Showing posts with label 1973 War of Atonement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1973 War of Atonement. Show all posts

Friday, February 9, 2018

1973 / Scenario #14 part 3

Well, the examination of Scenario #14 just doesn't end. I had to see if the town was a realistic objective if the Defender had 1 Mortar and the Attacker had 2. I felt it was possible, but this is definitely one of those scenarios where the available forces will dictate what objective you will go for [player errors and genius counts as well, of course].

So I returned to Scenario #14, and played it a couple times, and decided that I could update a few more things in the rules and play again for showtime. Ergo, this is not just an AAR, it is a carefully planned attack that was rehearsed multiple times - and practice pays off.

The final training session ended with the below situation. Like a total Pogue, I trashed the IDF IFVs getting them too close to Dug-in Infantry in a town [duh, POGUE!] where their RPGs and recoiless rifles tore them apart. I then lost most of a Centurion platoon and got a Mech Infantry platoon hammered also. Still, I did take the town! I will just have to write a lot of letters to bereaved families...ugh. Errors in attack management aside, I think this is doable for anyone. I also took the opportunities to fine-tune Red's defense plan.

Below, a trashed but successful IDF force. The M-113 IFVs are all quite destroyed.

So this is the surviving Blue force - one battered MBT, one trashed MBT, one trashed Mech Infantry, one fresh Mech Infantry - I'm lucky this isn't a campaign game, my next scenario would have to be from the last set in the book...where one side has only four Units!


OK, below is what I've learned in - I dunno...a dozen playtests of this scenario - maybe more. Several in the '73 period anyway. The Egyptians Quality is Unreliable, less than the IDF, so need more Units. Accordingly, they've an 8-6 advantage: 2 Infantry on each objective, 2 MBTs, 1 IFV and a 1 Infantry with ATGMs. Deployed, on the Hill there are two Infantry [1 has 3 volleys of ATGMs] and the IFV [BMP1], with their MBTs above woods [w'in 12" of the Hill, but can move freely, the other Units have to stay within 12" of the Hill].

To the Right on the Town, are another Infantry with ATGMs [3 Volleys], an MBT and two Infantry, but the MBTs can move anywhere on the Table. The long reach of the ATGMs are a serious problem for the Isreali player - they have the equivalent of a battery of 88s that are hidden among an Infantry platoon - nothing to dismiss but at peril!

At bottom is the Isreali attacking force.

Below, the IDF has two Infantry platoon, each mounted in a platoon of IFVs, M-113 w' 50-cal mounts. These are hard to categorize, but Light Gun for this battle, mainly due to Range. They also have two platoons of MBTs, Centurions. With the top platoon is an artillery spotter, marked with the small base. They are all rated Reliable.


Below, the Hill force. They have both Infantry able to spot over the crest, and the right [ATGM platoon, with 3 volleys - black die] able to shoot from the crest [and be shot at, if they do so]. Behind them, and touching therefore ready for them to mount up, are their IFVs, with Light Armor and Light Guns.


Spread across the rest of the battlefield, the T-55s are Slow, and Short Ranged [can only shoot 20", while Isrealis shoot 30"], and they can't go Hull Down unless they Dig-in. The Infantry platoon has 3 Volleys of ATGMs and is Dug-in. 

The Infantry in the town both touch the South side, and the West and East sides, respectively, and both also touch the road, so they can observe well for their Artillery, a single battery of Medium Guns that are off-table. Their MBTs are ready to pop out around the town and shoot, or turn and drive down the road to make trouble. The ATGM Infantry cover the long gap between the Town and the olive Groves - Woods - to the left.


Positioning Artillery spotters. The IDF spotter viewpoint is in the very SW corner - the X - and looks down the valley between the Hill Objective and Woods. It will attempt to intercept Egyptian reinforcements moving from the Hill to project Fire in support of the Town. On the left, the '4' is a Heavy Battery, it arrives on a 4+ and has 4 Fire Missions [white die]. To the right there's off-table Mortars, 2+ Arrival and 7 Fire Missions. Both can fire smoke.

Egyptian Spotter. One battery of Medium Artillery, arrives on a 3+, 5 fire missions. X is the off-table spotter, who has a view thru each valley and can rain death of IDF advance! The other spotter is the Infantry in the SW corner of the town...forgot to mark it for entire game!

The Off-Table Artillery Spotters represent look out posts on hills / mountains outside the Box of battle, and therefore can't be shot at or stopped. In game terms, they allow a force to always use their Artillery, reduce the gamey "shooting at spotters" and provide a zone to mark artillery availability. In a more realistic setting, this information should be concealed, of course, but I'm playing solo and am too aware of what both sides have!

Turn 1. IDF starts with Initiative and enters the Table. The mech infantry dash to the Woods in their IFVs, while the MBTs push up the road against the town, rolling enough on their Maneuver dice to get into a dead zone out of view of the ATGMs - assisted by the half-light of dawn? The Egyptians shift their MBTs a bit in response and load of an Infantry Uni with ATGM upgrade at the hill onto their IFVs, and look forward to Turn 2's Artillery phase...

Turn 2. Artillery Phase. Egyptians Target the Mech Infantry and roll a '1' for the Arrival of their Fire Mission, so the Arrival Number drops by 1 to '2' instead of '3'. 


Turn 2 Artillery Phase. IDF pick Targets but miss their Heavy Artillery Arrival roll, needing a '4' and rolling a '3'. Their Arrival # drops 1, to '3'. The off-table Mortars use the Recon ability of their Mech to spot and Target the Dug-in Egyptian Infantry in the valley at extended range - they're worried about those ATGMs! And rightfully so! They also have the Spotter, who rolls a '3' and they Arrive. 

The mortars trash them rolling 3/3 Hits! They started with 3 Dice, lost 1 b/c Target was Dug-in, gained 1 b/c Target was lower Quality, ending with 3 dice for a 3+ to Hit Infantry. They rolled 3x3s! This results in a dice on 3 for them, and it is Yellow b/c they've a Permanent Hit. The PH means they will start with 2 Fire Dice from now on, b/c they actually took losses that can't be replaced this battle.

Turn 2 Action Phases begin, above. The Egyptians roll a '5' v. Isreali '1' and seize the Initiative! They had the Second Action Phase last turn, and now they get to choose either Action Phase, so of course they choose the First and act immediately! Their Tanks Fire at Range on an Isreali MBT but roll a disappointing 2 Hits. Their Infantry from the Hill move into position at their max, 12" from the Hill, and prepare to unload and dig-in there, putting a further damper on Isreali maneuver space near the Town Objective. With 6 total volleys of ATGMs, the IDF will have to attack carefully.

Turn 2 Action Phases continue, below. With this development, the Isrealis Fire back at the Egyptian MBTs but also score a disapointing 2 Hits each, missing the Permanent Hit they need to pull the teeth on this MBT Unit that is right in their face! They dismount their infantry and move them up as their IFVs dash back over to the woods. Sure, they are a target, but if they are Fired upon, it will be them instead of the main effort MBT platoons.


Turn 3 below. Artillery drops, smashing the Infantry with ATGMs, and relieving some of the Maneuver pressure on the IDF Tanks, and inflicting one Hit on the Egyptian MBTs who now look vulnerable with 5/7 Hits. Egyptian Artillery fails to Arrive. In the INitiative Phase, the Isrealis tie the Egyptians who get a +2 for having the IN last turn. With a tie, there is a Respite - both sides can perform Rally or Dig-in Actions with any Unit, then the Turn ends. Next Turn, neither will have the +2 for IN, and another Respite can't occur.


Turn 3 continues. Isreali MBT w' spotter moves into touch with Egyptian Infantry spotting from Town. The mechanics for spotting require that any point of a spotting Unit be able to have LoS to a Target, so touching the corner of the Base to the edge of the Area Terrain - Town - fulfills that. However, it also means that the Tanks, who cannot end a move in the town [except on a Road] can move into touch and spot them back, as well as have mutual LoS at Close Range. 

The Egyptians are "Ready" so get to Fire first, inflicting no hits with 3-3-2 as they need a 5+ against Tanks. The Tanks Fire upon the Egyptian Infantry, inflicting 2 Hits despite their protection of being Dug-in with Hard Cover [Town], needing a 4+ and rolling 6-6-1. The position of the Tanks is a big threat, as they've both Armor themselves and a Spotter attached, putting this Infantry Unit in danger from their superior Artillery. So this is a tactical move of major importance!

Egyptian Return fire doesn't amount to much, but their Infantry dismount and take up positions to fire ATGMs down into the valley between the Town and Woods.

Turn 4, Isreali heavy artillery fail to Arrive, as does the Egyptian Artillery. Isrealis keep the Initiative easily, rolling a net '8' v. 2. They choose the First Action Phase as theyv'e plenty of Targets. The IFVs fire on the Egyptian MBTs and manage to put in a Hit each, causing them to depart the table. The Isreali MBTs then score 3 Hits on the surviving Egyptian MBT, so a Permanent Hit on it, pulling its teeth quite well at this longer Range. The fight in the town doesn't progress, disappointingly, so the Mech Infantry Dig-in for their own safety.


Turn 4, Action Phase 2, Egyptians strike back. Their MBTs lash out at the close IFV Unit, getting 4/4 Hits and making it Permanent! Their Infantry Hit the Tank in their face.


Turn 5, all Isreali Artillery arrive, and they severely damage the Infantry holding the East sector of the Town! However, Egyptian Artillery also Arrive, and they put the hurt on the Isreali Infantry staged to occupy the East sector of the Town! 

Isrealis easily keep Initiative, rolling a net '8' v. 3, and take the First Action Phase. They finish off the hurt Infantry in the town, knock 3 more Hits against the MBTs [giving them 6, two Permanent] and manage to Activate the IFVs with 4 Hits rolling a 3+, so hide them behind the woods. The other IFV moves up to support the attack on the town, or pick up and retreat the damaged Infantry Unit, as needed, an option available due to the Egyptian MBTs being so banged up. 

The Isreali Infantry that are standing by to enter the Town, roll a '2' for their Maneuver movement, which is a total of 4", enough to enter the Town and occupy the sector where the Egyptian Infantry just get thrashed...unfortunately, they were Dug-in so lose 2" and the remaining 2" prevents them from being able to clear the Tank Unit that is clearing the way for them. So, they sit outside their foxholes and prepare to move into the Town next turn, trying to formulate a movement plan. Things are looking up, but it's not all wine and roses...


Turn 5, 2nd Action Phase. The destruction of the Egyptian MBT clears the field of fire of the Infantry with the ATGMs, who fire and put the hurt on the Isreali MBTs! And they've two volleys left... They also manage to Activate their MBTs who have over 4 Hits, by rolling a 4+, and move them into the town via the Road. This puts pressure on the Isrealis, and keeps their damaged Infantry from moving into the town safely. 
Now I REALLY regret rolling a '2' for their Maneuver Movement! Had they rolled a '3+', they'd be safely in the Town, getting Hard Cover and mostly out of LoS of the enemy - rats!


Turn 6. Artillery arrive, putting a little more hurt on the Egyptian Infantry that are the key to the Town fight - they are able to move into and stay in any part of the Town, while the Tanks must stay on the road. Isrealis easily keep IN with a net '7' to net '-2' as Egyptians have lost three Units. They destroy the MBTs on the road, fail to Activate their Infantry who are pinned with 4 Hits. They auto-remove 1 Hit, and fail to remove a second due to a failed Quality Roll. The IFVs manage to remove two Hits [erroneously marked as '1' Hit now].


Turn 6, 2nd Action Phase. I forgot to resolve the Egyptian Artillery, so I do, and it totally wipes out the Isreali Infantry. The critical problem is that there is now only one Isreali Infantry left that can occupy the Town fully, and not much hurt on the Egyptians in the Town.


Turn 7. Artillery has little effect. Isrealis keep IN but the exchange of Fire does little. They reposition their IFVs more aggressively to try and clear the West sector of the Town, and load up their Mech Infantry for a quick transport back to the Town.


Turn 8. Isreali Artilery lands big-time on the Egyptians, who fire their last Fire Mission to no effect. Isrealis keep the IN and of course take the 1st Action Phase, and roll well on Direct Fire, wiping out the Egyptian Infantry. As there's plenty of time for their Mech Infantry to occupy the Town, no Egyptian Artillery left, and little direct fire assets, they concede.


Whew! that was quite tense. Still, despite the Egyptian surprise at seizing the INitiative Turn 2, they weren't able to capitalize on it, lost it Turn 3, and never regained it.The careful attack plan, lead by heavy armor, managed to survive, keeping a spotter on the Egyptian Infantry and letting their Artillery advantage - just - play out and tip the scales in favor of the attacking MBTs. Attacking with IFVs was a bad idea, so I didn't do that this time.

I hope this AAR gives you some idea of the clear decision making opportunities that the rules provide. As much of the mechanics are "either-or", it is easier to learn how to think and play tactically, instead of spending lots of time pouring over rules or complicated charts. 

The only mistake I made with the Egyptians, I think, was getting threatening with the Armor early. I should have let the Isrealis set their Tanks against the Infantry in the town, THEN moved in with the MBTs, and hopefully would have knocked out at least one Isreali MBT, which would really have helped. Also, their survival would have driven a wedge between the woods and town space, preventing free movement of the IFVs in support of the Isreali attack.

In deployment, I think the Dug-in Egyptian Infantry with ATGMs was well done, altho I could have hid them better behind the woods from Isreali Spotting. Next time, I would put the Isreali table edge spotter in the other corner to provide more support of the Town.

Overall, a great game. The rules worked well, providing the right sort of friction while remaining easy to deal with.

I think it is clear that if the attacker has an Artillery edge, the town is a viable objective. If not, the Hill is pretty much the only choice. What an attacker would do with, say, four Infantry, an ATG and a Tank, I don't know, except to put them against the hill, moving the infantry thru the woods along the way.

This finished the 1940-2020 rules for now, except to back-design them to WWII. If you are interested in playtesting them, please send me a comment indicating that - I welcome more playtesters!

So I bid "shalom" to the 1973 war. I don't have minis for it, so will work on WWII again while I move forward on the 2020 micro armor. Special thanks to Ken for loaning his micro-armor, I like it a lot on this size table. Also note, he is blogging again as Bede [click].

Sunday, February 4, 2018

02/01 Draft - Cold Playtest: Isreali v. Egyptian double-game

So, there's a point where you need to do a cold playtest with some willing victims, and Saturday I was privileged to get the full attention of a local gaming hero [retired infantry LTC, published game designer] and a gaming veteran who's been running a 10mm adaptation of the classic Panzerblitz game. This was an exciting opportunity to get feedback from people who have not even played the WWII version of the rules, "Up the Blue!" featured in the Totensonntag mega-game recently HERE.

For this playtest, I had no idea who was going to show, so I prepared for up to three additional people besides me and the Host by setting up four sides. Ken graciously loaned his micro-armor, previously seen HERE, and I managed to put together two sides that I thought would be balanced for scenarios #4 Take the High Ground and #8 Melee:


Overall, Isrealis had a Quality advantage, so fielded 6 Units to 8 Egyptian on the table, and the Isrealis had off-table Mortars for each force, while the Egyptians had Medium Artillery for each force. With a dearth of Infantry stands, the matchups went something like:


Scenario #4

Isreali Attackers: 7 Units
2 x MBT, 2 x Infantry, 2 x IFV platoons, off-table Mortars 5+ Arrival.
Egyptian Defenders: 9 Units
On Hill - Infantry w' ATGM, MBT
Reinforcing Turn 2 - 2 x MBT, 2 x APC, 2 x Infantry w'ATGM, Medium Artillery 4+ Arrival.

Scenario #8

Isreali Attackers: 6 Units
Turn 1 - 3 x MBT, off-table Mortars 5+ Arrival.
Turn 4 - 3 x Infantry [Veteran Paras] in APCs [vintage halftracks]
Egyptian Defenders: 9 Units
On Hill - 3 x MBT, Medium Artillery 4+ Arrival.
Turn 3 - 3 x MBT, Turn 6 - 2 x IFV

The rules had some pretty substantial changes from the WWII version, including: a doubling of the ground scale to 1"=100m, a new close range fire phase, moving and shooting for Infantry and Tanks, Move/Evade for Tanks, counter-battery fire, ATGMs, tossing out March & Road Movement, and some smaller tweaks of the fire table. I figured they'd play adequately, but wasn't sure how it would pan out.


Game Start - Scenario #4 to left, Scenario #8 to right.  I added a few little touches here and there just b/c Host had some cool little buildings. However, the round-ish tan patches are "flat ground" and Units in them are fired upon with a bonus due to lack of cover.



GM's view down the table. I probably should've just tossed one of the games.



#8 about turn 3. The three Isreali MBTs have cleared out two of the Egyptian MBTs that were defending the hill, the last has been covering the road and hidden by the palm grove below. Isreali casualties have been light, except one MBT got beat up with a Permanent Hit. Looks like the hill is open, but Egyptian reinforcements are entering, and the hill is a dangerous spot to occupy - open to shooting from most of the area..



#4 also about Turn 3. Isrealis rapidly moved up and dismounted Mech Infantry into the little grove to right, with their IFVs supporting close behind. The MBTs won a duel with the Egyptian MBTs that were on the right side of the hill, and have also beat up the Infantry who exposed their position by firing thier ATGMs to some good effect [but not enough]. Entering on the road at top is a substantial and dangerous reinforcement of Egyptian armor, six Units, the same size and composition as the entire remaining Isreali force!



Forgot to take pics for a while...now we're on Turn 12. The entire Table #4 force has switched over to the Scenario #8 force, giving up on their objective [which I think they'd have handily taken] to save the situation in Scenario #8. The plan being to then return and win Scenario #4 as well. This is a classic big-game battle thing to do, but requires that you've a good feel for how long it takes to kill Units and how fast you can move around. In this case, the maneuver took place around mid-game, and it isn't looking like enough time will be available.


Turn 12. The Isreali paras got dropped off at the left edge of the ridge, and their APCs immediately left. The MBTs held back, using their superior range to target Egyptian MBTs on the hill, severely damaging two of them. Two Paras managed to dig-in, one didn't have time, as a concentrated attack by three Egyptian MBT platoons hit them, supported by two IFVs. The top two platoons lasted a while, however, and inflicted some casualties back, but not eliminating any of the Egyptian Units. There were hampered by a battlefield lull, which allowed the Egyptians time to do some much-needed rallying for their attack.


The Scenario #4 Isrealis tried to help with a drive around the wood at top, coming around the right side, and eliminated an IFV platoon. They were stiff-armed by the Egyptian Infantry with their ATGMs, taking some Hits and getting their MBT platoon roughly handled. It's a strong attack moving toward the camera, with a solid defense at the top of mech infantry. 


Above, the last Isreali Para, dug-in against the back slope of the hill, is overwhelmed by the massive, combined firepower of several platoons of armor - The Egyptians have the hill!

Below, the #4 Force Isrealis shift to the left side of the woods, as the other side is just held too strongly. They aren't able to reposition themselves quickly enough to affect the destruction of the paras holding the hill edge. It is clear that no progress will be made against the Egyptian possession of the hill, so it will be a draw, with each side holding one objective. 


Good playtest! Thanks to both Host Rich and Dave for their time and talent.

It took a LOOOONNNGG time, we played for about 6 hours [which is rather a lot for a 1-hour Wargame!]. We had several long discussions about everything from turn sequence to typical weaponry of the forces, basing and the shape of the Units [all of them were 3-base units] to the subtle interactions of Units. A few quick thoughts:


  • The intro of an additional Close Range shooting phase worked. It allowed me to eliminate that chart modifier, since Units at Close Range get to fire twice a turn.
  • The modifier for "Ready" as a fire penalty may be dropped.
  • The modifier for moving fire may be changed to one less severe.
  • The turn works as a series of combats, movements, time, lost time, etc. It requires a consistent understanding of that fact, so a Unit may be under mortar fire, move and shoot, get shot at, take Hits, etc, in one turn.
  • Liked the more predictable Rally mechanic - we have to assume that the platoon leaders are doing their job at least at a rudimentary level.
  • Liked the Quality Tests mechanic - it and the Permanent Hit mechanic encourage people to spread their fire around more realistically. It makes it hard for Infantry to Act under fire but...pretty realistic!
  • The "Move & Evade" mechanic didn't get used. Still, I can see using it in the future.
  • There were plenty of options for players in all circumstances, no matter how dire the circumstances were. I like this, since it keeps players engaged even when losing.
  • There are some things that just have to be decided one way or another, e.g. a combo move-shoot [or shoot-move] Action. There's no perfect way to do it - simply. Everything simple involves a limitation under certain circumstances. As I regard the turn as a series of events, and there's an Initiative mechanic to introduce additional possibilities and keep players guessing at potential decisions, I'm OK with it. The alternative is to have no moving & shooting, but over 5 minutes that doesn't seem right. So with potential swings of fortune provided by the IN and turn sequence, it seems OK. The alternative is to go back to strict Shoot OR Move, and make the turn even shorter.
I have a lot to think about, but have to say no major or truly fundamental changes in mind - the core mechanics seem fine. A bunch will get exported to the WWII game.

With this, it'll probably be my last foray into Arab-Isreali wars for a time. I don't have the books, the minis or the time to delve into what would be a new period. The interest of Steve and Ken - both of whom DO have minis for it, as well as several sets of rules each - is what propelled this particular phase of development. 


The purpose it served me was to step back and take a long-view look at 1940-2020 as the two ends of a rule design. I have a pile of 15mm WWII from my Flames of War days, and am now in a Stryker Brigade training for Decisive Action and peer combat [and got minis for it], it makes both the periods interesting. I'll jump forward to 2020 next month, as I continue to do the hobby work on my micro-armor. No idea how I'll take into account the wild swings that Tech now offers, except that it'll be abstract and not too intrusive.


So - "Shalom! to the '73 war, there's lots to atone for..."


Weapons Systems Eval Group: Report on '73 war

"Of all the significant contributions Weapons Systems Evaluation Group has made to Western Freedom, our support of "Oil Cheaper than Water" wargame rules is the most significant."

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_H._Sides.JPG

This is a great document, and a must-read for any gamer interested in this war. While the data is not as complete as we - or they - would like, it certainly provides some grist for the gaming mill, and thoughts on how these armies fought - especially from the perspective of gear - by those who were there. While there is probably more information that is more recent, this report should be read as well, and taken with any further reading.

Plus, it is fun to read anything that was "Top Secret" from the CIA archives, right? 


Anyway, below are some of the salient points that I thought would be useful for OChTW and I hope they are useful to you. Of course, not as good as reading the document for yourself, but if you're in a hurry, I think I got nearly everything...


Electronic Warfare
- involved Active Jamming and passive exploitation of COMM links.
- Isrealis disadvantaged by being on the defensive at war start. Still jammed Arab COMMS and exploited intercepts whenever possible.
- Egyptian effort was extensive, including: active jamming, imitative COMM deception, interception that lead to strikes at Isreali emitters. Soviet-supplied direction-finding gear was accurate. Egyptians used landlines extensively to defeat Isreali EW efforts. They successfully jammed air support nets, tactical air and armor COMM links. During early stages of the war, they exploited Isreali errors in COMM security and operating instructions.
- Syrian not seperately reported upon.

APCs
M-113 has 1.5" FA, BTR60 .4", BMP .87"
M-113 has .50 cal, BTR has two MG, BMP 73mm SB cannon, SAGGER, MG.
Isrealis had 500 M-113, 4,000 WW2 halftracks "extremely vulnerable" to artillery.
Overall, Soviet APCs had more firepower, while M113 was better protected.

ATGMs

SAGGER has 26 sec flying time to 3,000m, penetrating 15" armor at oblique. 500m min range, no night sight, remote-firing capability [80m away] & periscope.
Arab Use:
- deployed by infantry with 8 missiles per launcher, 
- usually fired from prepared position on the ground.
- about 1/3 of firings were in "salvos" 
- Egyptians had "greatly increased" the AT weapons in their Infantry Units.
Isrealis had limited artillery and infantry available to counter this threat.
- study of tank losses had 8/11 SAGGER hits being kills, and 7-25% of all tank losses being due to the SAGGER, and 40% of catastrophic impacts on Isreali tanks were from SAGGER.
- as war continued, better combined arms w'Infantry and Artillery reduced threat.
- Tank counter-measured included: firing upon SAGGER gunner, evading, breaking LoS [e.g. hiding], and smoke.

Artillery
- Arabs substantially increased their artillery from 1967, while Isrealis decreased it.
- was effective to degrade the performance of infantry and armor.

Isrealis
- gun and ammo shortages resulted in weaker support, counter-battery effort, and increased tube wear.
- poor training of reservist FO's resulting in Units calling in and adjusting own fire.
- 33% of casualties were from artillery.
- tankers said 25% of tank hits were from artillery, and 6% of them destroyed tank.
- weaker counter-battery effort, Arabs learned they didn't have enough rounds available to shell them continuously.
- weak camo and deception effort, no dummy guns, ineffective effort.
- Isrealis feel had problem delivering large amounts of artillery fire.

Arabs
- placed massive concentrations on objectives to protect advancing forces.
- continuous artillery fire preceded main battle line, sustained until at 500m of obective.
- BUT, sometimes attacked with little / no artillery support.
- strong counterbattery effort, 20 minutes from Isreali artillery firing, caused 900/1100 casualties among Isreali artillery batteries.
- 18-gun batteries covered 400x500m area.
- mounted strong camo/deception/dummy guns effort to reduce counter-battery / air casualties, including setting off smoke/flashes to fool Isrealis into thinking they hit a real battery.


Night vistion & fighting
Arabs had night advantage [according to Kahalani].
M48 had active IR to 1000m, T-series to 800m.

Isrealis
Patton Tanks had good "speed, agility, reliability, human engineering and fire control, ammos storage capacity [>50% than T-tanks]" but no stabilization.
- shortcomings are vulnerabilities of ammo storage and hydraulic fluid ignition, high profile, MG stoppages, TC exposure to view battlefield
- training thorough and rigorous, across all positions.
- Gunner's goal is destruction of targets at ranges >3,000m!
- Doctrine calls for engagement at max range with main gun.
- Accuracy is stressed over rate of fire.
- from a full halt, first shot is in 9-15 seconds.
- Battlesight at 1,000m with HEAT, 
- fought at extended ranges, employed ambushes, fired from prepared defilade, and mobile defense doctrine.
- didn't have anti-personnel round, used HESH and HEP v. Infantry.
- resupply under fire difficult, so M-113s were employed to do so in combat zone.
- 40% of vehicles engaged over 2,000m, max range 4,700m in the Sinai and 3,500m in the Golan Heights. MGs used at short range v. Infantry.
- Flags, radios, flares, unit markings and panels were all used for self-identification.

Arabs
T-series tanks had limited barrel depression, making hull-down fire difficult, but were small low and well-armored with 8" of armor on Turret Front! 
- Crew space cramped, power train and fire control antiquated, ammo storage limited.

T-62
- in "simulated tank duals" of equal forces, 2x as many M60s lost as T-62s [!?]
- T62 has day/night periscope for use with infrared night source.
- Arabs failed to take advantage of greater range capability and lethality of its HVAP FSDS round.

- Gunnery and crew training _relatively_ ineffective in light of combat performance.

- rigid textbook use of Soviet battle drill, in columns of armor using guideline distances for release points of formations without regard to terrain or circumstances.
- Arab tanks fired on the move during mass attacks, using the short halt at 1800m.
- buttoned up hatches once engaged.
- premature dismounting of mech infantry slowed tanks to walking speed.


Syrians
Not cross-trained in tank positions, abandoned tanks quickly.
- mutual support tactics and movement by bounds seldom used.
- tanks not directly engaged "waited their turn" instead of providing a base of fire.
- Syrians often maneuvered to flanking positions when attacked and used terrain more effectively than Egyptians, including using defilade, rising to fire, moving back and to a new position to pop up.
- Often used defensive blocking positions and ambush roles and surprised Isrealis.

Egyptians
- hatches open during movement.
- Defending, Egyptians didn't seek out maneuvering onto flanks v. Isrealis, used terrain poorly.

Infantry & Special Forces
Isreali 
- paratroops acted as SF, were young well-trained regulars.
- mech infantry older, less well trained, reservists - performed poorly.
- many tank commanders asked for para support as a result.

Arabs
Egyptian rangers were carefully selected and highly trained, attacked Isreali rear areas, including ambushing armor with RPGs and SAGGERs. Also partial success ambushing an armor unit via helo movement. Isrealis destroyed Egyptian rangers that remained isolated behind the lines.

Syrian SF were both helo and commando. They had limited success capturing Mt. Hermon.

Interesting report! Something in there for everybody who wants to game this period, altho II didn't cover the air or naval war bits at all. 

Special Thanks to Steve over at "Sound Officer's Call" who found these on the internet.

Happy Gaming!

Monday, January 29, 2018

1973 / Scenario #14 part 2

It was a good fight in the first scenario, but there are still some questions here. It was a pretty easy win in the first post for the Isrealis - granted, I put a lot of thought into it, and this was the first time I had worked the gap between the woods and town. As a tactic, I think it worked well as it:

  1. keeps the Infantry within the town due to the threat of massed firepower,
  2. is flexible - Blue can move into Close Range and attack the town, or, suddenly advance and move against the hill.
  3. keeps the attacking force out of LoS of direct fire from the hill.

This also exposed one downside to putting direct fire assets upon the hill - they are right in the way of a direct attack, so the attacker has no reason to be distracted from a hill assault.

With all this in mind, I put the same force up against each other, but gave the Egyptians an extra Infantry and gave the Recon ability to one of the Isreali Infantry Units. So the force looked like this:

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
4 Infantry

Blue Attacker - Isrealis
Rated Reliable:
1 Mortar [off-table]
2 Main Battle Tank [Heavy Gun, 2nd Gen]
3 Infantry with APC upgrade [vintage halftracks], 1 also had Recon upgrade.


Turn 1 & 2. The Isrealis headed straight for the hill. The Recon Infantry made it to the woods edge, and use it to hide from Direct Fire while spotting the Infantry on the hill. The Egyptian ATGM  deployed on the board edge covering much of the open terrain on either side of the woods. The Egyptian Infantry in the Town is determined to be more useful this time so heads into the woods so as to be disruptive to the Isreali attack. The T55s [or "whatever" Russkie tank] shift left to counter Isrealis, and take out an MBT with help from the ATGM Unit. They rolled well and have punched the Isreali task force in the nose!


Turn 3. Isrealis keep the heat on the hill with indirect fire. They dismount infantry into the woods and send the APCs to the rear as the Recon advance as well. The other Isreali Infantry advances with the Armor. The Egyptians shift their MBTs left again and wipe out the other Infantry platoon still mounted in the APC, with the help of artillery...doesn't look good!


Turn 4. A Fierce attack by Isreali MBT and Infantry destroys Egyptian MBT, relieving some of the direct-fire pressure on them. Egyptian pressure on the Infantry's flank in the woods ramps up. The Egyptian ATGM Unit is dug-in and out of the fight at the moment.


Turn 5. The battle in the woods heats up, and one egyptian Infantry Unit dies to a combination of Mortars and Infantry Fire. The other decides to dash back and hold the objective. The MBTs take some AT and Artillery fire, and need to fall back and rally.


Turn 6. The Isrealis shift positions, looking to rally off Hits while keeping the Egyptians under Fire. This tactic succeeds in driving one Egyptian Infantry off the table and another back into the town [and out of LoS]. The situation is still an Egyptian win, with them having lost two Units but still holding both objectives with one Infantry Unit, supported by the ATGM Unit that poses a serious threat to the main Isreali punch - the MBT Unit. Still, only Turn 6...


Turn 7. The Isrealis continue with this plan, but the Egyptians decide not to let the Isrealis have it all their way and advance one Unit off the hill to threaten the MBT. Artillery is slacking Fire as there are few targets in LoS - guess they can let the barrels cool down some!


Turns 8-10. The Isrealis shift to their left, and rally off a Hit from the MBT but it is still fragile with 5 Hits [dying at 7+]. The Egyptians dig in onenInfantry in a blocking position in the valley between the woods and the Hill Objective while the other advances into the woods...again! I just didn't see any point in in having the Isrealis regroup at will. The ATGMs take some Hits from Artillery despite being Dug-in and Ready [they're within 12" LoS].


Turn 11. The valley advance wasn't such a great idea - with the Infantry getting heavy accurate Fire, the ATGM unit moves to the hill. I probably should have moved them sooner to be more threatening, really. Egyptians advance for a position advantage in the woods.


Turn 13. A shattering Mortar barrage kills the ATGMs so the Isrealis advance upon BOTH objectives! The Town is attacked by the partially rallied MBT while the Infantry move out of the woods. The attrition of the Egyptian force and the mobility of the MBTs has resulted in what will clearly be a disastrous defeat for Egyptian arms!


Turn 14. The MBT secure the town, the Egyptians are in the wrong place, wrong time.


Whew - what a crazy game! I think the Egyptians would have won if I just kept them tight on the objectives. It is hard to decide when to sit tight and hunker down on the win vs. letting your opponent regroup and renew an attack along a different opportunity.

A few conclusions are easy to draw:

  1. Taking the ball up the middle into the teeth of a solid defense isn't going to work.
  2. Taking time to attack methodically, chipping away at some of the enemy Units before closing in is a good idea, even if you are superior quality.
  3. Artillery was hit or miss throughout the game - it could occasionally make a huge impact, and other times it totally whiffed. The sniper ability it has is useful.
  4. Armor of any kind needs to stay away from ATGMs until they've taken a PH or two.
  5. Generally, it is better to sit tight on the objective - even if I had fully rallied the two damaged Isreali units, they would have struggled to take the town or the hill without destroying the overwatching ATGMs.
  6. You have to keep thinking until the bitter end!

Both these games were played satisfactorily with modified versions of the WWII rules. 

The main developments in the brief Yom Kippur war are in the area of Tanks; better AT weapons like the Recoiless Rifle and ATGM, and better Tanks with bigger guns and more armor [altho they have the same speed as the WWII tanks]. To a certain degree these cancel out since they are focused on each other. It really isn't that different from the Germans or Italians using heavy ATGs like the '88' in WWII against British armor - the ATG has a small edge, which widens if it is on the defense, Dug-in. 

So far, I haven't used a lot of heavy AT with the WWII rules, but there has been enough AT to impact the freedom of Armor. The main difference between the ATGM and '88' is that the former has a longer range and is much more durable, effectively disappearing into an Infantry Unit while the '88' has a footprint larger than most tanks with all its equipment.

Overall, the WWII rules are coming along pretty well. I still have a few things I want to fine-tune like moving Fires, Artillery availability, and Close Range / Assaults, and the combat tables need some more thought. Also, the scope of combat from 1940-2020 needs to be envisioned so there is room in the mechanics for advances in gear and doctrine.

Still, happy with the progress!

Thursday, January 25, 2018

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.