The TOEs are very comprehensive and cover pre-1986 and post-1986 Americans, 1980’s & Gulf War British, 1980’s French & Germans, 1967, 1973, & 1982 Arab-Israelis, 1980’s WARPAC, and Gulf War Iraqis. Separate Data Cards are included for all these. On close inspection these lists are poorly researched and are missing many things, and have errors. Sorry guys, maybe you should have contacted me first! Some are fundamental, like completely missing British Battalion’s integral recce and ATGW platoons, and Divisional AA teams with Blowpipes & Javelins, completely missing 30mm AGS17 teams and company 12.7mm HMG platoons from Soviet Category 1 Motor Rifle Battalions. Syrian 1967 Infantry Divisions with T-10 Tank Battalion?! I think not. I haven’t checked them all but would cross reference with other sources first. The Soviet lists seem the most accurate.
Also another fault is that Spearhead has only three morale ratings, so that everyone is Regular, with a portion of Veteran or Green in some cases. As these ratings also incorporate training quality you get the strange situation where some Iraqis are rated as highly as Israelis! The only difference being in the order change & artillery response table.
The data charts are overall very good, although throw up some bizarre errors. Puma helicopters carry more troops than Mi-8 (in real life it’s 16 vs. 28) so change the Mi-8 capacity to 2 stands! Also the authors have made the assumption that all the world’s infantry are equipped with ATGW integral to platoons. This may be true of Americans, Israelis, Jordanians, and Germans, but virtually everyone else has them in separate battalion level ATGW platoons. Thus all the infantry factors assume ATGW as standard, which is a bit of an error. For some reason they rate the RPG-7 and RPG-16 as better than the Carl Gustav and LAW 80. Giving the RPG-16 an ATGW factor of 4 out to 600m. As ranges are meant to reflect battle usage, this is preposterous, especially when the Carl Gustav can shoot much further with a bigger warhead. What were they thinking of? Quick remedy – change 1971 and 1960 Soviet infantry to ATGW 3 at 3” and change RPG-16 range to 3”, it might keep the ATGW 4 factor as this includes RPG-18/22 disposables. Change British 1988 infantry to ATGW 4 at 3” (not 24” – Milan II does not exist), and change British 1978 infantry to ATGW 3 at 3”, Milans being separate.
Another weird one, check the Conqueror and M103 AT factors. These tanks were designed as long range fire support for their brethren tanks, and yet have been given a range of 15” (1500m) which is LESS than the tanks they are designed to support, e.g. Centurion 3 with 18” range. Change these heavy tanks to 21” range. The have also invented a Chieftain that doesn’t exist! Note what they call the Chieftain Stillbrew as having the same DEF and CED as Challenger I, at the same time quoting a Chieftain IX or XI with improved armour over earlier Chieftains. Don’t’ remember that one. I think they have confused the Chieftain Stillbrew with the Chieftain 900 prototype. Treat what they call the “Chieftain IX or XI” as the Stillbrew Chieftain, and ignore the line Chieftain with Stillbrew.
On the French data cards they have a 1970s Infantry with a MAW that shoots to 900m. Is this representing the 89mm LRAC? If so Optimism abounds.
The Israelis need altering. What they call the Magach C must be the Magach 7 with all that extra armour – about 25% more than the basic M60 Magach. Change it’s DEF to 10/4 at least, maybe even 11/4. The T-55 PC they mention must be an early prototype (it says 1976). This is not the Achzarit which is now standard. For the Achzarit add: DEF 11/4, CED 4, weapon is MG only, rest as the T-55 APC listed.
No doubt gamers will pick out other oddities. However these things aside, the data cards are very comprehensive, even covering IT-1 and IT-130 tank destroyers, and 125mm AT guns, and the beauty of them is that the alterations mentioned above can be included without altering the fundamental rules. It is also very easy to add equipment not listed, by comparison with others,. Period coverage goes back as far as 1949 for some.
For instance, I rate Thermal Imaging better than they do, especially against troops in soft cover, so I have added 3” to the spotting range against targets in cover.
Phil Shaw and I had a quick play using a British Battle Group versus a Serb Tank Brigade without reading the rules fully – needless to say my flank attack with a full battalion (of Brits) whilst Bde HQ and the Bde Engineer Company held the only bridge across the unfordable river was a bit disconcerting, especially when it hit his Mech Btn in the flank whilst trying to attack over the bridge from a town! You’re only supposed to have a maximum of one-third of your force as a flank march. He did for my Scimitars though. Having said that the lack of JSTARS or RPV rules meant I never saw the rest of the brigade crossing 3km further upstream using an AVLB, so they would have appeared in my rear at some point…
I had a recent quick play test of a British tank heavy Battle Group dug in against a Soviet Tank Regiment with monkey model T-64’s and T-72s, and pretty much demolished them for little loss. Even though out numbered in manoeuvre battalions by 4:1, there is a large difference in battalion size, British being typically 20 or so platoons, Soviets 7-10 or so. This is quite significant. A Su-25 Squadron strike proved most effective for the Soviets, obliterating some dug-in Milans and an OP team on a hill. The order system means the ATGW are useless for an attacker, unless careful use is made of timed orders, as ATGW are not allowed to move and fire AT ALL, which I think is a bit harsh, given the turn length (15-30 minutes). The ambush rule is very useful for a defending force – in effect defending hidden tanks get a free turn of fire. The Abbot Battery was particularly ineffective, which is what you would expect against a mostly armoured opponent, and the pathetic level of air defence in the British Army of the 1980’s is well represented!
A full play test will have occurred by the time you read this, a 1986 UK Brigade versus a full Soviet Tank Division somewhere in NORTHAG. The bulk of my artillery support is Abbots – how embarrassing to still have them; they make better amphibious assault guns or light anti-tank guns with their HESH round than indirect artillery. I suppose I can blind his T-80s with smoke and blast them with direct fire from my TI equipped tanks and ATGW and he won’t be able to shoot back…
Overall I recommend these rules for modern micro gamers, as compared to anything else they are probably the best there is for this level of modern warfare. Very expensive, there are no colour photos in this, its probably cheaper to import them direct from America if you can get away with it. I will be supporting the rules with comments and TOEs published here in The Journal, and I would look forward my comments to them except they haven’t provided a mailing address, only email.
I don’t know if any play testers listed are SOTCW members, if so it would be good to hear your responses to my comments, even if only to rubbish them with reasoned argument!
Mark provided some additional review comments in a follow up article in Journal 39 (Early 2001) which you read reproduced here: Modern Spearhead: A Further Review.
John Moher, one of Modern Spearhead’s co-authors, subsequently replied to Mark’s review in the SOTCW’s Journal 48 (Christmas 2003) and you can read his reply here in Thoughts & Responses.
Contributor: © 2000 Mark Bevis.