First Falklands Game

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Yes, it happened! 

Scenario:
Royal Marines Company backed up by 8 mortars and 2 Scorpions (Gennorm) assaulting a ridge held by a company of Argentine conscripts with 2 brigade mortars in support (Me).
Rules: Sabre Squadron
Royal Marines came in at about 600 points (Elite, expert training) vs 300 points of Poor Conscripts, with Doubtful higher command too!

Table was relatively open, but then unless you want to fight a night battle (which we should have done, but this is teh first time I'd tried the rules) the Falklands is! Three hills (left of shot) covered the approach to the ridge, which Gennorm would use as cover to advance.


Argentine initial deployment was 3 platoon holding the centre of the ridge


1 platoon holding the left of the ridge, with a rifle team, an HMG and a sniper on the rocky outcrop that pushed forward (seen from British lines)


Company HQ and supporting rifle teams in the centre


2 platoon on the right flank (top)


Sergeant from 1 platoon spots what's coming!


The British advanced under 2" mortar smoke in three groups with the Blues & Royals providing armoured support, this was going to be tense!


However, almost immediately, the Marine centre platoon attracted fire from teh vast majority of Argentine forces, and took immediate losses, immediately!


Their return fire neutralised a Squad Machinegun stand, which would basically keep it's head down for the whole game.

It now became apparent the problem I was going to face, while the Marines could take massive losses, they could just keep going as their morale was so high, if my forces became pinned, they could not shoot as effectively and so my initial lethal volume of fire decreased substantially!

Damn, I hate rules that work with historical accuracy!

The British Mortar battery, and one platoon of British fire was directed for a large chunk of the game at my left flank, where an HMG and rifle had been enfilading the centre Marine platoon from. Their job was to hold up the British advance, they did this rather well!

And that sniper, useless! Couldn't hit a barn door all game!

The British right hand platoon, advancing almost untouched behind their hill


British shots start falling in the Argentine line, and due to their dodgy morale, most never recovered!


After many many turns of trying, the two Argentine brigade mortars finally ranged in on a mass of already pinned Marines from Gennorm's left hand platoon.

This really didn't help them!

Meanwhile, under sustained armoured fire, my right hand (2) platoon failed their morale and decided to seek cover behind the crest line they were supposed to defend! Only by the timely intervention of my CC did they not completely leg it, yet!

In the background you can see the damage the middle Marine platoon was taking!

Gennorm's left hand platoon advances covered by 2" mortar smoke and armour


The British advance


And tripod mounted GPMGs finally clear the rocky outcrop, leaving the way open!


On his left, his advance is also going well, that was an awful lot of firepower to face!


Plus mortars made sure 3 platoon was somewhat crippled, losing their attached HMG and taking turn after turn of Milan hits (none of which did any damage, apart from the Argentine Company's laundry tab)!

Things were starting to go historically, 2 platoon was rallied from with draw to 'Hold' by the CinC behind the hill, and soon they noticed they could see Gennorm's advancing Marines too!

Brisk exchanges of fire and expletives followed!

(British losses can be seen to the rear)

At this point my left (1 platoon) also decided to retire to cover; whilst 2 platoon decided to make for the safety of Port Stanley!

Argentine loses visible on the base line!

Win to the British, but a great game, the lack of morale meant the Argentines, once they started going, had great difficulty returning, whereas the Marines kept marching on!


Love that shot!

[Fenton]

Looking good. Glad you finally got a game in with your lovely figures

[Techno]

Great report, Will ! 
Cheers - Phil

[Nosher]

Nice one

[O Dinas Powys]

Damn, I hate rules that work with historical accuracy!

Great read 

Cheers!

Meirion

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Gennorm's photos are here:
https://www.facebook.com/Sabresquadron-1667372410171882/

[paulr]

 

Good looking game and it seems fun was had by all

[Gennorm]

It worked very well. The RM suffered a few early losses but kept going and once they were able to put fore om the Argentines morale and training meant everything. There were some key events - the Argentine sniper had forgotten to zero his sight, the 76mm HESH proved deadly and the 81mm platoon was answering the radio, unlike their opposites. Next time we'll give the Argentines dome decent troops and maybe get those great Panhards onto the table.

[bigjackmac]

Great game Lemmey and Gennorm, thanks for posting!

Lemmey, I suspect the reason you like the pic of the lone Sergeant so much is because he's all the force you had left

Do you guys have an estimate of the casualties for each side?  I'm just curious; it seems to me it would be reasonable to expect the RM actually took heavier casualties (crossing all that open ground vs entrenched defenders), but their higher levels of training/morale allowed them to overcome it, while the Argentinians didn't actually take many casualties, but their poor morale caused them to be pushed off the objective.

Which sounds realistic to me.  Just curious; and if the Argentinians took heavier casualties than the Brits, well, that makes sense too, I just wanted to see how this one shook out if the data is available.

V/R,
Jack

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

British 8 stands (majority from middle platoon inc 2ic) 3/6 from middle platoon, plus an attached Milan and the 2ic, 1 from  the British righ and 2 from the left. Left hand platoon had dropped to 'hold' status.
Argentine platoons:
1 platoon on the left 3/7, including attached HMG, had withdrawn and now on hold orders behind the hill,
middle 3 platoon 4/6 including attached HMG,  but had always passed morale,
HQ 1/3,has passed all morale,
2 platoon on right broke, but had lost 4/7, had withdrawn, dropped a morale, held, fought on, then routed.

[jchaos79]

  really good!

[Sunray]

Most enjoyable game report.    I was on the ground post war, and spent a while on assessing tactical options of both Red and Blue.

Two comments if I may.

First, the East Falklands terrain - there is much more dead ground in the folds of upland bog.  A few sluggish rivers like the Malo, the Mullet and the San Calos, but there are many small streams, ponds and upland marsh.   The peat is eroded its uneven folds and ridges are a prominent feature.   There are clusters of white bleached rocks on each dumlin  hillock.   There are many un-surfaced tracks -many of these are now improved.   The dead ground assists movement.   In terms of colour a spray of  patches yellow, brown and tan with whitish rocks and small pools of blackish surface water will kill the bowling green effect.


Secondly.  You need rules that reflect the ethos and attitude of the Royal Marines.   If faced with heavy fire from a well entrenched position, the Royals were inclined - not to take gung ho casualties- but  to dive behind some cover,  have a smoke (1980s style) , engage in a quiet tactical discussion and come up with lateral options.  These might include -

(a) Use Support Company - the 81mm will mallet the target with a 3 to 1 barrage of HE and phosphorus.  That causes confusion as well as damage.

(b) The Royals are adroit at using the Pusser's out in the bay with 4.5 automatic or a fire mission for the 105's ashore (same gun).

(c) If the buggers are well entrenched,  you want to spend £10k of the defence budget fire a Milan . One trained Royal is worth 1,000 times that amount.

Its this lateral approach that makes the Royals an elite force

Cheers


Sunray

[bigjackmac]

Again, fantastic fight, Lemmey, and thanks for the notes on the casualties.

Sunray - I think some of us may view the Royal Marines a bit differently than what you've indicated in your second paragraph.  While I agree they would undoubtedly make best use of supporting arms/fires in support of the assault, it seems like you just wrote (paraphrasing) "what makes the Royal Marines elite is the fact that when they are fired on, rather than assault they will find a place to hide until supporting fires have taken care of the issue."  Probably not your intent, but that's how it reads to me.

In any case, while it sounds like the Brits may have had problems getting their 81s into action, it seems like Gennorm made good use of the 2" mortars, Scorpions, Milans, and GPMGs to support the assault elements.  And it sounds like a great game, so Lemmey and Gennorm, thanks for posting, and hurry up and play (and post) some more!

V/R,
Jack

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Thanks Sunray, means a lot to have someone who was there comment,
I know the terrain was spartan, I do have lots more.
I would willingly have added lots more broken terrain, and I was thinking streams and bogs, tussocks and tracks, but since this was my first taster with the rules, we kept it simple. I would gladly take your terrain advice. Thank you.
As to the tactical advice, they tried the Milan approach, must have been duds! The mortars were effective however, as was the fire support of the Scorpions. Think the 4.5" were about to be brought in when my forces face up and ran!

[Gennorm]

Good point on the terrain Sunray, it was something I realised very early on in the game. The game was a bit experimental so next time I'll make quite a few changes including some dead ground and some bad terrain to slow movement. The rules assume that troops are 'going tactical' by default - charging gung ho is allowed but with penalties that discourage it - with the difference in training affecting shooting and morale affecting the ability to put one's head up and keep operating while under fire; it's a but abstracted.

The hills were vital and the RM were able to form fire bases on them to suppress the defences - a pair of GPMGs on SF mounts caused havoc although the Milan just couldn't get close enough!

Nick

[Sunray]

Points well made and taken.  You were right to play the game get a sense of the rules and keep initial terrain simple.

The Falklands is notoriously difficult to game, and I commend your efforts.   It soon becomes evident that if you stick to the script the Argentine forces after Goose Green retreat to the high vital ground around Stanley and the only option for the Task Force is to (a) advance to contact and (b) deliberate night attack.    This does not convert well to the table.

I must confess for this reason I have never got beyond the invasion and the classical defence mounted by NP 8901.  It is a great daylight game with the 06.30 landings in Yorke Bay and the fighting withdrawal to Government House.   The figures were Gripping Beast.  It should work even better with 10mm Pendraken.

The scrap at King Edward Point (South Georgia) with a very creditable firefight waged by Mills Marauders that  showed what 22 pissed off Royals could do on a bad day.   It really was not in the rules of Argentine Polo  to engage a corvette with a Charlie G and hole her below the water line.    They also demonstrated why one should not try to establish an LZ in a  Royal Marine's Killing Zone   Note - only one Marine casualty. 

One thing that emerged from the official MoD debrief was that unsupported infantry action (no offence to Blues & Royals) required a lot more ball than had been anticipated.  Suppressive fire expended belts and mags at a rate unknown to the British squaddie.   In the 1980s we were tight when it came to loosening off ball.  Partly the aimed shots discipline, partly the culture of Operation Banner, and partly because we were accustomed  to  close support from AFVs in conventional Battle Group doctrine.   

  Replenishment became an issue, and it was common practice to "recycle" the 7.62 from Argentine dead and prisoners to maintain action.   

As you continue to roll the dice it might be useful to see modified Falkland Rules emerging that reflect the troops, the terrain and the unique tactical conditions.   It was not conventional modern war as we know it. 


Best wishes

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Brilliant ideas,
South Georgia was definitely discussed, possibly 1:150 aerial photo graph as a map? How annoyed was the Argentine ship commander? Very! they also put the ship's main gun out of action with a LAW too!

My shopping list at the moment consists of:
British 2" mortars (the eagle eyed amongst you notice 82mm doubling up)
British Tripod mounted GPMG
Argentine HMGs (.50cals?)
Argentine super bazookas (any proxies, or should I use recoilless rifles).
Maybe two more Amtraks for the Argentine forces and more special forces?

[Gennorm]

A South Georgia scenario would have to be called "Sod that, I'll make their eyes water" after Mills' reaction to orders to put up only token resistance.

Ideally every war has its own set of rules as they all seem to have their unique factors. The ammo issue is an interesting one that could be incorporated, and it probably happened in other conflicts of the time.

Nick

[Sunray]

Ideally every war has its own set of rules as they all seem to have their unique factors. The ammo issue is an interesting one that could be incorporated, and it probably happened in other conflicts of the time.

Nick

Nick, welcome to the forum.

God lad, you make me feel old when you use phrases like 'conflicts of the time'.   Two quick responses to your comment.  If we take the late 1970s to early 1980s as the parenthesis there frankly weren't a lot of 'conflicts of the time' going on in the world that were compatible to Operation Corporate  and none I can think of where ALL your reserves of logistical kit was in a cargo hold under Air Attack Red.   We were operating 7,500 miles from our spare parts and replacements.

Actually  "conflict" is a misnomer - the Falklands was not some little bush war in Third World.  It was  conventional warfare on a howbeit small scale and inside a designated "zone", but  involving land , sea and air battles  between two professional armed forces. 

It was not a land battle that the British Army had trained for, nor was it a prolonged conflict where one could refine and adapt the tactical doctrine.  (A lot of what did emerge turned out to be wrong, but that's another story).  For the first time since 1939-42 we fought without air superiority.   This does not detract from the valiant efforts by the Harrier pilots, but the modest CAPs they mounted did not dominate the skies.   It was a new experience for the post war British soldier to hear aircraft and hit the dirt before practising recognition skills. 

I remember in the Post Falklands Army, if a bit of kit was hard to find or impossible to requisition, the smug reply from the QM was
"Sorry Sir, the items you requested seem to be  no longer available.  They were last seen being loaded on the Atlantic Conveyor."

I am sure you will find bush war scenarios where the insurgent forces - in true Maoist doctrine - picked up and used the enemy kit.  But the British Army weren't an insurgent force, and our battles were not guerrilla fire fights.   Our logistics and training  were simply unprepared for the amount of ball that the task required.

I was never on South Georgia.  However from google maps the topography for Grytviken is pretty basic.  It is a day light action on a small scale. Pendraken had a corvette and Revell has just released theirs in 1/144. 

[Sunray]

Again, fantastic fight, Lemmey, and thanks for the notes on the casualties.

Sunray - I think some of us may view the Royal Marines a bit differently than what you've indicated in your second paragraph.  While I agree they would undoubtedly make best use of supporting arms/fires in support of the assault, it seems like you just wrote (paraphrasing) "what makes the Royal Marines elite is the fact that when they are fired on, rather than assault they will find a place to hide until supporting fires have taken care of the issue."  Probably not your intent, but that's how it reads to me.


V/R,
Jack

No Jack, not my intent, and sorry if my words conveyed that impression. The eternal problem with a short blog that one cannot qualify.  The Royal Marines I had the privilege to serve with always impressed me with their ability to fight with their heads.   When you are fired on you take cover unless you are a Fig 11.   You then formulate your response to regain the initiative in the fire fight.   What makes the Royals unique as a special force is that brand of initiative.   Yes, they put their lives in harms way  and they lost good men, but as well trained and thinking  professionals they used all supporting fire, weapons and tactics available to downsize their casualties and win the fire fight and dominate the killing ground.  

That's your primary task in a fire fight.  There are no rules in real life combat as to how you do it. 

If you are the attacking force as the British were, with dug in enemy regulars in prepared positions , you need all that support company and all other available sources of friendly fire can give you - otherwise ...you shall not grow old as we that are left grow old...


Cheers