Brits vs Germans, Somewhere in Italy, Late '43, Game 5

[bigjackmac]

All,

We've come to the final fight of the operation.  Let's review: the Brits started with a hasty attack supported with light armor, in which they did okay, forcing the enemy to fall back.  This Germans immediately counterattacked, and the Brits again did okay, but lost their CO when he was cornered and forced to surrender.  This was followed by a rapid attempt by the Germans to close the loop and encircle the Brits, but they ferociously fought there way out of the closing trap.  The Brits immediately counterattacked, making good use of supporting armor to throw the Germans back to their last line of defense.

Lt Page spoke to his key leaders, letting them know armor support would be on hand, but that's because the German line was expected to be formidable, with recon parties reporting the Germans were well dug in.

At dawn Lt Page led his men across the line of departure, hot on the heels of the pre-assault stonk.  It was mere seconds before the chatter of machine guns interrupted the early morning calm...


The Brit assault force, with a CO, a Vickers MG, a 3" mortar, an M4 Sherman, and 9 rifle squads.


The German force: a CO, an MG42, a PaK-38 ATG, and 5 rifle squads.


The Brit assault forces, at the moment they crossed the Line of Departure.


The defenders are placed: a rifle squad in the far left bunker; the MG42, the CO, and a rifle squad in the center bunker; a rifle squad on the road behind the wall between the center and far right bunker; a rifle squad in the far right bunker with a rifle squad at the wall in front of them; and the PaK-38 in the house at top right.


We've got German riflemen close assaulting British tanks...


And Brit riflemen tenaciously digging German infantry out of bunkers.

To see who came out on top of a very close fight, please visit the blog at:
http://blackhawkhet.blogspot.com/2014/12/brits-vs-germans-somewhere-in-italy_4.html

I had a great time, playing five battles in two days (it took about as much time, if not a little more, to type all these batreps up).  I am perfectly happy with the rules, with the only adjustment I need to make being to add more scenarios, which I'll work on and solicit help with.

I think it's pretty cool to be able to get in a five-game Operation so quick.  I  believe I'm going to transition my French Foreign Legion campaign to these rules.

If you got this far, thanks for sticking with me

V/R,
Jack

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Another good report Jack.
Sherman lasted about as long as they always historically did!

[bigjackmac]

Lemmey,

It's a little depressing that I had a Sherman as support and I lost it.  It's even more depressing that I lost it to an infantry assault...

V/R,
Jack

[Ithoriel]

Even Wardaddy lost to German close assault eventually :-)

Good AAR, nice set-up and figures. Thanks.

[bigjackmac]

Thanks for the compliments, and trying to make me feel better about losing the thank Ithoriel 

V/R,
Jack

[Steeleye]

Surely it would have been more 'realistic' to have a Churchill in support of what was basically an infantry battle instead of a Sherman. Actually there should have been an entire troop of tanks, single tanks wandering around by themselves was/is almost unheard of in my experience.

This was set in Normandy right? By then the Churchill's were mostly fitted with 10pdr guns (actually the 75/76mm guns of Shermans that had been fitted with 17pdr's to make them Fireflies) so there wouldn't have been much difference in firepower. However the armour protection on the Churchill was so much better than the Sherman 'Tommy Cookers'.

[Steeleye]

Sorry, I just checked and this was set in Italy...so, maybe using a Sherman wasn't that odd. However, lone tanks for the Allies...I think not!

[bigjackmac]

Steeleye,

"Surely it would have been more 'realistic' to have a Churchill in support of what was basically an infantry battle instead of a Sherman."
I disagree; from 1941 to 1945 the Brits had about 7400 Churchill tanks (including the various 'specialist' tanks, such as the AVRE, flamethrower, and bridging tanks) countered by approximately 17000 Sherman tanks.  Even in Normandy, a read on any OOB or account of battle for the fights around Caen will reveal a small number of Churchills and a gross amount of Shermans, working hand in hand with the infantry.

"Actually there should have been an entire troop of tanks, single tanks wandering around by themselves was/is almost unheard of..."
Actually, single tanks did train in the Brit Army to support (or, more accurately, to be supported by) a platoon of infantry.  In any case, how many tanks are on the tabletop probably depends on what you're trying to represent.

"...in my experience."
In your experience???  Which unit were you with in WWII?

"This was set in Normandy right?"
I'll refer you to the title of the five battle report posts.  Prior to critiquing my post you should probably read it...

"By then the Churchill's were mostly fitted with 10pdr guns..."
Is this correct?  I've never heard of a Churchill with a 10-pdr gun.  I see you're referencing the 75mm guns from Shermans converted to Firefiies, but I don't think those are 10-pdrs, are they?  I don't really know too much about the 'pdr' system, but from what I understand 6-pdr is ~57mm and 17-pdr is ~77mm, so it doesn't seem to me that 10-pdr is 75mm, though I could be wrong.

"...this was set in Italy...so, maybe using a Sherman wasn't that odd."
Thanks, I agree, but it still wouldn't be odd anywhere in NW Europe in 1944 or 1945.  Shermans outnumbered Churchills and Cromwells by approximately 6000 tanks.

"However, lone tanks for the Allies...I think not!"
I counter your hard facts and science with, "I think so!"  Again, it depends on the scope of what you're representing on the table.  Having said that, in the future I'll likely have more tanks per side on the table, but for pure fun I'm going to mix in different types of tanks in the same platoon.  Please avert your eyes if it's too much for you.

You could always post a batrep or two to show me what 'proper' WWII gaming looks like...

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Churchills were seen as 'Infantry Tanks', but comparatively rare, Shermans were common.
Two tank units had Churchills in Italy, whereas Shermans were near eponymous in British forces, especially Italy as the best stuff was kept back for NW Europe. The Churchills were mostly used on the 'Lines', not at the Anzio beachhead, or any of the actions South of Cassino.
The Churchills were mk III or IV with 6 pounders or modified turrets with Sherman 75mm, no mk VII or up armoured stuff from Normandy.

The three tank troop was the standard platoon strength, but they would be assigned to an infantry company as support. If Jack is using a platoon strength force, one tank as proportional support feel fair.

[Steeleye]

In your experience???  Which unit were you with in WWII?

I was a tankie in the 70's which was basically WWII with bigger guns and thicker armour, all the gee-by-golly-wow-sci-fi stuff people use now only started to appear in the later part of the decade.

We were still using tactics and SOPs that had been developed and used during WWII.

Oh, and my regiment had been in Italy during the later stages of WWII supporting the Poles at Monte Casino and after...and I seem to remember the 'Saucy Seventh' used Shermans in that attack. Probably wouldn't have had to dismount and continue the attack on foot if they'd been using Chruchills...thicker armour and better mountain climbing capabilities than the Sherman.

The ex-Sherman 75/76mm guns were officially termed 10pdrs but the name wasn't used by the guys in the tanks, I only found out about this little factiod a couple of years ago.

Also if I'd remembered that this mini campaign had been set in Italy I probably wouldn't have said anything. I seem to remember reading something about an official 'one tank for Italy' rule coming from on high and that tank was the Sherman. However, I still say they'd have done better with Churchills.

I seem to have annoyed you a little with my comments, this wasn't my intention.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Shake and make up boys. 

[bigjackmac]

"Shake and make up boys." We're fine, I just need to address a few new points Lemmey.

Steeleye,

"I seem to have annoyed you a little with my comments, this wasn't my intention."
You've responded to two of my posts, in both cases to tell me in a very unflattering manner how I've screwed things up.  And then you keep going:

"I seem to remember reading something about an official 'one tank for Italy' rule coming from on high and that tank was the Sherman."
So, to you it doesn't make sense for the context of one tabletop fight to have two platoons of infantry and a single tank, despite the larger context being an infantry battalion's attack being supported by a company of tanks.  The tabletop is not even showing one whole company's attack, just the point of contact. 

This isn't an issue of a British Infantry Division being supported by a single tank, the battalion has a company of tanks in support, you're just not seeing all of them because I'm not showing the whole battalion attack.  In any case, I'm also not showing any pre-contact maneuver, I'm picking up once the immediate firefight has started, so from the supporting tank company you need to subtract 1) earlier losses in the campaign, 2) mechanical failures on the morning of the attack, 3) vehicles held out of battle, 4) vehicles held in reserve (not shown on the tabletop), and 5) vehicles already destroyed after crossing the line of departure (by mines, tanks, artillery fire, and ATGs) but before the action is picked up on the table.  So actually, by the point the action is picked up, maybe the tank company is already down to a single tank.

"I still say they'd have done better with Churchills."
Perhaps, but I'm not really concerned with that, because the vast majority of tanks used by the Brit Army (once the Sherman was introduced), in all theaters, was the Sherman.  So, my intent is to play a campaign spanning all of WWII, with stops in Italy, Normandy, and Holland, and the Brits will be using Stuarts, Shermans, Fireflies, and Wolverines.  And because I'm cheap, the Stuarts are M3s instead of M5s and the 'Fireflies' are actually M4s with 76mm guns   

The campaign will also stop by North Africa, but the Brits will be sporting Matildas, Valentines, Crusaders, Honeys, and Lee/Grants...

"The ex-Sherman 75/76mm guns were officially termed 10pdrs but the name wasn't used by the guys in the tanks..."
I'd never heard that.  Aside from the guys in the tanks not using the term '10pdrs.' apparently no one that wrote books about WWII used it either.

"Oh, and my regiment had been in Italy during the later stages of WWII supporting the Poles at Monte Casino and after..."
Congratulations...

"...and I seem to remember the 'Saucy Seventh' used Shermans in that attack."
So we agree that Shermans were used by the British military in Italy!  Things are looking up.

"Probably wouldn't have had to dismount and continue the attack on foot if they'd been using Chruchills (sic)..."
I cannot agree with that comment.  If tanks were that good, the infantry arm would have been done away with.

"...thicker armour and better mountain climbing capabilities than the Sherman."
See, I just don't get this.  You seem super-interested in either convincing me the Sherman is inferior to the Churchill, or just trying to get me argue with you about it.  I could be way off base here, but in our last conversation you seemed rather committed to trying to have me argue with you about how the 'proper' term was section, and that Americans are stupid for calling it a squad.  I'm not interested.

"We were still using tactics and SOPs that had been developed and used during WWII."
As are pretty much all militaries, worldwide, to this day.  I'm sorry but I'm missing your point.

"I was a tankie in the 70's which was basically WWII with bigger guns and thicker armour..."
This one is a real hoot!  Yes, just like WWII, minus all the fighting...  And, all joking aside, ignoring the tremendous shift in force structures from WWII. 

What I mean is, the ratio of tanks to troops, or, more appropriately, armored units to infantry units is nothing post-war like it was in WWII.  I agree that doctrine and tactics for combined arms infantry hasn't changed, but the force structure has.  Looking at the US Army and BAOR (and even the West Germans were largely able to catch up in 1st line units) you pretty much had two mechanized infantry battalions for every tank battalion.  Even in the US and Brit militaries, this number was much lower during WWII (I really can't even take an educated guess, so I'll just throw out a nine infantry to 1 armored battalion ratio?). 

I'm just saying that, viewing through that lens might influence how many tanks you'd expect to see on a tabletop.  We talk about stuff like Prokhorovka, Totalize, etc.., and we think 'look at all the tanks,' but those are famous as tank battles, and I would submit are not representative of combat in WWII.  As an example, we look at the number of PzIIIs, IVs, Panthers, and Tigers, but then look at all the German soldiers that said they never even saw a tank, except for perhaps an enemy one.  If you were in a Panzer Division, you probably saw lots of friendly tanks; if you were in an Infantry Division, not so much.

To wrap up, my being a wise-a$$ was done rather tongue in cheek, and not to irritate you, with maybe a slight hope of making a point about the tone in which we discuss things here.  I have no interest in arguing, just playing with toys.

V/R,
Jack

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Tanks a lot for trying to patch up lads! 

[bigjackmac]

You're right Lemmey.  I'm sorry fellas, and that includes you Steeleye, I apologize.

I fancied myself a comedian and came off a @#$%... 

Please allow me to refine my above post to this:

In my games I'm almost always representing one small portion of a unit's fight, i.e., a battalion or even regimental attack, but I'm focused only on one unit in the overall attack, usually a company, but I don't even represent the entire company, just a particular geographical area.  So I end up with a tabletop OOB of something like "1 Commander stand, an MG, a light tank, and five rifle squads."

I'm sure the Churchill was a fine tank, but I don't have any, and I have plenty of Shermans, so that's what I use.  I don't find their use ahistorical as they were the most prominent tank (in terms of numbers fielded) for the Western powers.  I'll be using Shermans for my upcoming campaign, which touches British troops in Italy, Normandy, and Holland.  It also touches British troops in North Africa, though I'll be using older model tanks rather than Shermans.

I'm also a veteran, though I was a machine gunner rather than a tanker.  I agree that doctrine and tactics haven't changed a lot since WWII, though I believe force structure has.  What I mean by this is that post-war US and British forces had a much higher ratio of armor battalions to infantry battalions (and even then the infantry were mechanized) than their WWII counterparts.

I don't personally believe different tanks would have meant the grunts didn't need to dismount at Monte Cassino, but the relevant point here would be that, if that were the case it wouldn't be very much fun to game.

Sorry guys, that's the post I should have made.  Please forgive me for the diversion from talking about wargaming, and here's to hoping we get back to it.

V/R,
Jack

[NTM]

For the record there were no Churchills in Italy until May 44 so the sherman is the only option historically for a game set there in 1943
Even when they did arrive they were 50% equipped with Shermans as the NA75 was not quite ready
They did eventually get some mk VII but even later than the regiments in NWE where they were much rarer than us gamers would have you think

For pretty much everything you need to know about the Churchill in Italy check out Gerry Chester's North irish horse website