Share
Go down
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 187
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

West of Hannover AAR

on Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:18 pm
A few months ago now we played a "large" 20mm, 4 player game to test out a couple of concepts.  It's taken me until last weekend to get the time to sort out all the pics and get them in order, and to write up the game.  I've done this in 2 Blog posts (links below at Post 1 and Post 2)

Post No. 1 shows some of the planning that went into the game, the forces used and the initial table set-ups.

Post No. 2 shows how the game played out.

To give you a taste - here are some random pics from the game:








Many more pics, some kind of narrative and additional thoughts are all on the blog.

Thanks

Richard
avatar
Kirill_GV001
Posts : 23
Join date : 2018-05-07
Age : 24
https://redbannerforces.wordpress.com/

Re: West of Hannover AAR

on Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:21 am
Nice AAR, I really enjoyed reading it!

But my favourite part is that it shows that the game rules actually depict a potential conflict quite realistically.
NATO forces expected to stop the Soviet tanks and mounted infantry through a well thought out network of entrenched tanks and ATGM teams, both mounted and on foot. And as the game showed, it was justified.
However, the main key to victory for Soviet (and other WarPac) forces was never supposed to be the tank ; it was supposed to be artillery! That's why in the second half of the 80s, the Soviets were experimenting with combined arms battalions that always had at least two heavy mortar batteries (2B9 Vasilek, or 120mm mortars) and sometimes even a 2S1 Gvozdika battery (some officers, however, judged it was too unwieldy), on top of an already consequent regimental and divisional level artillery component, backed with corps and army level big guns. Hell, there were even mortars at the infantry company level, in order to have as much artillery support as possible!

So, in other words ; a WarPac force should always, always have artillery, even if it's just a pair of 120mm mortars! It sure is expensive, especially at lower game sizes (the only game size at which I can see the Soviets go without heavy mortars is squad level, and even then, I'd recommend bringing a mortar from the infantry platoon's support options), but it is the key element in Soviet tactical level military thought. Having more artillery would have been quite beneficial to your forces, as they could have shaken up the ATGM teams and entrenched Chieftains, and deployed smoke to cover the tanks' advance.

My point isn't to do some brown nosing, but I like how most shortcomings from forces in the Battleground AARs I've seen are quite realistic ; lack of cooperation between armour and infantry for 1940 French forces, the Soviets having few orders due to low junior officer initiative and thus having to employ mass tactics, and now a 1980s Soviet offensive conducted and stopped as expected by NATO officers, with masses of insufficiently supported tanks being brought to a halt by a heavy use of ATGMs and tanks in defensive positions.
Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum