More on ORBATS, scaling and such...

Wow!  A fair bit of feedback on my last previous posting. All good and fair points, although what they had to say served not so much as a corrective in terms of direction, as to impose some discipline to my thinking!

If I have a talent, it does not lie in the realm of originality. It seems to go more in the direction of running with the ideas of others, and taking them places the originator perhaps never thought of. That has quite often led me to some very interesting (to me) and thought-stimulating realms. In my view, that is a useful talent to have, but... it does have a downside. I was running with Bob Cordery's HEXBLITZ, along with Chris Kemp's NQM and and Tim Gow's Megablitz, and something else that has slipped my mind for the moment, into several parallel threads, all of different scales.  That 352 Div ORBAT in my view would make a fine war games formation - but not in the scale I ought to have been looking at for 'Jacko's' and my Operation Uranus project.  Thanks, guys, for pulling me up on that.

What that leads me to is this posting, which was planned for farther down the track.  Here I'll post my proposed ORBATS for the Uranus Project.  It is not cast in stone - some refinements may be required - though some refinements have already been made just for this posting.  I have left off the GoC, staffs and sigs and LOG/POL elements from the lists simply for the sake of brevity.

Proposed Soviet formations for our 'Operation Uranus' project.
The group of pack horses I have rated at 1 LOG per pack animal.
A bit generous maybe?

Operation Uranus: Attack on III Romanian Army

Soviet Union:

The following is the ORBAT in rather compressed form:

1st Guards Army (part only)
     266, 197, 278, 203 Rifle Divisions each 6 stands, SP=6
     1st Guards Army Tank command: 1 x T34 @ SP=3, 1 x KV1 @ SP=3
     Reserve Artillery 1 x 152mm artillery stand, SP=3

First proposal for Soviet Tank Corps.  Of the three Tank
Corps, only two will receive KVs.

5th Tank Army

     1, 26 Tank Corps (as pictured, though 26th Tk Corps will get 3xT34 @ SP=3)

     8 Cavalry Corps (as pictured)

     14, 47 Guards Rifle Divisions each 6 stands, each SP=6
     228, 119, 210, 159, 124, 346 Rifle Divisions, each SP=5

     Reserve Artillery 2 x 152 each SP=3

Proposed Cavalry Corps:  Light tank, mounted
troops in a single group, field arty support.

21st Army
     4 Tank Corps (as pictured)
     3 Guards Cavalry Corps (as pictured but with the mounted group SP=5)
     346, 96, 63, 333, 293, 78, 277 Rifle Divisions each 5 stands, SP=5
     Reserve Artillery 2 x 152 each SP=3
...

Soviet (Guards) Rifle Division.  Although the 6 stands
here include a mortar and a MMG, for our purposes
they all count the same.

65th Army (part only)
     27 Guards Rifle Division, 6 stands, SP=6
     252, 258 Rifle Divisions, 5 stands SP=5
     65th Army Tank Command (1xT34 SP=3)
     Reserve Artillery 1x 122mm @ SP=2

Army Reserve Artillery : 1x122mm, 1x152mm.  Represents
Army level equipments: heavy stuff.  Both this pieces are
semi-scratch built.

That will still be quite a lot of stuff to field in the table, and I really don't have enough SP marker holders, so a lot of the information will have to be carried by the stands... probably.

...

The four formations...

The Romanian Army (for which I can not supply pictures) I can list a little more formally, though still omitting Command, HQ and logistics elements:

The Operation Uranus Project map.  I have had to make a couple of corrections
since a couple of postings back: removing the duplicate 293rd Rifle Division
and redrawing the 21st/65th Army boundary lines.

III Romanian Army:

I Corps:
7th, 11th Infantry Divisions, each 6 stands, SP=6
Reserve Artillery: 1 field gun 7.5cm or light howitzer 10.5cm SP=2

II Corps:
9th, 14th Infantry Divisions, each 6 stands, SP=6
Reserve Artillery:  SP=2
V Corps:
5th, 6th Infantry Divisions, each 6 stands, SP=6
Reserve Artillery: SP=2
IV Corps:
13th Infantry Division, 6 stands SP=6
1st Cavalry Division, 6 stands SP=6
Reserve Artillery: SP=2
Under III Army Command:
15th Infantry Division, 6 stands, SP=6
7th Cavalry Division, 6 stands, SP=6

1st Panzer Division,
          2 AFVs (Pz38(t) or PzIIIH) each SP=3
          Infantry: 2 infantry stands, SP=2 
Reserve Artillery: SP=2

XLVIII Panzer Corps (German)
    (22 Panzer Division)
         Pz Rgt 204: 2 AFVs (Pz38(t) or PzIIIH) @ SP=3
         Pz Gr Rgt 129: 2 infantry stands, SP=2
         Pz Artillery Rgt 140: 1x 10.5cm @ SP=1

Kampfgruppe Simons (German):
         1 Marder or towed PaK 38 or PaK40 @ SP=2
         2 Infantry stands, SP=2
     

As has been pointed out to me, this is quite a lot of kit to shovel onto one table - not a very big table, and all. With the German attachments the Romanians will be fielding 22 units (allowing for splitting the armoured units).  At that, they will be considerably outnumbered by the Russian hordes (Aaargh! 49 units!!)   Well apart from a slight reorganisation of Soviet tank corps to the following picture - and that will bring the units down to a mere 46 - we will have to bring in the 'board game' argument.  As the type of game we are looking at bears rather more similarity to board war games, I hope maybe we can 'get away' with these kind of numbers.
..

In these last pictures, I have formed the 'teeth' arms of a Tank Corps into constituent Tank brigades, each comprising one tank and one infantry stand.  Each brigade forms a single unit, that may not be separated, nor be stacked with anything else (there simply ain't the room). The infantry stand simply adds one to the SP value, and, I think, adds to the aesthetics of a tank brigade. These strike me as a good - possibly preferable - alternative to the earlier organisation shown.  The tanks of 1st Guards and 65th Armies will not be so augmented, however.  They simply represent the tank holdings of those armies, which don't appear to have been organised into Tank Corps as such. At that the 2 AFVs of 1st Guards Army represents just 2/3 of their actual inventory of over 160 tanks.

To change the subject a little to these last two pictures themselves, the hexagon shapes upon which the vehicles stand are intended as profiles for minor built-up areas for my hex-board. Such doodads aren't strictly necessary, but they go towards the look of the thing. The buildings forming the background of these pictures will do nicely as well. I began making these a zillion years ago at a time when I was vaguely considering (shudder) Volley & Bayonet*. Until recently I ignored them, but never quite threw them away.  The extra grey-walled buildings and the crazy paving I added a few days ago, and the pair have a nice little BUA effect.  They are permanent fixtures on their base, though. The profiles allow more temporary arrangements.

*  I don't really mean to disparage V&B.  That rule set is very popular among a certain set of local war gamers, and that argues considerable merit.  But for some reason, I simply could not get my head around its mechanics and conventions.  Strange.

German 352 Infantry Division, Normandy

352 German Infantry Division - suggested ORBAT for
HEXBLITZ

A reader indicated he would like to see what the 352nd Infantry Division, whose ORBAT I suggested in my last posting, would look like. The above picture shows what I had in mind.  

The blue dice show the strength points by units. Each base line strength point represents 2 infantry or pionier companies, 30 AFVs, or 24 pieces of ordnance. These have been modified by unit for their 'regular' status (+1), and in some cases for small numbers (-1). The grenadier regiments are organised as single entities, rather than 2-stand battalions @ SP=2. I have beefed up the Fusilier battalion to SP=3, even though it has only 2 stands, on account of its 'veteran' status (the rest are 'regular').  I admit that is something of a guess, but I gather the Fusilier battalions were a little ... extra.

...

I simply could not take just the one picture...

The 'Regimental' infantry guns and PaK have been grouped together as single 'units'. Both units 'should' be under command of the regiments, but at this scale, the numbers would be too small to be represented. Rather than lose them altogether, I have consolidated them under Divisional Command. After all 6x15cm sIG plus 14x10.5cm leIG aren't to be omitted lightly. The Division had only 9 PaK40, 3 per regiment. Even 9 would have been subsumed, given the stand, vehicle and artillery scales I mention above.

At that I perceive that I might have short-changed the Division's artillery strength points.  22 'regular' infantry guns ought to have SP = 2 (22 guns, regular crews). Artillery Regiment 12x15cm howitzer plus 36x10.5cm howitzer, with regular crews indicate an SP=3.  Finally the PaK company is correct with 1 SP (0 [baseline] + 1 [regular] -1 [small numbers - 9 only].  However, if we supposed the artillery crews were merely 'trained', then we'd have the SPs as pictured.

Could I?  The red die signified the LOG
capacity of the 'supply column'.

The AT/AA Abteilung has been treated in similar fashion to the consolidated PaK 'company'. For a fully tracked self-propelled AA vehicle, a 37mm half-tracked vehicle has been substituted. I simply don't have any of these...

single 20mm AA cannon mounted on Pz38(t) chassis

As the AT Abt has 3 such disparate companies, the best I could come up with was to depict each with SP =1 (0 [baseline, small numbers] +1 [regular]).

I have given 352 Division 'regular' status, as it does seem to have been the best organised and equipped infantry formation defending the beaches at Normandy. The remaining Divisions varied in quality, the static formations and 'Ost' battalions probably not even warranting 'Trained' status. Others, somewhat more mobile/ manoeuvrable/ militarily functional we might consider 'Trained'.

Some Reflections on 'Upping the Scales'

The previous posting but one describes a table-top battle fought a week ago between 'Jacko' and myself on my kitchen table. Actually, the playing surface was a blanket draped over the board that I have since marked up with a hex-grid (see previous posting). That board rested on the kitchen table.

I have been working on adapting Chris Kemp's Not Quite Mechanised© (NQM) game system into the sort of scale that its author has been running for his East Front campaign. In this endeavour Bob Cordery has given a great deal of assistance by sending me his Operational Art© concepts and his very straightforward Hexblitz© rule set to be downloaded. There is a whole heap of material and ideas and mechanics for me to get my head around.

The Hexblitz rule set gave us the basis for a quick game, intended primarily to try out the movement and combat mechanics. Having already worked out the orders of battle and strength points, I left them as is.  According to Bob's system, they would have represented fairly poor quality troops, but as it was a first time game, that was not apparent. On the whole that game was a lot of fun, though not very well balanced, with an outcome satisfactory to both sides.  At least before my repulse I had taken one village and broken into the eastern end of the main town.

Here are some thoughts on the game, and where to go from here..

1. Activation system.  

Although in principle the playing card system is fine, those standard sized cards of my Samba (3-deck Canasta) pack tended to dominate the table, as this picture shows.  

Of course, a mini-pack (as recommended) would have been an improvement.  An alternative idea is a pile of numbered counters - one uniquely numbered counter to as many units there are on the table - which would diminish the clutter immensely. I believe John Sandars favoured this method for his Sandskrieg battles. 

A third idea, which sounds very attractive, is to create a deck of cards each labelled uniquely with a unit or formation ID. As each card is drawn, the identified units in turn get to do something. The drawback to this is that for each game one would be required to make up a deck of activation cards for that particular occasion. The units themselves would have to be labelled, as well. 

H'mmm. Effort. Not my long suit.

Instead of activating units, is there anything to be said for activating an action, the players choosing which unit to take it? I'm thinking something akin to Memoir '44 or the Italieri Overlord game system. In each given game-turn, players toke turns drawing an action card - from a pile or from a hand - with one unit acting on it. Such a system can be great for player interaction. Would it be compatible with the Hexblitz M-S-D system, or Megablitz's SMART approach? You might want something that allowed a default action, if, towards the end of a turn actions kept turning up that were not suited to the as yet unmoved units; or if one side had a heap more troops than the other. Whole formations might be allowed to act in some concerted manner.

2. Strength point (SP) system.

That used for last week's game was ad hoc, decided ahead of time, just to get a game rolling. This is where I may be forced to depart from the Hexblitz system of assigning SPs to each element, and assign them to units and formations instead, as in NQM.

Each Hexblitz element represents a body of troops from company to battalion sized, with SPs assigned per company, 15 AFVs or 12 artillery, mortars, anti-tank guns etc. These strength points are further modified for the element according to troop training/quality, weapons, transport availability, say. So the Romanian 6-element Division  made up of, say 6 battalions, would have had a baseline SP of 4SP per battalion, or 24SP in total. Lack of motorised transport would bring the SP total down to 18, and supposing in mid-1944 Romanian equipment continued sub-standard, SPs would come down to 12 - 2 per battalion element.This is to omit Divisional assets such as artillery, anti-tank guns, pioneers and recon units.

In our game, Divisional support weapons - the 'Divisional slice' - were subsumed as Army Corps assets.

On balance, I would prefer to retain where possible the SPs at formation (Div or Corps), rather than unit, level.  The reason is to reduce accounting clutter, but it also is due (a) to the scale we have in mind, and (2) to what I am now about to talk about.

3.  Element based war games.

My immediate preference is to keep the SPs at formation level, but then we have to consider this:
The 2nd Panzer Division  at 6 June 1944 had, as part of its establishment, Panzer Regiment 3.  This comprised two panzer battalions, one (I/3)  of 78 (establishment) PzV Panther, the other (II/3) of 98 (establishment) PzIVH (Generaloberst Guderian had obviously done his best to repair the damage done to his panzer divisions when Hitler in 1941 split their tank establishments in two to create more panzer Divisions!).  



I infer from this that I Battalion comprised 4 x 17 Panther companies, 1 recon platoon of 5 Panthers, and an HQ group of the remaining 5.  The other battalion would have been similarly organised, but with 22 panzers in each company.

Our 2 PzDiv would then have one model panther whose base-line SP is (78/15) = 5, upped to 6 as a tank unit, then 7 for 'superior equipment', then to 8 for being 'regular' (or 9 for being veteran!); and one model PzIV whose baseline SP is also 8 or 9 (98/15, truncated to account for wastage or tanks in repair shops) = 6, +1 for 'regular' or +2 for 'veteran'), +1 for tanks. Well, I dare say I can live with a single vehicle being given a strength point value of 8 or 9!

The remainder of the Division would have to be commensurate, and, going by the picture above, it looks pretty handy! This organisation would fit the Megablitz game very well, methinks. Each element represents a battalion or battalion sized abteilung.  The artillery could be beefed up by a further light artillery (10.5cm) element. The radio half-track in the distance is meant to represent the pionier abteilung (because I haven't build my bridge carrying vehicle yet). Possibly a Marder 38(t) should replace the towed PaK40 as well.  The reconnaissance unit is represented by the light half track and kubelwagen.

This I laid out just for the look of the thing, with the idea of seeing the results of upscaling. The 'first pass' (below) is rather gradual, and consists mainly of cutting back on the tank and infantry arms. I tend to think of SP2 being something of a floor rating, though SP=1 for the AA and AT elements would probably be appropriate enough.

The image on the right reduces the infantry to a

single unit, though they still represent two regiments. Probably the armour ought to be reduced to a single model with SP=6, in this case. The following picture is a different view of the same organisation.  

The final picture in this sequence is the sort of thing I'm looking for in terms of scale to play out our Operation Uranus against III Romanian Army. This organisation is still 1944, but the whole Division has been reduced to armour, infantry and guns (self-propelled, but most Panzer Division artillery was still towed). The support weapons could be subsumed into Corps troops, perhaps.

You will observe in all this that after the Megablitz type of organisation, I reserved the SP markers to one only for each arm, plus the Div HQ. For the purposes of the games we play and the scale they represent, I would be disinclined to allow the regiments to be split into their constituent battalions, any more than the battalions to be split into constituent companies.  We'll have lots of Divisions, after all!

Stacking limitations, especially in respect of armour, may imply that a unit must be distributed among more than one hex grid area. It's an idea I'll have to test for practicability, but it seems to me that one might attach the SP marker to one element (representing the unit/formation commander's presence), and limit the separation to adjacent grid areas only.  Hits on the unit in either grid area are still to be accumulated upon the single SP marker stand. This will have consequences for assigning SPs to combat, though. Each element would be allowed the appropriate fraction of the unit SP, the 'commander's' being rounded up, the others rounded down. More of this in another posting, maybe. (You can tell, if you have got this far, I'm thinking up this stuff as I go, eh?)

Will the organisations for infantry Divisions  require expansion from the mere 5-6 rifle stands they currently have been in Jacko's and my thinking? In the our 'test' game, the 'Divisional slice' was represented by the Corps troops - artillery, anti-tank, mounted recon units and such. Will that be sufficient? A little more research called for, methinks.

And that brings me to ...

4. Scaling.

Up until now I have been working to these scales: ground: 1:25,000; time 1 move to 2 hours. But that tended to leave our infantry Divisions occupying a rather smaller 'footprint', or length of front, than looked right. Change the organisation?  A fair bit of effort has been put into it so far.  How about the scale, then?

That was what that final picture is about. Suppose we upped the scale to 1:50,000 and the time scale to 1 turn to 3 hours?  Then, 1 SP represents (is the baseline strength for) 2 rifle coys or cavalry squadrons; 30 AFVs. or 24 artillery pieces.  In certain circumstances, we might build in elements that comprise between 10 and 20 AFVs, but with a negative modifier to signify a small unit.

An example might be the AT/AA Abteilung of the type of Division of 352nd Infantry at Omaha Beach.  That little unit comprised:
1 company of 10 StuGIIIG
1 company of 14 Marder 38(t)
1 company of 9 self propelled AA guns (mounted on Pz38(t) chassis)
At our monster scale, how would you represent this?  Possibly one might allow a single vehicle to represent the whole thing, with SP= 2 (baseline) + 1 (Regular unit) = 3SP.  I'm more inclined to let all 3 vehicles be represented by with SP=1 for each of them.

Here is a tentative ORBAT for 352nd Division; Normandy; 5 June, 1944:
HQ: Generalleutnant Dietrich Kraiss SP=1
HQ staffs and signals: kubelwagen and motorcycle or battalion command vehicle.
Truck or ammo vehicle LOG=3
(Optional)(Note 1) Regimental infantry gun companies: 1 x 10.5cm leIG or 15cm sIG SP=2 (1 {baseline: 6 x 15cm pkus 14 x 10.5cm} =1 {regular}) 1 light tractor or kettenkrad tow
(Optional)(1) Regimental anti-tank platoons: 1 x 7.5cm PaK SP=1 (0 {baseline 9 PaK guns, 3 per regiment}, +1 {regular}) 1 medium tractor (SdKfz11)
914, 915, 916  Grenadier Regiments each SP=4 (4SP {baseline 8 coys} +1SP {regular} -1SP{non-motorised)(2,3)}
352 AT/SP Abteilung(4): 1 StuG SP=1 (0 {baseline 10 vehicles only} +1 {regular}; 1 Marder 38(t) SP=1 (0 {baseline 14 vehicles only} + 1 {regular});  1 SPAA SP=1 (ditto);
352 Fusilier Battalion: 3SP = (2 {baseline 4 coys} + 2 {veteran} -1 {non-motorised})
352 Artillery Regiment: 3SP (2 {baseline 4 battalions} + 1 {regular}),
352 Pionier Abteilung:  SP=2 (2 {20 flamethrowers plus 6 mortars} +1 {regular} -1 {non-motorised})(5).
Notes:

A possible opening set-up for a one-table Operation Uranus
against III Romanian Army .  Stacking limitations will mean
that Soviet tank and cavalry Corps will occupy more than one
hex grid area.
I've put it here just... because.

1.  These were small companies in each regiment with infantry gins and anti-tank guns in small numbers.  I am suggesting grouping them together under Div HQ, or else omit them altogether.

2.  I have assumed the infantry units were not motorised, but the only one I'm sure about is 1 Kp 352 Fusilier Battalion, who were mounted on bicycles.  I also have an idea that it was this battalion, by the way, that would have been called on for Division reconnaissance duties.

3.   In the following I have assigned SPs but omitted stands.  For infantry I am inclined to assign 1 stand per baseline SP, but one could reduce the ratio to 1:2, 1:3 or 1:4 depending on the game scale.  Oooo - I do like flexibility, as the bishop said to the actress....

4.   As the baseline is zero, this unit would vanish altogether if the troops were not up to 'Regular' quality.  Then I really would substitute a single vehicle, with  SP=2. The lesser quality Divisions at Normandy didn't include such a unit though.

5.  One might add an 'Ersatz' battalion, but that had a mix of trivial numbers of all sorts of things.  I have omitted it.

5.Stand sizes and stacking.

Last week's game was played on an open, rather than gridded table.What I wanted to know was the effect of substituting 10cm hexes with simply measuring ranges and movement in 10cm increments.  On the whole the think seemed to work, but the jury is still out.

Operational Art called for standardised bases 40cm square, which limits to three stands the number a 10cm hexagon can accommodate (a 10cm square could hold four).  When I see design parameters like this, I tend to assume they mean something, and therefore set them aside very reluctantly. But as this would require a wholesale rebasing of my armies, set this one aside I must.  

The effect is to allow the stacking of more than three infantry elements onto one grid area.  In our recent action, though it was 'open board', the effect was in fact to accommodate 6 infantry elements in the one 10cm frontage - the rough equivalent of a single grid area.  It seemed to work.

As this posting is quite long enough, covers a lot of ground in much the same way as a drunk might in crossing the street, I'll end it here.  In my next posting I'll see if I can't refine - and organise! - my thinking into practical game design features. I might have something more to say about that Operation Uranus map, too.

Marking up a hex-grid game board.

In the wake of last week's HEXBLITZ game without hexes, I thought it might not be a bad idea to mark up one of my available playing surfaces to a hex grid.  This was a piece of 5-ply wood building material that had been left over years ago from earthquake repairs to the house and never collected. This piece is 120cm x 133cm.

The hexagons pencilled in using the method I described in
March.

To mark this up I followed the method I outlined in a blog posting in March this year, but with the hexes 10cm across the faces.  I didn't bother sanding or otherwise tidying up the piece (though the other face has been) preferring to retain the grain, knots and assorted dings and scratches to give character to the surface.  I will at some time spray or brush on some green and beige so that it looks a little less like wood.

One doesn't need hyper-accuracy...

Time taken to mark up in pencil and mark with marker pen (which, surprisingly, survived the ordeal), a little over 24 hours elapsed time, probably less than three actually working on it.  It briefly considered marking the points of the grid with 'Y' marks, but gave that away as insufficiently clear.  Painting the hex sides also looked to be far too slow.

Hexes marked up and outlined with marker pen.  End hexes left
as pentagons.

Finally, I have left the end hexes as pentagons, originally thinking that the hexes wouldn't quite fit. This seemed to be indicated by some experiments I did with a hex field on paper.  But fit they would, quite well, so I may well finish the edges as hexagons after all.  Overall, this gives me a field of 173 cells - 11-12 x 15.  Gridded up as squares, this would have given me just 156 10cm square cells - 12x13.

The battlefield with Russian and German troops.

   The following pix are there to see what the thing will look like 'in action'.  Have to admit, I might have been a tad overenthusiastic with the pencil.  Losing the pencil marks might not be as easy as I imagined.

Russian infantry and tank brigades.  The half-tracked Zis
medium truck I scratchbuilt.  Only the cab and the traction is
from a kit.The rest is balsa and cardboard, with resin front wheels.

This morning I splodged some heavily watered down paint to give the surface a bit of variety.  Can't say this is the prettiest game board I've ever seen, and I may end up giving it a proper sand and paint job - undercoat, remark the hexes, top coats, the lot. 

A few Germans,  Metal cavalry, the farther Tiger II a diecast
toy with the barrel lengthened, and the commander
recapitated... (yes you read it correctly!)

The remaining pictures are merely an indulgence... 

German Cavalry.  metal, bought second hand.
Provenance unknown.

... just to see how it would look with terrain pieces added.  

Adding terrain - a three-hex conifer forest.  If the centre trees
are kept on the hex-sides, troops can be placed in the woods
and the trees removed without losing sight of where the
forest should be.

A four-hex town - quite a sizeable settlement.  Buildings from
various sources, including two home-made.

Meanwhile, I have indicated I would 'debrief' on the recent East Front action.  I kinda got a little sidetracked with this hex-board project.  Such reflections I'll leave for the moment.  Just by the way I have put in an order for a copy of Megablitz, the ETA of which, my spies tell me, is any time from this coming Friday to tomorrow week (Wednesday).

Upping the Scales.

27th Army rolls forward at dawn, 23 June, 1944.  The
Romanian defenders await.

As Operation Bagration opened on the morning of 22 June 1944 a its tremendous artillery barrage, and massive assaults went in all along the front of Army Group Centre, the Red Army made considerable progress on the 1st and 2nd Byelorussian Fronts.  The 3rd Byelorussian Front found the Axis resistance rather stiffer, and a breakthrough elusive.  The exception was the small 27th Army of General Yu R Dubienko.  Striking a particularly weak part of the line, 27th army burst through on a narrow front before the morning was out.  According to instructions, they raced northwards with the Minsk highway the ultimate objective.

Axis responses were swift. Counter-attacks by local reserves sealed the breach, and held until nightfall against all further attempts to break through, and all through the following day. Twenty-seventh Army was stranded behind enemy lines.  In response to General Dubienko's radio call, Marshal Rokossovski was unequivoval.

"Push on to Skavinski Station," he said, "That place is a road and rail junction that will be useful to the Hitlerites, as will be the nearby airfield."
"Ammunition, fuel and provender?" the General's query was succinct.
"We will, if necessary, supply you from the air,"  Rokossovski's confident manner was all the reassurance General Dubienko needed.

Map of action as fought.  The direction of the red arrows very closely
resembles General Dubienko's hasty sketch of his planned assault upon
The Romanian lines.

Romanians dug in at State Farm 570 and Skavinki.  Group
Troianescu occupies the airfield.  The playing cards determine
move order by formation, rather than element.

This was the basis of an East Front game 'Jacko' and I played last Tuesday evening. We had been exploring operation level games, and have been rather attracted by the army level version of Chris Kemp's Not Quite Mechanised game system. I had been in the process of putting together a formalised rule set based upon Mr Kemp's 'Umpire's Guidelines' that I had downloaded. Now the game on Tuesday might have ended up a rather scratchy affair, but for the generosity of Bob Cordery, who sent me, among other useful downloadable files, a rule set he had devised some years ago: HEXBLITZ.

This was just the thing: the same ground and time scales that I had in mind (1:25000, 1 turn to 2- 2.5 hours) and very similar figure and vehicle scales as well  (1 stand to 1 battalion, roughly).  On Monday night I whipped together some playing aids, most of which I didn't use owing to their fiddliness. Some aspects of the game system therefore got a bit fudged, but that was more due to time constraints than anything. I did use the 'stance' counters, though, and the card system for move order, by formation, at least.

4th Romanian Division, garrisoning Bogacharovo town.

The action was loosely based on one of the One Hour Wargames scenarios:

"Disorganised Defence".  In the basic scenario The attackers get 4 units, the defenders get 3 on table, and 3 reinforcements late in the day.

With a Russian Army rampaging somewhere behind the front lines, Field Marshal Busch ordered the local reserve at once to block the enemy advance. The immediate reserve to hand was  III Romanian Corps comprising two infantry Divisions, and 'Group Troianescu' a Division-sized force of towed and self-propelled anti-tank guns and motorised infantry. Corps troops comprised field artillery, light anti-tank guns and  a cavalry brigade.

"Hold on for as long as you can," Busch ordered, "with luck, we'll have Panzers with infantry and artillery support with you by the end of the day."

Early morning Russian advance.

Order of battle:

Soviet 27th Army: Gen. Yuri R. Dubienko
- XXXIV Tank Corps with
   - 3 Tank Brigades @ SP=3 all armed with Lend-Lease Shermans SP=9
   - 1 Rifle Brigade 4 stands SP=4
   - 1 Infantry gun battalion SP=2
- 375th Rifle Division 6 stands, SP=6
- 488th Rifle Division 6 stands, SP=6
- 60th Heavy Artillery Regiment (2x152mm @ 2SP) SP=4
- Army Troops:
   - 94th Cavalry Division 2 Cavalry regiments and an Armoured car regiment, total SP=6

   - 101st Field Artillery Battalion (76.2mm) SP=2

  - Supply column LOG=4  (really just for cosmetic purposes for our first and hastily organised action)

The rail and road junctions and airfield at Skavinski 

Axis:

III Romanian Corps: General Dumitrescu
 - 4th Division SP=6
 - 6th Division SP=6
 - Group Troianescu
    - Assault gun battalion (Marder II) SP=2
    - Anti-tank battalion (PaK40) SP=2
    - 4 motorised battalions  4 stands SP=4
 - Corps troops:
    - Light antitank  SP=2
    - Field artillery SP=2
    - Cavalry 2 stands, SP=4
    - Supply column LOG=3

Reinforcements:
Kampfgruppe von Damnitz
 - 3rd Romanian Division 6 stands SP=6
 - 1st Panzer Division comprising
    - PzIIIH and Pz38(t) battalions @ SP=3, total SP = 6.
    - Panzergrenadiers (4 stands in armoured halftracks) SP=4
 - 303rd Heavy Artillery Division 2x150mm total SP=4
 - Corps troops:
    - Field artillery battalion SP=2
    - Anti-tank battalion SP=2
    - Supply column LOG=3

Heavy casualties at Bogacharovo.  We hadn't quite got yet
how the Artillery supports worked.

To block the Soviet advance, General Dumitriescu (Jacko) placed 4th Infantry Division in and around the town of Bogacharovo (see Map), 6th Division around State Farm 570. and held the rest of his command in the vital town of Skavinski itself. These troops were all he had to hold out for the 14 hours until reinforcements could be expected.

The Romanian garrison is surprisingly resilient!

The Soviet plan, hastily scratched out by General Dubienko (Self, using an anachronistic ball pen and lined paper, a valuable document long since lost to history. The above map is based on that original). The main early thrust would be made by 488th Rifle Division against Bogacharovo, assisted by 94th Cavalry sweeping between that town and Skavinski to approach from the northwest. Support would be provided by 60th Heavy Artillery Division and the Army's organic field artillery. 

Attack on State Farm 570.  The Russians abandoned this assault
shortly afterward, but maintained enough of a threat to keep
Romanian 6th Div 'in situ'.

For its part, 375th Rifle Division was to attack State Farm 570. Unsupported as it was, I had no great hopes of success, of course. But if it tied down one of the enemy formations, that was sufficient.  Finally the Tank Corps was to push ahead behind the cavalry and strike into the southeast corner of the main Army Objective: Skavinski Station and its associated airfield.

XXXIV Tank Corps prepares its assault on Skavinski.

This game was very much a learning process for both of us. Fortunately the game example Bob send me helped point the way, though we did get things wrong to start with (which cost the Soviets more than the Axis, but them's the breaks). The Logistics elements we didn't trouble with, mainly concentrating of movement and combat. I'd very much like to do this scenario again some time, with the Soviets reliant on what they have already, and what they might capture.  Ammunition might be a consideration, too. After a couple of moves we hit on the idea that multiple attacks upon a single objective can each call upon artillery support. At first we counted artillery support as a separate attack, but that really didn't seem to work.  

Fall of Bagacharovo.  Driven into the open by the Soviet cavalry,
6th Romanian Division is destroyed by 488th Rifle Division.

The battle of Bogacharovo was the main testing ground for the combat mechanics, with 488 Rifle Division attacking from the south, 94th Cavalry Division from the northwest, and heavy artillery support from the southwest. It all proved costly to the Soviets. However, reduced to SP=0, 6th Romanian Division fell back out of the town, to be destroyed in the open as 488th Rifle Division, followed them up. The cavalry attack reduced the Romanians to 0 SP, with 488th yet to move. Thus able to move and attack, the Russian infantry finished off the Romanian Division. 

XXXIV Tank Corps infantry already reduced to 50%
of its original strength.

Now, in all this we did find ourselves fudging the move order a little. The one playing aid we did use, was the order/stance system: 'D = in defence', 'S = stationary' and 'M = moving'. 'Moving' could mean 'changing position' or marching or 'attacking'.  Now 'S' is a transitional stance between 'D' (or 'dug in') and 'M' (or attacking). One tended to wonder what stance distant supporting artillery should be - if indeed it needed to be in any particular stance at all to offer support fire. And how did move order affect support.  I think I know the answer to this - or at least an answer. 

On the brink of driving the defenders from the town, Soviet
tank gunners and artillery observers choose this moment to go all
cross eyed.   Axis shooting is pretty ineffective and all!

Having said that, I was most impressed with the simple elegance of the system. One is tempted to add 'A = Attack' and 'Sp = Support' to the existing 3 stances, more for clarity than to add anything to the system. Otherwise 'S' might be expanded to mean 'support' as well as 'stationary'. But I'll need to peruse the rule set more thoroughly and play a few more battles to be persuaded that a change is really needed.

Late afternoon: Group Troianescu's counter attack throws back
 XXXIV Tank Corps infantry, and will soon push on to engage
 the rest of the formation.

Shortly after the defeat of Romanian 4th Division, XXXIV Tank Corps came up against the III Corps HQ troops in the south east corner of Skavinski. Whilst the Corps' infantry brigade attacked up the road from the south, the Sherman tanks from the tank brigades moved in from the southeast. Probably here is where we departed most significantly from Bob Cordery's game system. 'Per book', each element is given strength points (SP), the plinth displaying the number being integral to the stand or model. With neither time nor materials to create these (nor, I confess, the inclination) I tended to give SP markers by formation, rather than by element. Together with the XXXIV organic artillery (infantry guns), the tanks totalled 11 SP, which, with the support of the heavy guns (the field artillery had to move up into range) gave the tanks 15 SP in the attack. Add in the infantry, also supported, a further 8 SP. As the infantry brigade was not in contact with the rest of their parant formation (XXXIV Corps), that attack was carried out separately.  

Soviet attempts to exploit there early success don't look
promising

I don't recall for certain how many SP the defenders could conjure up in response - 8 or 10. Suffice to say the fighting on the edge of town got pretty bloody. The excitement mounted when 'Group Troianescu lurched into motion and counter-attacked the left flank of the Soviet assault. The Corps' infantry brigade was flung back (SP reduced to 0) exposing the tanks. Nevertheless, Dubienko ordered XXXIV Corps to continue its assault.

 LIX Panzer Corps to the rescue - rather late in the day.

...

By this time, the sun not far from its setting, that Axis reinforcements arrived. And look at the priority cards fate chose to allocate them, by Jupiter! The Soviet cavalry, by this time, had severed the railway line east of Skavinsky, but they were to be afforded no time to dig in. All the same, at about sunset, XXXIV Corps successfully drove the Romanians from Skavinski. In the gathering darkness, Group Troianescu, following up their success against the infantry, struck the tank group. Both sides took heavy casualties in the fighting, but, exhausted, the Russians also fell back.  

Skavinski about to fall, but faced with  enemy
counter-atacks, the Soviets lack the time nor strength
to occupy and defend the place.

Their SP reduced to 0, the tanks fell back at once, but, the move order indicating it could still move, when it came to their turn, I pulled them further back, well beyond visibility range in the gloaming.

There ended the battle, as the tired remains of 27th Army drew back a few kilometers during the night.  Casualties had been heavy on both sides: 

27th Army: Total SP = 39, lost 28.
III Romanian Corps:  Total SP = 31, lost 22
Reinforcing battle group: Total SP = 24, lost nil.

We both enjoyed this action, liked the way the game system was easy to pick up, and were pretty happy with the look of the thing.  Some aspects of the game mechanics I will discuss further in a 'debriefing' article, especially where I departed from Bob Cordery's system in terms of allocating and use of the Strength Point system and movement order cards.  This game was also an experiment to see if the game could be adapted to an 'open board' rather than a hex grid.  

To be ... continued.  In a manner of speaking.