For Nikdav Elsenborn scenario OOB 38th Cav squadron (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Ardennes Offensive >> Tech Support



Message

Jagger2002 -> For Nikdav Elsenborn scenario OOB 38th Cav squadron (12/23/2021 3:03:06 AM)

Nikdav, I am reading Cole's history of the Bulge. I notice on pages 87-88 that he states Monschau was defended by the 38th Cav Reconnaissance Squadron of the 102nd Cav Group with one assault gun troop in Mutzenich. The cav squadron was reinforced by a platoon of self propelled TDs from the 893 Tank Destroyer Batt. Also Cole lists the 62nd Armored Field Artillery batt defending in the area.

What I am not seeing within Cole's book is the 102nd Cavalry Squadron of the 102nd Cav group mentioned. Apparently the 102nd and 38th squadrons formed the 102nd Cavalry Group but Cole only mentions the 38th defending Monschau. I did a search of Coles book and the 102nd squadron is never actually mentioned anywhere. So I don't know where it participated if at all.

One other point, the sources I have indicate a cavalry squadron's troops and tank company were composed of 54 jeeps, 27 Greyhounds, 15 Stuarts, 6 assault guns and probably a few extras. In game, I am seeing the 38th Squadron composed of 45 Greyhounds, 30 Stuarts and 18 assault guns but no jeeps. Perhaps my TOE is not accurate or you have different sources but wondering.

I do know in the scenario that 102nd Armored Cavalry Group is a very potent force within the scenario battle. Their offensive capability is substantial and doesn't seem reflective of the actual defensive historical performance. So I am just wondering if only the 38th cavalry squadron should be included rather than the whole 102nd cav group? Also I am wondering about the composition of the squadron. It seems to have substantially more Greyhounds, Stuarts and assault guns than I expected. You may have better sources than I have, so I am wondering about those two issues.

BTW, Elsenborn is one of my two favorite scenarios so far.



Oberst_Klink -> RE: For Nikdav Elsenborn scenario OOB 38th Cav squadron (12/23/2021 4:31:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagger2002

Nikdav, I am reading Cole's history of the Bulge. I notice on pages 87-88 that he states Monschau was defended by the 38th Cav Reconnaissance Squadron of the 102nd Cav Group with one assault gun troop in Mutzenich. The cav squadron was reinforced by a platoon of self propelled TDs from the 893 Tank Destroyer Batt. Also Cole lists the 62nd Armored Field Artillery batt defending in the area.

What I am not seeing within Cole's book is the 102nd Cavalry Squadron of the 102nd Cav group mentioned. Apparently the 102nd and 38th squadrons formed the 102nd Cavalry Group but Cole only mentions the 38th defending Monschau. I did a search of Coles book and the 102nd squadron is never actually mentioned anywhere. So I don't know where it participated if at all.

One other point, the sources I have indicate a cavalry squadron's troops and tank company were composed of 54 jeeps, 27 Greyhounds, 15 Stuarts, 6 assault guns and probably a few extras. In game, I am seeing the 38th Squadron composed of 45 Greyhounds, 30 Stuarts and 18 assault guns but no jeeps. Perhaps my TOE is not accurate or you have different sources but wondering.

I do know in the scenario that 102nd Armored Cavalry Group is a very potent force within the scenario battle. Their offensive capability is substantial and doesn't seem reflective of the actual defensive historical performance. So I am just wondering if only the 38th cavalry squadron should be included rather than the whole 102nd cav group? Also I am wondering about the composition of the squadron. It seems to have substantially more Greyhounds, Stuarts and assault guns than I expected. You may have better sources than I have, so I am wondering about those two issues.

BTW, Elsenborn is one of my two favorite scenarios so far.

Elsenborn is quite a challenge for the Germans, because of the potent Cav.Grps. And yes, the TO&E should be tamed down. It's a piece of cake for the Americans to strike deep into the German rear from the beginning.

Klink, Oberst



Jagger2002 -> RE: For Nikdav Elsenborn scenario OOB 38th Cav squadron (12/23/2021 5:05:00 PM)

That is one reason I brought up the issue. In the scenario, that entire Cavalry group is a potent offensive force. But historically, the 38th was on the defense. The 38th squadron was attacked by a battalion of the 752nd VG Rgt (pg89) but the attacks were beaten off. It does mention the effectiveness of the Stuarts using cannister from their main guns. After defending Monschau, I have not found another mention of the 38th cavalry squadron. We do know they did not do a drive into the German rear historically during that timeframe. So if the 102nd cav group is replaced by a single 38th cav squadron, I suspect the scenario would play out more historically.

I did find a note that complete AARs for both the 38th and 102nd Cavalry Squadrons are available but where the 102nd Cav Squadron was actually located, I don't know.



nikdav -> RE: For Nikdav Elsenborn scenario OOB 38th Cav squadron (12/23/2021 5:43:33 PM)

The 102nd hold the rear area of the US attack toward Kesternich.
So historically the squadron was just off map around Lammersdorf, to balance the scenario i redeploy the 102nd along the road on map.
Perhaps could be better made the 102nd idle for 1-3 turns or made a card to be available on turn 2 or 3 !
For the oob the 102nd was full strength.
Historically during the Ardennes Offensive, the 102nd defended the road Eupen - Mutzenich.


What think ?




[image]local://upfiles/28585/3E894A0D70F641B591E663836C244296.jpg[/image]



Jagger2002 -> RE: For Nikdav Elsenborn scenario OOB 38th Cav squadron (12/23/2021 11:54:58 PM)

Ok, looking at that map...38th Cav Sqdn at Monschau and 102 Cav Sqdn around Lammersdorf. I think making the 102nd Cav Sqdn a card might work out well. Did the 102nd Cav Sqdn redeploy north at some point historically? In terms of balance, I found the 102nd Cav Sqdn actually unbalancing the north around Monschau.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.65625