Sunday, 16 February 2014

British vs Soviets pt2

For a change we decided to play up the table, giving the Brits a width of 6ft to defend. The objective for the Soviets was the town and main road at the far end of the table.
Looking up the table from the Soviet start point.
Soviet objective

Soviet objective
Centre of the table, the extent of the British  deployment.
British central deployment

British rear area deployment.
The British deployed their Chieftains and 2 coys  Mech infantry on the Soviet right flank and the TA dug into the woods on the soviet left. Almost the whole width of the table was protected by marked and unmarked mine fields.  Fearing a Soviet flanking march the Challenger1s were deployed on the left and right flanks supported on the left flank by the paras and on the right flank by the 3rd Mech infantry coy.
Precluded by the usual, but largely ineffective,  massed artillery barrage, the soviet attack was split into a left and right flank, with both sides feeding units through the centre. Playing up the table presented the soviets with a problem as the centre became very crowded and presented a target rich enviroment for the british artillery and armour. Although slow to get going the Soviets managed to advance to contact with the mine fields.
Soviet left flank
Soviet centre and right flank taking hits

centre action
Soviet centre "thinned "out.
British adjust their position
Soviets exploit a gap in the mine field and take tank and Carl Gustaf fire
Soviets breach the mine field  and attempt to move through.
T64s slowly advance up the road on the right flank
Soviet aid station, kept very busy!
 Although we only got in  4 full turns  it was a most enjoyable game. The Soviet advance was slowed somewhat by a large number of failed command rolls, especially on the right, and 3 or 4 blunders rolled! We called it a draw as neither side fulfilled their objectives, though the British lost 4 units to the Soviets 36. To the credit of the soviet players they did get a toe hold into the British lines, which they might have been able to exploit had we played on.
Posted by at

3 comments:

  1. Tales from Shed HQ17 February 2014 at 09:36

    Awesome as always. How did playing lengthways go?

    Cheers

    Richard P

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve Graham17 February 2014 at 13:52

      Hi Richard,
      playing up the table makes it harder for the attacker and the defender.The attacker has less room to maneuver and can become overly compacted and vulnerable to artillery and air attack. It is also harder to isolate a flank without exposing a flank to other mutually supporting defending units. Using flank deployment can help in over coming this, which is why I deployed the Chally 1s so far back as a counter for this. this results in the defender having to defend in depth for fear of being outflanked resulting in less units deployed in the front line.So its a bit of swings and roundabouts, advantages and disadvantages for both players.

      Delete
  2. Skafloc30014 October 2020 at 01:25

    Bit ate to the show whilst I like the concept and figures used your terrain is not a reflection of the terrain of Northern Germany. Ground scale, there should be a built up area every 2 km's. More woods. No rivers.

    Soviet doctrine would have primary and secondary objectives, corps, division and regimental recce groups to the front and flanks.

    Pre planned soviet artillery would be targeted on the primary and secondary objectives.

    For the Brits, they would be in a 'box' brigade. " infantry battalions with 1 Armoured (tank) regiment. 2 Brigades to the division.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)