SunTzu wrote:6. Panzergrenadier Division (Panzerbrigade 17/ Panzerbrigade 18 were part of it) was earmarked for the LANDJUT-Forces, meaning an AO from Hamburg to the Skagerrak-Strait. The bulk of heavy armored fighting was intended to be in the AFCENT (NORTHAG/ CENTAG) covered area not in the AFNORTH-area so the more modern and armored tanks had a priority going to NORTHAG/ CENTAG-Divisons.
Also the danish terrain is not all that suitable for heavy tanks. There is a lot of wet areas where they can drive. I was on an excercise against V/Gardehussar Regiment, a recce battalion with eagle 4 trucks. We were driving around in MB GD240. Because of their weight (its about, as near as makes no difference: 8-9 tons) they couldnt go off road and we had a field day, much to their embarresment.
That being said, you are right that the main reason would be the threat as in that it wouldn't have been the thundering armored hordes of russians, as much as airassault/airmobile units and amfibious units, not being so heavily armored as their counterparts in CENTAG.
I find it really interesting to try some other ways to approach Airland Battle than the WW3 multiplayer slug fest (not that there's anything wrong with that part though), and I really LOVE the idea of objectives and asymmetrical setup that has been developed in this thread.
So, I wanted to test another idea with you folks: Malvinas/Falklands decks for Britain and Argentina. I threw together two decks based on the wikipedia articles and some googling. They are very sketchy, partly because I'm not a big nerd on order of battle stuff, and partly because Airland Battle obviously isn't made to simulate said war (mostly the first though maybe).
So, below are the two decks. They are both mixed NATO, as I wanted them to have the same amount of activation points (so no UK-only bonuses for Britain).
Reasoning for logistics: The CV jeep was basically to just have a command vehicle. Not sure what kind of equivalent the Argentine forces would have had, but I figured this could work as a stand in. Same for the VLRA regarding logistics. As for the Chinooks and Pumas, Argentina actually had a few of each present on the islands (2 chinooks I believe).
Reasoning for infantry: I chose Canadian Rifles as the bread and butter here because they have FN FAL derivates (like Argentina). One card is mounted in CH116s as well, as Argentina had Hueys. The US Marines are present as Argentina had LVTP-7s. The French reservists are there as a large part of the Argentine force was composed of ill trained, reluctant conscripts.
Reasoning for support: There was (as far as I can tell) one Roland on the island, so I went with as few as possible here. The Oeil Noir is a stand in for the radar controlled Oerlikons of the Argentine forces (if you're drunk and squint really hard you might even misread Oeil Noir as Oerlikon). Argentina had both 105 mm and 155 mm artillery on the islands, although they were not mobile.
Reasoning for recon: Here we have the first real bullseye; the Argentine forces actually had exactly twelve AML-90 armoured cars. The commandos are stand ins for the Buzos Tácticos naval special forces, which took part in the initial invasion (again, mounted in Pumas as Argentina operated such helicopters). Alouttes IIIs are also somewhat historically correct it seems.
Reasoning for vehicles: The LAROs with recoilless rifles are there as there were infantry carried RRs available (this card might be one of the more debatable).
Reasoning for planes: Although the Skyhawks and Mirages might be the wrong versions, all the planes were operated by Argentina in some form during the war. I chose the Mirage 5F as it resembled the Argentine paint scheme the most.
Reasoning for logistics: As with Argentina, the Rover is mostly there to fill the game function of a CV. The Sultans could perhaps be confused with the FV106 Samson which was actually used. As for the Alvis Stalwart, I have no idea if it was used, but I figured the brits needed logistics.
Reasoning for infantry: Here I don't have much of a clue really, I just took a mix which seemed reasonable. Marines, Paras and Blowpipes were all presents. No airborne units as the transport helos went to the bottom of the sea together with the Atlantic Conveyor.
Reasoning for support: Tracked Rapier as stand in for the stationary one used in the war. Abbots as stand ins for the 105 mm pack artillery pieces.
Reasoning for recon: As with Argentina, we find our first perfect match in the recon section; four Scimitars and four Scorpions were actually fielded with recon units. The SAS were at least present at the South Sandwhich Isles, so I figured they should be in here. As the fleet had Lynxes, they come mounted in those here. Gazelles were also used, and were fitted with Sneb rockets just before the war.
Reasoning for planes: Yeah, not much to say here. Harrier Gr.3s and Sea Harriers are as iconic for the conflict as the Super Etendard on the Argentine side.
Alright, this is more to just plant the seed of an idea rather than making two historically correct, game balanced decks. Feel very free to correct, poke and rearrange them.
As for maps, perhaps Battle For The Fjord could serve as a stand in for Port Stanley? With Argentina as defenders and Britain as attackers?
Hi, I'm new to the game, and still very much a noob in game. However, y'all seem to be playing this game in the right way, and I am really interested. As I get my feet wet, and time and schedule permit, I'd be down to join in some games with a historical deck every so often, to fill out a team. Preferably with the crappiest division on the side, just so nobody is depending on me.