[MartinR]

I don’t visit Wargames sites to read hobby news, I tend to pick up recommendations for things of interest from my pals at the club, on FB or via blogs or discussion groups. I also gave up on glossy Wargames magazines decades ago, which is a shame as they were such a big part the hobby in the 70s and 80s.

Just a symptom of the market fragmentation synonymous with globalised capitalism I guess.

I enjoy the discussions on the various fora, TWW in particular is very civilised, and I still find yahoo groups useful, particularly the persistent files. I think I get my greatest pleasure from wargaming blogs, it is a rich and varied world and people go off in all sorts of interesting directions, although I am sure there are aspects of the echo chamber.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

As with the A9s, I have some in my 6mm ‘junk’ regiment in desert colours.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

You can use figures based for GWSH interchangeably with Square Bashing, as they are both 1 base = 1 company games. Yes, the bases are 30×30, but as with all element based games, the number of figures on each base is irrelevant. You could put 200 2mm figs on each base for a true 1:1 scale game, but it wouldn’t make any difference to the game play. You can comfortably fit three and even four 15mm figures on a 30×30.

I’ve run convention games with both SB and GWSH, SB is a bit more abstract and some players hate it (and it uses a grid).

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

Yes, GWSH II meets all your criteria, except I only put two 15mm figure on each stand, as I’m cheap:)

Manouvre units are regiments/brigades and formations are divisions. Rifles and LMGs shoot as far a you’d expect with a ground scale of 1″ to 80 yard. I’ve used them extensively for both trench and open warfare, in fact the trench warfare rules are some of the best I’ve ever come across and I shamelessly borrowed the pre-game bombardment mechnism for my own rules.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

I didn’t get much wargaming stuff this year. Just both Portable War Games books.

I did get a really cool new pair of Dr Martens though, an even cooler lightweight suit and more whisky and gin than I can possibly drink in the next week. And a load of Star Wars stuff.

 

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

There are lengthy threads about this on TMP. But essentially, as 76mm Shermans dribbled to the front, they were mixed in with 75mm Shermans (similar to Fireflies). Later in the war there were all 76mm platoons and companies.

Things were obviously different in units equipped with all 76mm Shermans from the start, like some Soviet tank regiments, and maybe the Poles(?) in Italy.

 

 

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

I do both. My blog is just a diary and a place to post pictures with some captions (which I sometimes then repost elsewhere). Forums are for a bit of chit chat. Although I do respond to blog comments.

I don’t particularly mix the two. If people want to read the stuff I write, then great, but if not I’m not going to trawl round half a dozen forums touting for business. That sounds like hard work.

 

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

As Im a member of a Wargames club, I get to play lots of games. Three standouts from last year?

1. Cold War in 54mm using Funny Little Wars. Nothing quite like half a dozen 1/48th T72s!

2. Some wonderful 15mm games of Simplicity in Practice.

3. I was rather pleased with my ‘3 Div on D Day’ mini campaign in 15m using Battlegroup.

For next year:

1. Inspired by all the Hex blitz stuff, I’ll aim to run a Megablitz game. Already designed a scenario.

2. More early WW1 with Op 14. I’ve sorted out a Marne scenario.

3. I’m working on a new set of Brigade level, hex based WW2 rules, so hopefully they will see the light of day.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

I have a soft spot for lean, mean A13s, so I have a few of those in 15mm, but the poor old A9 and A10 are related to my 6mm ‘junk’ regiment which I use for early war desert battles.

I wouldn’t be too sniffy about these lightly armoured tanks, interwar light and medium tanks were commonly only Armoured against machine guns, even the early models of the Pz III and IV. The idea of ‘shell proof’ medium tanks was more of a late 1930s and early 1940s thing. The British cruisers did mount one of the most effective anti tank guns of the era.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

John D Salt wrote:

I’m sure lots of us remember the “tank stick” from the “Battle!” rules by dear old Charles Grant.

I made a fancy one for my grade 9 industrial arts project!

even though everyone will tell you that German tank drivers in the desert were trained to keep their AFVs angled to the expected direction of attack

I really hate bringing up my peace time armour experience, but I’ve never understood how you can do that. It’s difficult enough to keep your bloody front to the expected direction of attack when advancing to contact. Never did it in the desert myself, but even in the vast rolling plains of Suffield it’s easy to accidentally go broadside when jockeying off a fire position when it’s your turn to leapfrog past or caterpillar up to the leading tanks in your troop/platoon.

I rather think that in real life, flank shots are far more prevalent than in wargames, as real tank Commanders don’t have the 100 foot general situational awareness of Wargamers.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

Great, thanks Andrew. I’ve bought one already!

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

I have half a dozen 15mm Matilda 1s. I’ve mainly used them to refights Arras. My pals coo with delight when the come out to play. My BEF Vickers Lights have probably been in action more though.

As for what they are for? Cheap, heavily Armoured mobile pillboxes. For a less glib answer, David Fletcher “Experimental Mechanised Force” covers interwar British tank development very neatly.

Those nasty SS Totenkopf chaps didn’t seem to find Matilda 1s particularly amusing.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

Well, mine are called Battalion Attack (which, as I recall, was suggested by John in the first place).

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

Battalion to Brigade, it seems to fit best with most accounts of WW2 action and allows genuine combined arms without going down the FOW route of attaching Corps assets to a platoon. I strive to develop the perfect set of rules, which has ben a satisfying intellectual challenge for the last 30 years 🙂

I also have a soft spot for operational games.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

In a similar, but rather lower tech, manner of John, I made up full company strength counters at team level for use in WRG 1925 to 50. We never seemed to have enough infantry. I’ve still got them.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

I guess it depends what they were doing in their time at the front. Stuck holding defensive positions in pelting rain for weeks at a time (as eg 7th AD had to do) exposes them to all the same risks as infantrymen including enemy snipers and infantry attacks. As John notes, a large number of personnel in Armoured units don’t drive tanks, they drive around in lorries and jeeps. Even the guys who do drive tanks, don’t sit in them 24 hours a day. Our view of what an Armoured unit looks like and how it works is skewed by all those toy tanks on the tabletop.

A better analogy is an infantry regiment which has to also haul around a load of fuel, ammunition and maintenance hungry heavy equipment.

Note: by unit I mean a battalion sized element, not a formation like a division.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

Tank Tracks by Peter Beale compares individual recollections with the regimental war diary of various battles 9th RTR fought in (they had an exciting war).

The US Army Center for Military History has a large collection of US AARs.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

Ah, yes. I’d not read far enough down. Yes there is a big disparity in the crew loss rates, but even the good Colonel essentially says he does’t know why and it it warrants  further investigation.

I would suggest small sample size, differences in duration and differences in tank loss recording (write offs vs damaged etc). The crews at Goodwood were also far less likely to have been outside their tanks doing non combat stuff like maintenance, eating, sleeping etc. Lots and lots of crew casualties occurred due to mortar, artillery and airstrikes when they were outside their vehicles.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

The disparity is fairly easy to explain, Dupuy table is looking at divisional losses, so including the infantry elements. At Goodwood, the Armoured Div lorried brigades were by and large, stuck n the rear. The poor old US armored infantry had ten months of dying to do.

He presented it that way due to the curious way he calculates projected armour and artillery losses in his QJM combat model.

When I’m not on my phone, I’ll chip in a bit more, hopefully before John tears into me:)

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

I had a look at the notes I made on CDIV. If the modifiers take you below 1 you can still fire but it is ineffective ie you won’t score any hits.

It may still be worth firing as in some editions being under fire causes a morale check whether it is effective or not.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

I have a dim recollection that some versions of CD had guaranteed hits on a 1 regardless of modifiers, but it is some time since I played it. Which version are you looking at?

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

Great report Tim. Nice to see the Revell panzer grenadiers in action once again!

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

Dear me, it sounds like I’ve had C2S false memory syndrome! Im half tempted to go and look in the loft for them as I don’t recall there being two different game scales at all? Perhaps Pandora Box is best left unopened 🙂

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

Blue, Prussians. Danes.

Grey, 1866 Austrians. Russians in greatcoats.

Tbh, Blue and Grey covers an awful lot of stuff. Do some in lighter shades of blue and grey (aka “white”), an you’ll cover lots of bases.

I shamelessly use my 2mm WSS stuff for everything from early TYW to Napoleonics. If I didn’t have lots of Nineteenth Century stuff in bigger scales I’d use it for that too. Just don’t look to closely at the flags.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

I plan what I need to buy, buy it, then paint it.

Building models, painting, basing and organising them is a huge part of the hobby for me.

So no, I don’t pay other people to paint my stuff. Most second hand stuff I buy, I repaint. The only pre paints I regularly use is Star Wars stuff, mainly as I don’t use them very often so can’t be bothered.

Over the decades I have accumulated a moderate lead/plastic pile, but it doesn’t bother me much and I clear it out from time to time.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

I think you have to look at this in the context of the overall rules, however in the main I would suggest that pre-measurement implies that geometry and the arbitrary distances imposed by rules mechanism are somehow significant.

Rules which involve geometry and the minutiae of various distances, also generally involves a lot of faffing around and grown men arguing about whether something was ‘in’ or ‘out’ of range. This can also encourage over optimistic movement aka cheating. Now, I don’t mind this stuff in the context of Funny Little Wars, which is played in a heroic and gentlemanly spirit, but when it comes to say, DBA it puts me off completely.

If you want friction use cards, randomised movement, orders, hidden moves or whatever with reliance on arbitrary ruler based distances a distant last.

 

 

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

Shaun Travers wrote:

I got Cambrai to Sinai when it first came out. They are individual figure-based, not 1 stand = 1 squad A friend and I played it once. The keyword is “once”. And Martin, I thought I have mentioned a few times that I have completely managed to forget about these rules, until you bring them up on some thread or other  

I only mention C2S as I still recall the crushing disappointment when I realised they were unplayable. I don’t recall them being 1:1 though, the infantry manouvered and fought in sections, which was why I bought them in the first place – to avoid fiddling around with massive 12 element WRG platoons.

IABSM and Rapid Fire similar, although in principle they are played with single based figures, the troops manouvre an fight in groups, which can just as well be represented as elements (which is what I did rather than rebase everyone!).

 

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

WRG 1925 to 50 was the first (and arguably one of the best).

Cambrai to Sinai used section sized stands but was classic 1970s bloatware.

Among more modern sets, Fireball Forward and Iron Cross. FF is basically Squad leader using CF mechanisms and is excellent.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

Mike Carvers “Tobruk” is quite old but covers Crusader and Gazala in minute detail.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

I guess it depends more what you mean by ‘tank destroyer concept’. The US TD concept was a very specific doctrine of search and destroy, everyone else used them as self propelled anti-tank guns (or misused them as ersatz assault guns or tanks). The technology was to a large extent irrelevant, although a Jagdpanther was marginally more survivable than a Jagdpanzer 1:) The US TD doctrine is more applicable to modern attack helicopters (Bryan Peretts thesis in ‘A Brief History of Blitzkreig, one of his better books).

Dedicated AT weapons will _always_ be more effective tank killers than tanks, despite what the tank generals and arms manufacturers say. Operations Research conducted in the 1980s demonstrated that dedicated AT weapons (even those identical to tank mounts) are at least twice as effective as tank mounted weapons in destroying enemy armour. Yet NATO was sold the myth that the most effective AT weapon was another tank, even when Hans von Luck was conducting tours of the Goodwood battlefeld for NATO officers where his anti-tank guns tore gigantic holes in  massed allied armour formations. See Rowlands and Speight ‘The Stress of Battle’, some of their research was republished in ‘Brains and Bullets’ as the original can be hard to find. Similarly, look at the combat effectiveness modifiers applied to AT weapons in Dupuy’s ‘Numbers, Predictions and War’, they are twice as effective against armour.

So yes, TD doctrine still holds strong, even if half a dozen blokes with MILAN aren’t as sexy as a new Chieftan.

 

 

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

Perhaps I should have said The Battle of the Falklands, as opposed to the Falklands War

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to see the Belgrano described as a ‘battle cruiser’ though.

Ah! Bingo:

http://en.mercopress.com/2015/03/17/falklands-hms-conqueror-which-sank-belgrano-to-be-exhibited-at-uk-memorial-centre

 

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

As Tim says, if there is any disappointment, it was about US Tank Destroyer doctrine, largely as they were misused as tanks. Everybody else’s tank destroyers got on with destroying tanks. The doctrine is still in use today, albeit implemented by attack helicopters.

Same with battle cruisers, heavy cruisers misused as battleships. When used in their intended role (Armoured cruiser killers) as at The Falklands, they worked very well.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

I usually try and transpose all the relevant information onto a QRS as it helps me to understand the logical structure of the rules. So having done that, we hardly refer to the rules at all, although keeping track of the nuances of the various Command and Colours games does need some reading!

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

My 6mm stuff is mainly H&R, NavWar and Scotia.

GHQ is fine but much bigger than 1/300th, same for Adler (don’t like the big heads) and Baccus have pretty much redefined 6mm as something more akin to 8mm.

Much of my non WW2 6mm is Irregular. The sculpts do indeed look awful in the raw lead, but paint up very well indeed. They also have a large range of 2mm, which I use for a number of periods including Cold War.

People seem to really like the 1/600th Pico Armour stuff, and maybe if I was starting again….

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

Lovely work.

I made a paper model once (A Schneider CA1). It took me a week and I swore never, ever to do it again. Hats off to your patience.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

We play something different every week. The main influence on how many games get played is making sure we get to the club regularly.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

Without seeing the overall context (time period, circumstances, other related stats eg is it comparing to destroyed and abandoned vehicles?) it is very hard to comment. WW2 tanks were very unreliable in general, and could be taken out of action by very minor repairable damage. But if the crews or repair teams didn’t get a chance to effect those repairs, then the vehicles would be lost.

In Normandy, the units equipped with Panthers and Tigers achieved operational rates of 50 to 60%, as long as the front was fairly static. Not hugely worse than BAOR Regiments equipped with Chieftans:) But yes, I can well imagine that a high proportion of vehicles lost at Fala is were abandoned with mechanical faults.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

Even as I was typing that, I was thinking, mmmmm, did the PPsH really take 9mm? But yes, there were conversion kits.

A lot of weapons were adapted to use German ammo, both small arms and artillery. On the western front I suspect soviet small arms were in a tiny minority, particularly if they needed Russian ammo, although there is a thread on the Axis History Forum which indicates that a lot of Ost battalions kept their Russian rifles (and Russian ammo), backed up by photos.

 

 

 

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

Given that there were a number of Ost battalions in Normandy still equipped with Soviet 50mm and 82mm mortars, as well as 45mm ATGs, I’d be amazed if they didn’t also have PPsH SMGs. Especially as they took 9mm parabellum, same as the MP40.

I wouldn’t necessarily base my weapon selections on COD though, there seem to be an awful lot of MP18s lying around, yet not a single GW43, at least not on the missions I’ve got to yet:)

Outside of the Ost battalions, I’d be surprised if captured small arms went out of theatre much, although some of the units which started on the eastern front may have brought some with them, mainly those naughty SS types. One of the characters in Len Deightons ‘Bomber’ was Fischer, ex 1st SS LAH posted to 12th SS. He brought his PPsH and Ukrainian driver with him, but was of course fictional.

 

 

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[MartinR]

I’ve also solo played it and agree about the extreme spread of combat results. I dumped the Op sheet early on and made cards up, which work much better.

The main problem I had with it is that there are lots and lots of decisions, but few of them bear much relation to military command decisions, they are more about playing the game mechanics. There are some nice ideas buried in there though, I’ve been thinking about how to incorporate tactics cards into various games for a while, but I’m not generally a fan of command point type games of the multiple impulse variety. There are simpler ways to produce the same effects of eg mobile VS set piece attacks.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[Author]

Posts