AAR Aug. 1941 Axis attack, QB, 800 points

[jtcm]

Or: how to lose in 15 turns.

Played against Sidewinder-- first game in ages for both of us. Axis attack, armour, high quality troops; Soviet defence, infantry, low quality. Farmland, modest hills, moderate woods.

The Soviet line: a green rifle co. with HMG support elements and organic 50mm mortars; a plt of pioneers for at work; some at mines; a conscript plt; two 76mm guns, long barrel; trenches.

The terrain: an inverted T crossroads in front of my sector. A small hill on the left. In the centre, a wide dip in the ground-- with the VFs. On the right, above the dip and alined with it, a splendid, noble hill, with some woods.

My line: trenches in the dip, for a nice reverse slope defence. In front of the line, the conscript plt, split in half squads, as outpost line. Just behind them, under command of the major, the pioneers, in woods, when the tanks come close. Support elements: left rear, one ATG and one HMG, in trench; on the hill on the right, under command of a Lt. with good bonuses: one HMG, one ATG in trench, and four 50mm mortars within command of the Lt. The enemy side of the great hill is protected with AT mines.

Here come the Germans: I see 4 PzIVs on my right, in column, and some infy moving out on my left. The enemy scouts hit my op line, are driven back. End of overture.

Heavy enemy arty starts falling on the hill. More enemy infy moving towards the hill. I can't get good suppressive fire from my op line on the infy. I concentrate mortar fire on the enemy infy. feelers-- plenty of mortar ammo. All's well. End of Act I.

Enemy tank moves towards the hill. I could take a shot with my left hand ATG, at 600 m, but only 7% chance of kill. Let it come, it'll founder on the mines at the foot of the hill.. Enemy infy now has started climbing the hill, in spite of constantly adjusted and concentrated mortar fire. End of Act II.

Enemy tank has crossed the at mine belt with no damage. Right-hand AT has good shot at another tank, 79% chance. It takes the shot, immobilizes the tank, but is destroyed by return fire. Desperate attempt to relocate infy. to defend the hill. End of Act III.

Enemy tank shoots up all the support elements on the hill, destroys my infantry reinforcements: 75 mm fire, coax and bow mgs make mincemeat of everything. Sidewinder crows in triumph. Enemy Infantry mops up. Other enemy tanks move up and seize the hill. ENemy now controls dominant ground above my reverse slope defence, and has enfilade fire over all positions. I open up with my left hand ATG, which is promptly destroyed by short 75mm fire. ENd of Act IV. I surrender, to avoid the slaughter of Act V.

What I was hoping would happen: enemy frontal probe, gets bogged down in the op line and pinned by long range hmg fire. Enemy infantry pushes past OP line, gets stopped by fire from trenches on reverse slope + fire from support elements on the hill. Enemy tanks move forward to reinforce, get shot up by interlocking ATG fire. ATGs get knocked out, tanks move forward, get close assaulted.

What happened: Sidewinder correctly analysed what I had planned (reverse slope ambush), assaulted what I thought was my strongest point (concentrated support elements on hill), and smashed it, since I had not thought of protecting it (would have weakened my oh-so-well-though-out op line +mlr). The at mines proved no problem at all. The 50 mm mortars inflicted no casualties on the advancing enemy infy.

Hindsight: I wish I'd seen what SW would have seen, and prepared a little trap on that hill.

Complementary reading: Arrian, Anabasis, Book 3, chapters 13-20 or thereabouts, for Alexander at Gaugamela-- everything you need to know about tactical thinking.

[Bone_Vulture]

I know that your budget was tight, but I personally would've probably purchased some additional AT assets. Rifles and lighter guns perhaps? Although their potence tends to be poor against even early German armor, they're great for spooking your opponent, and the guns can slap infantry around a bit.

[l.cassidy]

Interesting read, jtcm. Thanks for sharing it!

No room for a green FO in your line?

200 rounds of 82mm mortars could have helped you trimming down your opponent's infantry.

But thinking in hindsight is always easy...

Cassidy

[Bone_Vulture]

A mortar spotter would've been most useful in broken terrain; I don't think it's cost-effective with a grand total of mere 800 points. Although the puny 50mm field mortars weren't exactly the best investment either; I usually only use field mortars to attacks immobile, dug-in infantry or field guns.

[jtcm]

I hesitated about purchasing a 82mm FO, but would have needed a TRP or two-- and that would have taken away from the backbone of the defence-- trenches and ATG.

No ATRs in Aug. 1941...

No it's really my crap skills at:

1. reading a map

2. reading opponent's mind

3. "driving" units around.

If I figure out how to do it I'll post pictures of the massacre.

[JasonC]

Sure anticipation of the enemy is the single biggest thing. That's why it is a strategy game after all, your wits against his. I do have some comments on the AAR beyond that, though.

I use 50mms only on guns or MG point targets, in pairs. And I rarely take more than a pair of them. They don't hit hard enough to hurt a full platoon of squad infantry. One pair is useful because of their ammo load and their medium speed, particularly on the attack. Where the idea is to let any HQ with LOS take out a gun. Otherwise, I strongly prefer 1 82mm on map, to 2 50s. And I prefer 82s on map to off - faster response and less wasted ammo landing nowhere near the target.

My experience with Russian HMGs is that any position you expect to slow the enemy, even enemy in the open, needs a pair of them covering the same ground, not one per side. They just don't have the firepower of HMG-42s.

The amount of you AT defense was fine. 2 76s, AT mines, and pioneers, are about all a Russian infantry force defender can expect in a fight this size. That your AT mines were passed over but did not go off is just a tough break. It is a 50-50 shot. That is why they only cost 12 points.

With Russian pioneers, taken mostly for their demo charges and especially the AT ability those have, I often split up the platoon. I think of every company HQ or higher as another pioneer commander. 1-2 squads in several places are more likely to be around when you need one, than 3 all hiding in the same spot. They move better too (HQ goes with, short command span to move out fast, don't need a lot of cover, etc).

I avoid using conscripts as a thin screen, especially a whole platoon of them. It worked for you it sounds like. The main reason I avoid it is they often get shot up and run (duh, conscripts right), but then decide to come share their misery with well hidden and better troops in the next spot of cover back. Running around like crazy chickens, drawing fire. Everyone within 25m of their corkscrew paths takes incoming.

My preferred OPs are (1) LMGs or (2) "patrols" of decent troops consisting of 1 HQ and 1-2 squads. The latter are meant to outshoot one half squad and avoid anything larger. The LMGs fire until the enemy gets near spotting distance (full rather than sound I mean) and then hide.

Reverse slope defenses are often quite strong, but they should not be static ambushes, exclusively. Part of the point should be that the LOS blockage lets your defenders reposition unobserved. If the enemy comes around one flank of the position, the doctrinal responses are either (1) withdraw before they get LOS to the back of your reverse slope blocking position or (2) pivot around the original LOS blockage, by moving forward on the opposite flank e.g.

The first requires a fall back, which there often isn't room for on a small QB map. The second just needs a little recon or left over screening elements ahead of your original main position, to gauge what is ahead of you there. Plus timing, to clear out before LOS pins you, but hopefully after most of the enemy has fully committed to one flank, etc.

The purpose is first and foremost to keep the main body alive. Holding ground is distinctly secondary. If there was one thing you clearly did wrong (as I am sure you can see in retrospect), it was trying to leave your main positions and move in front of the enemy main body.

If he takes the noble hill he takes it. Don't give him your company too. Scuttle over to his side of the original crest, keep the far left ATG hidden. Don't escalate into failure. Avoiding contact can be a stronger defense than you might think.

A useful AAR...

[jtcm]

I simplified my narrative (as always). Sidewinder's probe's were nothing more than two half-squads, sauntering in plain view, on my left. My conscript "speed bump" line let them come to 150m, then opened up. One German half-squad bit the dust, one ran away. No overwatch elements. This was literally just to test the waters, and also, knowing sneaky Sidewinder, just to fixate my attention on the left while he was preparing his haymaker on my right.

50mm mortars: I just grouped those I had with the rifle plts. I know they're really grenade throwers with a 600 or 800 m range. I thought 4 of them together might make the Germans pause for thought.

I opened up with my left rear ATG because Sidewinder had to go-- I felt it a shame to end the game without letting those guys take their shot, and their bow.

Once the hill was seized, my goose was cooked-- but I had thrown two squads in cover, perpendicular to my original line, to greet any infantry that came over the hill crest to start rolling up my line, and the left rear ATG was the ace in my tattered sleeve.

Two further thoughts:

1. Had I been in SW' s place, I would have attacked more ponderously-- infy feelers across map, o'watch support, tanks out of sight-- and lost. SW's flank break in was just right.

2. Had I thought Aha, the hill is the key, and put strong infy close defence as well as long range fire elements with fields of fire over VFs, my concentrated troops would have been open to arty strike.

Morale of the story: if you are a struggling player, like yours truly, do not visualize how your plan will make you win (fond visions of burning German hulks on the steppe, while my men put their budyennovsk caps on their Moisin bayonets and shout Urrah at the fleeing fascist vipers), but how it might make you lose. As a con man says in a David Mamet film, "I just figure out what a smarter guy than me would do, and then I do it".

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The amount of you AT defense was fine. 2 76s, AT mines, and pioneers, are about all a Russian infantry force defender can expect in a fight this size. That your AT mines were passed over but did not go off is just a tough break. It is a 50-50 shot. That is why they only cost 12 points.

I beg you pardon? Pioneers aren't exactly what I call a reliable AT defense. Yes, the satchel charges pack a punch, but only at a range of 30 meters, and there's just two of them.

It's been a while since I've played a game set in '41, but to my knowledge, for the price of those pioneers the player could've had an additional AT bunker, for instance.

[Glider]

I'd take a pioneer platoon over an AT bunker any day. There is simply no substitute for AT-capable infantry, and pioneers are only such infantry Russians have.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Glider:

I'd take a pioneer platoon over an AT bunker any day. There is simply no substitute for AT-capable infantry, and pioneers are only such infantry Russians have.

Ever since the infantry durability got downgraded to realistic levels from the original CMBO, I've been wary of using them in AT role. If Jtcm would've had some element of ambush on his side, I might've cheered for the use of pioneers.

Tell me, when would have the pioneers ever gotten within 30 meters of the German armor in this battle?

[Glider]

It all depends... recently I launched a Soviet assault against a German position. My force was infantry-heavy, SMG/LMG teams mixed with pioneers (for ammo depth and AT work). German infantry was unable to stop them so 4 Panthers advanced to within 100m (behind the crumbling German line) to support their grunts. Pioneer assaults killed two of them. And that is exposed infantry assaulting defending panzers.

What I am saying is this... if your opponent makes a mistake, if you use them wisely, they can be enormously useful. Of course, same goes for the AT bunker but, for me, it is much more vulnerable, inflexible, static... the gravest dangers you face are attacks from unexpected directions and such attacks make AT bunkers useless.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Glider:

What I am saying is this... if your opponent makes a mistake, if you use them wisely, they can be enormously useful. Of course, same goes for the AT bunker but, for me, it is much more vulnerable, inflexible, static... the gravest dangers you face are attacks from unexpected directions and such attacks make AT bunkers useless.

Maybe I'm a smug Finn, but I never base my tactic on the assumption that "this'll work if my opponent is stupid". And if he lacks the skill to stop some sniveling infantry with FOUR Panthers, then he definitely had it coming.

Bunkers are useful for their resilience against HE fire. Unlike a field gun, they can take the hammering of just about any artillery, only a firing slit penetration will place them out of commission. A bunker is a massive armor repellant: you can place it to the spot that will most likely receive the enemy's bombardment, and then ambush the enemy's tanks with your field guns (or infantry! ) once he tries to find an alternative approach around your bunker.

[JasonC]

Russian ATG bunkers suck. They have only a 45mm ATG in them, which can't kill a Marder III from the front, let alone a real tank. 45mms only kill when they get flank shots, which they only get from stealth - and they frequently fail even then. Even against 30mm side armor, side angle often makes them marginal. They can miss outright. They have poor behind armor effect when they do get a partial pen. As a result, even a picture perfect ambush is at best a coin toss and usually distinctly worse than that. Once revealed, they are rapidly KOed by outright penetrations or by firing slit hits - and if the tank turns to face them they will have all day for those.

Pioneers are quite useful for the Russians because molotovs do not remotely get it done. Without them, German tanks can afford to run their MGs right up to Russian infantry positions, knowing they will break the infantry before it hurts a real tank. Units without molotovs become a threat at 30m only with 30 seconds or more to "grenade" = close assault, and only if completely unsuppressed. They often simply fail to attack. They can get a "hit" and have nothing happen. Or sometimes an immobilize result, if they are lucky. A tank has to sit still for minutes on end in the middle of a platoon, to seriously worry about that variety of infantry AT.

Pioneers on the other hand routinely toss a demo from hiding at even a moving tank within 35m. And when they do, it will immobilize the tank at least, and usually KO it outright. If they aren't immediately shot up in response, they will toss a second. And an already immobile tank hit by a DC will bail out. Pioneers are the Russian version of tankhunters, because the THs themselves only have molotovs. (Later some will have PRGs which are OK, but half will still be useless molotov teams).

You don't rush things with them. They ambush from hidden positions. Or you run them to the back side of a body of woods the German tank is navigating around, before it gets there. Set a 30m or so covered arc, hide if not in woods or pines to avoid being spotted.

A Russian infantry AT defense is not based on KOing whole platoons of full tanks at range. They are essentially never rich enough for that. The attackers are going to have more tanks than you have ATGs, and only the 76mm ATGs have a chance of even exchanging of with German tanks, 1 for 1.

No, Russian infantry defends against tanks by channeling and use of terrain. You look at all the terrain on the map that is completely impassible to tanks. You look for areas with only a few routes in, or past some wall of trees. In the gaps you want roadblocks, AT mines, and pioneer ambushes.

You make a shield consisting mostly of simple woods, marsh, etc - impassible terrain - supplimented by these hole pluggers. Most of your infantry then lives behind this shield. The idea is simply to not put your infantry main body anyplace his tanks can see, from any place his tanks can drive to safely. Woods interiors e.g. You want to make the German infantry come and get you, on more even terms.

Often you can't block the whole front this way. That's fine. You don't need to, you just need to create safe zones for your infantry main body. There will be another avenue of advance you can't block off, or several. Your 76mms set up to have views of those avenues, preferably from crossing angles. They want to wait for a flank shot, and then expect to trade off with tanks, maybe getting two if you are lucky.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Russian ATG bunkers suck. They have only a 45mm ATG in them, which can't kill a Marder III from the front, let alone a real tank.

...

Once revealed, they are rapidly KOed by outright penetrations or by firing slit hits - and if the tank turns to face them they will have all day for those.

This was late summer of '41. Unless those tanks were PzIVf's, even the shoddy Soviet bunkers would've stood a chance. By the time a German armor has the bunker located, aimed and even marginally zeroed in, the bunker has already made some 3-4 shots. And you know that a concrete bunker will not flinch without a firing slit penetration.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Pioneers are quite useful for the Russians because molotovs do not remotely get it done. Without them, German tanks can afford to run their MGs right up to Russian infantry positions, knowing they will break the infantry before it hurts a real tank.

...

A tank has to sit still for minutes on end in the middle of a platoon, to seriously worry about that variety of infantry AT.

Depends on whether the person controlling the tanks is nuts enough to try to try advance right next to a trench. Even though molotovs are rather worthless, I'd like to see a person who'd even remotely want to risk their expensive tank for something like that.

Originally posted by JasonC:

You don't rush things with them. They ambush from hidden positions. Or you run them to the back side of a body of woods the German tank is navigating around, before it gets there. Set a 30m or so covered arc, hide if not in woods or pines to avoid being spotted.

That's the point. In this battle, the whole Soviet defense relied on a highly open inverted slope position: if the AT guns had succeeded in the task of neutralizing the German tanks, the line probably would've held against any infantry assaults.

Originally posted by JasonC:

A Russian infantry AT defense is not based on KOing whole platoons of full tanks at range. They are essentially never rich enough for that. The attackers are going to have more tanks than you have ATGs, and only the 76mm ATGs have a chance of even exchanging of with German tanks, 1 for 1.

Attacker having more tanks than the defender has AT gun assets? Not when I'm playing.

Originally posted by JasonC:

No, Russian infantry defends against tanks by channeling and use of terrain. You look at all the terrain on the map that is completely impassible to tanks. You look for areas with only a few routes in, or past some wall of trees. In the gaps you want roadblocks, AT mines, and pioneer ambushes.

... Or an AT bunker. I am aware that the Soviet AT bunkers are only marginally useful in '41; German counterparts are worth the investment for the entire war's duration. And are you saying that some country in CM can afford an anti-tank defense that doesn't rely on channeling and taking advantage of the terrain?

Originally posted by JasonC:

The idea is simply to not put your infantry main body anyplace his tanks can see, from any place his tanks can drive to safely.

Or to put that the other way around, not to place your infantry to a location where the firing line towards the enemy is not covered by the AT guns.

[JasonC]

"Attacker having more tanks than the defender has AT gun assets? Not when I'm playing"

Then you have never played a single historically realistic battle. Your loss.

45mms won't kill even 1941 tanks from the front. Pz IIs will defeat AT bunkers easily at 500m.

German infantry defenses (post uber KVs anyway) rely on ATGs to stop enemy armor, because they have ATGs that can kill any vehicle at any range. They can afford an "up" defense, in which they contest wide upon areas in direct duels with enemy armor.

Russians can't. Because at essentially every era, their ATGs face enemy AFVs that can reliable face them and ignore their fire, at even modest ranges (400m, 800m). They can get some shots from flanks and try to interlock their fire. But if they contest wide open areas at long range regularly, they will just lose regularly. Their ATGs are not up to it.

So they use back defenses, closed defenses. Meaning, ones in which wide open areas at long range are not seriously contested, except by a few stealthy weapons for annoyance and delay. The main defense is conducted from positions the attackers cannot see from long range. The enemy is forced to close to get LOS. (Try to get LOS to a squad in a town that stays behind a building or at the back edge of a large one, from long range. Or that stays at the back side, not the front, of a large wood). And his routes close are kept as limited as possible, first and foremost by choice of location of the defending main body.

Yes, Germans sometimes do this too. They have a choice. Against armor and with infantry force type, the Russians don't. If they try to conduct an "up" defense, they will just lose.

In a closed defense, short range weapons are important despite their range limitations. And stealth is extremely important. Stealthy weapons that can kill even the thickest AFV, and can move about through heavy cover, are worth their weight in gold. Pioneers provide that.

As for "won't get near the trench", pioneers typically don't hide in trenches. They typically hide in woods. Occasionally woods that are themselves in scattered trees or something, I suppose - if there are lots of trenches so it is not clear which are occupied. More usual is, the pioneers are in woods ahead of trenches containing HMGs. They also hide in buildings etc.

[Glider]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

...Maybe I'm a smug Finn, but I never base my tactic on the assumption that "this'll work if my opponent is stupid".

Not stupid... you just hope that he will make mistakes, because if he makes absolutely no mistakes you are dead no matter what you do

Bunkers are useful for their resilience against HE fire.

Well, its only my experience, but I fought against bunkers in all three CM incarnations and they never seemed to cause me enough trouble to justify their cost. I mean, an 82mm mortar and a halfsquad of infantry can kill an 88mm concrete bunker anytime... when you drop smoke before them they can't move, they have to wait for the smoke to dissipate. And their field of fire is very narrow when you are close. Once your halfsquad or any unit that has at least hand grenades manages to pass out of that field and flank the bunker - it is irrevocably dead.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Then you have never played a single historically realistic battle. Your loss.

I tend to play with combined arms mix for both sides. Sure, if your opponent is given an armor mix, pioneers will become more handy, as the attacker will lack screening infantry.

Originally posted by JasonC:

45mms won't kill even 1941 tanks from the front. Pz IIs will defeat AT bunkers easily at 500m.

Small tanks with rapid firing main guns work against all bunkers. But I don't think I ever insinuated that one should place a bunker to cover such ranges where its armaments are worthless.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Yes, Germans sometimes do this too. They have a choice. Against armor and with infantry force type, the Russians don't. If they try to conduct an "up" defense, they will just lose.

I'm not sure whether a brash, long range defense with ATG's is a viable option in CM, unless the ranges are so extreme that the receiver of the AP rounds will only get a sound contact. Otherwise field guns are too vulnerable to field mortar fire.

Originally posted by JasonC:

As for "won't get near the trench", pioneers typically don't hide in trenches. They typically hide in woods. Occasionally woods that are themselves in scattered trees or something, I suppose - if there are lots of trenches so it is not clear which are occupied. More usual is, the pioneers are in woods ahead of trenches containing HMGs. They also hide in buildings etc.

Again, only a foolish player will rush up the tanks in open terrain without probing the area first with infantry.

Urban combat is a dimension of its own, but it doesn't render tanks useless; the armor support will simply be forced to crawl behind the advancing infantry, but can still likely offer some covering fire across longer avenues.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Glider:

Well, its only my experience, but I fought against bunkers in all three CM incarnations and they never seemed to cause me enough trouble to justify their cost. I mean, an 82mm mortar and a halfsquad of infantry can kill an 88mm concrete bunker anytime...

Assuming that you get within thirty meters of the bunker. A wise player will give the bunker some backup with hiding LMG's or such. Although I agree that bunkers are susceptible to blinding, but so are field guns.

[jtcm]

In fact, the pioneers would have helped a lot to hold the hill against the single PzIV which Sidewinder sent up there: once it crossed the mines, it shot everything up at leisure. I had to close assault it with the Lt. who was commanding the support elements. The mortarmen went on dropping bombs in their tubes until blown to smithereens. Horrible.

A single pioneer squad, if placed right, would have been able to stop the PzIV (maybe)-- there was no infy. screen, it was suppressed by the curtain of 50mm bombs.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by jtcm:

A single pioneer squad, if placed right, would have been able to stop the PzIV (maybe)-- there was no infy. screen, it was suppressed by the curtain of 50mm bombs.

Well, you can't really suppress a tank, not more than make it button up. It takes a near penetration to rattle the crew. Besides, according to my chart all early PzIV's had cupolas, so they weren't entirely blind against infantry assaults. Smoke might've worked, though.. But no smoke for 50mm mortars, I recall.

[Glider]

It doesn't matter so much. A tank not supported by infantry, even a King Tiger, will find pioneers to be deadly in any but the most open of terrains.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Glider:

It doesn't matter so much. A tank not supported by infantry, even a King Tiger, will find pioneers to be deadly in any but the most open of terrains.

Ok, now you're pushing it. The terrain on this map was farmland / moderate woods. I'd like to see an infantry squad make a dash at the front of a tank.

[stikkypixie]

I think pioneers are useful too, sure they're not reliable. But at least they have a fighting chance.

I don't know if this was possible with your limited budget, but what if you swapped the conscript platoon for a tank (T-34?). I don't know the price so.

It's good at pinning down infantry, with support and will draw the fire from the Panzers, and perhaps buying your AT guns another shot.

[jtcm]

(BV: sorry for the unclarity, I meant that Sidewinder's infantry screen was suppressed, sort of, by the 50mm mortars).

I have pictures I really treasure of Italian pioneers destroying a flame KV in 1942. Evivva !

[Glider]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

Ok, now you're pushing it. The terrain on this map was farmland / moderate woods. I'd like to see an infantry squad make a dash at the front of a tank.

Well, I'd risk it... not with a squad, but if a King Tiger came reasonably close (100m-150m) I would be willing to risk a platoon of pioneers, running squads from various directions to within about 25m. They really don't take that long to use their demo charges, particularly if they are better than veterans.