|
ColinWright -> RE: Coordinating airdrops with land assault (6/20/2011 5:06:06 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: macgregor
I hope this was addressed in the wishlist. This is especially important when assaulting either forts(Eben Emael comes to mind) or small islands suchas Malta(in the larger scenarios). If Bob wants to chime in that this is 'non-trivial' I'll concede. Perhaps treat paras strength as a bombardment strength while embarked(run away!), only disembarking if the hex is vacated. Just a thought.
Unless someone wanted to consider the idea that opposing forces be allowed to share a hex.
But Eben Emael wasn't coordinated with a land assault. The glider troops disabled the fortress on their own. The pertinent passage from the Wikipedia article:
"...Having achieved their primary objectives of disabling the artillery pieces possessed by the fort, the airborne troops then held it against Belgian counter-attacks, which began almost immediately. These counter-attacks were made by Belgian infantry formations without artillery support and were uncoordinated. This allowed the airborne troops to repel them with machine-gun fire.[19][28] Artillery from several smaller Forts nearby and Belgian field artillery units also targeted the airborne troops, but this too was uncoordinated and achieved nothing and often aided the airborne troops in repelling counter-attacks by Belgian infantry units.[29] Patrols were also used to ensure that the garrison stayed in the interior of the fort and did not attempt to emerge and mount an attempt to retake the fort.[28] Any attempt by the garrison to launch a counter-attack would have been stymied by the fact that the only possible route for such an attack was up a single, spiral staircase, and any embrasures looking out onto the Fort had either been captured or disabled.[30] The plan for the assault had called for Group Granite to be relieved by 51st Engineer Battalion within a few hours of seizing the Fort, but the Group was not actually relieved until 7:00 on May 11..."
|
|
|
|
