Desert Rats

[FierceKitty]

There is a well-documented problem with WWII; there's lots of interesting, even attractive stuff, but there's little prospect for tactics on the tabletop, since you either need to deal with fiddly little micrometrical measurements to deal with the enormous scale involved, or you play titchy little skirmishes in the biggest war in history.
So I'm a-wondering if the Victorian "get the column through" scenario, with lots of hidden Fuzzy-Wuzzies popping out of the scrub etc, is the way to go? Put some emphasis on scouting, make flank attacks as deadly as in other periods, and don't fuss too much about the hardware (I don't mean treat a Tiger as equivalent to a Grant!).
Which raises a question for those who are better informed than I: how many PBI per tank? Is one tank per platoon excessive?

[FierceKitty]

No answers?

[barbarian]

I don't understand the PBI acronym.

[Leman]

Since you first posted I've been looking at Science v. Pluck, in which the umpire controls the Mahdists and can spring all sorts of surprises on the British column. Very cheap on Wargame Vault at the moment, although a large number of the delightful illustrations appear to have been lost translating it to a down load. I rather like the idea that the players are often less than cooperative British officers.

[FierceKitty]

Actually, I was asking about doing it in 1942. Thus the posting under "20th Century". I know the Science vs Pluck rules and am very happy with my colonial Victorian system. But I've never found a way to make WWII interesting on the one hand, and am drawn to the prettiness of a few tanks on the other.

[barbarian]

BKC II is a good base for gaming.
I'll develop later.

[FierceKitty]

pbi = Poor Bloody Infantry

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Acronyms should be capitalised.....

IanS

[FierceKitty]

vide svpra

[Maenoferren]

Since you first posted I've been looking at Science v. Pluck, in which the umpire controls the Mahdists and can spring all sorts of surprises on the British column. Very cheap on Wargame Vault at the moment, although a large number of the delightful illustrations appear to have been lost translating it to a down load. I rather like the idea that the players are often less than cooperative British officers.

Funnily enough I just bought it yesterday

[Maenoferren]

There is a well-documented problem with WWII; there's lots of interesting, even attractive stuff, but there's little prospect for tactics on the tabletop, since you either need to deal with fiddly little micrometrical measurements to deal with the enormous scale involved, or you play titchy little skirmishes in the biggest war in history.
So I'm a-wondering if the Victorian "get the column through" scenario, with lots of hidden Fuzzy-Wuzzies popping out of the scrub etc, is the way to go? Put some emphasis on scouting, make flank attacks as deadly as in other periods, and don't fuss too much about the hardware (I don't mean treat a Tiger as equivalent to a Grant!).
Which raises a question for those who are better informed than I: how many PBI per tank? Is one tank per platoon excessive?

Did my dissertation on oral testimony of the Normandy Landings.. one thing I got from a Paratrooper near the Orme bridge... his company were pleased to have three Sherman's... however the Sherman's had different orders and were all lost three minutes later. This would give I suppose a platoon of infantry to a tank....

[Hertsblue]

Mechanised warfare is all about combined arms operations - evolving tactics that allow tanks, infantry and guns to work together so as to become better than the sum of their parts. If you think there is no tactical nous required in WW2 combat you need to come and play some of my opponents. I will admit that if you want to play divisional-sized battles you need to be in 1/300th or smaller scales, but that's easily catered for. In 10mm we normally field battle-groups, formations of any size from company to battalion, containing armour, infantry and artillery together with reconnaissance and engineering functions, an army in miniature in other words. There is no hard and fast composition for a battle group - they were usually formed for specific tasks or conditions from what was available.

Flank attacks could be as deadly as in other periods, but usually on a grand-tactical scale. If you attack the teeth arms from the flank they turn and face you. If you get in behind them you hit the support columns without which the fighting troops are lost. As for scouting, reconnaissance troops operated miles in advance of the main force and would often fight for information (that's an attractive scenario, incidentally). Add in air observation and ambushes (in the desert at least) were rare.

Finally, "don't fuss too much about the hardware" just won't wash. WW2 was the first "technological" war, and it was a very different conflict in 1945 from what it had been in 1940. What I think I'm trying to say is that you can't fight it as some sort of updated colonial campaign.       

[Subedai]

#Hertsblue.
Funny you mention that about recce scenarios, my next solo is going to be a 1944 scenario where the Germans are trying to break through a Russian pincer somewhere in eastern Germany, all in 1/300. I think this specific type of scenario lends itself better to solo play otherwise it could get a tad boring. I'll be using the WRG Armour and Infantry 1925-1950 Rules (1973 edition).

#FierceKitty.
You could always start with a section/platoon of inf and build it up from there. If you keep it mainly infantry then only a couple of tanks or even half-tracks per side will make a hell of a difference. Die rolls for reinforcements etc. All good stuff.

[barbarian]

But no-one will come to verify if you play armour on armour action only.