315 human vs. human AAR

[JasonC]

In the Russian training thread, a question arose about whether one fight was easy against the AI but would be much tougher against a human. The scenario in question, 315 in my "class" scheme, was meant to teach infantry AT principles for the Russians in the early war period. The Russians have to defend a village with only AT mines and pioneer infantry (a company - also one platoon standard infantry and a few infantry heavy weapons), with no tanks or guns. The Germans get a full platoon of Pz IIIs, a Panzer Rifle platoon, and 105mm FO, plus a single armored car and a 50mm mortar.

I thought with good human play it would be tough to win as the Russians. Possible, but tough. Panther Commander thought the basic strategy used against the AI - stop the infantry, forcing the tanks to come into the village themselves, then be waiting for them with AT mines close to the objective and DCs - would also work against a human, as the Germans just do not have enough infantry depth. So we tried it, with me as the Germans.

We just finished. The Germans won a major victory on knockout points, inflicting 94 casualties while taking only 14, losing the armored car and one half squad, but little else. One TC was capped early, and 2 of the AC crew after they bailed. One scout half-squad riding the AC was reduced to a single man who routed off the map, early on. The other half of that squad was down to 2 men at the end. Other losses were a man or three from the remaining squads.

The Russians had one platoon HQ good order and hiding in some woods off the objective, one 5 man half squad pinned near it, and a pioneer with 7 men left pinned in rubble in the middle of the town, in the same rubbled building as 7 Germans (also pinned), and across the street from the remainder of the German platoon. All the rest of the Russians were dead or routed.

Only one German squad had 4 shots left, and the HQ had mid 20s - the rest were "low" and had been for some time. The German tanks were all close by with LOS and ammo, so that pioneer's days were numbered. PC wisely cease-fired before he lost it, with the game ending (my own ammo was so low I was on required cease fire).

The hits from the Germans were as follows -

105mm FO - 7 men

tanks - 16, 13, 12, 9

AC - 4 + 2 by the crew after bailing out

squads - 14, 10, 5 (for the 1/2 squad)

HQ - 3

50mm - 0

Basically the infantry took out their own number and did all the scouting, relieving the tanks from any AT attack the entire game. The tanks provided the bulk of the firepower, accounting for over half the KOs and most of the routs as well. Their MGs did most of it, the HE helping by pulverizing all the buildings in the village center, behind the 105mm barrage.

The AC was killed by a close assault ordinary grenade at 35m range. It ran to that distance with a area fire order right at the shooter location, but I forgot to check that he was still buttoned that turn. He wasn't, and the squad he pulled up next to capped the TC with its first shot. Being in shock, it failed to fire and suppress the shooter in reply, letting it get off the close assault.

The rest was methodical firepower. PC's AT mine locations could have been better - above all, farther from the objective. He was betting he'd stop the infantry cold and I'd have to run tanks right onto the flags at the end, and would hit a mine when doing so. It would have been better to put them more than 30m from any cover, in approach routes I'd use while avoiding a chance of infantry AT attack. I managed to move behind the AC much of the time, so it would have been the first to hit one.

For balance human vs. human, I think the Germans don't need more infantry, though they could use more infantry ammo from the few guys they have - max ammo, +50%. The Russians I'd consider adding additional teams - perhaps 2 FTs or 3 tank hunters, 2 ATRs, a 2nd 50mm mortar, and a sharpshooter. Or some subset of all that.

I do think the Russia could win with the existing force, particularly if the German makes mistakes or if the Russian gets lucky with the AT mines. But humans can crack this defense with this attacking force, without extra infantry required.

[Mad Russian]

I just realized that I didn't do the Soviet side of the AAR for this.

There are multiple reasons that I think this wasn't a quality playtest. None of that matters.

Jason wanted to know if the scenario could be won by the German forces as they were.

I agreed to playtest it against him to find out.

I made a bad assumption that I could seperate his infantry and stop the attack forcing the armor to then have to try to take the objectives with vehicle strength only.

That wasn't accurate. I thought that since the PxIII's only had 50mm guns that I could withstand their fire long enought to take out his infantry.

That wasn't correct. The tanks were the key weapon of the battle and I let them roam free by design.

So, Jason's goal was met. We proved without a shadow of a doubt that the scenario can be won by the Germans.

For those knowing nothing of the forces or setup though, IMO, it would be very hard to take the objective. This is another of those sceanrios that you could play several times to "get it right"!

It should prove a very good tutorial for German combined arms tactics as well as for Soviet engineers.

Good learning experience for me. I'll be much more careful of the lower gunned AFV's from now on.

[Hensworth]

JasonC's training scenarios are interesting in that they show how a unit could accomplish a task they might historically be required to perform.

Two platoons taking out an MG nest over open ground or some tanks reducing an infantry stronghold.

These scenarios are probably historically correct, but are not representative of your typical game of CM. In the typical game, you can expect your opponent to always have an effective response at his disposal. So using units in their most punishing way safe in the knowledge that your opponent can do nothing about it is a luxury you are very rarely afforded.

It's one of the interesting things, I find, of this metacampaign I'm involved in ( Onion Wars). There you do see the odd infantry company ending up in **** creek without an AT gun and getting hopelessly shredded by HE from tanks.

The hardest part of the game for most new players is to unlearn their natural 'if I have a T-34/85, he will probably have a Panther' reflex and seize an opportunity when it presents itself.

[ January 02, 2006, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Sgt_Kelly ]

[Runyan99]

Of course, in CMC we'll be forced to fight more of these asymetrical CMBB battles. Half of the art of CMC will be to try to avoid these on the defense, if possible, and to create them on the attack.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

Of course, in CMC we'll be forced to fight more of these asymetrical CMBB battles. Half of the art of CMC will be to try to avoid these on the defense, if possible, and to create them on the attack.

You are 100% correct. In either CM battles or operations, the object of the scenario is to fight. You know that going in. You also assume some sort of a balance to make it interesting for both gamers if it is a H2H game.

In CMC the situation will be much more representative of "normal" combat. The battles and operations represent what they are our attempts to find, identify and model those actions that meet the balance issue. Whether they are historically based or fictional. Most combat isn't like that. It's based on an imbalance of forces. As you pointed out the defense is trying to be too strong and the attacker is trying to be overpowering.

CMC should see those types of battles develop.And they should show the absolute requirement for a reserve of some sort for when you get into trouble.

Can't wait for it to get here.

[JasonC]

In my Kursk campaign, first day, I noticed how deeply ingrained the tactical lessons of perfectly balanced fights can sometimes go. The Germans managed to get several lopsided fights in which they had total armor superiority, with up to a company of armor in a leading KG, with infantry and pioneer and arty support, running into single Russian infantry companies with a few infantry heavy weapons. Typically the Russian AT force consisted of 4 ATRs and some AT mines. The terrain was open steppe, only a few clumps of trees or rough here or there, most of the time. The Russians frequently did have trenches, though.

The result for a long time was a serious inability of the Germans to capitalize on their armor edge. To avoid exposing tanks to feared ATGs, the German infantry led, consistently. It suffered from mortar and MG fire, which was delivered without giving more than sound contacts for some time. Occasional units would be full IDed and blow up by the tanks.

It was relatively rare that the German infantry even got close to any of the Russian squad positions. When they did, the Russians frequently got first trigger pull and took out a squad to a platoon. Then they would be blown up themselves by the supporting tanks. Over time, the result of all these fights was trading a platoon or so of attacking infantry for a similar number of defending infantry or heavy weapons crews, without decision. Sometimes the Germans lost a tank or two to AT mines or to bogging.

At some point the Germans realized - with prompting from me, frankly - that they were doing something wrong. They were leaning on the infantry to spare the tanks, in all situations. In a single QB that can be sensible. Just keeping your tanks alive and able to hit with impunity seems like it will be decisive, in a single fight perspective. And losing a platoon of infantry out of a company seems like an acceptable price to reduce risk to the tanks.

But repeat it every hour or two, and you will run out of infantry long before you break through the enemy positions. The German losses in pioneers were particularly unsustainable. When you have a dramatic armor edge, you need to cash it in, in the form of a full kill of the enemy force present, with modest losses to your own force - or into defeat of the enemy without any losses at all.

The Germans learned to lead with armor, aggressively. They took this too far on at least one occasion, giving the Russian infantry a chance to get a couple close assault kills. But instead of tickling the Russian front line companies, they started destroying them completely (at most, a ragged platoon would make it out).

Once that starts happening, the defender has to use his AT assets to try to attrite the attacking armor. But players to used to balanced QBs or have-everything scenarios, had to relearn the chain of tactics and escalation involved, in an operational context. Giving the other guy caution in your armor handling without him spending any ATGs to get it, will lose the war. When he does spend ATGs, you will lose a tank or two - but can make him pay by losing the ATGs, as well. (If you find operational concentrations of ATGs, you can also respond with concentration of your own artillery).

The overall handling of armor needed in any operational fight is much more aggressive than in single battles. You need to rely on them more, lean on them, let them carry the load. You can't treat them as primadonnas that all the other arms merely serve.