can be said of World War I. Though some uniforms in 1914 were ornate, by 1915 they were pretty drab. Tactics were limited mostly to trench warfare. There is not much controversy there as compared to World War II.

The American Revolution lasted eight years, had a variety of uniforms and some aspects are still up for discussion. The Seven Years war lasted seven years, had a wide variety of troops, uniforms and nationalities. Ditto for the Napoleonic Era. The American Civil War lasted four years and had an immense number of units and militias. We are still arguing over its ramifications.

Of course there are a few flukes in there. Nonetheless, it all boils down to length of conflict, variety, documentation and controversy.

One remaining issue is why the British regiments are more popular in the US than the French. France was the oldest ally of the United States. Here I can only speculate. The US hobby was fed by British makers such as Wm. Britains Ltd, Johillco and others. Few lines of French figures were imported. Then there is the matter of language. France never supplied our hobby as much as Britain, specifically England. Had French makers more enthusiastically promoted and exported their miniatures here, I am sure France would be much more visible in the American toy soldier hobby.

*******

The most popular World War II figures are Germans. That army has the widest variety of everything, from belt buckles to tanks. They remain the most controversial. American, British, Soviet and Japanese armies where much more standardized and had far less variety.

The American Revolution has a wide variety of uniforms and non-uniforms. Different militias that could afford uniforms varied greatly. Consider also the Hessians, who actually came from six different German states. Each group included several different troop types, from fusiliers to grenadiers to jager and artillerymen. It was not a matter of Blue versus Red, but every color in the book. Even the British varied. having Rifle units, Rangers in green and Scottish troops.

The Civil War used standard troop types such as Light Infantry, regular infantry, cavalry and artillery. Each state sent several militia units, and many of these varied insofar as uniforms and equipment. There were standard uniforms for Federal and Confederate national troops,. Militia uniforms were varied, and many were influenced by French military fashion. These included various types of chasseurs and Zouaves.

Medieval and Ancient armies, have large followings, but they are not as popular as the armies from the 18th through 20th Centuries. A most interesting variety are the Heraldic K nights. These figures feature authentic historical heraldry of real warriors. The heralds of old kept great records of crests and liveries.

One French unit that has a following worldwide is the Foreign Legion. There is a mystique to it and a lot of controversy about its many conflicts. Movies, novels and televison series helped popularize the elite French unit.

Among Medieval collectors, the later centuries appear to be most popular, circa 1350 - 1550. The Hundred years wars and Wars of the Roses dominate, thanks to well-documented histories and heraldries.

Ancient Collectors tend to favor Hellenic Greek and Romans armies and enemies, but close on their heels are Egyptians, Assyrians and Persians.

Viking Age collecting focuses mostly on Vikings and Normans. There are fewer Saxon figures. Irish figures from the era are notably absent.