|
|
Section Leaders:
The Sunken Lane Click Here for Print Friendly .DOC Version!
NOTE: SPOILER INFORMATION. This After Action Report contains detailed information regarding units and terrain disposition to a scenario that may be included in the release version of Combat Mission. If you wish to play this game Blind or partake in a Double Blind match then READ NO FURTHER!!!!
Conclusions and Analysis of Sunken Lane PBEM Disclaimer: The vast majority
of the discussion contained herein is aimed at clarifying issues which
readers might have and to ensure that sufficient facts are provided to
allow the readers to draw their own conclusions. For this reason I will
go into a great deal of detail regarding comparative force structures,
doctrinal thinking etc. After asking Bil to read the first half of this
article it came to my attention that it is necessary to state clearly
that I did NOT use this mathematical model to determine my in-game
actions and did not spend hours thinking of doctrinal implications. I
merely drew on my own rules of thumb, instinct and innate knowledge of
German, modern American and Russian doctrines as well as my own innate
style to come up with the aggressive defensive plan I carried out. I
play very much by “ instinct informed by experience and previous
doctrinal contemplation” and feel that this is the best way to play
CM. My decisions are obviously informed by doctrinal issues but not
consciously so. It is difficult to explain but basically I look at the
situation and within a matter of seconds of opening up the orders phase
a basic plan of what to do now pops into my mind and I then spend the
next couple of minutes issuing the necessary orders so that each
tactical unit can play its part in that plan. I estimate that I spend,
perhaps, ten seconds or so thinking about what to do every turn. My
decisions are very much spur of the moment, instinctive decisions.
Certainly they are informed by doctrine but I’m never consciously
aware of this influence until I analyses why I did what I did after the
game has been completed. E.g. In the analysis below I
calculate out that I am outnumbered by 2.86 to 1. This is a calculation
I did after the game. In-game I merely figured out that I was
outnumbered by FOUR companies + 9 tanks vs TWO companies. This is a
perfect example of the basic level of instinctual analysis which I
undertook in-game compared to the vastly more detailed analysis which I
partook of when writing up my AARs and the post-battle analysis. Introduction: I will begin by focussing on
the most simple and obvious aspects of the PBEM AAR which has just been
completed before I touch on some of the more complicated aspects such
as the application of historical tactics and doctrine and the
corollaries between warfighting throughout the ages and the lessons
which can thus be gleaned from reading even the most primitive of
sources and accurate works. Once that is completed I will touch on some
of the lessons learned and some aspects of the performance of the
various weapons involved after which I encourage you to re-read the AAR
with these lessons in mind and view how they were, unconsciously and
consciously, applied to all the successful movements during play. Firstly I will deal with the
gross aspects of the Sunken Lane PBEM represented by comparative
numbers and fighting potentials. Total British Manpower
Committed: 584
men In addition 9 British tanks
were committed. Of the 584 British soldiers
committed 42 manned their tanks. Another
102 functioned in support roles. E.g. 24 soldiers manned 12 x 2 inch
mortars, another 24 manned the units’ PIATs and the remainder were
either FOs or members of machinegun teams. This left a total of 440
combat infantry organized into 4 companies ( there were a few spare
Platoon HQs etc wandering around but I’m counting them in with the
support troops.). These 440 men would form the spearhead of any attack
on my positions. It would be up to the tanks and soldiery manning
support weapons to provide them with covering fire and protection from
counter-attacks. Total German Manpower
Committed:
336 men. Of these 92 men manned support
weapons. These men manned eight MG42 teams, four 81mm mortar teams, 2
Panzerschrecks and were accompanied by their various platoon leaders. So, using the same reckoning
as I applied to the British troops there were some 244 combat infantry
available to me. This works out as a 1:1.8 ratio in the favour of the
British in terms of combat infantry. This ratio isn’t so daunting
but, unfortunately for me the British had 9 tanks to back them up. This
meant that they had 1 tank for every 27 Germans and this meant that
every one of my platoons could be brought under fire from at least one
tank, possibly two. What this really meant was that not only would each
of my platoons be facing two enemy platoons but they would also be
being bombarded by 3 tanks by the time the two enemy platoons attacked.
As anyone who has played CM knows any platoon being attacked by twice
its number of enemies and being bombarded by 3 enemy tanks ( 1 tank can
be dedicated to suppressing each squad) is doomed. Even in the best of anti-tank
terrain such as was prevalent in the Sunken Lane scenario I take it as
a simple rule of thumb that each isolated tank destroyed by means of
close assault will destroy one German squad before being destroyed. In
open terrain the cost of close-assaulting rises to one platoon per
isolated tank. What this really meant to me was that I could expect to
lose at LEAST 90 men to the enemy tanks under the best of circumstances
and thus I had to plan on facing the other 440 British combat infantry
with a force reduced to 154 infantry
( a 1:2.86 ratio in favour of the British ). These simple sums lead to a
rather inescapably gloomy outlook for the German forces in this
scenario IF they gift the British the time and space to set up their
attacking forces perfectly and in synchronicity with each-other. I determined that, given these
calculation, that the one thing I could NOT countenance was giving Bil
the time he needed to line up his forces just so and launch a single
devastating mass attack. In the defense I am definitely a believer in
pre-war Soviet doctrine which basically taught its officers to plan
their defenses to defeat enemy tanks and basically rely on the fact
that any defense which could fight off enemy tanks would benefit so
hugely from this driving off of enemy support that it would be able to
deal with the enemy infantry at its leisure. Perhaps the greatest
example of this doctrine in history was the creation of the defenses in
the Kursk salient which focussed almost solely on destroying German
tanks. Minefields and anti-infantry measures were effected only insofar
as they stripped infantry protection from the German tanks and thus
aided in the prime aim of enabling the destruction of the German tank
forces. Your interpretation of the defensive belts at Kursk may differ
from mine but that is probably only because you don’t look at combat
in the same manner I do and don’t adhere to Soviet doctrine in this
regard. In any case I wholeheartedly
agree with this doctrine and approached this battle from the point of
view of determining what I needed to do to nullify the threat posed by
Bil’s armoured force. I realized that the structure of the scenario
leanded itself to interpretation as a variant of a Red Army
multi-echeloned attack. And decided to adapt some of the recent
American strategic doctrine to this tactical level and deal with
Bil’s forces according to the tenets expounded in the “Air-Land
Battle” doctrine which was in vogue from the mid-80s. Basically this doctrine is
based on some interesting findings by researchers at the United States
Army’s Field Artillery School in the late 1970s in which simulated
battles were simulated on computer to determine a way in which a US
multi-divisional force could survive against a Soviet-style echeloned
attack. One book I have describes the findings well and simply. It
states "“If they made no attempt to block the follow-on
echelons, the enemy’s frontline strength remained at about the same
level and the defenders eventually lost, no matter how well they
fought….. The conclusion was that carefully planned and timed
interdiction of the follow-on forces could have a dramatic impact on
the battlefield by creating opportunities for counterattack… He (the
defender) could shape the battlefield situation and muster his forces
to fight at a time and place of his choosing where he would have the
initiative and might well outnumber his enemy.” This doctrine depends on
having the strategic assets to interdict the enemy’s follow-on
forces. This aspect of doctrine is well beyond the scope of CM and
beyond the control of the player BUT the ten minute time gap between
the beginning of the PBEM and the arrival of Bil’s two reinforcing
companies is akin to one of the windows of opportunity which Air-Land
Battle 2000 seeks to create. I recognized that ten minute
time period as being my chance to act aggressively and ensure that I
wouldn’t be vastly outnumbered at the 11th minute. By
striking aggressively at this time when I was only slightly outnumbered
I could ensure that I wouldn’t be as badly outnumbered as I otherwise
would be when Bil’s reinforcements arrived on the scene. I also had
the possibility of dictating the shape of the battlefield onto which
Bil’s reinforcements would arrive and knew that I could wrest the
initiative from him until such time as his reinforcements could truly
enter the battle fully ( a time which I reckoned to occur about the 12th
or 13th turn). So, what would be my prime
target during the first few turns? Well, obviously my prime target
would be the enemy tanks. Everything I did would be aimed at allowing
me to destroy or neutralize the offensive potential of the enemy tanks
since once they broke through my advance defensive line they could
pound my HMGs and mortars into dust. I realized I’d have to take the
long-term view though since I simply didn’t have the weaponry
available to kill enemy tanks protected by infantry. I DID however have
the weaponry to kill isolated British tanks which had outrun their
infantry support and thus I decided that my prime objective in the
first few turns would be to kill as many British infantry as possible
since this would enable me to lessen the offensive potential of the
enemy tanks. Once those were killed I would advance to the line created
by the crossroads and the road traversing my front and would try to
kill as many tanks and support weapons as possible. I reasoned that if
I could move to that line whilst still relatively intact that I would: Have inflicted massive
infantry casualties on Bil’s combat riflemen. Have over-run many of his
support weapons thus robbing him of their support during his upcoming
main attack Have had to catch a couple of
his tanks unaware and knock them out Prevent him from conducting
any coordinated attacks and would, instead, convert his forces into two
isolated kampfgruppe, one on each flank. Be able to trade space for
time and kills once his reinforcements showed up. Shock Bil intensely. This
shock would last for the entire game and greatly aid me even after his
reinforcements showed up. I always say that if you “beat your
opponent psychologically then he will defeat himself on the field of
battle”. I firmly believe that I defeated Bil by turn 5 of this game
since, by that stage, he was mentally in shock and contrived to defeat
himself from then on with his excessively costly human wave attacks. The AAR showed the values of
the following: Not being where your enemy
expected you to be. Maintaining a strong reserve
force. At times I had 1/3rd of my entire force in reserve
even though this gifted Bil extra numerical superiority. Fluidity. My plan was
broad-based. It was, in effect, an example of auftragstaktik wherein
the “general aim” of my mission remained constant but improvisation
and changes in the modalities by which it was accomplished were
encouraged. Concentration of force. When I
attacked I generally did so against an inferior force or a superior
force which, by virtue of its position, was momentarily in a
disadvantageous position. Co-ordination. Bil had the
numerical superiority to smash my force with the hammer-like blows of
his human wave-style attacks, my counter to this was to try to keep my
units separated widely enough that he couldn’t over-run two or three
of them in one turn. However, this dispersion of forces necessitated
the maintenance of a great degree of co-ordination in order to allow my
independently maneuvering groups to maneuver in such a manner as to
support each other when facing enemy attack or counter-attacking the
enemy. Massing a large number of
soldiers into a small area is NOT the same as concentration of force.
Bil’s human wave attacks are a great example of concentration of
force through the application of mass. I’ve looked at the game from
his perspective and his two reinforcing companies literally entered the
battle in column formation. When the first platoon was stopped by my
fire the platoon next in line charged through its position until it too
was stopped whereupon the third platoon of the company charged into my
position and finished the job. On my left flank his first
platoon was severely attrited in reaching the trees across the road
from my forces. His second platoon made it across the road but suffered
extensive casualties in so doing. Finally Bil committed his third
platoon ( which was only metres behind the second platoon) in the hope
that this would breach my line. By the time the fight between Giesey,
Wittenberg and the first reinforcing company was over that company had
been reduced to roughly a platoon’s worth of men in strength. Bil’s
only reaction was to pass the second company through the 1st
company’s positions and continue the line ahead assault with the 2nd
company. It has always been my
contention that one should mass strategically but disperse tactically.
At Midway the Japanese made the mistake of dispersing their forces
strategically into multiple decoy groups, subsidiary raids etc etc but
then proceeded to tactically mass the relatively small carrier force
they mustered to attack Midway. The end result of this was that when
their deception plan was rendered worthless by code-breakers their
force was gathered into one vulnerable group instead of tactically
dispersed into two or more groups. In this game I decided to
disperse my forces as widely as possible whilst ensuring sufficient
co-ordination that they could combine to deliver counter-attacks when
appropriate. If you look at the movies of
the game you will see many instances in which one of my platoons coordinated
its movements against an enemy platoon with another friendly platoon
200 or more metres away. I firmly believe that the only thing that
matters is getting a sufficient mass of firepower on target. Getting
firepower on target doesn’t necessitate having the various units
which are firing on the target in close communication. It only requires
these units to have LOS to the target. In fact, it is preferable if an
attack can come from multiple directions since that has the effect of
complicating the enemy’s defensive provisions AND of coming up with a
single one-axis counter to one’s attack. In the same way that a
one-axis ambush is, generally speaking, ineffective so is a one-axis
counter-attack since it invites a one-axis counter. The clearest
example of multi-unit co-ordination over great distances against a
single target leading to multi-axial attack can be seen near the end of
the game when both Bertram and Sehmel’s platoons combined to quickly
attack two slightly separated enemy units on my right flank thus
robbing each enemy component of the ability to lend its fire in support
of the other. Furthermore this attack was timed to occur at such a time
that the enemy was in the midst of moving from one firebase to the
other. The end result of this was that many units were in transit and
so neither firebase was even at half the strength of the previous
single firebase. Bertram’s unit
took part in very little fighting. Basically the drive against
the right-flank firebase was the only fighting in which it got heavily
involved. It took a total of THREE casualties but inflicted roughly
NINETY and captured 3 enemy soldiers including the Battalion Commander.
These are the benefits of dispersion to protect against attack and
co-ordination between disparate, dispersed elements to deliver a
hammer-blow counter-attack of their own. A 30:1 exchange rate isn’t
to be trifled with ;) Sehmel, who led the other
portion of this action suffered a loss of a total of 17 men ( 13 or so
of whom were wounded prior to this action) but caused the loss of
roughly 50 enemy soldiers and 2 tanks, the majority of whom were killed
during this counter-attack. All in all this attack
accounted for roughly 120 enemy soldiers and a tank at the cost of
roughly 7 German Panzergrenadiers. Admittedly I was attacking Bil’s
soft underbelly here since I was attacking mostly support units ( MMG
teams, mortar teams, PIAT teams, shattered infantry etc) but I believe
that the figures speak for themselves in showing how dispersal of force
but co-ordination and concentration of firepower can combine to yield
great benefits. Anyways, I’ve repeated
myself quite often in this analysis since I really wanted to drive some
of the points home. I hope that those of you who realized them
instantly weren’t too annoyed at the constant repetition and that
those of you who didn’t realize them instantly take them to heart. In general the three lessons
I’d take from this AAR if I was reading it are as follows: Just because I am defending
doesn’t mean I can’t be aggressive. I should geographically
concentrate the squads in my platoon, geographically disperse the
platoons in my company but ALWAYS, ALWAYS concentrate the fire of ALL
my units. If you scare or
psychologically convince your opponent of his imminent and inevitable
defeat early on in the game then you have already won. It may take some
time before your opponent makes the necessary errors for you to capitalize
on but once he is mentally beaten his defeat on the virtual battlefield
will follow. ALWAYS seek to establish “moral superiority” over your
opponents. Convince them that, as far as you are concerned victory is
already assuredly yours and you’ll be surprised at how many players
will “gift” you victory in what otherwise would have been a
hard-fought battle. Never forget that you are playing a human and that
ALL humans have the faults of pride, ego, self-doubt and fear. Play on
these and you will win many of your battles irrespective of what goes
on in the virtual field of battle. Perhaps I will cover that
particular aspect of PBEM conflict in a later article.
|
