Forums

Infantry only assaults against bunkers and pillboxes without supporting AT fire reap only casulaties if the defender occupies the position in strength.  Better to flank and winkle the defender out of such strong positions or bring up proper combined arms support if the position has to be taken.

It is a fool's errand in a historical context as well as in the PzB games to make frontal infantry only assualts against bunkers and pillboxes unless they are weakly held like in the Normandy Utah Beach scenario.

I would add some context to what ComradeP said about the recent game we played of the PzB Kursjk scenario 0705_01 II SS PzK - July 5: The SS Attack.

ComradeP Wrote:In my recent 5th of July game against Dog Soldier, Das Reich and Totenkopf both launched primarily infantry-centered assaults that went nowhere for high losses because the infantry just isn't capable of dealing with stacks of defenders. One of my bunker stacks also only fell on the final turn after being fired at for several hours.

https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...922&page=3
Post#25

 One battalion each of Das Reich and Totenkopf both launched primarily infantry-centered assaults that were feints to tie down significant Soviet units that could otherwise have moved to the point of the LAH attack or harrased LAH from its flanks.  These were never intended to be secondary thrusts.  The feints worked as planned.

One thing to note is that total losses on both sides were about equal up to turn 22 including losses from the "primarily infantry-centered assaults".  After that turn the breakthrough phase began.  Soviet losses increased significantly even though they stayed tight in their bunkers except to move between them to reinforce or retreat.  Casualties for the Germans were not excessive as ComradeP remembers.

The premise of the game we played was an assertion in this forum by ComradeP that in a recent game with Gregor, he was unable to take the 100 VP location in Bykovka.  Gregor used a tactic of many small, reduced units and platoons up to the stacking limit in each VP location and strategic bunkers which left little time for the Germans to reduce a position so far from the start point.  Without that key VP location, a German win was near impossible.  I disagreed.  I do not think a bunker position, even the one at Bykovka with a supply point to prevent isolation can be held long enough by such tactics.  There are good tactics in the PzB game which I feel reward players using period tactics, None are bullet proof.  Just like in real war.  Even when you did everything right, fate can determine a hero or a dead man.

On the opening night turns I took two of the bunkers on Hill 228.6 with just the engineers that accompany the PzGr company moving at night to secure a foothold on the hill.  There are two engineer platoons at start with one company.  I sent them straight at the hill bypassing the Soviet outposts in my path.  These engineers each successfully assaulted the surprised SMG platoons holding two of the bunkers.  These were single engineer platoons taking on SMG platoons.  By morning (turn 10 7:30 AM) I had secured a third bunker which gave me a good base to bring up the ATG and armor that was either recently released or entered as reinforcements the turn before.  As these AT assets moved up, I conducted some probes on the bunkers remaining on Hill 228.6 as well as the bunkers below the east side of the hill.  ComradeP's Soviets died or fell back abandoning or leaving weak units to delay in some bunkers, while using the retreating units to stregthen a line in other bunkers to contain my advance.

Situation at end of German turn 10



Dog Soldier

By turn twelve I had secured three more bunkers and was only one bunker line away from breaking through to the AT ditch that runs between Hill 220.5 and the village of Zadel'noe.  At this point total game loss for the Soviets were 410 men while German losses were 484 men and six guns shot up in the process of moving from bunker to bunker to fire on the next targets of my advance.



Three turns later (turn 15 10:00AM) I was through the first bunker line (three lines of bunkers west of the pillbox on the main road and next to the ATG ditch.
Total game losses for the Soviet were 742 men and 16 guns while German losses were 687 men, 7 guns and and 16 vehicles.  The vehicle losses were the mostly from the StuGs which I moved up next to bunkers point blank.  Some were the lightly armored Marders, victims of defensive fire from Soviet ATG and two Tigers which ran into a minefield.



Dog Soldier

Three more turns (turn 18 11:30AM) I penetrated the AT ditch and second bunker line beginning to send units to the north to probe the third and final pillbox line between Hill 217.1 and the village of Kamenryi Log.  Hill 228.6 was also secured sometime around turn 16 or 17.
Total game losses had escalated for both sides with the Soviets losing 992 men and 28 guns and the Germans losing 884 men 11 guns and 23 vehicles.  These vehicle losses included some mobile AA gun units take direct ground fire or artillery barrages while they kept pace with the attack protecting the armor from Soviet air attack.



Dog Soldier

By turn 21 (13:30) I had liquidated the holdouts in the second bunker line and forced the outflanked Soviet survivors to retreat onto Hill 220.5 or the village of Zadel'noe.  Hill 220.5 was coming under strong ATG fire while German PzGr encircled the base of the hill.  Zadel'noe was being bypassed for the time being.  I had strong forces closed up on the third bunker line
Total game Soviet losses at this point were 1,252 men and 46 guns.  German losses were 1,228 men, 12 guns and 28 vehicles.  Only one German gun and five vehicles were lost to breach the second bunker line in force.  Losses in men were still about equal as ComradeP was careful to not leave Soviet infantry outside any hardened positions and in German LOS for the most part.



The next turn (turn 22 13:30) I forced the Soviets out of a pillbox in the third line. The final Soviet bunker line was breached and the SS LAH and Das Reich elements could begin to fan out to take as many objectives as they could reach in the remaining 16 turns.  There is a fourth bunker line, but it was largely unoccupied as the Soviets did not try to retreat more than three or four platoons to man it.  Just a small force to help the Soviet guns in the ares try to escape the unleashed PzGr.



A fourteen hex (3.7 Km) hole was torn into three Soviet bunker lines all having mines, obstacles and two having AT ditches.

I went on to surround and reduce the Soviet garrisons around the VP locations to win a minor victory on the last turn (turn 38 21:30) of a well fought game by both sides.
Again note that the total net VP from losses at game's end was only 46 VP.  Losses by the Germans in that context were not excessive.



Dog Soldier

Quote:The premise of the game we played was an assertion in this forum by ComradeP that in a recent game with Gregor, he was unable to take the 100 VP location in Bykovka. 

That's not entirely correct, my assertation, and my comments on bunkers in general, was that it can be impossible to clear them in a timely manner relative to the forces you commit and the size of defending units due to having to disrupt (or kill) all defenders before you can take the bunker. My fear was running out of time. In the end I still won the game against Gregor.

I'd say German losses in this game were needlessly high. A nearly equal loss ratio isn't a good performance for A quality vs. C quality units. If Soviet gun units would start the scenario unfixed, the likely result would've been a German loss in this case as the high loss VP cost could only be made good by gun points.

For comparison, this was the end result in the game against Gregor:

Soviet gun losses are significantly lower because I didn't move towards some of the Soviet artillery concentrations. My gun losses came from a sFH18 unit being caught by counterbattery fire and then carpetbombed in T-mode, and some mortar and AT gun losses throughout the game. Vehicle losses were higher than necessary as I lost about 10 or so to carpet bombing, but overall losses were acceptable.

I was adjacent to a 100 VP location, but couldn't move in as it was a Rubble hex and I had forgotten that I should've assaulted instead of fired upon the HQ in the hex. It didn't matter for the final result.

The Soviets face numerous challenges in this scenario, most of which have to do with their units being Fixed until late in the scenario and the Soviet defensive line sometimes being more of a handicap for the Soviets than for the Germans.

I'll post a detailed overview of my strategy and unit placement as the Soviets later.

German losses at Kursk were high in penetrating the defensive belts.  I think such losses are very realistic since the Soviet strategy of fighting from prepared positions to bleed the German divisions to death for a follow up counter stroke is what the game shows.

This scenario is indeed a tough fight for both sides.  Each side has advantages and disadvantages which are not the same for both sides.  One cannot play the Soviet side in Kursk the same way one would handle the German side.

In my experience with Kursk, is the casualty rate is incidental to the need to take objectives.  A player cannot just rack up a huge casualty differential to replace the need to take objectives against a another player of equal skill.  The game is well designed if the players take advantage of their respective troops abilities, the defensive works and terrain.

My point her is made.  Pure infantry assaults against a strongly held fortified position as a hard bunker or pillbox is not likely to succeed.  Combined arms are required to reduce the formidable Soviet bunker positions which can be held by three or four platoons.

I broke the third bunker line in this game with plenty of time left to reduce the defenses around the VP locations I needed for a win.  In that respect I do not think that bunkers in either PzB Kursk or Normandy are overly tough to to take as the attacker.  One has to use the right tools available in the scenario.

BTW, once my recon companies were released and reached the point of attack, I was a able to defeat the Soviet tactic of trying to keep troops in the bunkers hidden to prevent them from being hit by direct AT fire.  This is a valid Soviet tactic to try and remain hidden so a German assault will fail due to the presence of hidden Soviet defenders.  The German recon units sped up the pace of the bunker reductions by exposing these hidden Soviet units to be attacked by the ATG, armor and Stukas busting the bunkers in advance o the PzGr assaulting the bunkers.

The recon spotting by the recon troops really made a big difference in the pace and time.  I do not think three turns (1.5 hours in game time) to break each bunker line like these at Kursk stuffed with Soviet infantry and ATG is not doing it in a timely manner.  I say it pretty fast considering the Soviets were handeled by an expert player who used all the advantages of a fortified line to delay the German advance.

BTW, IIRC ComradeP asserted to me I broke out of the third bunker line several turns earlier than in his game with Gregor mentioned here.  Seems timely enough for me.

Dog Soldier

But none of the bunker lines, not even the initial one, is truly strongly held in the scenario. Focussing everything on a limited number of bunkers is the way to breach a line, but I was talking about situations where that isn't possible.

You indeed broke through the last AT ditch line several turns earlier than I did in my game against Gregor, I waited on the arrival of the StuGs and Tigers at the front before assaulting the first hill. However, this also indicates that it took you numerous turns to take a single strongly held bunker hex, which was my point.

I disagree that the casualty rate is of secondary importance to the need to the need to capture objectives. With unfixed artillery, you wouldn't have won, your losses were too high for that. Whether or not the Soviet artillery was Fixed wasn't much of a factor in my game with Gregor aside for some mortar units that were not likely to make it out due to all the obstacles and mines.

Loss management and keeping track of the VP worth of what you lose is essential in longer scenarios.

The limited mobility of the Soviets, and the Fixed nature of their artillery gives the Germans a lot of points if they break through early. A quality losses are quite costly, particularly gun and vehicle losses.

What you called a feint also didn't serve much of a purpose for the same reason: all my units were Fixed, they couldn't have reinforced the center if you didn't attack them. Your attack on the eastern part of the line actually allowed me to move units towards the center and north which would otherwise not have been possible, as well as giving me a by Soviet standards favourable casualty ratio.

I'm a conservative attacker until a breakthrough is made and I try to maximize the effectiveness of my infantry. My German infantry losses in Kursk are thus usually significantly lower than those of the Soviets.

As another example of a bunker clearing operation, albeit for a single line reinforced with tanks, my Nechaevka tournament result looked like this:

What I do think this shows is that the game is quite robust and give expected results based on the tactics used.

In CPs fight against me. CP choose a combined arms approach on a very narrow front, Engineers and PzGr supported by a lot of StuGs, Marders and AT guns from the entire Corps attacked on a few km broad front and smashed trough with lesser casualties. While DS attacked earlier and cleared the initial bunkers with PzGr first and followed up with the AT assets. In addition he seemed to attack on a broader front and on more locations. That will naturally increase the losses due to tangling with more fortified positions while in some cases (not sure in this setting) bind reserves not able to stop the real attack.

When you look at the Kursk battle it is obvious that the Russian tactic of making the Germans bleed trying to get trough prepared defenses were affective. Not as effective as they hoped, but still effective. It also seems to me that the smaller the frontage of the attempted breakthrough were and the more combined arms they were able to field on that frontage early on the better the attack did go for the attackers.

I do feel the two example battles here shows exactly that different tactics yield different results in casualties and VP locations, but that different tactics can lead to a victory. The interesting thing is that different attacks have also different defensive strategies that can counter them partly. That is what makes me love this games. There are so many possible approaches both as attacker and as defender that it makes for a lot of fun and a lot of replay ability. When you think you have found the best approach and play a new opponent he have a new approach that brings you back to the drawing board again. And the best of all I feel is that the game yields historic accurate results for historical approaches and tactics.