29 August 2026

Quick Reference Sheet Update/Upgrade

A friend on the AirLand Battlegroup Facebook page noted a consistency error between the QRS and the Rulebook regarding the To Hit Table for ATGMs.  He also asked about the usage of NATO and Soviet nomenculture for Soviet ATGMs in the QRS - so I decided it was about time I updated it again.

The new QRS can be found here and in the Rules TAB above.

I've fixed the error and updated the names of the Soviet ATGMs.

As I was already there I also seriously updated the LAW, RPG, TRL, IRL, MAW, Recoilless Rifle and Automatic Grenade Launcher Table.  (A ridiculous name for a table I know!).  A few new weapon systems have been included and many penetration values and other things changed.  Sadly the WOMBAT is no longer the King of that particular table.

If you have any queries, let me know

Thanks

21 August 2026

Prototype AirLand Battlegroup Army List

OK – so here it is – my first prototype/sample army list to show what I’m thinking in terms of new lists for AirLand Battlegroup.  As I was just re-jigging the West German Panzer/Panzergrenadier Division Battlegroup list, I thought I may as well re-jig it yet again to show you want I mean.  You can have a look at it here.

Before you jump in and have a look here’s the comparison to the current lists which are of course based on the original Battlegroup rules for WW2:

FRONTLINE ASSETS

Forward HQ Units

Infantry Units

Tank Units

Artillery Units

Defences

SUPPORTING ASSETS

Reconnaissance Support Units

Engineer Support Units

Logistics Support Units

Specialist Support Units

Additional Fire Support


The new sample list has the following structure:

FRONTLINE ASSETS

Forward HQ Units

Infantry Units

Reconnaissance Units

Tank & Armoured Anti-tank Units

Defences

SUPPORTING ASSETS

Headquarters Support Units

Artillery Support Units

Aviation & Air Defence Support Units

Engineer Support Units

Combat Support Services Units

Additional Fire Support

So, first the obvious changes.  Recon units are now a frontline asset, while Artillery has been moved to supporting assets.  AFVs, that are not tanks, but are still armoured anti-tank vehicles are moved from the old specialist category into the tanks category.

Units from the Forward HQ that I considered to not be “frontline units” have been moved to a new category Headquarters Support units.  Artillery has been moved supporting assets.  While I see them as a fighting unit, they fight in support of other units – so they got moved.  I got rid of the Specialist category but added Aviation & Air Defence support units.  Looking through the current lists, the specialist category usually contained anti-tank and air defence units.  I’ve split them apart as it made more sense to me and represents a better way of showing the differences between WW2 and WW3!

Another new thing is that several of the support units allow choices from the Additional Fire Support option.

I guess the major change is that Recon units are now a first-choice option rather than just a support option.  I haven’t yet prepared a new Unit Availability Table and accompanying explanation but my thoughts that rather than just having an infantry unit as a must have option, you should be able to choose between either an infantry unit or a reconnaissance unit as your compulsory unit when constructing a list.

As I thought about the types of games I like to play and the battles I’ve read about (real and fictional) for some reason I quite enjoy the covering force where 2 recon forces clash.  I like playing on a pretty big table without necessarily having too much kit on the table at one time.  This works really well with games centred on recce forces.  Modern vehicles move really quickly too, so you don’t need too much stuff to be able to get around much of the table.  I wanted to be able to better represent those games – and so moved the Reconnaissance units from support into the Frontline.

One of the other major changes is the way off-table artillery is represented.  I’ll probably go into more detail in a later post, but again the changes are to represent something I like!  I like artillery systems, but they just shouldn’t be on the tabletop except under very specific purposes.  I can really only think of 1 artillery unit that should be on the table and that’s a 3 gun 2S1 battery that’s been attached to a forward detachment and is either sitting right at the back of the table or is undertaking a direct infantry gun type support role.  Even then the argument is a bit thinly stretched!

The new list pretty much allows you to buy barrages – rather than buying a battery of guns that blats away for you every turn.  This does make it a bit more like the additional fire support section of the list, but it is a lot more flexible – at least it will be for NATO forces.  The first 3 are pretty expensive, but still much cheaper than the current points value of buying the battery.  After that, any subsequent barrages are much cheaper.  Youi can of course buy other more specialist artillery rounds which again can be expensive.  These are limited in the game, so your platoon can’t be supported by a whole bunch of DPICM barrages every turn.

I want to create a system of displaying my off-table guns and the barrages I’ve paid for in a good looking but fun way – where I still get to display a model.  It will be an aide-memoir.  It just won’t be sitting on the actual table.  I have plans – but we’ll see how that turns out.

Finally, as I discussed on Facebook recently - I've included quite a lot of Speculative units/weapons systems into the list.  Based on the poll results - and it turned out to be a much easier option - they are spread out through out the list.  I've marked the speculative units in Red to make it easy to spot them for everyone and again it saves space doing it this way rather than having to write Speculative next to everything.

Anyway – that’s enough explanation for now.

I really-really need feedback on this.  So don’t hold back!

Thanks

Richard

16 August 2026

On this day 40 years ago. What if…..? Part 1

 40 years ago today, was Saturday 16 August 1986.  Looking back, in my alternate history it’s the day my alternate historians have labelled the start of World War Three.  But in many ways though, it’s really just one of many culmination points.  WW3 didn’t just happen, a switch wasn’t just flicked and we’re off.  It was more like a rolling series of incidents that when looked back upon seem to led inextricably to war.  At the time through, perhaps not so much.  Let's have a look at what might of happened in this first part on my alternate history.

What if . . . . Mikhail Gorbachev never became General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

What if . . . . In September 1984, Mikhail Gorbachev as chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee is heading back to Moscow after a trip to Sofia, Bulgaria, with his his wife, staffers and other Soviet dignitaries.  Suddenly there is an explosion and the plane crashes to the ground in Ukraine.  Ironically, the military and state security delegates had been meant to fly back with Gorbachev were held up in meetings with their Bulgarian counterparts and were unable to make the flight.

What if . . . . In the aftermath of the tragedy, KGB and the Bulgarian DS (Secret Police) quickly arrest 2 Bulgarian dissidents and a Polish émigré who had been working at the Vrazhdebna airport and are charged with somehow managing to smuggle an explosive device on to Gorbachev’s flight.

What if . . . . In late October 1984, the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs provides the world’s media with (grainy) photographic evidence of the Pole and one of the Bulgarian dissidents meeting with a Finnish diplomat in Sofia.  The Minister claims the “diplomat” is actually from Supo, the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service.

What if . . . . The Kremlin actively blame the Government of Finland and the Polish Solidarity union movement for the death of their dear friend, Comrade Gorbachev and the other Soviet delegates.

What if . . . . Early November 1984 the Soviet Politburo demands that the “Pro-NATO, Nazi Government in Helsinki” immediately resign and the new elections are held, supervised by officials of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.  They also demand that all Supo staff be suspended pending investigation and that the KGB be allowed to carry out that investigation.  The Kremlin also announces that all Finnish-Soviet military cooperation, contracts, trade and services will be put on hold until Finland has complied with the Soviet requests.

What if . . . . At the same time, the Soviet leadership demand the Polish Government immediately disband Solidarity and arrest Lech Walesa and the rest his hated activists.  If this is not done post haste by the Poles, the Soviet army will become involved.

What if . . . . The Finns deny any involvement in the tragedy and reject entirely all Soviet demands.  The Finnish Prime Minister calls for an independent UN led investigation into the incident and pledges complete transparency with such an inquiry.

 What if . . . . Mid November 1984, the Polish Government stumble into action and attempt to crush Solidarity once and for all.  Thousands are arrested over the next few weeks, but not Lech Walesa or any of the union’s key members who have all gone underground.  Massive strikes start to roll across Poland and the country’s economy rapidly begins to grind to a halt.  In a bid to save his own government and stay in power, Wojciech Jaruzelski, Poland’s Chairman of the Council of State invites the KGB to assist Poland’s SB (Security Service) in finding and arresting Solidarity’s leadership.


What if . . . . From November 1984 onwards, Finnish businesses within the Soviet Union begin to be systematically boycotted, vandalised and even fire bombed. Owners are attacked and arrested as “Agents of the West”.  KGB Border troops start making crossing into Finland increasingly difficult short of closing the actual border.

What if . . . . In the lead up to Christmas 1984 on at least two occasions, Finnish citizens, trying to return from the Soviet Union to Finland are shot attempting to cross the border. 

What if . . . . On New Years Day 1985, the Soviet Embassy in Helsinki is surrounded by massed protests which appear to be settling in for a long stay.  Several other Soviet related entities in Helsinki, such as the Soviet Institute and the HQ of the Finland-Soviet Society are also closed due to protests.  The Helsinki Government calls for calm.

What if . . . . at midnight on 12 January 1985 shots appear to be fired into crowd from the Soviet Embassy which had remained effectively under siege.  While the crowd disperses from around the Embassy the Soviet Institute and the Finland-Soviet Society’s premises are extensively damaged by fire.

What if . . . . on 13 January 1985, the Finnish Government recalls its Ambassador from Moscow.  The families  of diplomatic staff also leave the Soviet capital while those Finnish staff that remain prepare to close the Embassy.  Meanwhile the Kremlin declares all Finnish embassy staff to be persona non-grata and gives them 48hrs to leave the country.

What if . . . . on 16 January 1985 shots are exchanged between KGB and Finnish border guards.  Both governments announce the next day that all border crossings between Finland and the Soviet Union closed.  In response to the Kremlin’s diplomatic decisions the Finnish Government requests all Soviet Embassy staff and associates leave the country immediately. 

What if . . . . Early February 1985 during a clear night, a Soviet Baltic Fleet Kotlin-class Destroyer “Spokoyny” collides with and sinks a Finnish Navy Turunmaa-class Corvette “Karjala” in international waters.  27 Finnish crew members are lost and the Spokoyny does not render assistance.  Swedish and Finnish Navy assets manage to rescue the surviving crew.  The next morning  Soviet fighters from the PVO Baltic Air Defgnce District shot down a Finnish Air Force DKF/35FS Draken fighter which they said and flown into Soviet Airspace and “locked-up” a civilian Aeroflot airliner preparing to land in St Petersburg.  Interestingly the Draken wreckage was found by the Police near Vaalimaa, Finland, several kilometres within Finnish border.

What if . . . . Mid February, frustrated by the lack of progress by the KGB and SB to arrest Solidarity’s leadership, Moscow announces the activation of the Soviet Northern Group of Forces.  The annoucement states that this is being done “to help our fraternal Polish brothers deal with these CIA funded terrorists” and to finally stop the nation-wide industrial action.

What if . . . . On the death of Konstantin Chernenko in March 1985, Yegor Ligachev is elected General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.  Previously Secretary for Ideology, Chernenko was thought to be somewhat of an ally of Gorbachev.  Now as Chairman he retains Andrei Gromyko as Foreign Minister, Dmitry Ustinov as Defence Minister, Viktor Chebrikov as KGB Chairman and Vitaly Fedorchik as Interior Minister.  All well-known anti-Western conservatives.

What if . . . . In May 1985 the new leadership team of the Kremlin, know in the West as the “Triumvirate of Five” announce that their patience with the pro-Western Nazi Government in Helsinki is running out.  In addition to the original demands, Moscow now demands that under the terms of the Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, Finland now must also submit to KGB official investigating every Government Department and Agency to root all anti-Soviet pro-Western agents in every Finnish Government department and agency.  They also demand that, the Soviet Armed Forces undertake a similar investigation in the Finnish Army, Navy and Air Force for the mutual benefit of Finland and the Soviet Union.  Soviet “advisors” must be present beside all Finish military leadership positions.  Finally, huge financial and territorial reparations similar in scope to those paid after the end of the Second World War are called for.

 What if . . . . Once again Finns deny any involvement in the tragedy and again reject all Soviet statements as baseless.  In a televised speech, the Finnish President states that Moscow, for some reason that only they can know, seem intent on punishing Finland and seek to destroy the Finns national sovereignty – something that the Soviet Union had committed to uphold since 1945.  He reiterates Finland’s neutrality and desire to live in peace with the neighbour and until recently, Soviet friends.  He states that Finland never would and never will initiate offensive action against another country but will actively defend every inch of it’s territory.  At the end of his speech The Finnish President mobilises the reserves of the Defence Forces and announces  for an independent UN led investigation into the incident and pledges complete transparency with such an inquiry.


That's it for Part 1.  To be continued...

Thanks for looking

Richard


12 August 2026

Updated West German Panzer & Panzergrenadier Division Battlegroup List

It started as a simple exercise.  Having recently finished the Fallschirmjager list, I needed to finalise the West German Jaeger Battlegroup list.  For one thing that list was close to being finished and I needed to get it done.  For another thing the FJ list only allowed Armour to be taken from the Jaeger list - and with no list, no armour!

So I dove into the Jaeger list and the more I read the more I realised it actually needed to be two different lists - otherwise it just became too complicated.  The first list would cover the two Heimatschutzebrigaden (HSB 51 and HSB 56) that were permanently committed to the Field Army.  They were better equipped than more "standard" Heimatschutzebrigaden, including Leopard 1s and in the case of HSB 56 Marders and Jaguars.  The other list would cover remainder of the '5th series' HSB and all of the '6th series' HSB for reasons that will become obvious when you see the lists.

Somehow I ended up down a rabbit hole about Marder Platoons and I became worried that my original West German Panzer/Panzer Grenadier lists might be wrong.  Fortuantely they were correct as to the number of dismounts in a Marder Platoon, but I found they could be made more accurate.  So I decided to change them.  Then I started fiddling with the rest of the Panzer/Panzer Grenadier list until I had basically pretty much revamped it.

I've added a FHQ unit and removed the GSR Team to the Recon units.  I've adjusted the Marder platoon with additional options for each squad, including upgrades to the Marder 1A3.  I deleted the SF MG3 team from their platoon support options.  I adjusted the M113 Pzrgren platoon, deleted a couple of artillery options, added a couple of recon options and made som,e simple changes, made a couple of minor changes to engineers and logistics and upped the size of the Jaguar teams from 2 to 3.  I also introduced the Redeye as the standard MANPADS with the Stinger as an upgrade.

You can find the new West German Panzer/Panzer Grenadier List here and it will replace the V2 list in the NATO Lists TAB above.

As always I'm seeking any constructive feedback, so fire away.

Finally, doing all this made me want to revisit my ideas from a few years back for a complete revamp of the way army lists look & work for AirLand Battlegroup.  So in addition to the V3 Panzer/Panzer Grenadier List and the two new Jaeger list, I'm also working on a AirLand Battlegroup 2 Panzer/Panzer Grenadier sample army list to see what you all think of a new approach.

Thanks for looking

Richard