|
EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Stand fast or manoeuvre? StB EvK (Axis) vs. Elma666(Soviets) (8/23/2020 3:54:05 PM)
|
After several RL-induced pauses I tried to get back into the game, but while working on T17 quickly found that playing WitE campaigns has somewhat lost its appeal to me. Therefore, my opponent (who felt a bit burnt out too) and me agree to end the game. I am sorry for ending the show here, but the time commitment required would be too much for something I don’t fully enjoy anymore.
I hope (and think) the AAR has been good entertainment to this point, and I certainly enjoyed writing it.
I would like to add some concluding considerations.
1) The StB defensive play in this game is quite different from all other defences I have played so far. The Axis side is defending, but unlike the Soviet side 1941/42, neither time nor the reinforcement schedule on its side. Furthermore, any space you give will likely be lost forever.
2) The AAR title is an allusion to one of the great strategical questions of the historical Axis defence in the East: defend stubbornly to keep the ground, or manoeuvre and look for opportunities to win battles and destroy enemy formations? I believe in the latter approach. The initial attacks were a battle against time because the Soviet army initially is unorganized and frozen. The unit kill count is 27 divisions and 7 brigades, almost a front worth of units. It should be mentioned that the leaky Stalingrad pocket in the beginning made all this much easier.
Unfortunately, the blizzard quickly damaged so many trucks that mobile warfare became difficult and forced me to shelve the manoeuvre plans in favour of a hold fast approach, even setting motorized units in static mode. I planned to return to mobile warfare when the weather improved.
3) After the successful break-out of the Stalingrad pocket, I was quite optimistic that the Axis can face the Soviet on equal terms in a static environment until at least spring/summer. This was a misconception for … reasons:
i) The Soviets are the slightly stronger side. Therefore, any destroyed fortification hurts the Axis more than the Soviets.
ii) The loss ratios and the replacement ratios mean that the Soviets can gamble on low odds attacks. If they fail, loss ratios are okayish, if the succeed, loss ratios are advantageous and an enemy fortification is successfully destroyed. Although the Axis can usually fill the gaps, increasing resources are spent on replacing fortification with raw CV, drawing strength away from counterattacks. This is possible because low morale/exp CV have higher variance and can therefore sometimes roll high.
The Axis can’t use the same strategy (even though destroying Soviet fortifications would be very nice to create counterattack threats) as the loss ratio is too bad.
4) Future plans I: My focus has always been to destroy Soviet manpower, an in line with this, the main plan going forward was a Kursk style battle for Velikie-Lukie to cut off the salient, commencing during first clear turn after the four April mud turns.
[image]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/54093/D98B89701F774C39B74CEE9794CB1759.jpg[/image]
The timing is crucial:
i) The four mud turns give time to concentrate motorized units for the Northern pincer in the Demyansk area and the Southern pincer in the vicinity of Rshew. During other weather, the units could not be spared on the other fronts and their absence would more likely be spotted by Soviet intelligence.
ii) The turn after the first clear turn is mud and the pocket can rot for a turn without threats of counterattacks.
iii) Returing the mobile units to other crisis spots will take time. The mud-clear-flipflop limits the amount of damage the Soviets can do where the Axis elite is not.
The operation was already prepared by low-level attacks aimed at fort destruction around Demyansk and Rshew and preparation would have included decoy massings of split-up mobile units in clear area.
The offensive for sure would have been risky and its launch dependent on recon results.
5) Future plans II: Independently from the grandiose offensive plans, the summer would have seen defensive play around natural barriers with the aim to stay as far East as possible as long as possible.
Local counterattacks would have been used to take important defensive hexagons in order to achieve a frontline that:
i) Has Axis units in defensive terrain and the opposing unit not in defensive terrain.
ii) Is short and not in danger to be cut off due to salient
iii) Is closer to own rails than enemy rails.
iv) Has dense own hinterland (fallback lines and protection from enemy recon), while the enemy hinterland is clear (threatening Axis counterattacks and allowing for good recon)
The idea is to minimize the own necessary force (fortification&difficult terrrain, low uncertainty about enemy strength in the area, easy reinforcement) while maximizing the necessary enemy force (easy terrain, uncertainty about own strength, therefore requiring reserves for possible counterattacks, difficult reinforcement).
Of course this is an ideal only approached in praxis, but striving for this frees units that can be used actively or for sectors without defensive terrain, especially the South.
6) Thanks to my opponent Elma for the game. He is a reliable and (unlike me) quick player. I think he played a solid game and would have slowly but inevitably made the situation ever more uncomfortable for the Axis side. Improvements possible on the T1 Stalingrad pocket, and even more aggressiveness and attacking, especially because attacks deny the Axis reserves for counterattacks.
If I have forgotten some items, they will be added later.
<<Advertisement>>: My second AAR in the DC:B forum has been recently completed too: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4677394&mpage=2 <</Advertisement>>
Thanks to all who read and commented in and on this AAR!
Regards
EvK
|
|
|
|
