Tea Time. Beta AAR discussion threat. Not for Bill or Elvis ;-)

[Vinnart]

Bil's blitz assault to the back objective looks like it will catch Elvis completely off guard especially since the move seems not in Bil's usual play style. All those mines he planted over there will be such a waste now. Too bad he didn't put some antitank mines on that road Bil is using. I can hear Elvis yelling "Oh Sh-t! already!

[Holien]

Yes this is not going well...

Lets hope the German armour can swing it back...

I was surprised by brazen approach but as has been pointed out you can do some mental arithmetic and work out what might be left to face you..

I also think the game is close to release and the players might be playing slightly different than normal to speed the game up...

[sburke]

This keeps up and we are gonna need to form a support group for victims of the Hardenberger juggernaut.

[Holien]

I do think Elvis has made some poor choices.

The loss of his infantry on his left flank seems to be quite a major one. (He has skated over...)

Mind you even if he did stand and fight I think he would still have lost them as he has not got a good interlocked defence. He needs a co-ordinated approach and just having a group of Inf without support they are going to die... (He was just using rock in the rock paper scissors game and his opponent used all three. The result would have been the same but maybe with a few more deaths amongst Bil's forces)

Overall I think his forces have been spread too thinly, and being used piecemeal. He would have been better choosing perhaps just two locations to defend.

His tanks could turn it, but it does not look good....

But as ever, very easy to say when sat on the side lines....

I am looking forward to playing on this map and seeing what options there are.

[Battlefront.com]

What I love about Bil's rush to OBJ Gelb is how utterly Soviet it is! This is exactly what they did over and over again. Too many decades ago I read a great book that had interviews from some German commanders at Yelnia (1941) where the Soviets had their first big counter offensive that stuck. Over and over again the Germans would have a small part of their line pierced and tanks would rush through. The Germans were not prepared for this because to them it was suicidal. "Why don't they wait until they have a significant breach and sufficient forces to expand the breach?" is what they asked. The answer was, obviously, because a platoon of T-34s bumbling around behind the front might be suicide, but wow... what a mess the can cause! Totally disproportional to their numbers too.

So here's Bil doing exactly what one expects a Soviet commander to do. Peddle to the metal, no regard for flanks, no recon, and no plan beyond getting to where he's going. And if Elvis thought he could control the situation, that's now gone.

Of course it didn't help Elvis that Bil is a fan of "recon by fire" and that the one and only unit there got nailed.

Yup, I don't see Elvis doing much more than nibble a bit on Bil's victory. He lost too much infantry to do much more than that.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Mind you even if he did stand and fight I think he would still have lost them as he has not got a good interlocked defence

This is exactly why I would have let Blau go. He simply didn't have the forces necessary to hold all three Objectives given the nature of the terrain (which is decidedly unhelpful to him!).

Steve

[Skwabie]

Stay away from dense woods indeed where wild beasts and... soviet SMG squads reside!

[Vark]

Yup, in reality Bils T-34's and tank riders would clatter away from Gelb and see how far they could get and what mayhem they could cause. The Soviet doctrine has always believed that such actions can generate massive returns, which outweigh the risks and attendant losses and crucially can generate exploitable opportunities of their own. As Glantz used to warn, in Military Review, believing the Soviet Command system lacked initiative was a dangerous and potentially costly mistake.

I do think that this engagement has answered a question, posted on the old CM boards, who did borg spotting help the most? The answer seems to have been the defender, as the variable spotting seems to have helped Bil the most, especially shielding his main force.

Final question, why didn't Elvis integrate his mines with his defensive fire plan, ditto the fire support, and why not leave his armour in reserve, until he was certain he could ascertain Bil's real intent?

[BletchleyGeek]

Final question, why didn't Elvis integrate his mines with his defensive fire plan, ditto the fire support, and why not leave his armour in reserve, until he was certain he could ascertain Bil's real intent?

I didn't even know Elvis had mines - where did he put them? I am following only Bil's AAR and he hasn't run into any.

Nevertheless, you made a good question Vark. He held back his armour for quite some time, I think. The problem is that after that it looks to me he was trying to get revenge from that OT-34 (which he got) or assumed the OT-34 was the point of Bil's armour thrust. But it wasn't, and now his armour is badly dislocated. Armour which consists of a Panther and two turretless Hetzers. The latter two shouldn't be used to counterattack: having no turret and facing fast enemy tanks is bad news.

[Vark]

I think you might be right about revenge being a motivator. I remember a game of Warship Commander, where I foolishly used a flight of S-3 Vikings to attack a Soviet corvette. I lost two of the precious ASW assets and only lightly damaged the vessel. I then used a strike package of Harpoon armed F-18's to hunt down the offending vessel and blow it to pieces, but my obsession had totally dislocated my original strategy and I deservedly lost the game.

There could also be, for BF, a potentially more worrying explanation, CM1 allowed amateur gamers and professionals to fight on relatively equal terms, CM2 now brutally punishes that disparity, as we are witnessing at the moment.

[Vinnart]

I think the only chance Elvis has now is if he can perhaps get some armor back to Gelb fast to deal with those T-34's who will have their flanks to him once they stop. Maybe try to get 1x hetzer, and 1x Panther back there while keeping the rest of his armor to try to cover the rest of his front. Bil must stop for a turn to let his infantry off so Elvis will have 1 min at least to react if he isn't already moving toward Gelb. The other option is to just let it go, but I think that is riskier as Bil with then have armor behind him.

[BletchleyGeek]

I think you might be right about revenge being a motivator. I remember a game of Warship Commander, where I foolishly used a flight of S-3 Vikings to attack a Soviet corvette. I lost two of the precious ASW assets and only lightly damaged the vessel. I then used a strike package of Harpoon armed F-18's to hunt down the offending vessel and blow it to pieces, but my obsession had totally dislocated my original strategy and I deservedly lost the game.

Hehe, nice story Been there, done something like that... more so in games at this level of detail, where you can quite literally see people being shot to pieces or bbq'ed.

There could also be, for BF, a potentially more worrying explanation, CM1 allowed amateur gamers and professionals to fight on relatively equal terms, CM2 now brutally punishes that disparity, as we are witnessing at the moment.

There's indeed something about tactics going on here. But I'd say that the decisive factor is the ability to "keep it cool" and "keep the eyes on the prize". Armchair General or Actual General, losing ones nerves and messing things up is as old as the hills - it happened to Asdrubal in Illipa, it happened to Bil in the latter stages of his game against Ken.

I think the only chance Elvis has now is if he can perhaps get some armor back to Gelb fast to deal with those T-34's who will have their flanks to him once they stop. Maybe try to get 1x hetzer, and 1x Panther back there while keeping the rest of his armor to try to cover the rest of his front. Bil must stop for a turn to let his infantry off so Elvis will have 1 min at least to react if he isn't already moving toward Gelb. The other option is to just let it go, but I think that is riskier as Bil with then have armor behind him.

I'd keep the Hetzers in Blau - looks to me it's the typical Russian village stretching over almost 1 kilometer. Plenty of space to place hide and seek with those Hetzers, and with those Panzershcreks and Panzerfausts. I'd use the Panther as the bait, although I'm not sure of the chances of a lone Panther against three T-34/85's.

Indeed that's what I'd try to do, another matter is that I'd be able to make it work

[Michael Emrys]

This keeps up and we are gonna need to form a support group for victims of the Hardenberger juggernaut.

LOL!

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Stay away from dense woods indeed where wild beasts and... soviet SMG squads reside!

It would have been a close call, but I think the SMG menace could have been managed if he had been wilier in his tactics. Setting ambushes and waiting quietly for Bil's troops to blunder into them, then retiring quickly to the next position would have forced Bil to shoot off most of his ammo on empty positions, and the price he would have to pay to find the next one would be exacted in blood. The name of the game would be to wear Bil down without losing too many of your own men.

I suspect that in fact this is kind of what Elvis had in mind, but he couldn't pull it all together.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Yup, in reality Bils T-34's and tank riders would clatter away from Gelb and see how far they could get and what mayhem they could cause. The Soviet doctrine has always believed that such actions can generate massive returns, which outweigh the risks and attendant losses and crucially can generate exploitable opportunities of their own.

This reminds me of something I read on the Six Day War. According to this book, the instructions to the Israeli tank battalions in Sinai were basically simple. They were:

1. Get into the enemy's rear.
   
2. Raise a lot of hell.
   
3. Let us know what you are doing.
   

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

I think Elvis' plan for the mines was as a force multiplier to a small covering force along a secondary, but still probable, axis of advance (on Gelb or flanking Blau). But like German defense in the real wart for this area... too little.

For mines to work they need to be of significant density to be noticeable. If the enemy walks 2 squads through and zaps a couple in a 3rd, that's not really going to do much.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Would I be correct in presuming that AP mines are not depicting S-mines and similar? The casualties I've seen from AP minefields seem to result in one casualty generally (step on one, and you go boom), unless someone does something stupid or someone breaks under fire and runs. By contrast, in Penalty Strike, Pyl'cyn reports a single S-mine wiped out a platoon, this during an advance up a road. Luckily for him and his men, it wasn't his platoon that found the mine! My impression is that, in CMBN and such, AP mines seem to be less a blood-curdling threat than an annoyance (unless you're the guy who finds the mines the hard way). To me, it seems altogether too easy for standard infantry to deal with mines. Or am I imagining that to be the case? Would appreciate your thoughts on this, since the Germans will overall be on the defensive. As several Russian combat accounts I've read attest, the Germans used mines lavishly, often with barbed, wire, too. Of course, mines and obstacles must ever be covered with fire. Your point about mine density is well taken. In CMBO, I used to stack minefields!

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

it seems altogether too easy for standard infantry to deal with mines.

It might be that scenario designer tends to (subconsciously) see minefields as 'show stoppers'. You're on one side of the map and your objective is on the other with a minefield separating you - that's not exactly conducive to a fun evening's play. Back CMBN basegame I did do one 'demonstration' scenario. I had e a long string of barbed wire followed by a stretch of open land covered by HMG entrenchments. I admit I went pretty light on the sewn mines. I could have easily turned it into a scenario that nobody liked playing.

[BletchleyGeek]

It might be that scenario designer tends to (subconsciously) see minefields as 'show stoppers'. You're on one side of the map and your objective is on the other with a minefield separating you - that's not exactly conducive to a fun evening's play. Back CMBN basegame I did do one 'demonstration' scenario. I had e a long string of barbed wire followed by a stretch of open land covered by HMG entrenchments. I admit I went pretty light on the sewn mines. I could have easily turned it into a scenario that nobody liked playing.

I think the trick is to have those obstacles covering the 'obvious' approaches (i.e. there are various feasible approaches to the objectives), or providing the attacker with some means to deal with it (engineers to mark them, time to maneuver around the obstacle).

The fun bit is to discover those minefields - that can indeed make people jump out of their chairs. The un-fun bit comes when you can't do anything about it. I mean, an scenario featuring the point platoon of the point regiment of the 11th Armoured Division in Operation Epsom isn't much fun, really.

EDIT: it was the 11th, not the 7th Armoured division

[womble]

...Pyl'cyn reports a single S-mine wiped out a platoon...

And people complain that squads bunch up too much in CM?!! Personally, I find this difficult to credit, unless "wiped out" doesn't mean "killed or injured the majority of the element".

...in CMBN and such, AP mines seem to be less a blood-curdling threat than an annoyance...

I think that's more a consequence of their limited employment than their lack of lethality. Maybe their effects could be boosted a bit; I've never lost as many men to a single AP mine explosion as I have to the worst grenade hit I can think of, and that doesn't seem right (though it's a small sample, given the rarity of mines); those Bouncing Bettys seem quite a lot bigger than a potato masher and more likely to explode at an effective height while the potential targets are presenting a large CSA to the blast/frags.

...To me, it seems altogether too easy for standard infantry to deal with mines. Or am I imagining that to be the case?

The only ways "standard" infantry can "deal" with mines are, AFAIK:

• Go around them. This is probably easier in most CM scenarios than IRL, due to the low density of mine belts; I don't think I've come across a contiguous line of mine ASs ever; they're more a "random checkerboard".
  
• Pass through them. Going Slow can be pretty painstaking if you don't know where all the mines are, and if the field is covered by fire, you'll be wanting to neutralise that MG/field piece/squad without being able to close on them before attempting to cross. Or you can take your chances and run across.
  

It takes Engineer specialists to actually deal with mines.

Would appreciate your thoughts on this, since the Germans will overall be on the defensive. As several Russian combat accounts I've read attest, the Germans used mines lavishly, often with barbed, wire, too. Of course, mines and obstacles must ever be covered with fire. Your point about mine density is well taken. In CMBO, I used to stack minefields!

I think if you're going to use mines, "lavishly" is the only way to go. 10 AP mines cost, in QB terms, about the same as a platoon, maybe a bit less. That doesn't seem unreasonable, in terms of combat/casualty infliction/area denial power. I think you have to have a good plan for them; they need to go where the enemy has to go, or really wants to go, so that if they don't work directly, they discommode him positionally. Ideally they should be integrated with other units, in the same way a platoon's defensive positions should be integrated with those of the rest of their company.

There's been some comment of the Russians using the "next orglevel up" to do a given job. Perhaps that's an argument for RT games to be generally based on more points, but the Germans relying (while defending) more on mines and wire, and keeping their actual troop numbers down, so we actually see 3:1 advantages in personnel for the attacker, which are necessary to overcome the defender's fortifications?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Cymru]

Should the number of mines that you can purchase be affected by the type of battle or scenario? Units that are in well-prepared defenses might have had time to lay extensive minefields, while others might have had no time for more than a couple of quick AT mines on the main road.

[womble]

Should the number of mines that you can purchase be affected by the type of battle or scenario? Units that are in well-prepared defenses might have had time to lay extensive minefields, while others might have had no time for more than a couple of quick AT mines on the main road.

Indeed it "should", but it isn't. Partly because the only distinction that matters that the game can detect is "Meeting Engagment or not". Just because the attacker is Probe-ing, it doesn't mean the defense is necessarily any more or less established than if they're conducting an Assault. And using mines in a QB ME (or as the attacker) is probably more than a little pointless, since you'll only be able to place them in your setup zone, which is hardly the place the enemy's going to be defeated, you'd hope.

In scenarios, it's up to the designer to "set the scene" in whatever way they think is appropriate. If they don't like the dynamic of deep mine belts, they can still have a prepared position, but the local sector has a mine shortage (as described in one of the missions in the german campaign A moment in time). It's probably harder to rationalise a hurried defense having thousands of mines deployed, but if the designer wants a hurried defense, he'll probably not use hundreds of mines.

[RockinHarry]

I understand this particular QB setup is meant to portray oncoming CMRT game play, but for plain tactical considerations, the VL setup is quite artificial and limiting to both players. Amount of forces, as well as map features considered, this most likely would´ve been a german rear guard action, vs. russian spearhead, with germans attempting to use the small river and large adjoining woods as forward line of resistance and main AT obstacle. With VL scattered at rather unimportant places AND known, as well as beeing the same for both players, this setup gives little choices for true tactical thinking and acting actually. Elvis is artificially enforced to neglect any point of main effort by his own choice, as is Bil who has to take the same meaningless VL, just in order to "win".

If this would be a true mission, instead of QB setup, the russian player would be rather assigned a rather simple "exit VL" objective near northern map edge and the german simply to delay and destroy enemy units, while making a fighting withdrawal. The map is perfect for that purpose, since it offers covered retreat almost everywhere. Instead the germans are tied to scattered VL in nowhere and thus doomed to be destroyed for nothing at last. So personally I´d wished for a more imaginative and creative setup, even if that´s not the actual purpose of this AAR.

[BLSTK]

Everyone's a critic, including me.

Elvis has done well to delay Bil as long as he has at BLAU. A better use of his AP mines would have been on the approach to BLAU instead of at GELB. In fact, I would have conceded GELB entirely. Rather than risk spreading a thin defense even thinner, all of his assets should have been placed in a single quadrant. His goal: to hold BLAU as long as possible before falling back to a Glorious Last Stand at ROT.

Easier said than done.

[BLSTK]

@ womble

Sorry, I just read your post.

Was placing mines at BLAU not an option? If so, then this is one of the limitations of the game during the set-up phase and should be corrected. (As if the "deck" weren't already stacked against the defender).