Help support TMP

"WRG Armour & Infantry 1925-1950" Topic

Wargames Rules for All-Arms Land Warfare from Platoon to Batallion Level 1925-1950 and 1950-2000

16 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Wargames Rules for All-Arms Land Warfare Rules Board

Areas of Interest

World War One
World War Two on the Land

Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Link

Featured Ruleset

963 hits since 4 Feb 2017
©1994-2022 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pierce Inverarity21 Feb 2010 5:11 p.m. PST

So I got hold of a copy (from June 1973) of this venerable set. I like it quite a bit, but the morale rules worry me. I haven't done the math in detail, but it seems very easy for an attack to falter, even a well prepared and supported one.

I noticed there are alternative morale rules out there, so other people seem to have noticed this too.

Any comments on this, or in general on how the game plays?

Gordon of TFP Games21 Feb 2010 6:45 p.m. PST

I personally prefer the later set, 1988 from memory.

I think the morale rules Phil was trying to make gamers aware of is that attacks were easier to stop than many thought, casualties of morale, the failure of troops to carry forward in the face of fire was a major thing. Men were not as brave as a Commando comic in general.

I prefer the later rules in this area as quicker and easier to get to grips with.



Dropship Horizon22 Feb 2010 2:44 a.m. PST

I like the original – mostly because it speaks of an era. One of my first sets of C20th rules after Grant's 'Battle'. Very playable and happy with morale – for all the reasons Gordon mentioned. Still have my original copy!

The latter version was streamlined and more definitely 'modern' in approach. Better suited to Micro-tank warfare IMO.


Martin Rapier22 Feb 2010 5:37 a.m. PST

One of may favourite rule sets, the main tweaks I can recall doing were to stop the table becoming a blinding smudge pot of smoke. Morale seemed to work fine.

Personal logo David Manley Supporting Member of TMP22 Feb 2010 6:18 a.m. PST

I played the first edition for many years, looked forward eagerly to the second edition (as I did with the modern set) and was sorely disappointed with the result. I found the earlier sets to give a far more satisfying game and were better (IMHO) far better presented. Horses for courses though, several of my old wargaming friends thought the later versions were far superior.

ghostdog22 Feb 2010 9:16 a.m. PST

which scale unit is this ruleset? is it online? I have downloaded wrg infantry actions from freewargamerules, but I understand that they are diferent rulesets, aren´t they?

Martin Rapier22 Feb 2010 9:32 a.m. PST

WRG 1925-50 and its modern equivalent were 1:1 for vehicles and guns but infantry were based in groups/teams, similar to FOW or PBI. We usually played it with 6mm but I saw it being played with 20mm at Salute.

They aren't the same set as the Infantry Action rules.

I always enjoyed the way that firefights flared up and died down then flared up again as elements became suppressed and unspotted then recovered to take part again.

I never found out about the 'backwards firing bazooka' trick until someone told me about it a few years ago. Now that would have transformed our games! well maybe not.

Pierce Inverarity22 Feb 2010 10:52 a.m. PST

Another major difference is that in Infantry Action combat is simultaneous, and in A&I it's consecutive. In fact, not having A&I before me right now, I wonder if it even has an interrupt/overwatch rule.

Martin Rapier22 Feb 2010 1:44 p.m. PST

It is some years since I last played it, so I can't remember if it has 'overwatch', however it is shoot then move like Panzerblitz, so the defender automatically gets the first shot.

Dave Holden26 Feb 2010 8:36 a.m. PST

I must admit that I and my two (equally old) wargaming mates still play these rules. We've tried learning IABSM and Arc of Fire – largely as we use their scenarios – but have never really got comfortable with either set.
The WRG rules give us a quick, easy game and allow us to play a `Skirmish Campaigns' scenario in an evening.

Our criticisms would be that infantry only actions are very slow due to the short movement distances, it's probably too hard to kill (Rather than neutralise) soft targets and armour is not affected at all by small arms fire (We play early WWII and there were historic examples of tanks withdrawing under heavy small arms fire).

DanLewisTN26 Feb 2010 12:23 p.m. PST

What historic examples are there of armor withdrawing as a result of small arms fire?

Dave Holden26 Feb 2010 3:58 p.m. PST

Sorry if that's a genuine question but it sounds a bit too much like the start of one of the tedious point scoring debates some people on this board seem to love. I'm not going to waste time looking up and quoting sources on this.

Read accounts of actions on the retreat to Dunkirk and you will find examples where German armour backed off under a hail of bren and small arms fire.

I guess that, in real life, if you are cooped up inside a tin can and you hear a load of stuff hitting the outside you don't know whether any of it is capable of damaging you. Under The WRG rules the target vehicle doesn't need to take a morale test when it comes under fire unless the firing weapon is capable of a KO.

DanLewisTN26 Feb 2010 10:10 p.m. PST

It's a genuine question. I think it's BKC, where I've read some debates about the rules, where enough small arms causes tank crew to bail out.

So I considered whether a) should we allow (in a game setting) for small arms to cause a morale failure and b) if there was a moral failure could we expect the crew to bail.

Would infantry waste rifle ammunition by firing at tanks?

Is that reasonable? Or do we think that's a rarity? Using that rule will it distort thet game and create a "gaming tactic" that is inconsistent with historical combat tactics of the period.

I would think (b) would be a rarity in actual WWII combat and thus would not like to see it part of the rules I was playing.

As regards to (a), it doesn't seem right to me. But you wrote that this happens and I wanted to read about it, find some first person accounts.

I was thinking that infantry might tend to not waste thier ammo firing on something they couldn't penetrate, unless they were going for a vision slot.

Not trying to score any points off you. I really was surprised to hear that you had read some accounts of this happening and was wondering under what circumstances that might happen.

Marc33594 Supporting Member of TMP27 Feb 2010 5:42 a.m. PST

Ah a classic set and part of my collection. I did play around with them but never really played them.

But Martin I must ask, what is the backwards firing bazooka trick?

myrm1128 Feb 2010 3:34 p.m. PST

Is that one where you can exploit a backblast rule in a way that its better to turn the bazooka round to get an auto hit/kill at certain ranges over the more limited chance of a kill when actually using the shooting rules?

Pierce Inverarity28 Feb 2010 6:49 p.m. PST

Here's a website with alternative morale rules and some very handy vehicles charts, for both 6mm and 20mm.


I notice he doubled infantry movement ranges.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.