"Able Archer: Soviets vs US AAR" Topic

Hi all. I love the renewed interest in Cold War gaming we've been seeing. A game you probably missed a while back is Able Archer, designed by someone in the Czech Republic. It's received no attention at all, but I tried it, liked it, and want to try it some more. You can see my trying at this link:

link

It looks interesting. Is it a board game, or for miniatures?

It's for miniatures. I just don't have any. I always play on a virtual tabletop, and lately I've enjoyed using images from Google Earth.

You can get the rules from the author's blog here. In Czech and English.

Actually, the link for the English rules on that page hasn't worked for a while. Try this one instead: link

Unfortunately, there are three versions of the rules in English on this page, and I can't figure out which is actually the latest. And I'm pretty sure the author has an even more up-to-date version that he thinks is available but isn't. I reached out to him yesterday about that.

Thanks for sharing your battle reports. They do sound interesting.

I don't think I'd use more than 2 x Shilkas for the size of your force.

Really, even one Skilka, and/or one helo are probably too many for the ratio of other vehicles you have on the tabletop, though they do typically operate in pairs.

If using a Soviet tank company vs. a mixed NATO force, and the gunships get the drop on the armor, I'd just roll with it, and assume that is an advanced guard that's taken a hit. More companies of tanks and IFVs are just behind those destroyed, and the helos are now out of ammo.

Ah, the joys of being a Soviet commander……..

I think your idea for adding in some spotting rules is a good one, or at least perhaps some sort of reactionary fire by the Shilkas, if the helos win the initiative. Not only would they need to spot them, but also identify/classify them as well.

Ground units are frequently surprised by helos and aircraft, which move so fast, and can come in from virtually any angle to attack. However, the Shilkas do have radar, not that it would do them much good along a narrow, heavily forested roadway – much better for them in more open terrain.

I do like the idea of the helo gunships being able to fire on multiple targets. Three rounds of firing sounds about right to me, per turn – perhaps more, depending upon the turn length and what they're armed with. More for chainguns and rockets, less when firing ATGMs.

Can't recall how SabreSquadron runs for vehicle ROF, but perhaps some adjustments could be added as well, if needed for that.

In one rules set, tanks can fire twice per turn, and ATGMs only once, since they are much slower in flying to the target.

In most rules, I find the movement rates to be far too liberal vs. the rates of fire allowed. In most I've seen, I think the movement rates either need to be halved, or the firing rates per turn doubled.

Attacks vs. T-80 and other target frontal arcs should be difficult to succeed with, in many cases. Same goes for attacks on the M-1s too. Perhaps a small chance of success, but I think many would bounce, unless they have the very latest in tank ammo, and/or ATGMs.

I look forward to more reports from you, and in trying these out myself.

Thanks Mako, very helpful, and thanks for reading my report so thoroughly. I'm bound to get better at this with such great feedback.

When I played SabreSquadron, the Milan missiles were crazy tank killers. I thought I had learned something about modern warfare from that. But maybe Able Archer has it more realistic.

As much as I've been thinking about this, I hadn't thought of your point about movement vs RoF. Man, that is really smart. I was thinking about making my ruler smaller, and now I think I definitely will. If a turn is supposed to represent a few minutes, as the rules say, then it makes no sense for a tank to only be able to fire once. I should clamp down on the time represented as well as the scale, which should go hand in hand as I shrink the ruler. I suspect weapon ranges may get more realistic too, as the author may have just gotten the game scale wrong.

Yea, a lot of rules permit max. cross country speeds to be used, which may or may not work for some periods, conflicts.

From reading up on Soviet doctrine though, they're talking vehicle attack speeds (presumably cross country, since they're in spread formation) of only about 15 – 20 kph, and when the report was written (1977), it mentioned they were trying to increase that to about 30 kph on the attack (faster tanks, like the T64/T72/T80, no doubt).

So, the article went on to state further, that works out to about 200 meters per minute – obviously, for that to be true, they were also factoring in stoppage time to identify and fire at enemy targets during their advance, given the math below.

15 kph = 250m per minute
30 kph = 500m per minute
6 kph = 100m per minute (as below)

When the troops dismount, close to the objectives, or when their vehicles come under fire, they advance at about 6 kph.

Figuring that many tanks have a maximum burst rate of fire of 8 – 10 rounds a minute, we can see game firing rates are typically too low. Of course though, rates like that can only be sustained for about a minute, so the real firing rates probably should only be about 25% – 50% of that maximum, in order to allow for identifying targets, laying the gun on them, advancing to new positions, etc., etc..

Though, I suspect for a hard pressed, and heavily outnumbered NATO tank unit, going up against a battalion or regiment of Soviet or Warsaw Pact armor, they'd have a shooting gallery field day, at least until they were targeted, and knocked out. Fortunately, they should have a longer reach, so things could be in their favor until the enemy closes in within 1,000 – 1,500meters, or so.

ATGMs are pretty deadly, so you need to try to avoid them, suppress them, or knock them out before they do the same to you, by using artillery, smoke, overwatch fire from friendly main battle tanks, and by dodging.

An HE round or three from a tank gun, or machinegun fire will get to the ATGM launching crew in just a couple of seconds, while that missile may take 10 – 30 seconds to fly to its target, if the launch plume is seen.

In my home grown rules I have the speed of advance linked to the 'mission' the unit is assigned, eg March, Hasty Attack, Assault, and how far they are from the enemy.

If they're >2.4km (or 2ft on table in my rules) from the enemy they can be assigned a March mission, but must stop on encountering or sighting the enemy or moving within 2ft of them.

Once in sight of, or in Contact with the enemy they must be then assigned orders that allow them to advance towards the enemy. They also advance slower as they're trying to spot the enemy. They can still go quite fast though, if they're in the right vehicle type.

Looking at actual battles and rates of advance, eg WW2, even units with really fast vehicles often only advanced quite slowly. One example is Goodwood, where Brit Sherman battalions only advanced at 6km/hr in flat open terrain with no opposition in sight.

If you're in an AFV going at speed you really can't spot much as you're getting rattled around like a pea in a tin. Firing on the move is also not very effective. Hence AFVs tend to go slower if they want to fire back. If you're doing 30kmh in a tank you're really going hell-for-leather and are unlikely to see or hit anything. You'd only really travel at this speed if you're confident nothing is going to shoot at you.

Hope this helps, B

Cool, thanks for the input.