[WarInEur] cross channell invasions.

[Wardall Clark]

The English Channel is 22 miles wide at its narrowest point.  A ferry ride on a rough day is no picnic. 
On the other hand, the boats that make this trip are hardly ocean going vessels by any definition,
They are almost exactly like the boats and ships that ply major rivers.  
 
Ergo, when the Axis conquered Belgium, France and the Netherlands, they captured the wherewithal and 
transportation net (i.e. the lower Rhine) to create an invasion fleet of Amphs and Trans that is outside 
their Military Ship building capacity. 
 
Creation of these fleets required organization, energy and resources. For reasons best known to Hitler
and depicted in accounts of the War by the Army and naval staffs, the creation of the invasion transport
capacity was carried out half-heartedly.  By the time it was completely, the Battle of Britain for Air superiority 
had been lost. Since these vessels had other uses, by 1941 the threat of Sea Lion was essentially gone. 
 
I wrote a post positing that (a) the German's ability was to create the requirements for a reasonably successful
Sea Lion were so limited by the rules that unless the Extreme optional rule was in effect the Allied player was well or 
justified in stripping England in favor of Mediterranean operations. (b) That the kill rate for SURFs under the HIGH SEAS 
INTERVENTION RULE WAS TOO HIGH. 
 
I now believe that I was wrong on the second count.  The casualty rate is correct. 
 
However, the WIE consequences of surface casualties during Naval fleet encounters is quite a-historical. Ships in combat were 
regularly damaged in ways that forced immediate return to port prior to the decisive moment of the battle.  Such ships are worthless
for other missions for weeks to  months, BUT ARE NOT TOTAL LOSSES. (e.g. The Scharnhorst fought again after the Norway invasion. 
The Prince of Wales survived its encounter with the Bismarck and was eventually sent to the Far East.)  The game allows rebuilding of AP 
using dead AP as cadres, it should also allow rebuilding of SURF at reduced costs and above all reduced building times. For game balance 
purposes, SURF lost to ASW activities during Sorties should be Total losses. 
 
I believe that the problem (a) should be addressed by granting a one-time capacity to ferry the channel using appropriated commercial
shipping.  The axis spends Production points for a 4-week build of a small number of Belgium AMPH and French and Dutch TRANS fleets.   
These can be augmented with standard production of naval units. The one-time appropriated shipping does not count against the Naval 
build percentage, but must be used within 6 weeks of being produced.  If not used it is considered lost and must be reconstituted at 
double the cost in time and Production points. 
    
The principle impediments to Sea Lion then becomes the Royal Navy and RAF.  If the Axis player builds SURFS rather then U-Boats from 
the start of the war(or at least manages to make the Allies think that he has) The Sea Lion is a real threat, 
 
I personally do not think that there was a realistic chance even after Dunkirk, that the Axis could have conquered england. I do think they
could have crippled the industrial capacity of any area they invaded, temporarily disrupted the use of several points, and collected a 
great deal of militarily useful loot in the process.  These seem to me to be reasons for keeping a number of full strength divisions on the 
channel ports so provided that the Battle for France decimates the BEF there is some possibility of a return to historical play.
 
I dislike the all-or-nothing Air Supremacy Sea Lion of CWIE-1.  The BWIE version is much better.  The Axis must both win Air Superiority and 
assighn many AP to Sea superiority in order to blunt the effects of HIGH SEAS INTENTION.  I now wonder whether this may not be asking a bit too 
much of the CWIE Luftewaffe.   Perhaps the Germans should be allowed to exercise this option so long as the ALLIES don't have Air superiority.
The number of AP required is quite large, which means that the Allied AP have a better chance against the Germans on Air Superiority missions,
which means more incentive to fly, which means more AP lost 
BOB



> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:00:24 -0500> From: warineur-request at mailman.halisp.net> Subject: WarInEur Digest, Vol 40, Issue 34> To: warineur at mailman.halisp.net> > Send WarInEur mailing list submissions to> warineur at mailman.halisp.net> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to> warineur-request at mailman.halisp.net> > You can reach the person managing the list at> warineur-owner at mailman.halisp.net> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific> than "Re: Contents of WarInEur digest..."> > > Today's Topics:> > 1. My Scenario (Paul S. Person)> 2. unit values and levels of combat. (Wardall Clark)> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > Message: 1> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:03:41 -0800> From: "Paul S. Person" <psplists at earthlink.net>> Subject: [WarInEur] My Scenario> To: warineur at mailman.halisp.net> Message-ID: <tq6vj3h9gccj8m4t6a71bhjrlp4mvr8cha at 4ax.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii> > I guess this calls for an explanation.> > A year ago I upgraded the computer on which I ran CWIE1. I> copied/restored all the files onto another machine and, after some> frantic efforts to get enough software working on the replacement for> day-to-day use, I finally got to the point where I moved CWIE1 back,> thinking I might play it, from time to time, if it were available. The> new machine, by the way, has a 700Hz Pentium processor instead of a> 33Mhz 80486, so some improvment in game performance seems likely.> > As has consistently been the case, CWIE1 had to be reinstalled from> disk. Apparently the original copying process corrupted the files. I> was able to recover everything except the scenario I had created,> called "standard.scn".> > I know that, some time in the past, I have provided individuals on> this list with at least the document I recovered (detailing the Soviet> requirements pre-Barbarossa). I don't know if I ever provided anyone> with a copy of the scenario file. (I remember /offering/ to do so, but> I don't recall if anyone took me up on it.) This is the scenario which> duplicates the starting positions in BWIE1 in September 1939. I> remember the main changes: the CW has a bunch of BGs to place straight> away and the Germans do /not/ have four 6-5s cleverly poised to invade> Norway immediately. I believe there were some other minor setup> differences. Also, the Soviet AP/PP were modified to match BWIE1.> > If anyone has a copy of the scenario, could you send it to me? If> nobody has a copy, or is willing to send it, well, then I can either> recreate it or wait for CWIE2 to appear. I have, after all, no idea if> I will actually find time to play CWIE1, or CWIE2, for that matter.> -- > "He who should know the history of words > would know all history"> > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 2> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:41:47 -0500> From: Wardall Clark <baseballnut570 at hotmail.com>> Subject: [WarInEur] unit values and levels of combat.> To: war in europe forum <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>> Message-ID: <BAY126-W1524AA25950183132E5AE847D0 at phx.gbl>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"> > Chuck and I have been corresponding off list on the matter of whether the Axis advantage in > combined arms doctrine is properly reflected in the Combat system. At issue is whether the France 1940 debacle can be captured in WIE as the rules stand. Any one > reading the last week's post knows upon which side each of use come downs. I think certain > problems in the WIE campaign game are mostly fixed by the switch to FOW and Attrition. For BWIE,> the best fix is either enforcement of the Historical First move rules or some missing incentive that > obliges the Allies to make a good faith effort to defend Belgium or else face a diplomatic disaster. > Chuck thinks the problem lies in the rule prohibiting any combat other than the 13-1 overruns during > movement. > Here is what we agree upon; (1) the German units in real life were so much better than the opposing > Allied units that there really wasn't any way that even a panzer-schooled set of Allied army commanders> was not going to save France in 1940. (2) The Axis divisions in WIE are sufficiently better than the Allied > ones that sooner or later Vichy is going to be declared unless the Non-cooperation rule is drastically > relaxed and the Brits commit a massive BEF to the continent. > > Where we came to verbal blows was over the meaning in Game terms of the Germans combined arms doctrine > My posts got more and more know it all, his got increasingly cryptic and defensive. Recently, he > wrote me: > > > I am coming at it from an operational stand point and I guess you from a > tactical standpoint. Tactically the allies stood in places and gave a > good account, but operationally they were a day late and a dollar short, > thats were I am coming from, and I don't think unit values can give a > good account of the operational differences of the two sides in 1940 > without a mobile attack feature to break up the defensive lines.> > I think we both want the same thing, historical feel to the old girl. I > love this system and have tinkered with different ideas for about 20 > years now and finally hit on a PGG type fix. I'll keep play testing it > till I can get a full view of things from end to end.> > RW Military officers have a useful slogan, "Amateurs study Operations;> professional learn Logistics." The missing part of this is that first > the professional officer learns tactics: which is the art of maneuvering > in the presence of enemy forces. One of the secrets of the "us military'scurrent dominance is its school for battalions at the california training > center. There the ultra-experienced OPFOR resident brigade uses Soviet> block tactics/equipment to polished perfection for two weeks of on the > job training for the visiting team/ > > Every war game has its own tactics, but these are essentially means > for maximizing results given the constraints of the rules of that> particular game. What the soldiers and officers at the battle school > teach has literally nothing to do with these sorts of tactics. > > So what is the connection: It comes when we try to make counters for units with different training > or equipment. The superior tactical skills of German small units such as companies and battalions > is multiplied by the number of such units in a brigade or division and it translates as an Operational edge in the form of bigger faster units to deploy in WIE. German division commanders likewise made better use > of their assets than the Allies did even though the men and equipment were of roughly equal quality. > Both Chuck and I agree that this operational edge is so big as to be decisive in France-40 WIE play. > We disagree as to whether it is sufficiently large to emulate historical events. Deploy those RW units as they were deployed historically and the Van Manstein plan provides a whopping strategic advantage, I.E. THE ALLIES ARE DEPLOYED IN THE WRONG PLACES and the process of first racing one direction and then racing southward and doing it through air interdicted hexes deprives the BEF of its full (and already optional rule reduced) combat effectiveness. Once the Axis cuts off the Brits from their Major ports those too far from the minor ports is halved and so can be chewed up by the pursuing axis infantry. WAR in Europe is an operational level game in that the details of actual combat is lost. Hexes have terrain types, but except for rivers there are are no preferred directions of advance through the hexes. What we call tactics in WIE is actually what a Current USA Army level commander calls operations. The Army commander determines which units are assigned to the corps(stack) and where the stack goes to fight and if the Army commander knows his stuff then these directions facilitate the Armys assigned missions. (i.e the Army's place in the Strategy that was developed by the Front Commander such as IKe and Swartzkoft.) WIE is unique in that by encompassing all the action of the Eurpean theatres, players are charged with functions of Grand Stategy (ala AH's Third Reich) but also with the operational details of emplimenting the strategy(B-17, Anzio, D-DAY, Africa Korps, Kursk, etc.) Nowhere in the game does anything resembling RW tactics occur, hence the discussion of Combined Arms Doctrine is misguided, except when arguing about whether the units have the right combat capabilities. > > In this last area, Chuck is talking sense; he feels that the RW units of WWII, especially the 400 tank Armored> divisions of 1940 were capable of fighting and winning battle after battle within a matter of days just as > the US V corps and British First Armored Armored division did in the Gulf war. By and large he is right, but > perhaps not in the terms of WIE. The real battle field had support units and units too small to be combat> units in a division level game all over the place as the front disintegrated. ITRW there are no empty hexes. > > My guess is that any account of a 100 mile fighting advance is actually talking about the practice of > dispersing and or bypassing these unit fragments., which are too small to generate advance restricting ZOC> for the hexes they occupy. In order to generate a ZOC in its own hex a unit must be4 able to effectively > impede movement across a 20 mile front. Most units smaller than a brigade cannot do this, hence each > Corps and Army's support units have either been incorporated into the strengths of the divisions and brigades> or are listed as abstractions such as Replacement points, and supply ranges. > > BOB> _________________________________________________________________> Your smile counts. The more smiles you share, the more we donate.  Join in.> www.windowslive.com/smile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_oprsmilewlhmtagline> -------------- next part --------------> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...> URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20071118/50ce570a/attachment-0001.html> > ------------------------------> > _______________________________________________> WarInEur mailing list> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur> > > End of WarInEur Digest, Vol 40, Issue 34> ****************************************
_________________________________________________________________
You keep typing, we keep giving. Download Messenger and join the i’m Initiative now.
http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGLM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20071119/5bdf5fde/attachment-0001.html