1973 Micro Armor playtest and Scenario #14 Analysis - a combination post!

"We are coming to Pimp your ride!" [well, torch it would be more accurate...]

By The Central Intelligence Agency - Israeli Tank on Golan Heights, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=29194884

After Steve's excellent analysis of Scenario 14 and our stimulating post-game conversation I wanted to consider the tactical challenges for both the Red Defender and Blue Attacker in Scenario 14: Static Defense, specifically in the WWII rules [altho some of these considerations may apply to all the rules]. I strongly suspect that Steve is correct in saying:
     * You need two Mortars to take the town. 
Note that statements in italics are affected by my particular interpretation of the OHW rules in some fashion - this emphasizes how important filling in the blanks of the OHW RAW is.

The twist in Scenario #14 is that the defender will ultimately end up defending one of the objectives with four Units that have freedom of maneuver, and two that are long-range fire support. By forcing the Defender to keep two Units each "within 12" of the Town or Hill, their projected fighting power distance is 24" unless Mortars / Artillery [or ATGs & Tanks in my rules], which does not cover the hill or town and its approaches - it only allows support against an encirclement of the town or hill. Still, that can be enough if - IF! - said Units aren't destroyed due to piecemeal commitment to the fight.

The RAW force list always has 3-4 Infantry Units in it. It also has the potential for 1-2 ATG, Tanks or Mortars, each of which - in such a small force - pushes the commander in the direction he must take to attack or defend the objectives. This is due to the strengths / weaknesses of the Units and the terrain rules:

1. The Town is terrain that favors an Infantry defense. I allow ATGs to defend at the edge, and Tanks to remain in it if on the road, but neither are optimized in a Town.
2. The Hill favors a defense with ATGs and Infantry. Defending Mortars are also best placed here where they contribute by long-range shooting and "holding" the Hill.
3. Defending forces are either between the objectives or in/on them. If between, they can influence the battle at either objective but aren't holding them. If in/on the objectives, they must be destroyed / removed from them, but have little influence on the other objective. If either objective is too relatively strong, the attacker has the choice to attack the weaker objective. A pretty fine balancing point!
4. Infantry are good on either objective. They get a Terrain edge in the Town, and can dig in on the Hill, including on the reverse slope which forces a Close Range attack.
5. ATGs are good anywhere, but get the best defense bonus in the Town, next in the central Woods [which limits their field of fire] and thereafter on the reverse slope of the Hill. Placing them in the open rear area gives them more potential to cover either objective from Long Range, but they also need to be Dug-in facing a certain direction when it is clear which is the Attacker's objective.
6. Tanks are best in the center, rear, open area behind the Woods. There they can re-position themselves to either engage attacking Units at Long Range or maneuver into a decisive encounter.
7. Mortars are decisive in this scenario. The Attacker needs two if an attack on the Town is to be attempted. If the Defender has two, then the Attacking Infantry are vulnerable as they close in on either objective. Their main hope then is to scurry into the central woods and out of Line of Sight as quickly as possible while the Mortars are engaged by Tanks and Mortars, hopefully destroying at least one quickly.
8. Attacking. An optimized force for the Attacker is a Mortar, a Tank, and four Infantry Units. If there's three Infantry and an ATG, this is workable if the Defender has Tanks.  If there's two Mortar Units, the Attacker has an option to attack the Town. If not, he has to attack the Hill. An Infantry attack on the town - required to take it due to OHW terrain rules - can also be stopped in its tracks by Red Mortar fire.

All of this sounds brilliant, but is it correct? We'll see!

RE: the micro armor rules...as posted previously, the incredibly fast pace of contemporary shooting combat, especially between first-line vehicles like MBTs almost dictates a special rule mechanism unto itself. There probably needs to be a combat mechanic that isn't I-Shoot, U-Shoot and has a sort of "split second" interactive feel to it. However, this would also require developing a turn sequence that is just as interactive and responsive, or has portions that are interactive, which requires some thought.

So plans to address modern-contemporary combat have been shelved - for now - as I prepare to host a game that is modern but not contemporary, the 1973 War of Atonement in the Middle East. This is being driven by Steve over at Sound Officer's Call, who has the miniatures and the interest in the period, and has been a guiding light in pushing the rules in that direction. 

The '73 war introduces a few new gadgets - faster and more deadly tanks with bigger guns, and Anti-Tank Guided Missiles. To advance the "feel" relative to WWII, some of the tanks need more speed and the ability to fire on the move. The ATGMs provide a long-range deadly Tank deterrent that must be suppressed, but are vulnerable at Close Range. Two useful links for this period and its weapons have been added to the References tab on the right of the blog page: CNA Analysis of 1973 War and Modern Portable Weapons. Both are EXCELLENT and highly recommended for any student of modern warfare. As for books, two good accounts from the Isreali perspective:


The first should be available in any library, and the second is free on line [click] or [click], or available as a used purchase [click].

Another thing that is clear - even more clear than in WWII - is that modern firepower is unforgiving against any clumsy behavior by Soldiers. Training is absolutely key because the consequences of a tactical error happen faster and are more severe. So the relative quality of the forces and their gear has to be a combat factor that is in almost every combat resolution. For this advance in time from the WWII rules, I made this an additional D6 rolled against a lower quality Target, assigning three Qualities: Veteran, Reliable and Unreliable. While these could certainly vary within a force [e.g. Veteran Infantry and Reliable Tanks, or Veteran Tanks and Unreliable Infantry] I find it easier to just assign it to an entire force for the sake of simplicity.

I also fleshed out the differences between Armored Personnel Carriers [which are mainly transport] and Infantry Fighting Vehicles [which are basically light tanks that carry some infantry], and make it easier to call in a Fire Mission after a previous failure [the assumption being that it is either being ranged in or moved to the top of the request pile a bit each turn].
With this in mind, I came up with the following forces that I hope will both have "period feel" yet test the tactical theory we're putting forward for Scenario 14:

Red Defender - Egyptians
Rated Unreliable: 
1 Mortar [off-table]
1 Medium Artillery
1 Main Battle Tank [Heavy Gun, Russian Doctrine]
1 Infantry w'ATGM Upgrade
3 Infantry

Blue Attacker - Isrealis
Rated Reliable:
1 Mortar [off-table]
2 Main Battle Tank [Heavy Gun, 2nd Gen]
3 Infantry with APCs [vintage halftracks]

Green tape is attacking Isrealis, Blue tape is defending Egyptians [sorry for colors].

Note the details on these excellent models and the great camo job...! Well, I'm working on it and have to play with something. These are what I plan to use as bases, anyway.

And for your convenience, the Scenario Map and my Interpretation of it, below:



Worth noting is that the town is 12" closer to the Attacking force, but it is harder to take.

Turn 1. Isrealis have the Initiative [which never changed once] and use their Mortars for a preliminary bombardment onto the ATGMs occupying the hill. They then advance onto board. In their haste - and due to the Egyptian Infantry being Dug-in deep into the town [so 4" LoS] they used the Road. The rest of the Force performs regular maneuvers. The Egyptian Artillery fires without much effect. Egyptian T-55s shift their attention to the right [barely] and manage a couple Hits onto the Isreali MBTs using the road. 

I'm playing the Egyptians close and hard onto the objectives. The Isreali choice of entering allows either an immediate assault on the town or a slower assault against the hill as possibilities - we'll see what develops.

Turn 2. Isrealis put more Mortar fire onto the hill, but ATGMs rally off 2 Hits!  Egyptian medium battery damages one halftrack-mounted infantry, giving them 3 Hits - one a Permanent Hit [marked by switching to a yellow die]. The Isreali armor slows down to engage the T-55s, putting two Hits on it each and dismounts the Infantry that got pounded by Artillery - they head into the woods. T-55s put two more Hits onto the Isreali MBT.

At this point, I should've moved up and engaged with the Egpytian Infantry, I think. Being pulled back into the town is giving the Isrealis too many options. It's a tough decision - if you are on the edge of the town, you can fight but you're also a target for most of the enemy army. If you pull back from the edge, you get an advantage if you're attacked up close, but you also limit the mutual line of sight to 4" in my rules.

Turn 3. Mortar fire is ineffective. Isreali Tanks move up and smoke Egyptian Tanks. I'd considered pulling them back to rally... Isreali force repositions to either dash forward or turn against the town - could still go for either objective - as two Infantry are still mounted and the third is positioned to lay covering fire against the town. Egyptians reposition one Infantry to the front of the town, hold back the second, and ATGMs rally all Hits off.


Turn 4. Egyptian Medium Artillery pounds another Infantry Unit with some great dice. Isreali Mortars put two Hits on the ATGMs and then the Tanks swing out into the open to dash against the Hill! The damaged Infantry and the only untouched one move out while the Tanks squeak through the gap between the woods and the town. The last Infantry rallies for two Hits. Egyptians respond by repositioning all their Infantry against the Isreali force passing by.


Turn 4 - Action Phase Close Up! The ATGM Unit has two Hits [green die]. The Isreali Tank Unit has none. It Tactical Moves into the open and fires on the ATGMs for three Hits which is a Permanent Hit as well! This puts the ATGM up to 5 Hits [so yellow die]. The ATGM unit was Ready, however, so it Fires immediately after, inflicting two Hits on the Tank. But I probably should've put them on the damaged Infantry Unit, really...


Turn 5. Egyptian Artillery fire against the damaged infantry has little effect. It then rallied off a Hit [stupid, should've moved away from the town]. The Isreali force moves up and the Tanks eliminate the ATGM Unit as they do. The two Egyptian Infantry in the town Fire and inflict another Hit each, and the one on the Hill fires off its Ready marker but misses.

I think the noose is tightening on the hill unless the artillery can manage something impressive, like eliminating a Tank unit...

Turn 6. Egyptians open the turn by dumping all their Artillery on the weakened Infantry Unit. They miss with the Mortars but roll well for the mediums, getting three Hits and eliminating the Unit. Isreali Mortars fail to deliver any fire due to communication confusion.


Turn 6. Isrealis dismount the Infantry and send the 'tracks to the rear. The Tanks close in and pound the Infantry for 5 Hits! Egyptian Infantry Fire has no effect, while the other Egyptian Infantry bravely advance out of the town to pressure the Isrealis Infantry holding the flank in the Woods.


Turn 7. Isreali Mortars dial in and get two Hits, wiping out the Egyptians holding the hill. Game over! Just for fun I did exchange fire down at the woods - Egyptians hammered away for 4 Hits, while taking 2 Back. They will be able to say, "We did OUR part!" anyway.


Well, that was an invigorating dust-up! Overall, the dice rolling was about the same for both sides - mostly average, but occasionally above or below. 

The tactical decision to creep up close to the town with the entire Isreali force certainly paid off. The fact that the entire force was mobile, armored [until dismounting], and the tanks could fire on a Tactical Move kept them advancing in the face of Artillery. Still, the Egyptian Medium Guns dealt some Hurt on two Isreali Infantry despite the halftrack armor.

One thing seems clear, which is that a Force of lower Quality needs to have a bonus on-table Unit. While I gave the Egyptians a bonus Artillery Unit, I don't think it made up for the upgrades to the Isreali Infantry - all were in APCs - and the Quality difference. I'd say the Egyptians need another Infantry, ATGM or Tank Unit, as on-board means occupying space. The only change for the attacking Isrealis would be to make one Infantry a Recon Unit.

Aside from these issues, a two-Tank force attacker with one Mortar is almost certainly going to have to go after the Hill. I may have been able to get away with a direct assault on it, and that is worth trying out. If I had one Tank and two Mortars / Artillery, then the Town attack would be possible, I think. It is worth trying out later with different forces.