Gustav Line QB AAR - Allied

[GreenAsJade]

I stripped out the recoilless rifle platoon. I thought that they would be like ATGs: too slow to move around, need to be placed in prepared keyholes/foxholes in a defensive role. Maybe if we had mules....

However, after some more reading, it seems these things were actually amenable to being carried around. If I'd realised that, I might have experimented with them and brought some along if they didn't slow the guys down too much!

GaJ

PS: just I did the homework that perhaps I should have done before. Interestingly, the FJ recoilless rifle is "better than an ATG but still slow". They do not have "quick" order available, and "Move" along at a walking pace. Much much slower than an HMG can move along. Also, they can't go through some terrain that an HMG and a mortar can do, and have a 1.5 minute setup time.

I'm not sure if I'd have chosen them after this experiment if I did it back then - I would have thought to myself "I'm better off with more shreks". Knowing what I know now, which is that it was darn hard to get a Shrek within 150m of his tanks on this map, I'd have had a harder decision.

[GreenAsJade]

In this picture, a 50mm Pak, a recoilless rifle, an HMG and a Mortar were all given "Quick" orders as a group to head off in parallel lines across the trench and into the next field.

You can see that the Mortar and HMG trotted off on Quick. The RR and ATG converted to "walk", and decided to go around the trench.

As you can see, the Fallies come with the "2 wheeled light tripod" variant of the recoilless rifle. As I said, a tough choice whether to bring this on a meeting engagement (I guess that would have made the truck even more important!)

GaJ

[Bil Hardenberger]

What does that thing weigh? I bet they could run with that little gun.

[ChrisND]

What does that thing weigh? I bet they could run with that little gun.

Over 300 lbs.

[Bil Hardenberger]

This book has a good discussion of Stewart and his tactics ... including the time he got it totally wrong and his own bn (and ultimately his whole bde) was filleted and destroyed at the Slim River.

The context is a little different, of course. I'm not clear how much filleting depended on being conducted in jungle terrain, but I suspect it was a fair bit. Nevertheless that end-game picture - and the collapse it documents - vividly reminded me of it.

Heh.. thanks Jon but I don't want to read a book about it.. a blurb would be sufficient.. I take it "filleting" is breaking an enemy force down into bite size chunks? Sort of doing a mini Tannenberg?

Bil

[Hister]

Bill, that was stellar performance, simply marvellous on both tactical and presentational level! I wonder what tactics you would employ of you would start on the gaj's side of the map?

[Wodin]

It shows how fine this game\sim is. If you use military tactics you will win. Thats a sign of a class wargame.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Bill, that was stellar performance, simply marvellous on both tactical and presentational level!

Thanks Hister.

I wonder what tactics you would employ of you would start on the gaj's side of the map?

Why would the side of the map I am on change my tactics? Or the OB either? I still would do a good terrain analysis, scout, then make my decisions based on what my scouts tell me. Scouting should never end also, it is not just a pre-battle activity.. it should always be on your mind. You need ears and eyes on your flanks, in your rear (if that is a potential danger area), and as deep into enemy territory as they can get.

GaJ had a force that needed to keep mine at arms length and fight me with his LMGs and light mortars, only closing in when my infantry was suppressed or attrited... in the game when we closed to less than 100m I think I won every fire fight infantry to infantry... only getting pushed back and taking serious casualties when his light mortars deployed.

So at the lower levels I would most definitely have fought differently.. I saw early on the advantages of the Brit infantry... I also saw his advantages as well which is why when possible I tried to get very close to him while trying to mask my units from his follow-on force (read mortars).

Bil

[sburke]

Yeah I think GAJ was a bit surprised at the amount of firepower those guys had (as was I). I would have thought German Paras would have brought a little more oomph to the close range fight than it seems they did.

[sfhand]

Thanks Hister.

Why would the side of the map I am on change my tactics? Or the OB either? I still would do a good terrain analysis, scout, then make my decisions based on what my scouts tell me. Scouting should never end also, it is not just a pre-battle activity.. it should always be on your mind. You need ears and eyes on your flanks, in your rear (if that is a potential danger area), and as deep into enemy territory as they can get.

GaJ had a force that needed to keep mine at arms length and fight me with his LMGs and light mortars, only closing in when my infantry was suppressed or attrited... in the game when we closed to less than 100m I think I won every fire fight infantry to infantry... only getting pushed back and taking serious casualties when his light mortars deployed.

So at the lower levels I would most definitely have fought differently.. I saw early on the advantages of the Brit infantry... I also saw his advantages as well which is why when possible I tried to get very close to him while trying to mask my units from his follow-on force (read mortars).

Bil

Hey Bil, I know you're a very busy guy, but I've got to ask, is there any chance of you putting together a terrain analysis video (similar to the Wargamer tutorial videos but more in depth)? Some maps seem pretty easy to figure out but others just seem to sit there taunting me, e.g. Huzzar.

Thanks again to both you and GAJ for the AAR and for your beta work as well.

edit: Heck, it doesn't have to be a movie! A screen shot or two of the Huzzar map with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one would be awesome... I'm not asking for much, am I?

[Bil Hardenberger]

While I wouldn't be able to do a terrain analysis on a specific map (if I do one for you then I'll get a dozen requests ).. in my next AAR (might be coming up quicker than you think) I'll do an in depth terrain analysis and include details on how to apply OAKOC to a map in CM.

Then you could apply those principles in your own scenarios.

Bil

[Hister]

Well you see, I was talking from the terrain advantage point of view - you clearly had an advantage since you could occupy dominating higher ground sooner then your opponent. You could see a big part of the battlefield from those starting heights while the same could not be said for GAJ. I'm sure your general tactics would be the same but where would you send your forces, your main thrust if you would play against someone employing similar tactics to yours?

[sfhand]

While I wouldn't be able to do a terrain analysis on a specific map (if I do one for you then I'll get a dozen requests ).. in my next AAR (might be coming up quicker than you think) I'll do an in depth terrain analysis and include details on how to apply OAKOC to a map in CM.

Then you could apply those principles in your own scenarios.

Bil

Hey Bil, thanks. FWIW, the reason I suggested Huzzar, aside from my own inabilities to grok it, was because it is a map almost everyone here has access to. As I wrote in an earlier post in the peanut gallery thread, screenshots don't always grasp the nuances of the terrain (at least for me) whereas with a map like Huzzar I can read your analysis, look at the screenshots, and then do a drive through of the map and try to see what you see. I guess I could wait until release of the new module to do the drive through.

I hadn't thought that people would start requesting you interpret maps for them, I thought you could post your terrain analysis here as a "public service".

I don't want any of the above to seem like I don't appreciate what you've done already; I appreciate it very much, I'm just a greedy bastage I guess.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Well you see, I was talking from the terrain advantage point of view - you clearly had an advantage since you could occupy dominating higher ground sooner then your opponent. You could see a big part of the battlefield from those starting heights while the same could not be said for GAJ.

Well the heights were important from an intelligence point of view... but fighting from them can be hazardous. I lost one tank while it was hull down on a ridgeline, yet a second Sherman killed both of GaJ's Pz-IVs without being spotted by them while advancing through one of the low lying areas on the map. My infantry was very vulnerable to his mortars when emplaced on the heights, yet safer when they were in the valleys and could use the slope to mask themselves from his fire.

So while important I do not for one second believe that having that one high mountain on my side gave me a clear advantage.. rather I would say that capturing the center and thus splitting his forces and ensuring I could mass against one and then the other was what won the battle .. that could have been done from his side of the map by his forces as well.

I'm sure your general tactics would be the same but where would you send your forces, your main thrust if you would play against someone employing similar tactics to yours?

I would send my main combat power, as I did in this game, wherever I found, or felt him to be weakest.

My maneuver plan is generally not decided upon until I have some intelligence on the enemy... and then it can shift as the situation changes... I try to be very fluid with my forces and have no qualms shifting from one approach to another if I think the situation warrants. I try to never "fall in love" with a plan so much that I get target fixation and thus keep pushing when pushing is going to get too many men killed.

Bil

[GreenAsJade]

So while important I do not for one second believe that having that one high mountain on my side gave me a clear advantage.. rather I would say that capturing the center and thus splitting his forces and ensuring I could mass against one and then the other was what won the battle .. that could have been done from his side of the map by his forces as well.

You know, as the loser, and the clear less-competent player, my opinion probably doesn't count for much.

But I still haven't seen the massing of Bil's forces in the centre and the splitting of my forces as what decided *this* battle. It _may_ have been a deciding factor later, if I had not thrown away my armour.

I didn't surrender due to the great force about to rush over me from the centre. I surrendered because I had no answer to Bil's tanks. From the point where the game finished, my take on it was that all my guys were going to get mown down by tanks no matter where they were: Bil's infantry was secondary at that point.

I could have put up a reasonable defences of MonteG with my right flank forces (remember that I had a ton of 81mm still available, so as soon as Bil's inf started to attack over MonteG they were in trouble)... if it were not for the fact that had I tried to do so, the tanks would have driven unopposed around the back of MonteG and torn me to pieces.

The only place where my inf was safe against his tanks, to defend against his inf, was tucked into the little valley on the right. Sitting out an hour of attrittion there wan't going to be a "battle" of any interest, hence I waved the flag.

As I mentioned before, I lost the game, pretty much, as soon as I moved my tanks away from my main infantry force on my right. They were supposed to be protecting those guys from Bils armour. Not going off on hunting missions.

Here is the place where I screwed up... when it was clear that P523 was solidly defended with tanks:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1429654&postcount=132

As I said in that post, I needed a Plan B ... but I chose a bad one. As Bil said (I agree with this) I remained married to the idea of a right flank push for too long. That inflexibility caused me to come up with a dumb idea: I was thinking to push his tanks back off P523 by threatening them from the Horrid Plateau and thus let me continue up the right flank. Really Bad Idea (dude, with your tanks over there, what was protecting the right flank infantry!?) ... end of game

GaJ

[sburke]

Counts as much as anyone else's around here and more than mine as I didn't have the chutzpah to take Bil on in a public AAR. It has been said and is worth repeating, thanks for loving the game enough to subject yourself to the merciless monday morning quarterbacks.

Bravo GAJ!

[GerryCMBB]

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the 2 PzIVs survived a bit longer. For sure unopposed armor killed it at the end.

Gerry

[Vinnart]

"Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions...He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent, and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain."

Sun Tzu

That is the best quote of the game, as it is such truth. I accredit my signature quote “Be Like Water” to Bruce Lee since I first heard it in an interview with him, but I am sure he learned it from Sun Tzu. If one learns one thing from this game it should be this philosophy. It can be applied to many facets of life.

[Michael Emrys]

That is the best quote of the game, as it is such truth. I accredit my signature quote “Be Like Water” to Bruce Lee since I first heard it in an interview with him, but I am sure he learned it from Sun Tzu. If one learns one thing from this game it should be this philosophy. It can be applied to many facets of life.

And Sun Tzu probably got it from Lao Tzu. Just who Lao Tzu may have learned it from is not known, but the idea has been a central part of Chinese philosophy back into the mists of time. It pops up in several places in the I Ching for instance.

Michael

[Bil Hardenberger]

And Sun Tzu probably got it from Lao Tzu. Just who Lao Tzu may have learned it from is not known, but the idea has been a central part of Chinese philosophy back into the mists of time. It pops up in several places in the I Ching for instance.

Michael

And picked up in more recent times by B.H. Liddell Hart with his Expanding Torrent:

If we watch a torrent bearing down on each successive bank or earthen dam in its path, we see that first it beats against the obstacle, feeling it and testing it at all points. Eventually it finds a crack at some point.

Through this crack pour the first driblets of water and rush straight on. The pent-up water on each side is drawn towards the flanks of the breach.. . wearing away the earth on each side, so widening the gap.

Simultaneously, the water behind pours straight through the breach between the side eddies which are wearing away the flanks. Directly (after) it has passed through it expands to widen once more the onrush of the torrent.

Thus Nature's forces carry out the ideal attack, automatically maintaining the speed, the breadth, and the continuity of the attack.

B.H. Liddell Hart

[Bil Hardenberger]

.

But I still haven't seen the massing of Bil's forces in the centre and the splitting of my forces as what decided *this* battle. It _may_ have been a deciding factor later, if I had not thrown away my armour.

I didn't surrender due to the great force about to rush over me from the centre. I surrendered because I had no answer to Bil's tanks. From the point where the game finished, my take on it was that all my guys were going to get mown down by tanks no matter where they were: Bil's infantry was secondary at that point.

How did I miss this?

GaJ, by the way, your opinion of course matters very much as you were on the opposing side and that carries a lot of weight. However, it's too bad your opinion is so wrong.

By the way you keep misspelling center, and armor. I thought I was the Brit in this scenario..

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't see how GaJ is wrong about the game being decided by the armor battle. Once his tanks were gone there was nothing left to prevent you from standing back outside of 'schreck range and pounding his infantry with impunity.

[Bil Hardenberger]

I'm just having some fun with him Vanir. Heh, maybe he'll do something silly and challenge me to a rematch eh?

[Andrew H.]

By the way you keep misspelling center, and armor. I thought I was the Brit in this scenario..

He had no answer to your amour?

[Michael Emrys]

Heh, maybe he'll do something silly and challenge me to a rematch eh?

To tell the truth, I kinda have a hankering to see you two pick up the battle where you left off. Yeah, yeah, I know, you both know each other's positions and intentions, so not much in the fog of war. But it would still be interesting to see how it could have played out, since GaJ is committed to the idea that it would have been Bil's tanks and not his infantry that would have done him in and Bil does not (quite) share that view.

Michael