Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Hammer and Anvil (spoilers)

Recommended Posts

Hey everyone,

I am just wondering about people's opinion on the Hammer and Anvil scenario (The Push For Dniprodzerhyn'sk, scenario 3).

I had some trouble with it, and upon further deliberation these oddities stuck out to me.

1. I am expected to make:

- A frontal assault

- Over open ground, a significant portion of which is hazardous terrain, risking immobilization of my vehicles when traversing at high speeds, while it is raining.

- Into layered, prepared defenses, which posses enough offensive capability to mount a two-pronged counter-attack

- While being outnumbered by a considerable margin

- Lacking air cover

- In the time span of one hour

I know Russian tanks used to be made of Stalinium, but this seems like much to ask.


2. My artillery support, while moderate in size, seemed incapable of putting a serious dent into the enemy's dug-in tanks. Even precision strikes didn't do the job. Some of them missed entirely, others bounced the one shell that scored a direct hit. In the end I believe my precision strikes managed to knock out a single tank.

The enemy has about five discernible lines of tanks, not counting a great number of infantry and/or IFV positions. Hoping two 155mm's with +/- 70 shells each + one 203mm with +/- 50 shells will put a dent in that is, in my experience, quite optimistic.


3. Against the Ukrainians I'd expect a slight edge in unit quality, however the OPLOTs held their own very well against both my T-72B3s and T90s. Even when my forces were halted in anticipation of a counter-attack, they had great difficulty in getting a speedy firing solution and firing the first shot. Against the dug-in tanks they fared no better, even though I felt like my own tanks had pretty good positions themselves. They got lased continuously, though usually a fatal shot was avoided.

Another thing that surprised me was the effectiveness of the Ukrainian field guns. They were stealthy, very accurate, deadly and fired surprisingly quickly. They also seemed to have no problem with the copious amounts of smoke and shrapnel I was handing out. The positioning of one of them I thought was especially back-handed, namely covering one of the exits. Not the sort of kick in the chest I expected at the end of such a difficult scenario.


These were some of my thoughts. This mission seemed to be designed to decimate my tank forces. Please feel free to comment.


Edited by Creed

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just played it yesterday. 

I lost only two tanks when they ran out of APFSDS and took out almost a whole Ukrainian battalion, it was a  massacre.

However, it was a draw in the end since I did not exit the bulk of the T-90s. If I were a bit more aggressive it wouldn't be a problem.

I did pretty much nothing until the T-90s arrived, and then I concentrated most of my tanks along the left side of the map. After a few rounds of firing from the treeline, I moved them slowly in bounding overwatch towards the exist.

The T-90s performed so well in the dark it felt like an Abrams stomp.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...