German defensive doctrine on a river

[vulture]

I'm designing a scenario (Russian attack) which is based on the old 'cross that river' type of thing. It's going to be fictional, but I want the default German defensive setup to be moderately historical in style. The map is going to be fairly large (3km square, maybe 4 km), with a few small villages / hamlets (two, three max), a fair amount of tree cover, and hilly terrain - i.e. short LOS for the majority of areas on the map. What did German defensive doctrine call for in this kind of situation? Defenders are going to be dug in - they'll have been holding this line for a while.

I'm thinking that the 'obviously wrong' approach would be for the Axis troops to dig in near the bank and shoot across the river at advancing Russians.

My best guess for a good German approach would be to set up the defenders in positions hidden (as much as possible) from the Russian side of the river, and able to fire on the crossings (bridges or fords) and on kill zones on the German side of the river. That way Russian units come into the firing line one at a time to be picked off, and they can't mount and decent suppressive fire on the defenders (aside from that 152 mm artillery barrage...)

Would that be a 'realistic' approach for defending a river (in CMBB terms anyway, where a river crossing in inflatable boats in the dark can't be modelled so easily).

[imported_no_one]

I am actually glad that someone posted this as I am curious about real life German river defensive doctorine.

I am playing a late war operation in which I am forced to only be able to setup on my side of the river.I simply can not believe this is the way it was done.If you defend only one side of a river you will eventually lose.Either through flat out force,or through setip zones "giving" the attacker setup zones on the other side of the river when they actually didnt earn it.Plus there is just no cushion for the defender to have any mistakes/misfortune.

The smart way to defend a river is with a defensive bridgehead on the attackers side.You will want all support weapons to be able to support the troops on the other side,as well as having some re-inforcements ready to go across to help.Give the defender TRPs on all major crossings.I dont care if its a ad-hoc defense,even an idiot would have the crossings TRP'd.I had to actually rush troops across shallow fords to get this setup,but it is/was effective.It would have been very effective had I been able to actually setup that way.

Look for reverse slope defensive features for your defensive bridgehead.Have all your AT assets keyholed at likely crossings.Have sharpshooters keep the tanks buttoned up,and either have your HMGs in command with a HQ that provides a plus to firepower and stealth,or have them far enough away so that they wont get spotted.Give the defender some transports that are large enough to move ATGs.If you dont,they will eventually be found and even if keyholed,can be area fired at,and KO'd,even without LOS to them.

Thats the best I can give you.I look forward to hearing what real life German defensive doctorine was for river defense.

[Lucho]

In German defensive doctrine a river is like an obstacle. To pretent the enemy from going over a obstacle, it has to be guarded and swept by fire, like a minefield or barbed wire. Normally the Allies found German defences in position of key areas behind the river in order to deny an expansion of the first bridgehead. Then artillery would plaster the bridgehead, until the attacker would retreat his forces or the Germans have managed to form a counterattacking force.

[imported_no_one]

Not trying to threadjack,but how did the russians do it?

[Sgt Joch]

This may help.

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Wray/wray.asp#elastic

[Joachim]

Any bridgehead is vulnerable to arty fire. Bridgeheads must be expanded as soon as possible. If you are on the defenisve with limited reserves, a bridgehead on the other side of a river is very dangerous. It is very hard to reinforce and is a perfect target.

The way to go is to have extensive trenches at the banks that are guarded, but not fully defended until the attacker enters the river. Have obstacles on your side of the river to prevent the attacker from crossing it. Once the attacker is exposed, race your troops forward to man the trenches. Don't forget to bring in the arty - it is able to reduce buched up waves to a size that can be handled by less but well entrenched men.

Have a second line to contain any intrusion. Bring in lots of arty (TRP'd) on the intrusion and then counterattack with anything available. Do never allow the Russians to dig in.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by no-one:

If you defend only one side of a river you will eventually lose.Either through flat out force,or through setip zones "giving" the attacker setup zones on the other side of the river when they actually didnt earn it.Plus there is just no cushion for the defender to have any mistakes/misfortune.

The setup zone problem can be avoided by using a more-or-less straight river with very little cover on the banks away from crossing locations. This means that any incursions over the river away from the crossings have little to no cover and will get pounded by defensive fires.

I strongly recommend that you take a look at my "Large Town Op" (I think that's what it's called) for CMBB, hosted by The Proving Grounds. My board name is the same there as here, so just search for that. It's a static op river crossing.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

In answer to your thread title it was simple....be on the other side.

Regards

Jim R.

[MikeyD]

In the game a unit in the middle of a ford is just about 100% exposed, as bad as being hung-up on barbed wire. Its pretty easy to route troops who are halfway across a river, and pretty easy to mop-up the stragglers who crawl up on your side of the bank..

Your biggest enemy is smoke. If your opponent masks his troops crossing you'll have a fight on your hands.

Defenders would often have control of only one side of a river simply because the units left defending on the far bank would have been cut-off and killed in rather short order.

[Andreas]

It often worked the other way round. It was not a question of the Germans defending the river lines, but the Red Army seizing bridgeheads before the Germans could establish a defense. Once that has happened, the battle shifts to the bridgeheads.

Red Army bridgeheads were established from the move (the first units at a riverline were supposed to just get across, with anything that would float and could be collected from the vicinity), in many places (the idea being that it is better to have many small bridgeheads that can be merged later), and with total disregard for safety and procedures (the idea being that while you get people killed that way, you get more people killed if you have to assault a fortified riverline by an assault crossing - see the Rapido crossing by the ill-fated 36th US division for a taste of what can go wrong). In general, this approach seems to have worked well. While it is a legend that no Red Army bridgehead was ever extinguished, as von Mellenthin claims, it is true that most were not in fact cleared. Red Army bridgeheads were very bad news.

The Red Army also was a master at piling 'stuff' into very constricted bridgeheads to enable a breakout. They did that in Romania in August 1944, and on the Vistula in January 1945, and again on the Oder.

It was a combination of speed, recklessness, and very dogged determination on the part of the Red Army bridgehead defenders that made opposed river crossings a relatively rare event for the Red Army, and certainly one on which they did not have to rely very often (if at all) for their late-war offensives.

[Conscript Bagger]

This excerpt from the Army's 1945 Handbook on German Military Forces is from Moon's site:

When the Germans decide to construct defensive positions on terrain divided by a stream, they organize bridgeheads on the bank on the hostile side where the terrain facilitates crossings. Where the river forms a re-entrant bend into enemy-held terrain, a second position is constructed at the base of the bend. On narrow rivers and creeks, the entire German main line of resistance is on the hostile side of the river, and the stream becomes the tank obstacle of the position. (See antimechanized defense.) When the friendly side of the river consists of swampland, it is used as an obstacle, and the hostile bank is not included in the defense system.

[imported_no_one]

Thank you for that info,Impudent Warwick.

[Redwolf]

Generally speaking, a defender cannot prevent a river crossing by treating the river like a minefield because, unless tipped off about the location of the attack, there cannot be enough troops in all places. The thin defense line can always be overcome.

Defense, and in particular German late war defense, can only rely on a network of backing troops joining a fight already in progress. This is why they defended the far side, because it delays the enemy enough for reserves to come in. The enemy cannot bring effective fire on the friendly side of the stream and cannot set up crossing equipment out of LOS, both of which he could if the defense is on the friendly side.