Section Leaders:
Fionn Kelly & Madmatt

Click Here for Print Friendly .DOC version

German Commander - Fionn Kelly

German AAR: End Game Debriefing

The salient points in the report are, to my mind, as follows:

1.      As the attacker I achieved a 3.2 to 1 exchange rate whilst attacking over open  ground. Conventional Wisdom would have us believe that the attacker almost always suffers more casualties than the defender when attacking over such unfavorable terrain. If you add in the POWs I’ve taken you actually get a 5.5 to 1 exchange rate which is even better.

2.      In reality I’d have lost roughly 1 platoon from my force with maybe half of the wounded returning to their units and ready to fight on within a day or two. Allied with my minimal tank losses ( 2 MBTs, although for the life of me I can only remember losing a single Panther… I think it is counting the immobilized and gun damaged King Tiger as a complete loss also) my unit would, instantly, be able to advance with an infantry strength of a reinforced company backed by myriad tanks and artillery units. In other words, my unit would still be highly combat effective.

3.      I only started with 60% of the men that Gary had. This falls far short of the 3 to 1 manpower ratio which, as a rule of thumb, an attacker should have when attacking over such unfavorable terrain.

So, how could a force with only 60% of his manpower, whilst attacking over open terrain ( a veritable massacre waiting to happen), inflict over three times as many losses as it suffered?

Simple, I substituted tanks and artillery for infantry. I don’t like buying too much infantry and, so, bought only the absolute minimum necessary to ensure a good recon screen and a slight reserve and then bought tanks and artillery to make good the omission

My advance was simplicity itself. Identify the hills and major pieces of terrain favorable for defence. Allocate 1 platoon to each of these areas and then simply march them forwards in a straight line. Follow this recon line with a combat line a few hundred metres behind and, once the reconnaissance line runs into trouble use the reconnaissance units to gauge the size of the enemy outpost. If possible have your recon line eliminate the enemy position ( since you want to keep your reserve uncommitted for as long as possible). If the enemy force is too strong simply gauge its size, put it under artillery fire to pin and attrit it and bring a suitably-sized chunk of your reserve up. Once the enemy is badly hurt launch your reserve forces into his position and mop up.

Re-organize your front, form a new recon platoon and send it forwards so that there are no gaps in your reconnaissance line. Whatever troops aren’t needed in the recon line are moved back into your reserve.

Repeat as necessary…

It is simple, brutish and effective. It isn’t the only tactic I can draw on when attacking but it is definitely a simple one which most people can utilize with great success. FAR too many opponents I’ve played have all these elaborate plans when attacking and their advance looks like a ballet. Unfortunately all this fanciness rarely does them any good. When they fail they put the blame on a “poor plan” rather than simply ASKING themselves “Why didn’t the plan work?” and really actually looking for an answer instead of just jumping to a convenient answer.

Plans can contain major flaws but, in my opinion, most opponents try to be very elaborate and come up with a “smart” plan with clever little tactical nuances. They do this and eventually get themselves so entangled in the plan that it becomes easy to bet them rather badly. I, on the other hand, am very likely simply to scatter a company across the map, walk slowly towards my opponent and then smash whichever units of his open fire. The benefit of the “recon screen + reserves” idea is that it is so simple to operate that one’s mind doesn’t have to worry about co-ordination or anything complicated. You simply create a recon line and then fire arty at anything that fires at you until such time as your reserves are in position to directly assault it. Couldn’t be simpler.

In any case, I doubt that anyone could argue with its simple, brutal effectiveness. If it is good enough for Soviet doctrine it is good enough for you.

Now, when conducting a debrief of an opponent I have found it useful to provide them with some structure to help them analyze the important aspects from which they can draw lessons. As such I have developed a few questions which can be used to identify the most important errors and to help learn from them.

(If analyzing a game between two others simply replace any reference to “you” and “your opponent” with “Player 1” and “Player 2” )

1.                  What was your plan?

2.                  What was your opponents plan?

3.                  How did the battle unfold?

4.                  Did the unfolding battle correspond more closely to your plan or your opponents?

5.                  Why? (The answer to this question will either point out errors you made OR will point out how your opponent took and maintained the initiative. Either answer will be invaluable to you in improving your performance.)

This concludes the analysis of pre-battle planning and should, over the course of several debriefs, help you identify any persistent biases you have and help eradicate or, at least, account for them in future.

6.                  Given your initial plan how suitable was your purchasing strategy?

7.                  Given the way the battle unfolded how suitable was your purchasing strategy?

8.                  If you could go back and buy your forces now what forces would you buy?

9.                  Account PRECISELY for EVERY change you made. State why you would make the change and what effect this change would have had on the battle.

10.              Repeat questions 6 to 9 but do so and answer from your opponent’s point of view.

11.              Have you identified any units which were suitable for both the battle you planned to fight and the battle you ended up fighting?

12.              Add up the total points of the units which were useful in the battle you ended up fighting. Now, express this points total as a percentage of your total points. Now, take this total away from 100.. The number you are left with is the % of your total points which were of no use at all in the battle you ended up fighting. They are WASTED POINTS which you may as well not have bothered spending. If you wasted 30% of your points following the equation above it should be pretty easy to see that if you had only bought useful units with this 30% of your points you could have increased the number of truly useful units on your side by 50%. A 50% increase in useful fighting units is the difference between a terrible defeat and a great win. You should really aim for, at least, 95% of your points spent on “truly useful” units in each game. Anything lower than that and you are just gifting your opponent extra advantages and making victory more and more difficult to achieve.

At this point you should be able to identify the units which were of no use, those which were of some use and those which were suitable for both the battle you thought you’d fight and the battle you ended up fighting. In future you should think VERY HARD before buying any units which you consistently end up listing as being of no use in the debrief.

13.              How would you characterize your opponent’s handling of his:

a)                  Infantry ( differentiate between MG teams and riflemen)

b)                  Artillery

c)                  Armour

d)                  Anti-tank guns

e)                  On-map Infantry Guns or Howitzers

f)                    Fortifications ( includes mines, pillboxes, barbed wire etc).

If his handling of any of these types of units can be characterized as “good” then immediately ask yourself what you can learn from his handling. What MADE his handling good?

If his handling of any of these types of units can be characterized as “poor” then immediately ask yourself what you can learn to AVOID replicating it? What MADE his handling poor and how can you avoid replicating such behavior?

14.               How would you characterize your handling of your:

g)                  Infantry ( differentiate between MG teams and riflemen)

h)                  Artillery

i)                   Armour

j)                   Anti-tank guns

k)                  On-map Infantry Guns or Howitzers

l)                   Fortifications ( includes mines, pillboxes, barbed wire etc).

If your handling of any of these types of units can be characterized as “good” then immediately ask yourself what you can learn from this handling. What MADE your handling good?

If your handling of any of these types of units can be characterized as “poor” then immediately ask yourself what you can learn to AVOID replicating it? What MADE your handling poor and how can you avoid replicating such behavior?

15.      What was your opponent’s best concerted attack or move of the battle? Now, go back and view the movie of the 3 turns leading up to it, the turn it happened on and the 3 turns following it.

You MUST determine if there was anything which would alert you to this “move”. Look at the movies and look for any tell-tale movements etc which you can identify now as leading up to an attack. The next time you see such movements ANTICIPATE the attack or ambush or whatever. You MUST determine if there was anything you could have done to stop it AND, in order to drum into you the importance of being able to anticipate such moves in future, you must understand just how much this move put you into trouble.

16. Were there any enemy units which performed particularly well. If so, why? IF you know why they performed so well then see if you can apply these lessons to your own command and decision-making processes when commanding similar vehicles.  

And now onto the reserve.

17.              Did your opponent have a reserve? If so, when did he commit it and what effect did it have?

18.              When did you commit your reserve and what effect did it have? How could it have had more effect?

Discussion

19.              Discuss the battle with your opponent. How did he view the battle? If his view differs from yours then ask WHY it differs. Was he able to anticipate and frustrate your attacks? If so, how did he anticipate them, what did you do that gave them away? Were you too predictable or could he spot your troops massing?

Only through fully understanding what happened in the battle and dissecting the contribution of each of the arms of service can you identify precisely where your weaknesses lie and where you need to improve.

With experience all of this insight comes naturally when one just looks at the screen but for you, the less experienced players, a methodology is extremely useful.

I would suggest actually applying this methodology to some published AARs and games in which you haven’t taken part as a means of gaining insight into other playing styles and learning without having to play a new PBEM every time you want to try something out.

p.s.  Apologies to the ladies reading for the constant use of “his” instead of “his/her” but ‘tis easier to write and spell check (Editors Note: Actually Fionn doesn't really spell check ANYTHING!!! I do it all and that's why it takes so long to post his stuff!!!). You can take it that every mention of “his” would read “his/her” in a world where my time wasn’t so limited.