[WarInEur] pockets and break outs.

[Wardall Clark]

Three related concerns about supply and combat:
1) Historically speaking. How does  being out of communications (and SUPPLY)
campare with simply having gotten beyond the effective range of the Supply head. 
2) How do the applicable rules make this distinction?
3) How deeply would changing the answer to (2) affect the flow of the game? 
 
In the first edition of War in the East, units in pockets defended at full strenth
but could not form BGs.     In later rules the defender was given his choice of these
effects.  With the advent of retreat conversion I think  this disapeared, especially from 
CWIE. 
 
As noted, because of the combination of  ZOC effects and reduced movement, much 
of the time the trapped units cannot even get to the point of the battle to attack in 
the right direction. What we have is an unintended side effect of the absence of any 
simultaneous ground movement.  The moment the trap closes, the pocketed units act
as if they are on half rations for fuel and munitions.  In the case of the stalingrad pocket
the Axis had 20 divisions already beyond optimal distance, so I really don't have a problem with those troops being immobilized, but in the Falais pocket and Cauldren situations, 
food and water was the reason that the pocketed units regarded it as essential to fight 
their way out ASAP. 
 
I thus wonder if the following  "fix" might maintain realism.
a) Units without communications and supply will waste away via attrition even if they
neither move nor fight. (this reinstates AVALON HILL style Isolation.) However since 10% of .1 combat factors is still not Zero Factors, there would be no automatic deaths. 
b) Units out of Communications may attack at full strength by forfitting the right to 
form BGs and the Auto AEX applies. 
c) Units with BGs may on an idividual basis defend at full strength when out of communications, but that units is flipped to BGs regardless of the die result. 
 
When playing Attrition Option: 
d) OTHER OOS attackers may chose to attack at full strength, in which case the 
auto AEX applies or at 1/2 strength without the extra casualties. (this should make Russia
and NA play more historically. 
 
And most controversial: 
e) A unit may always move 1 hex provided that the new hex is closer in movement points 
to the Supply head.(enemy ZOC are ignored for this determination but the presence of hostile units is taken into account.)  Units which by moving a single hex exceeds their MP allowance are attrited as if force marching in addition to all other attritions. If the turn (including subsequent mechanized movement) does not end with such a unit in supply the unit suffers a failed force march result. 
 
Basically the rules say that each  unit which gets cut off has just one week's worth of hard combat left. A force the size of the Stalingrad pocket  has a good chance to fight free, but only if the rest of the army makes an effert to reestablish a line of supply to them. Otherwise the KGs and nondivisional units evaporate and the remaining divisions become OOS KGs which are easily destroyed. Under these circumstances they actually
do a better job of tying down Soviets by staying in place. 
 
Hitler decisions are thus seen as militarily questionable rather than just plain stupid, On the
other hand, from a long run standpoint it was nuts to write off that many potential 
production cadre on the off-chance that they could hold out long enough to save the rest of AGs A. B and Don.  (One thing that the WIE production system doesn't capture well is manpower remnants from dead BGs.)  The decisions were also aggregeous betryals of the
troops, since they could have at least died fighting to escape. 
 
BOB 
> The stalingrad situation is complicated by the intervention of high command authority. > 1) the Moment the trap closed, the 6th Army asked for permission to redeploy for a breakout to> resume communications/supply. > a) permission was tentatively granted provided that 6th army give up no ground. In WIE, this isn't> a big deal since ground can only be surrendered in 33 Kilometer chunks. Von Paulus can obey the > no retreat requirement by leaving single KG's on the eastern(stalingrad/Volga) front and moving> any full strength units westward to attack The Stalin grad pocket was so big that the middle was not > under Soviet ZOC so Paulus would have been able to reposition to break the Soviets ring. > b) ITRW, 6th Army lacked the Combat effectiveness to comply with Hitler's requirements so no immediate> effort was made. > 2) Later, after the Soviets had a double ring in place, the 57th panzer corp tried and failed to break through> in the only full out effort that was made. In WIE, we have the problem that the double line prevents > 7th army from effecting 57th corps' combat odds and vice versa. Van Paulus knew that to make the attempt would > exhaust his fuel supplies and thus render his mechanized battalions unfit for further combat. He would have> KG'ed his remaining "full strength" divisions to no purpose since 57th would still lose its battle. > ITRW, by e had to defend in two directions at once and that could have been enough to let a temporary lne > of supply be reestablished.> In WIE, any BG or unit without a BG that finds itself cut off from supply by more than a single hex of ZOC > is as good as dead unless relieved, IRW, the goal was to salvage as many BG's from the full strength units and as many personnel points from tjhe dying BG as possible so as to facilitate rebuilding the units Hence the goal of extricating 6th army was more akin to a Dunkirk situation than anything else. > a) Perhaps if Hitler had been a WIE player he would have realized how ultimately untenable 6th Army's position was. > While retreat from stalingrad would lessen his prestige, defeat was inevitable so choosing not to have an evacuation is> just plain crazy. It was like leaving the BEF in france for the sake of holding a foothold on the continent, rather than saying> I can find a better way to use those troups somewhere else.> b) on the other hand, If he was used to playing WE 1st edition then 6th Army's (non-attritioned) Full strength > divisions would be able to "stay in place till Easter" simply by not bothering to try to break out. (they defend at full> strength when out of communications, which makes attacking then a very dicey prospect for the soviets.)> What battles like the Caulren and the Falaise pocket should be doing is flipping full strength units like mad as they > fight their way free. The problem in WIE is that OOS units in ZOCs are prohibited from Shifting around to deploy > properly for a breakout attempt. They don't have enough movement points. Maybe units which are OOS> should be allowed to trade combat points for movement points so as to go directly from ZOC to ZOC. > BOB> From: sgminfo <sgminfo at aol.com>> > 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. > With attrition, does the AEX rule when oos need to be implemented?> > Bearing in mind the granularity of the weekly turn system.----> i.e. That the defender can be so effectively unhorsed in the enemy's > turn that he is unable to reply in his own? ----------My gut reaction is > to say this looks good...but when you examine the > other side of the coin, > nothing looks to simple as it first appears...> > > The obvious parallel is in the desert, where a good littl'un catches the > big guy with the sucker punch..., or vice versa...> > The relative strength of the 10-8 and 8-8 rendered basket cases by the > manoeuvre which puts them oos.> > On the face of it, the Cauldron battles don't look like they can be > replicated....> > But then again in Russia, the Germans ITRW broke out of many an > encirclement threatened or achieved. In the game, the moment the > pincers close at Kalach, 6th Army is doomed, as is any encircled force. > They all become immediately effete and immobile (relatively) and are > forced to rely upon outside help from afar to rescue them. Can we > replicate the Korsun pocket?> But then, DAK might be invincible in such circumstances, maneuver > counting for little in those cases where you try to wrong foot the opponent.> I do not see clearly down this road....> > > I might suggest that we have the option of the automatic exchange when > oos as an option, an option that we can turn on and off to see whether > the operational battles, are enhanced or distorted by this...> > It might turn out to be a fruitful avenue of experimentation for those > playing the finished product.....and quite instructive...> > > -|steve|-> _________________________________________________________________> Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by today.> http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline> -------------- next part --------------> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...> URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20071011/46806f2a/attachment-0001.html> > ------------------------------> > _______________________________________________> WarInEur mailing list> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur> > > End of WarInEur Digest, Vol 39, Issue 15> ****************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20071011/fdf431f5/attachment.html