Attempted AAR: Tactical Criticisms Welcome...

[Tux]

I have just sent my orders for Turn 12. Since I'm basically waiting and hoping that Steve messes up somehow, they were very brief. I'm using my central mortar FO to keep hitting the trees at D, hoping he'll strip the onwards-rushing T-34s of their infantry support. My nearest FO is now free to land smoke within 2 minutes if the tanks get close enough.

I've made sure all my unsupressed MGs are up and firing, hidden the forward squads at A, and assigned my ATRs to button the KV in the rocky patch halfway down the slope.

That's it, I'm afraid. Now I simply pray.

[Tux]

Turn 12

Not many developments during Turn 12 I'm afraid. Steve's accompanying email has commented that he didn't realise I had such paltry AT assets available until he checked the list yesterday - he expected me to be able to threaten the T-34s at least. He readily admits that the two KVs are revenge for the Sturmtiger though, lol.

His T-34s have stopped predictably short of close assault range and wide of the AT mines.

My T-26s are under KV fire because Steve wants to see what happens to one when it takes a 152mm penetration! They have, however, made contact with his troops and are firing with main guns next turn.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Finns don't have any heavy or medium PAKs in 1941. that 45mm gun on those T-26s is the best AT gun available. still, the chances for nailing a T-34 with T-26s is only theoretical, and less than that for KVs.

buying trenches and mines was a good idea, but you really should have bought at least a couple of tank hunters, as they are the number one Finnish AT weapon during that period.

that game would have been a lot more interesting if you had moved it forward in time a couple of months so that Finns get stuff like captured T-34s or if you would have had a bit more trees

[Tux]

That's true, I think it might have been. Ah well, we weren't to know...

Turn 13

Everyone keeps firing at each other without any major developments - you know what it's like, lol. All forces are committed and all I can do is wait for Steve to move into my mines etc.

I'd post a screenshot but if you just imagine the lost contact markers from Turn 12 moved 15-20m further forwards then you've seen all there is to see.

[Tux]

I'm afraid very little of interest is happening at the moment. Steve's just doing his bit by hurling seven shades of whotsit at my forces, lol.

Unless there are any objections I might just report back here once something worthy of note happens? The posts will be mostly pointless otherwise.

[Tux]

It's Turn 16 and I'm well on the way to a heavy defeat. Steve's KV-2s have damaged the guns on two of my T-26s and killed the TC of the third. The two with damaged guns are on their way back to the repair depot.

Apart from that my units at A are in a generally sorry state. I'm basically still waiting for him to get close enough for my infantry squads to hurt his men and tanks.

It's not such bad news in all of our games though. In one battle I've been able to expend an entire battery load of 105mm HE at him to support my advance. I had four howitzers cannoning away for about ten minutes and in desparation he managed to get a plaoton HQ close enough to assault one. The result?

Lol, that was a sweet one.

[DavidFields]

I like that you play QBs with so many turns, to allow for maneuver (and it puts ammo use as an important component).

But, everything being equal, doesn't that advantage the attacker?

Given any particular attack/defense point ratio, I would think a 45 turn scenario is going to look a lot different than a .....15 turn one.

[Tux]

That's a very good point, Rankorian, and one we hadn't considered. As you mention, we like the large turn limit because it allows for more interesting manoeuvres to be attempted, even if they happen to be time-consuming. Also I think it makes it more historically accurate in all but a minority of cases, doesn't it?

We may have to think that through though. In some scenarios it may conceivably be the case that a defender has insufficient ammunition to hold off the attacker for 45 minutes (I'm thinking most likely in infantry-heavy scenarios).

[JasonC]

A good solution to "long equals attacker wins by ammo default" issues is to require either side to "offer ceasefire" if its global morale is below some "ELR" threshold. Agree before the game what those are for attacker and defender, and set them well above the auto-surrender levels.

That allows plenty of time for maneuvering, but dissuades a side that thinks it can win from firing off all its ammo, or accepting high losses to run the enemy "out". You can still press home a win if you are in decent enough shape yourself, because obviously you don't have to offer ceasefire if you are above your threshold. But once a side is messed up enough, the other side can "call it".

That is more realistic than endless time, limited ammo, and men willing to fight to the death after rallying n times. The longer you let the clock run, the more "rally time" there is, overall. Ammo doesn't rally. In the real world, it can be resupplied at least as easily as the men's bravery can be restored after being shot to rags.

[JasonC]

URD - true, the Finns get no heavy PAK. They don't even get decent field artillery, which they actually had. I guess they are supposed to by in woods using demo charges from their Sissi squads...

The best gun the Finns have in 1941, though, is not the 45mm on the captured tanks. It is the 40mm AA gun. That is so fast and accurate it actually has a non-zero chance of wrecking even T-34s with gun damage and track hits, and it will penetrate all the light types that a Russian 45mm can handle. Much better anti-infantry firepower, too, from a double sized ammo load, double sized rate of fire, and 27 blast rating per "salvo".

If I had to defend in this sort of terrain with Finns, I'd build the defense around a full battery of those 40mm AA guns - 4 of them. Plus 3 Maxims, a single on board 81mm, and a 105mm FO with 2 TRPs in place of all the little "mini-81" FOs. For ambush stuff up front, not AT mines, nor flame tanks - take 2 veteran Sissi platoons instead. You can still afford trenches and a belt 200 meters long of mixed wire and mines - in this case, used to block the crater field on the Finnish left. Same point cost at what you had.

5 ubertanks would still probably beat it, but at least they'd need to KO 4 entrenched guns before the Russian infantry would have a prayer of crossing the open or getting through the obstacles. The initial ambush in the trees on the right wouldn't be a vulnerable half squad dying on contact, and a few flame tanks trying to get off even one shot. It'd instead be 30 veteran SMGs and 8 demo charges on a reverse slope.

If the terrain were a bit better or the attacker a bit careless, and the AA guns could open on 1-2 tanks at a time, they might even wreck several before being lost themselves. 4 40mm AA can send nearly 50 shells downrange, accurately, per minute. Each with a non-zero chance of significant damage to an AFV, even without any penetrations.

FWIW...

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I guess they are supposed to by in woods using demo charges from their Sissi squads...

yeah, by tank hunter close attacks. it's pretty hard to simulate it in CM as few players are silly enough to move their tanks close enough to trenches or woods.

The best gun the Finns have in 1941, though, is not the 45mm on the captured tanks. It is the 40mm AA gun.

i agree, that 40mm Bofors AA gun is another good choise. considering the open map it would be a better choise than T-26s. in maps with more broken terrain it might be hard to find good firing positions.

[Tux]

All good points again, thanks.

I didn't know about the effectiveness of the 40mm AAA, so I'll definitely bear that in mind in future.

Most of the other suggestions, even though they're perfectly good and valid, would rely on my having known the terrain beforehand I think. I think I might suggest we use pre-made maps more often to Steve. I know he'll be all for it; it's me who insisted on more random maps. It's just a shame that occasionally someone geets completely screwed over by the terrain.

[JasonC]

URD - Rune made some realistic Finland maps that showed the usefulness of infantry close assault against armor. The trick is just to have roads that go through endless tracks of forest, with occasional modest clearings or a small village etc. 80% of the map can only be traversed by any vehicle, at all, if it stays right on the road. And it has decent LOS along the road, for as long as it is going straight - but precious little off to either side. That is the way to show the real importance of infantry and close assault tactics in "taiga".

If you don't move within 20 meters of forest, you flat do not move.

[John Kettler]

Tux,

A 40mm AA can ruin just about any tank's day. Rate of fire's high enough to pose a real threat of gun damage, maybe get a weak spot hit, but what it can definitely do is remove the tracks.

I think it might do some good work on weak lower hull side armor, too. I've taken out a pair of Tiger 1s in a single game via M-Kill with a Bofors

40mm. Unfortunately, though I Immobilized them, the crews didn't bail, instead stayed and fought. Call their LOS embarrassing to my plans! Be sure to dig the Bofors in, preferably in a trench. Rather deficient in the gunshield department.

Regards,

John Kettler

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by JasonC:

URD - Rune made some realistic Finland maps that showed the usefulness of infantry close assault against armor. The trick is just to have roads that go through endless tracks of forest, with occasional modest clearings or a small village etc. 80% of the map can only be traversed by any vehicle, at all, if it stays right on the road. And it has decent LOS along the road, for as long as it is going straight - but precious little off to either side. That is the way to show the real importance of infantry and close assault tactics in "taiga".

If you don't move within 20 meters of forest, you flat do not move.

yeah i have played those. with such setting things work like one would expect. it's harder to get realistic results in more open maps. after all, most of the tanks were not destroyed by ambushing them on a forest road. but i guess it has more to do with CM being a game played by humans than CM having some failings as such.

[Tux]

I might suggest one of those scenarios to Steve next, I think.

Ok, as a minor update Turn 20 has just been played. Unfortunately things have progressed much as one would have expected Steve to make sure they did. His KVs have taken out two of my T-26s after damaging their guns first, and Steve's T-34s got the third.

I currently have mortars falling on Steve's nearby infantry, but I no longer have enough well-ordered HMGs to follow it up and force them back.

The only intact forces I have are the entrenched platoon on the far left. They should still be able to bloody the noses of Steve's infantry once they get close enough.

If there ever was the slightest chance that I might salvage something from this fight, it has evaporated with Steve's (fully expected) reluctance to endanger his armour too near to my lines. I hit the ceasefire button several turns ago, but I don't think it's going to save me from a total defeat here.

I've taken all your hints and suggestions on board, and shall remember them next time I fight with the Finns.

[Heinrich505]

Tux,

Good read. I followed your actions with interest. These are always fun to read, and your pictures bring the fight to us in vivid fashion. I wonder how things might have gone if your flame tanks hadn't been hull down. It could have made a difference on that flank, and then caused your opponent to proceed more cautiously. Just a thought.

Heinrich505

[Tux]

That's just one of the big lessons I've learnt here; to check that I'm not 'blinding' my own vehicles.

The fight isn't quite over yet. I will make sure to post a screenshot of the results when it is.