Rugged Defense CM Tournament AARs - Hodo vs Vandal

[RobH]

The fourth in the series of AARs from Round 4 in the Rugged Defense Short-75 and Panther-76 Tournaments and accompanying movies is now available, rather later than originally intended, on the Rugged Defense Combat Mission Tournament AAR website.

Also, read all about the Tournaments themselves from the Rugged Defense Combat Mission Tournament website.

In this battle AAR, Hodo attempts to storm the town with a Battalion of armoured PanzerGrenadiers. However, he certainly receives a few nasty surprises from Vandal's defending British Paratroopers. This particular battle is very interesting to watch from the perspective of seeing just how effective a successful forward defence can be in destroying and disrupting the forces of an unwary attacker. It also shows extremely well just how difficult it can then be to withdraw those forward defenders once they have succeeded with their initial shock effect on the attacker.

This is the same map of course as for the previous AARs but you will again see another entirely different style of attack and defense in this battle.

Thanks Hodo and Vandal for a very instructive battle! There is a lot many of us can learn from this battle as I know both of you have already done.

Previous AARs from the recent Rugged Defense Tournaments have already been covered in the following threads:

Barleyman vs Buckeye

Buckeye vs Me262

Me262 vs Barleyman

The 5th AAR in the series should hopefully be published in about a week.

As previously, any discussion on the AAR is most welcome on this thread.

Rob

[tecumseh]

Thanks Rob, I have enjoyed these AARs very much.

Well it sure is a very strange game. Hodo's picks are bizarre - realistic but very tought to win with.

It is a pity there is no ARR from Vandal, because I would be interested to know why he grouped his guns closely together. If he knew that Hodo had limited arty and would try and engage the howitzers with HE, then having a big 17 pdr in the same clump of trees is smart. But he wouldn't have known this. Also, why he grouped all his spotters together, so they share the same LOS and why 12 pdr howitzers instead of cheap 75mm packs.

Anyway interesting game on a great map. I look foward to the final results of the tourney.

[jKMkIII]

My (I am Hodo) selections bizarre? Wonder how you came to that conclusion

Wanted to try something new (mechanized force) because usually have played with infantry heavy force, perhaps went little too far

But it was fun, and isn't that what counts.

[RobH]

tecumseh - None of the players in these tournaments had any idea what units their opponents would pick apart from within the rules parameters of Short-75, Panther-76 and a couple of other limitations or force service arm restrictions imposed for a particular battle. Had they played their opponent before, they may have had some idea of the type of force he would pick.

Thus Vandal would have had no idea Hodo had limited arty or indeed that he would pick PzIVs as opposed to Panther-76 AFVs. Hodo does explain he preferred the PzIVs because he felt they were less likely to bog in the damp ground, which is a perfectly legitimate reason although means they will be very vulnerable to anticipated anti-Panther-76 AT fire.

The only reason I can suggest for grouping all the spotters together is that they do have excellent LOS for most areas the enemy is going to advance from. Vandal obviously knew his ambushes would be sprung very quickly and presumably wished to call down the full power of his arty on the attacking forces - which he did indeed do very well on his left flank and in the centre.

Unfortunately, although continuing to promise me his AARs for both his battles, Vandal has simply not responded to any of my emails since June. Maybe he has had some problems, but without any contact, it is impossible to know. There is only so much one can do to cajole players into writing a promised AAR, even though it need be only very brief. All the other players completed AARs, some very detailed, and I am very grateful to them all for making these battles such an interesting learning exercise for all CMBO players, especially where English is not their first language, such as Hodo. If Vandal reads this thread and would care to contribute, then I am sure everybody will welcome his insights into the battle.

The final results of the Short-75 Tourney are on the Rugged Defense site and it was a very close run couple of battles indeed. The final of the Panther-76 Tourney is still in progress. AARs will be published for all the final battles in due course after completion of the Round 4 AARs.

Rob

[ September 10, 2002, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Robert Hall ]

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by jKMkIII:

But it was fun, and isn't that what counts.

Yep. Nice attitude for a tourney player! I would like to join the next RD tournament if players experiment and have fun like this. Are they open to all RD players? I have about 8 games on that ladder.

I reckon Vandal decided that the 12 pdr was such a weak AT gun, that Hobo would use panther HE against them, and so fall into his trap. If he'd used the cheap 75mm pack (a better gun IMO), maybe Hobo would have been nervous of the C rounds and gone with arty. That's my AAR on his behalf anyway!

[RobH]

tecumseh - RD Tournaments are open to all RD players. Announcements are made through the RD CM YahooGroups email list and this BB. There are none currently planned but I am sure something will happen once CMBB has been around for a little while. There is no standard format for these Tournaments. One was based on QBs, another on pre-designed maps. I am sure most players will say they enjoyed them. Who knows what the next one will be based upon !

Rob

[TeddyB]

It's very nice to see a new AAR. This is really different from the others. So far I have gone through the 10 first minutes.

I wonder would it have been a too risky tactic to use all the mobility Germans had, to do a "blitzkrieg" attack? I.e. to take a company or so in HTs supported with armor and try to run through on the right flank using the road and the hill on the right?

Now when the troops stopped at the FSE fire they got under the artillery barrages with very high losses.

If there would have been more defence in depth (and mines?) this might be a suicide but in this case there might have been a chance to break through?

Or how should the mobility have been used? In

this map there is not that much of area where the troops could have been transferred in cover.

Teddy

[TeddyB]

Quite often in the AARs we can see squads with "Low Ammo" still been used for the attack.

How much does it reduce the efficiency of those squads? The manual says that they don't fire except defending themselves. Will they still use hand grenades?

Is it useful to send them to attack? Do they loose some of their morale in that situation?

Teddy

[RobH]

Teddy - sending low ammo squads forward is more a way of desperation to expose enemy locations than doing them any damage. I think you can normally expect squads on low ammo to fire about once per turn only. This is supposed to simulate scrounging or finding a bit of ammo here and there. Yes, they will also use grenades but very infrequently. They are certainly going to get themselves killed once they meet enemy troops, since they cannot defend themselves adequately, and thus they they will lose morale though the loss of men. But they do not lose morale just because they are on low ammo as far as I am aware.

The problem with HTs is they are very vulnerable in CMBO. They can get taken out very easily by arty, HE, AP, MGs, bazookas/Piats and enemy infantry units. The HTs will also go into automatic AI controlled reverse if they see a significant threat to themselves like an AT gun. Thus an HT rush is almost certainly doomed to failure with a good defender. As soon as some HTs are hit, there will be a big traffic jam with other HTs reversing, their human cargos will be rapidly depleted in numbers as the HTs are hit, the infantry will panic and rout away and will thus lose C&C to HQ units and you will generally find there is a large mess of eliminated units around the place extremely quickly. You are very welcome to try an HT "rush", but with an effective defence, I doubt very much you will get very far and certainly not to your objective. HTs may be useful to get the troops up near the front line quickly on a large map so long as they are out of LOS, but the grunts themselves should assault the objectives with the HTs staying well back to give some supporting fire if appropriate I would suggest.

Rob

[jKMkIII]

Teddy, I don't remember on what turn my HTs did exactly what Robert described. They were driving toward enemy location and my troops had order to get out of them quite close to forest. But then they got under fire (or stuck in, can't remember) and stopped just few meters of location where squads were supposed to get out.

Result was traffic jam where squads didn't get out because they weren't there yet. And I think I lost few squads when they were still sitting in HTs

[TeddyB]

Fjords - smoke - TRPs?

Ok, no HT's too far ahead in danger, and the low ammo squads should cover the flanks out of the heat of the battle. Thanks for the tips

Another question regarding crossing the fjords. I think that out of the four games we have seen so far, in three there was a major attempt to cross the fjords but only Barleyman used smoke! I would guess that liberal use of smoke would help quite a lot?

My question is how much smoke and where to drop it? Barleyman apparently chose to drop onto the most dangerous enemy position in his left.

What about dropping it over attckers own troops AT fjords starting just before they start descending from the hill and continuing until they have crossed?

Barleyman also had to wait for a while (2 minutes) to get it down, while the enemy was beating his troops. Would it have been possible to use a TRP to get it down faster?

The hills around the city don't offer many concealed places where to put a spotter hiding while waiting them to deliver. I would be afraid to loose some of them. So that's why I would prefer to have TRPs is place.

Is the smoke from 81mm mortars "large" enough or is there a point to use two or three 75mm spotters with about the same point cost?

Teddy

PS. Thanks for excellent AARs and the possibility to learn. Now I have to download number five and start enjoying it!!

[RobH]

Teddy - I suggest you read this thread River Crossing for discussion on ways to cross a river. As you will see there are some very different schools of thought as to whether to use smoke or not and other techniques to assist with crossing a river. Different players obviously have success with different techniques. In the end it is what works for you that counts!

Rob

[Broken]

Regarding the use of smoke on the fords, I made liberal use of it in my attack on Hodo, (Broken vs Hodo - AAR yet to be released). The smoke was reasonably, but not completely, effective in sceening Hodo's defensive fires.

[jKMkIII]

Broken, looking from my point of view that smoke was very effective. That and small missplacement of my barbed wire

[TeddyB]

Thanks for directing me to a great "River crossing"-thread. There are very useful ideas, a lot to think about!

I am also really interested to see how smoke has been used efficiently in the next winning AARs. It is so hard to wait...

I wonder wether the smoke is "high" enough if dropped AT the fjords because the hills from where the attacker has to come down to the river are quite high, so can the defender shoot over the smoke?

Is the smoke from 81mm mortars "large" enough or is there a reason to use two or three 75mm spotters with about the same point cost? Visually the smoke looks a bit larger!?

Teddy

[Broken]

Teddy,

Smoke, in my experience, is tall enough to block any LOS through it, no matter how high the observer.

75mm smoke is bigger and lasts longer than 81mm smoke. The advantage of the 81mm and Brit 4.2mm is the faster response time.