Combat Tactics and Strategies

[ChalkLine]

I'm in a PbP game, and in every situation where the PCs have stood their ground and fought, they've been slaughtered.

True, the PCs are all fairly unskilled and are fighting a crack team of VDV and Spetsnaz (thanks GM! ) but the defining feature seems to be that if the PCs stand still they get creamed.

So I've read up on infantry tactics, and the German concept of 'elastic defence'. This is where you start with strongpoints that shelter you from bombardment, and fall back with supporting fires to trade ground for time to counter attack when the enemy seems disorganised in the assault phase.

How realistic does the forum see this?
Do strongpoints represent tactical assets to fought from and defended?

[Mohoender]

I'm pretty sure it works but that depends on the general battle condition. That wasn't only used by the Germans but it was also used against them.

That was used with success (by the Australians) at Tobrouk where the troops used to remain into their holes while the tanks where progressing. Then, they got out behind them, taking out the protecting infantry and attacking from behind.

That was also used with great success at Kursk by the Russians and later, Von Manstein used it against the Russians sometime after Stalingrad (winter 1943-1944). Von Manstein, managed to stop an all out Russian offensive with inferior troops (2nd line Germans, Italians and Romanians) that should have been wiped out. he stopped T-34 with almost no tanks.

I also think that it was used by Hezbollah against Israel during the last war in 2006.

The problem with it is that it works only if your troops have steel nerves and your position can't be taken by a flank maneuver. The Russians advisors kept it as the main tactic for a long time and the Egyptians used it often against Israel. Each time, Tsahal sent its tanks on a long range flank maneuver that cut the defending position from behind. Then, you only have to crush the defenders as if they were some kind of nuts. That's also what happened with the Magino Line by the way (also a fixed defensive line). Worse, the French had decided to save money and the turrets couldn't turn 360°.

[kcdusk]

Maybe the GM wants to see the PCs thinking, and putting any sort of tactics into play rather than just sitting tight and slugging it out.

I dont know anything about infantry tactics. But as a GM i'd give the PCs a break if they were trying something (flanking force? Booby trap a position before pulling back ...) rather than hoping the concrete and sandbags were going to save them.

Is the GM any good? Or is he just smashing you? Or does the opposing force have a weakness he wants you to figure out and hit?

I can see what you mean chalk about the tactic you suggest. The only problem i have with this (and it applies to almost any tactic you want to use) is its often hard via PbP for the PCs to have much situational awareness and know whats available or what position they are in to put "larger scale" (dare i say "wargame"???? :-) tactics into practice.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

I'm pretty sure it works but that depends on the general battle condition. That wasn't only used by the Germans but it was also used against them.

That was used with success (by the Australians) at Tobrouk where the troops used to remain into their holes while the tanks where progressing. Then, they got out behind them, taking out the protecting infantry and attacking from behind.

That was also used with great success at Kursk by the Russians and later, Von Manstein used it against the Russians sometime after Stalingrad (winter 1943-1944). Von Manstein, managed to stop an all out Russian offensive with inferior troops (2nd line Germans, Italians and Romanians) that should have been wiped out. he stopped T-34 with almost no tanks.

I also think that it was used by Hezbollah against Israel during the last war in 2006.

The problem with it is that it works only if your troops have steel nerves and your position can't be taken by a flank maneuver. The Russians advisors kept it as the main tactic for a long time and the Egyptians used it often against Israel. Each time, Tsahal sent its tanks on a long range flank maneuver that cut the defending position from behind. Then, you only have to crush the defenders as if they were some kind of nuts. That's also what happened with the Magino Line by the way (also a fixed defensive line). Worse, the French had decided to save money and the turrets couldn't turn 360°.

Actually, elastic defence is a WW1 German system, post Hindenburg/Ludendorf. It was used by other armies though in other places too about that time. Also, just to be nitpicky, the 'Maginot guns couldn't turn 360º' isn't true The real problem with the Maginot guns was that they were too light a calibre, being mainly 75mm - much too light for a fortification gun. The French wanted speed of fire over weight of shell. The Maginot line worked brilliantly, the German's didn't dare attack it directly except in one set-piece assault after it was already outflanked. The real reason the French, in my view, lost the Battle of France is a certain general named 'Gough' cutting and running to Dunkirk and leaving the French to do it alone.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

Actually, elastic defence is a WW1 German system, post Hindenburg/Ludendorf. It was used by other armies though in other places too about that time. Also, just to be nitpicky, the 'Maginot guns couldn't turn 360º' isn't true The real problem with the Maginot guns was that they were too light a calibre, being mainly 75mm - much too light for a fortification gun. The French wanted speed of fire over weight of shell. The Maginot line worked brilliantly, the German's didn't dare attack it directly except in one set-piece assault after it was already outflanked. The real reason the French, in my view, lost the Battle of France is a certain general named 'Gough' cutting and running to Dunkirk and leaving the French to do it alone.

About the elastic defense I knew it. However, I was thinking about later exemples inspired by it and working on a similar idea/principle (or so I think). I can't imagine the elastic defense as it was conceived to be working in T2K except may be around free Krakow. Anyway, it seemed from what I read later that I was off-topic. My appologies but that day I was out and shouldn't have entered that discussion at all. I didn't get everything right I think and was not capable of thinking strait (puking all night doesn't help).

For the Maginot line, you are right about the turrets (never went to check that one before). However, the turrets represented only about 15% of the defensive position as most were made of casemates and "cloches". Again I was wrong the angle of fire was on the average 45° (much less than what I thought). I have never been very interested in modern forts and I'm far from knowing everything about them (I was living less than 50 miles from several such position and never visited them). Therefore, thanks, I would not have checked if you had not correct this. Another problem with the line, however, was that an entire army had been positioned there and the order to move came quite late I think.

However, I disagree with the responsibility you put on Dunkirk (Gort was the general's name I think). When that move was decided, the allied forces had already been cut by the German and all attempt to brake through had failed. On the other hand, the French move to Belgium (they were the one to insist upon it) was all but stupid as it was designed without any coordination with the Belgian army. Obviously, that was not possible as the Belgian and Dutch refused any pre-war plan in order to preserve their neutrality. As a result, planing to take defensive position anywhere in Belgium was silly or hazardous at best. Moreover, that move was an answer to the schliffen plan of WWI and the Nazis chose a plan that was a mix Schliffen/Guderian.

At the time the French (Paul Reynaud) blame their defeat on the Belgian which I think to be equally false. When the king of Belgium chose to capitulate he offered the french all the trucks and vehicles that were available to help them in their retreat and delayed its capitulation, buying them 48hrs. The british didn't have that problem as their army was the most mechanized of Europe. A true problem, however, was the inhability of the allied commands to combine their efforts: at times both French and British refused to share informations.

After Dunkirk, it was widely believed that the french soldiers were left behind and that was false again. Of course the British troops were given priority (a smart move in my opinion) but 120000 french soldiers were taken along with only 40000 left behind (Oops, they had to leave behind most of their equipment). Then, most of the french soldiers were shipped back to France in the following days and that continued after the french capitulation. At last only a few hundreds (I recently learnt that they were about 300+a few naval officers/sailors/airmen and was amazed by so small a number) will remain to continue the fight while several thousands chose to get back to France instead. Nevertheless, the British didn't really want them in june 1940 as they quite dislike/distrust de Gaulle and probably the French.

That defeat was a collective defeat due to superior fighting spirit, command structure and tactics on the German side. Even, the german technical superiority was untrue except when it comes to tactical bombers. However, their tactics were far superior on land and in the air.

[Badbru]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

I'm in a PbP game, and in every situation where the PCs have stood their ground and fought, they've been slaughtered.

I'm in the same pbp game and we haven't been slaughtered in every encounter although we have taken casualties in pretty much every encounter. I think it's a product of two things;1) the game system mechanics, I go, you go, everone gets a turn so everyone gets to shoot at someone and we're mostly outnumbered... and 2) It's a pbp that is more of a collaborative writing exercise than a role playing game and much less of a wargame. The majority of the players are more interested in portraying a good story.

True, the PCs are all fairly unskilled and are fighting a crack team of VDV and Spetsnaz (thanks GM! ) .

This is a natural conclusion to actions current and past players have taken. Unfair to blame the GM on this, and, I do not believe that was Chalklines intention.

So I've read up on infantry tactics, and the German concept of 'elastic defence'. This is where you start with strongpoints that shelter you from bombardment, and fall back with supporting fires to trade ground for time to counter attack when the enemy seems disorganised in the assault phase.

How realistic does the forum see this?

It seems realistic enough for reality, see Mohoenders' post, but probably less so for an rpg and our pbp.see kcDusks' last paragraph.

Do strongpoints represent tactical assets to fought from and defended?

In an rpg, and particularly our pbp a strongpoint represents a static target for 40mmGrenades, rpg7 rounds, and when available mortars. You don't want to be in any kind of strongpoint in our game.

There is a logic behind the way our GM runs his game. I can see it but can't explain it. It's a kind of universal fairness constrained by game mechanics. To remain above criticism everything must be strictly adhered to rules wise for both parties and yet party size and capabilities reflect the expected situation and thus the players often find themselves deep in the poo.

[Webstral]

It seems to me that gameplay and player satisfaction outrank realism. After all, it's untirely unrealistic for any of the characters to be alive in 2000. Exceptions to what is most likely are made for the sake of the game. Perhaps the Spetznaz could have a bad day or make a few bad decisions if that is what is required to keep the PCs alive and wanting to play.


Webstral

[Raellus]

I too play in this particular PbP and it is a lot tougher on PCs than any other game I've ever participated in.

The GM has stated that he wants the players to "earn it" and so I think he may be approaching combat scenarios with this in mind. This isn't to say that he's stacking the deck against the players. As Bru pointed out, our current opponents were determined in large part by the overarching plot/story line of the game. I will admit, it would be nice to wipe out the occasional squad of marauders or Soviet conscripts but that's probably not going to happen any time soon (if ever). The challenge of combat in this campaign sure adds a lot of suspense and tension (not to mention frustration).

As for strongpoints, if we had an actual strongpoint, I'd argue for using it. I'm thinking of concrete or timber reinforced bunkers with interlocking fields of fire and wire entanglements and anti-personel mines out in front- that sort of thing. Unfortunately, we have nothing like that in (***edit kato13) the game. Your average Polish town building is not a strongpoint. Machine gun fire, not to mention 40mm grenade and RPG fire is more than adequate for reducing it or killing/wounding everyone inside of it (see LeBlanc's last stand).

So, in closing, I empathize with you Chalk. It is frustrating to always just barely be not losing every single fight. It's a brutal campaign. On the other hand, it is what it is, and we just have to roll with it.

Now, as for the post rate, don't get me started!

[pmulcahy11b]

I think it's a reflection of three things:

1) Such a fight, given the average T2K adventuring party, is really, really foolhardy. The PCs in a T2K game are almost always equivalent to underequipped guerrillas, and don't last long in a head-to-head, stand-up fight.

2) Your players are unskilled in military matters, and tactics are not their forte.

3) The players don't seem to learn from their mistakes. Perhaps the introduction of an older, wiser, militarily-skilled NPC would be in order. He would act as sort of an adviser, pointing out mistakes and lethal errors, offering some suggestions, teaching little nuggets of military wisdom, etc. (He wouldn't actually control the group, though; I realize that's a tough job for the GM, but it can be done.) Later, if the GM desires, the NPC can die in some manner.