Kursk Strongpoints

[Der Alte Fritz]

Have been looking at RKA site and their excellent maps. There are several detailed ones of divisional positions in the main Kursk defensive zone and I am trying to transfer these to a CMBB map to see what they look like. On several of the maps are AT gun strongpoints with up to 20 guns in them. What did they look like in reality?

cheers

[JasonC]

You make a position with bastions at ends or corners, frequently laid out like a trapezoid (two narrower front, 2 wider behind). In each there are 2 or 4 guns, which face two different directions, right-front or left-front e.g. All of them oriented outward from the overall position, spikes around the hub. They therefore get crossfire at the locations between the bastions themeselves. When there are 4 at a location they have 2 facing each way, not facing more ways.

The rear positions can be 400 yards from the front ones. The front are frequently 45mm caliber and the rear usually 76mm caliber, though the strongest positions might have all 76mm. The 45mm are thought of as having an effective range of about 400m and the 76mm are thought of as having about twice that. They want to overlap their ranges it possible, though.

Usually there are also ATRs associated with each of the subnests, facing at other points on the compass initially. There may also be strings of them between the subnests, or infantry positions there, or MG positions interleaved with them in checkerboard fashion. Frequently there is an infantry reserve position in the middle of the whole strongpoint, with up to a third of the available infantry force.

Indirect artillery would also be registered on the forward face of the strongpoint and its immediate flanks.

Then the MGs, infantry heavy weapons, and indirect artillery all try to strip any accompanying infantry from tanks outside the "convex hull" of the ATG positions. Tanks that approach the whole position are left alone until they come within about 400 yards. Then the guns with flank angles engage first. If the tanks reorient on those, the other nests that get new flanks as a result open fire in succession.

If one or more of the nests is KOed and the enemy armor enters the strongpoint, all the guns reorient inward. Anything inside will definitely suffer multiple flanking angles, unless all the forward positions have already been silenced. Infantry teams (in CM terms, ATRs tank hunters and DC equipped pioneers) also help if the armor gets inside the perimeter, and finish off bailed out crews (tommy gunners accompany them for this purpose, also to strip any protecting infantry etc).

See the idea?

[Tagwyn]

In reality, it worked well for the Red Army as they knew when\where\etc. the attacks were coming thanks to go ole' radio intercepts of Axis plans. Tag

[Der Alte Fritz]

I see. I assume that you mean that we are looking at a flattened diamond shape with a depth of around 400m and width of 600m? So to put one of these positions onto a CMBB map would require the bulk of the defenders side of the map. I will have a go at constructing one soon based on the 375th Rifle Div map that I have of AT defences at Kursk. The NTP No1 position has 20 76mm guns and 23 ATR.

I have put one of the first line Bn of the 375th on a CMBB map and was suprised by the amount of "space" there was.

[coe]

so they worked? out of curiosity what were casualty ratios when attacking those strongpoints and how were they overcome?

[JasonC]

The Germans readily overcame them when they massed sufficient armor on a narrow axis. The guns wound up trading off for attacking tanks, though the latter were generally recovered (they end the day in a "repair" category, not TWO).

The Germans lost about 25 men per battalion-day attacking such defenses, though the first day doubled that. The Russians often lost a third of the defending force each day, and front line divisions were fought out in two days, with only rear area forces and cadres of the combat elements remaining.

The main means of defeating them was simple concentration of armored force - a full panzer regiment put on a frontage of 1-2 km, tops. The net effect of having layers of them everywhere was that German penetrations behind their concentrated armor were narrow, as small side forces could not easily dislodge them. The Russian defense holds where it is not hit hard by concentrates stuff; where it is so hit it is destroyed, though at some attrition cost to the attackers.

Note also that the need to concentrate the tanks on a narrow axis tended to multiply the effects of Russian mine defenses, and to a lesser extend made their spoiling barrage artillery fire more effective (mostly it is true against the supporting arms, rather than the tanks themselves). The German tanks were regularly sent to the shops by hits in the course of this, and most of the tank fleet turned over in a week.

The foremost German armor was occasionally checked by gun front positions like this, as those tanks were often strung out front to back and artillery coordination suffered in the depths of the Russian defenses etc. They would typically either shift direction or send infantry first with strong artillery support the following day.

The other main way of stopping armor, particularly concentrated armor, was to send an equal sized T-34 force directly opposite and invite a brawl. Which was expensive in tanks lost but usually did check the attack, at least for half a day or so.

[JasonC]

tag - on the radio intercepts point, the intel really wasn't that tactical. They knew about the offensive certainly, and its general objectives. But they had to defend hundreds of km of front and did not know which specific areas would be heavy points. When they reacted and sent up their reserves, they did so based on front line reports of where the blow was hardest, and sometimes missed the main effort location by a whole corps' width. Which is hardly a sign intel was doing everything for them.

[The_Enigma]

Jason,

I have just read through your 1st post, excellent stuff but am having a bit of a hard time trying to image what the defences must have been like.

So from your description, I’ve came up with this crude drawing (not to any scale but just to see if this is what you want):

link to pic (dont be expecting a masterpiece hehe

the open trapezoid and lines representing the AT batteries, the circles representing infantry/mg/atr positions, the grey box the possible infantry reserve section and the + reprinting TRP for the arty.

This a decent representation of what you have described in your opinion?

Edit:

The other main way of stopping armor, particularly concentrated armor, was to send an equal sized T-34 force directly opposite and invite a brawl. Which was expensive in tanks lost but usually did check the attack, at least for half a day or so.

I take this is what the 5th Guards tank army did to the II.SS-Panzerkorps and the Grossdeutschland then?

Just basically slammed right into them to halt there attack?

I read that on the 14th a report stated that the 29th Tank Corp had lost 60% of its tanks, totally or on a temporary basis, and 18th Tank Corp - 30%. In all over 400 tanks.

And a week after the fighting in Guards army area had ended, they still had around 180 tanks in the workshops.

A hefty price to pay it would seem but it worked.

[ August 24, 2006, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: the_enigma ]

[JasonC]

5th TA was a waste and unnecessary. The Germans were stopped before it was thrown away, by its mere arrival, and they could have accomplished the mission by simply pulling into position opposite the Germans, with several brigades left back in local reserve etc.

Vatutin used his own armor correctly on the Russian right, southern face. Which stopped 48 Pz corps starting from its left flank, and including GD, before 5th Tank Army reached the battle.

On the Russian left - German right, the Russians fought well before 5th TA arrived, in particular their counterpunching at the long eastern flank of the SS corps penetration. Which was not the same as counterpunching the fists.

At the climax, the successful Russian action was on their right, German left end of the SS corps line, against SS-T. Its Panzer regiment was overextended, beyond the bulk of the division, in a narrow salient to the north, well to the west of SS-DR and the rest of the leading elements of the corps. The Russians sent 5th Guards Mech corps at the SS-T spearhead, supplimented by the remaining RD forces in the area, and behind a strong barrage. SS-T lost heavily in tanks as a result and was ejected from the salient there.

That and simply positioning the bulk of 5th TA in front of the rest of the SS corps would have been quite sufficient to stop what remained of the German offensive, without any wild charges. Propaganda trying to defend those wild charges as somehow clever is just that, and excuses a whole unnecessary fearsome f'up. Its cause was doctrinal - the mucket mucks thought they got more balls points for attacking to "seize the initiative". Vatutin knew better and it showed in his performance. Rotmistrov was unskilled by comparison, and got dramatically less out of his force.

[The_Enigma]

Very impressive,

Cheers

As for the crude diagram is that a "!decent" representation?

[JasonC]

Here is a schematic of the sort of layout I mean

The red outline is the nominal strongpoint perimeter. It is screened in front and front-flanks by AT minefields - artillery would also be registered in those areas.

The guns are shown at the corners of the trapezoid. I drew 2 for each corner, though each might actually be 2 guns oriented on each of the directions shown.

In the interior are 4 MG positions, which would be single Maxims in trenches or log bunkers in CM terms. There are two infantry platoon positions, one forward and one right. Those would be trench "stars" and occupied by 3-4 squads and an HQ. There is a main infantry position in the center-rear, which is marked as a company. It would really be the bulk of a company but slightly reduced by detachment of platoons etc. That would be a regular trench position, perhaps 2 parallel rows, and would include dugouts to shelter from artillery fire and mortar pits. Any attached FO would also be there.

Unmarked, all around the red perimeter line there could be strung pairs of ATR plus TH, or split half squad listening posts from the last squad of the forward platoons, or a pioneer section of HQ and 2 DC equipped squads, a sniper on the back wall perhaps, the odd dummy MG position in the form of a DP LMG, etc. Alternately there might be a pioneer section or a section of 3 THs with the central company initially.

The perimeter line and/or the central infantry position might also have wire, or not, depending on how long the position had to prepare. If available it would be strung 100m or so out in a continuous belt, with an occasional gap. Two thirds or so of the gaps would be AP mined. (This allows sallies etc).

A typical location for the infantry bits would be in a balka (dry run-off gully) or behind a low rise, or in a scrap of denser vegetation. The MG positions might be on small stony rises or in rubbled buildings, giving somewhat better fields of fire and clearer long range views etc.

[ August 24, 2006, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[The_Enigma]

Great stuff *feels a CM scenario coming on ... if i get the time *

[DavidFields]

Would artillery be used as a counter-response to such a strong-point?

[JasonC]

You can shell it as soon as you locate it accurately, sure. But the men have dugouts as well as trenches, and the whole position is large enough that they are spread reasonably far from one another, not under the footprint of single shells, there are multiple and therefore redundant weapon positions etc. It helps tanks engage such a position if it is under artillery fire as they approach, because it keeps heads down and the dust reduces spotting, and may take out a modest portion of the weapons directly. That is ordinary combined arms. But you can't just send some shells over and consider the position neutralized. It will still be there when the barrage lifts and will still spit AP shot.

[Der Alte Fritz]

Looks good. So I shall start digging my trenches right away.

My other project was to put the 3rd Bn 1241th Regt 375th Rifle Division on a map following the RKA map. On that map it is marked as occuping position bNTY No6 and has the big AT position behind it with 20 AT guns. The infantry position is described as having 2 76mm AT guns (NTP) 4 45mm AT guns and 9 ATR. Looks like the Bn is spread over about 1000m front. When you put this onto a CMBB map the company defensive positions are pretty spread out. What sort of defensive positions would they be occupying?

schematic

http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/maps/1943SW/Kursk/1241Reg_375RD_Kursk_s46reg_Jul05_43.jpg

topographical

http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/maps/1943SW/Kursk/375th_RflDiv1943.jpg

[DavidFields]

As a historical answer, I assume from the discussions here that the Germans used armor to deal with these positions. But from a rock/paper/sissors perspective, it would seem that HE would be the counter of choice: with air recon, and either fixed artillery, indirect SPA, or air.

The moderen doctrine is that if you can find an enemy, you can kill him (or, to a newer degree, her). A "strong-point" seems to me to beg for a barrage. The German doctrine may not, historically, have adapted.

[Der Alte Fritz]

Quite true as far as it goes. But this strongpoint is just one part of a defensive system that might be 30km in depth. A heavy artillery barrage (or even modern guided artillery) will blow apart individual strongpoints but you cannot move your artillery forward quickly enough or supply it rapidly enough to destroy the entire system and the enemy artillery will also play its part. See JasonC other posts on how these individual positions were individually overwhelmed but the casulatlies they caused and the sheer depth of the defences ground the heaviest German attack down. Mobile reserves would interveen when the attack was slowing and along the flanks to further damage the enemy.

cheers

[JasonC]

Also artillery simply doesn't completely eliminate forces in full cover. It causes loss, demoralizes, reduces effectiveness temporarily through loss of visibility and stun effects and by driving everyone as deep as possible. But there is no way a 100 shells fired at an area 400m wide or so and equally deep can hit every one of the defenders. More likely it bleeds them 10-20% at best, and if only a short barrage by field caliber stuff, only a few percent. The reason is the men are deep in trenches or dugouts, not walking around above the surface.

Artillery can have decisive operational effects from the cumulative loss it inflicts on large enemy formations over a time scale of a few weeks, but individual shoots won't KO a position, and the next line back just tops off the losses, spreading the pain throughout the depth of the enemy army. In modest action, the front line forces are relieved every week or so by the parallel units (battalion for battalion e.g.) cycling into local reserve.

In a big offensive like Kursk they were blown through in more like 48 hours, without being relieved in place - but it took maneuver element assault to do that, not artillery fire. When the point is to remove a position completely, to get rid of it, sending serious maneuver forces for direct fire action is the only realistic way to do so. Annihilate fire on a dug in defense is possible, but requires literally hundreds of 210mm howitzers firing for days, as was occasionally managed in WW I - not a few divisional batteries firing for 15 to 30 minutes.

Incidentally, the modern doctrine is also flawed. Stand off firepower is great if you also create a ground threat that forces the enemy to thickly man his front, and actual attacks or probes to bring his men to the surface, force them to maneuver above ground etc. Those all give artillery and other firepower arms the conditions it needs. If you try to use it solo the enemy just goes deep and can shrug it all off - witness the indecisiveness of the IDFs recent outings etc.

[DavidFields]

Nice analysis. Thanks.

The CM scale of battles, though wonderful to play, sometimes makes it hard for me to visualize the true scale of large WW-2 maneuvering elements. Artillery is particularly challenging. No one is going to make a scenario where the attacker only has artillery, and just pounds a position for 30 minutes with area-fire salvos--at least, I don't recall a scenario like that, though if I had the strongpoint map that is being developed per this topic, it might be an interesting exercize to see what would happen in such a case in CM.

And yes, "modern" doctrine--with its almost videogame element of kills from afar--may now be going "post-modern" due to that latest skirmish. As usual, adaptive defense tactics will initially be considered "unfair" by those who want to stay with previous doctrine.

[Der Alte Fritz]

I have two scenarios were artillery is the main arm. One is a German company position that you can pound with a variety of different guns. Rather dull really. But the other is a small Russian unit on the far side of a river that will be over run unless the artillery can stop a German attack by company sized forces and tanks. Only plays vs AI but you could make your own with different play balance for H2H.

cheers

[z-warfare]

bump, out of curiosity - what became of any scenarios involving these sorts of strongpoints? Haven't searched, lazy.