Bil Hardenberger

I appreciate your support. And yes, that is always a possibility.

This battle will be fought against probably the most experienced and knowledgeable opponent I have ever faced. Pnzrldr is a serving US Army LTC (Armor) and this makes him a formidable opponent. We have played several times and I think are well matched. We have both had games where one of us has totally routed the other, but most games have been very tightly fought affairs. I hope this game turns out to be one of those. The scenario which was put together specially for Scott and I by TheTeacher is going to be quite a challenge. My request was to be on the defense and to play redforce. What he presented us with is truly an interesting and challenging situation. Basically I have been presented with an enemy bypassed company sized force that I am expected to deal with prior to setting up a defense against the enemy force coming to relieve them. The enemy force in my rear is sitting on an area that stretches across three objectives: Textile Mill, Town Hall, and the Power Station. I am expected to reduce this concentration prior to reorienting to engage the relief force. Interesting no? Stay tuned… this is going to be fun. I will be doing an abbreviated analysis where I will analyze the mission, the enemy, my troops, and the terrain, all coming up in future installments.

Those look like trails to me. Did this map have a border with a legend? It would all be spelled out there.

I think it could certainly be could be used as a course of analysis tool.. though the high labor required in map making and AI development for a scenario could make it less than ideal for that use.

With relative peers, I don't think the advantage lies on which side is on offense or defense... but it lies with the side having the better tactical or terrain advantages. Personally I prefer to be attacking over defending as I want to be able to dictate to my opponent rather than have to react to him, I like to have and hold the initiative. I am more comfortable attacking and find it far more comfortable to be in that role than in the defense. So though there are some inherent advantages in being on the defense, give me an offensive capable force any time.

The MGS is included.

Well, suppressing them for longer periods of time gives your maneuver element time to move safely into its assault position. You also do not want that unit to be unsuppressed and able to fall back before you can assault it and eliminate it. This is especially important when playing a human opponent. This is the FIX HIM component of the Four Fs This will not happen if you assault with the correct tactics, here is a quote from my Squad Attack Drill: After the above is complete you should be able to immediately assault through the objective without suffering any close in return fire. The following blog posts lay out the procedure in detail: Squad Attack Drill Fire & Movement

Yep, the early war holds a soft spot for me too. I'd love to see it.

Maybe you missed this part from my initial post: ...if you keep the two teams within visual distance of each other then any command penalties will be minimal. It'll be fine as long as you keep them close enough that the split teams can see the team that contains the squad leader.

Split your squads. This is not gamey.. squads should have the opportunity to spread out (split) or compress as the situation and terrain dictate. I split as much as possible... if you keep the two teams within visual distance of each other then any command penalties will be minimal. Most western armies at this time used fire & movement tactics or something similar, and squads would normally break into support and maneuver teams as required. Even the Russian squads at this time could break down into teams and hold the MG element back at a distance to support the maneuver elements (rifles).

Take any indications like that with a grain of salt.. you never know when an enemy unit is going to temporarily recover and send a few shots your way. In this case I would use Fire and Movement to advance on the enemy occupied building.. your fire will get more effective the closer you get. As Mr. Emrys said, it looks like you are not applying enough firepower for it to be totally effective. In an advance like this always use short rushes, then, when halted order that team to fire on the enemy occupied terrain.. meanwhile advance the other team that had been providing suppression in a short rush forward.. you would be surprised how your enemy will lose his spot on your unit as soon as it drops to the ground. Even in open ground. Try to not have more than one team moving at a time, and minimize the time your units are exposed and upright.

Well, an enemy unit in a building does have some protection.. and to be honest 250 meters or so is fairly long range for rifles so I doubt their fire was very effective. Also, did you have to advance your maneuver element through the open? There was no ground or terrain to use to mask their advance? How far did they run, short rushes, or a long sustained jog? Makes a difference. Nothing in this game is automatic.. nor should it be.. all you can do is continue to apply the principles and the odds will favor you.

The old CMSF trenches could be spotted before the trench itself due to them deforming the terrain.. this was a hole in FOW. Not to worry, we now have the ditch lock feature in the map editing to create the ditches you are looking after.. using this with trenches gives the old CMSF appearance if you want. Bil

Thanks BP... yeah I do hope to add to the scenarios and to the Tactical Toolbox but have not had the time since I started my new job in April.. plus other commitments have interfered with updating the blog. I have a Platoon Attack Drill scenario pretty far along.. but haven't looked at it in a while. I need to dust that off and see if its worth continuing with or not. I apologize for the delay.

Well done!! Nice editing work Jorge

Point to where the regulation states opening the hatch is not allowed? I only see where it consistently encourages opening the hatch in order to maintain awareness and visibility. This tells me that there might have been a real problem with tank crews refusing to open the hatch during combat, otherwise why mention it at all? Showing propaganda footage proves nothing. I think 76mm's posted quotes show this is not the case at all. So.. even the tank archive expert thinks your conjecture is BS. John, you are jumping to a conclusion here.. you know what they say happens when you assume something? Huh... so... the German tactical advantage was purely due to the Russians operating with hatches closed during action? I suppose better leadership, training, superior tactical doctrine, and German tank individual initiative had nothing to do with it... sorry John I think you are operating with blinders on in respect to this issue. Bil

I think you are grasping at straws John... I don't think, even if you find a manual that does specifically say to "close hatches in combat", that you can prove it was done that way even most of the time. I would say that it is a matter of experience and training.. the more experienced and savvy TCs would fight with hatches open to increase visibility and situational awareness (probably rare in the Russian army), while the less trained (probably legion in the Russian army) would probably seek the security of the closed hatch. I say that survival would be more important to these tank commanders than following the book (which so far does not even exist). The manual extract posted above does not say that tanks are to fight with hatches closed, but it does mention opening them... interesting distinction no? In fact it seems to stress operating through the open hatch... so it must have been enough of a problem that it needed spelling out in the manual.

Baneman, this is the same issue I had when setting up the QB map for the MG AAR game with Ken... I do not think you can have asymmetrical objectives in a QB. At least that's what I took away from that experience.

As it was in reality it is damned hard to get perfect synchronization in these games. I try to coordinate my maneuver and fire as much as possible.. see my AARs (linked below) for how I handle this. I am not always successful as the enemy usually has some input into how coordinated your attack actually ends up being and can throw off your timing. I would suggest you start small.. split a squad and work with them to fine tune your coordination, then move to platoon level or a couple squads, then get even more complex with trying to coordinate a full company attack. Whatever you do, keep it simple. Coordinating your indirect fire assets with your maneuver forces can be especially frustrating. There is a reason I love going with on map mortars if I have a choice. Otherwise, you move your maneuver elements into their jump off spots and wait for the indirect fire to do its business and be close enough to capitalize on its effects as it starts to peter out. Battlefield synchronization is the holy grail of combat.. good luck and let us know how you get on.

Hmm.. wasn't she in command when you lost your tank platoon in a matter of a few turns?

For those who care.. two new entries on my blog: Masked Movement and: Using Woods as Cover & Concealment Enjoy!!

Hey Johnsy! Yeah I do intend to keep going with this.. my new job has been keeping me busy for the past few months. You are right though I need to get back on it. I'll see what I can do. Glad you are enjoying it. Cheers, Bil

You can't let things like this eat at your enjoyment of the game. Who knows how that round might have bounced around as it traveled through the hull. Weirder things have happened so chalk it up to fortunes of war and move along. Bil

When I started this the intent was only to show these initial turns... my goal was not to stand toe to toe with Ken's troops but to illustrate a solution for engaging them in close terrain. Why fight on his terms? Take it for what it is. But my goal was never to hold on to the woods, only to make Ken bleed while keeping my bleeding to a minimum. If this wasn't valuable to you then I apologize for wasting your time. Bil

This was a surprise.. Ken had a team rushing through the open obviously looking for my flank... ...well he found it... 2nd Platoon is on the move on that edge of the woods and quickly turned the enemy team in the other direction. The 2nd Platoon squad on my left has seen no enemy on this side of the map.. so they are picking up the pace and moving as indicated. Finally this image shows the current situation.. 1st Platoon has pulled back into its second line. They are still settling in for any enemy advance. And that is pretty much as far as we got... so why did I share this little vignette? Well my aim was to show that if properly handled the Germans can indeed put up a respectable fight against Russian SMG troops in close terrain like woods. I also wanted to illustrate a proper delay drill.. the goal when attempting a delay is to cause as many casualties as possible, slow your opponent and trade space for time. The formation in the woods is very effective and facilitates a delay, as when your forward line withdraws the second line is already set and ready to take the lead role while the withdrawing units can recover from the action that forced them to pull back. Timing the repositioning of your forward units can be tricky and if you let it go too long they can get suppressed and overrun. You can take a few casualties, just dish out more than you give.. I believe in this one I caused from two to three times the number of casualties I suffered (9 confirmed, at least 2 or 3 more suspected, to my total of 4 casualties). Whether Ken will ever return the next turn or not doesn't really matter.. I think I have shown in the 5 minutes we did play that the original contention that Russian SMGs were unbeatable in close terrain is not necessarily always the case. Bil