[WarInEur] Attrition and tactics in Russia

[Wardall Clark]

> From: "Hansen" ultrasoundimages at sbcglobal.net> Let me summarize how I would see things happening. First, assume that the> initial attack scenario is as stated (All the front line army is destroyed).> The Russian knows with mathematical certainty exactly how far the German's> reach is. Depending on his proclivities, he can start building the line with> a 3-0 fort and a 1-4 garrison at the line where any attack is OOS at the end> of the summer, or he can put in a flexible line of 3x1-4 (so they can't be> overrun) and just step back as the supply moves forward. 
 
Right, and if the german does not attack it the front 1-4 leap frogs backward to the rear of the formation. This indicates that the Axis needs at a minum to put the line under ZOC to complicate the task of falling back. 
 
I also note that in the Ukraine this would require an amazingly
high number of units. Maybe the bulk of the 7*6=42  Militia units in Siberia are not being converted to 4-4 Corps as I usually do. 
 
 
>With attrition, I  think  "form a line and sit" makes the most >sense so that you don't tire your army out stepping back a >hex. So while these are green troops, they have time to sit >while they wait for the German's to reach their ultimate >objectives. And while the soviets are building themselves up, >the Germans are tearing themselves down moving towards >them. The result I suspect is a trade off or slightly to the> advantage to the soviets. >
I wonder if this trade off doesn't so much favor the defender 
that the OOS extra casualty rule can now be omitted. 
A) Does not OOS inhibit recouping of lost combat capabilities?
B) Does not OOS increase the loss per hex moved?
C) Does not OOS change the combat odds to increase casualtied per hex taken?
E) Is there not a penalty for being in an enemy ZOC when out of supply?    Given all that, the OOS attacker is already subject to attrition at an increased rate and so the stack losses from the original 
rules seem to be accounted for already.  AT the INIMUM, with the attrition option is in place, the combat losses due to OOS
could be reduced from a required AEX to extra attrition losses equal to the previously reguired losses (i.e the 1-4 doesn't flip the 6-5, it attritions the stack of OOS attackers.) 
    
 
> I don't doubt that the soviets aren't going to counterattack >and snip off  the German lead units, but why would they be >able to be relatively worse off > with the attrition rules?> > -John> MY soviets don't use the CRT to counter attack in 1941
but I take opportuities to surround spearheads as a means 
of buying time.  If this happens where the 10-1-10s are nearby
the German must stay stacked to protect any individual units in the forefront and that reduces the scouting fuction which FOW mandates. BOB  > ------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare!
http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20071009/25c2993b/attachment.html