Panzer Grenadier Battles on April 27th:
Arctic Front Deluxe #40 - Children's Crusade Broken Axis #14 - Târgu Frumos: The Second Battle Scenario 3: Sledge Hammer of the Proletariat
Army Group South Ukraine #6 - Consternation Road to Berlin #73 - She-Wolves of the SS
PG-HQ Library - Modern War Hall > Scenarios > SwIs013
Errors? Omissions? Report them!
Umm Katef: The Tank Fight
Sword of Israel #13
(Attacker) State of Israel vs Arab Republic of Egypt (Defender)
Formations Involved
Display
Balance:


Overall balance chart for SwIs013
Total
Side 1 1
Draw 0
Side 2 0
Overall Rating, 1 vote
5
4
3
2
1
3
Scenario Rank: --- of 913
Parent Game Sword of Israel
Historicity Historical
Date 1967-06-06
Start Time 01:00
Turn Count 28
Visibility Day & Night
Counters 146
Net Morale 0
Net Initiative 3
Maps 2: 65, 66
Layout Dimensions 56 x 43 cm
22 x 17 in
Play Bounty 190
AAR Bounty 171
Total Plays 1
Total AARs 1
Battle Types
Inflict Enemy Casualties
Conditions
Off-board Artillery
Reinforcements
Smoke
Illumination
Scenario Requirements & Playability
Sword of Israel Base Game
Introduction

While the Egyptian Infantry and artillery were engaged at Umm Katef, the Israelis made a diversionary attack on the tank park to keep the Egyptian "sword" in its sheath. Later, a second force would attempt to destroy the Egyptians by striking from the rear: Natke Nir's tank battalion had crossed through the "impassable" sand dunes to the north of Umm Katef.
Conclusion

The initial attack by the Centurions bogged down, especially when Egyptian infantry that had been presumed destroyed began filtering into the tank fight firing rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns. However, the arrival of the Super Shermans and the counterattack by the Reserve Infantry eventually routed the Egyptians who fled into the desert.
Display Relevant AFV Rules
AFV Rules Pertaining to this Scenario's Order of Battle
  • Vulnerable to results on the Assault Combat Chart (7.25, 7.63, ACC), and may be attacked by Anti-Tank fire (11.2, DFT). Anti-Tank fire only affects the individual unit fired upon (7.62, 11.0).
  • AFV's are activated by tank leaders (3.2, 3.3, 5.42, 6.8). They may also be activated as part of an initial activating stack, but if activated in this way would need a tank leader in order to carry out combat movement.
  • AFV's do not block Direct Fire (10.1).
  • Full-strength AFV's with "armor efficiency" may make two anti-tank (AT) fire attacks per turn (either in their action segment or during opportunity fire) if they have AT fire values of 0 or more (11.2).
  • Each unit with an AT fire value of 2 or more may fire at targets at a distance of between 100% and 150% of its printed AT range. It does so at half its AT fire value. (11.3)
  • Efficient and non-efficient AFV's may conduct two opportunity fires per turn if using direct fire (7.44, 7.64). Units with both Direct and AT Fire values may use either type of fire in the same turn as their opportunity fire, but not both (7.22, 13.0). Units which can take opportunity fire twice per turn do not have to target the same unit both times (13.0).
  • Demoralized AFV's are not required to flee from units that do not have AT fire values (14.3).
  • Place a Wreck marker when an AFV is eliminated in a bridge or town hex (16.3).
  • AFV's do not benefit from Entrenchments (16.42).
  • AFV's may Dig In (16.2).
  • Open-top AFV's: Immune to M, M1 and M2 results on Direct and Bombardment Fire Tables, but DO take step losses from X and #X results (7.25, 7.41, 7.61, BT, DFT). If a "2X" or "3X" result is rolled, at least one of the step losses must be taken by an open-top AFV if present.
  • Closed-top AFV's: Immune to M, M1 and M2 results on Direct and Bombardment Fire Tables. Do not take step losses from Direct or Bombardment Fire. If X or #X result on Fire Table, make M morale check instead (7.25, 7.41, 7.61, BT, DFT).
  • Closed-top AFV's: Provide the +1 modifier on the Assault Table when combined with infantry. (Modifier only applies to Germans in all scenarios; Soviet Guards in scenarios taking place after 1942; Polish, US and Commonwealth in scenarios taking place after 1943.) (ACC)
  • Tank: all are closed-top and provide the +1 Assault bonus, when applicable
  • Assault Gun: if closed-top, provide the +1 Assault bonus, when applicable
  • Anti-Aircraft Weapon Carrier: apply a -1 modifier to an air attack if within three hexes of the targeted hex (15.14).
  • APC – Armored Personnel Carrier: These are Combat Units, but stack like Transports. They can transport personnel units or towed units. They are not counted as combat units for the +1 stacking modifier on the Direct Fire and Bombardment Tables (4.4). They may be activated by regular leaders and tank leaders (1.2, 3.34, 4.3, 5.43). They do not provide the +1 Assault bonus (ACC).
Display Order of Battle
Arab Republic of Egypt Order of Battle
El Geish el Masry
State of Israel Order of Battle
Army
Display AARs (1)
Sword of Israel: Scenario #13: Umm Katef: The Tank Fight
Author JayTownsend
Method Solo
Victor State of Israel
Play Date 2023-04-27
Language English
Scenario SwIs013

Sword of Israel: Scenario #13: Umm Katef: The Tank Fight

Back to 1967, a scenario that looks interesting on paper and starts at night with mostly armor unit at first but both sides bring in reinforcements including Infantry units. One strange thing for this scenarios special rules, on one turn after the Israeli M51 Super Sherman tanks enter, for some reason the turn after that neither the Sherman or Centurion tanks can use AT fire or assault but only for that one turn. I wonder if it was meant to simulate regrouping and prevent friendly until the reinforcements are organized.

The Cent5s and attached battlegroup pounded away at most the Egyptians weak armor of T-34/85s and SU-100 and even the T-54s with an armor factor of 7 compared to the Centurion’s armor factor of 10 don’t hold up very well. The Cent5s also have an AT factor of 12-16 compared to the T-54s 10-9. By the time both sides have all their reinforcements, in is about eliminating all the Egyptian units or demoralizing them without losing too many steps as the Israeli side.

The Israeli chased down all the undemoralized Egyptians and destroyed the rest, without too much problem, only losing 6 steps and getting a Major Israeli Victory.

I am not sure how to rate this scenario, it was fine for solitaire play but would not be good for FtF. It was kind of frustrating playing the Egyptian side, as I felt lucky every time they were able to eliminate an Israeli step.
0 Comments
You must be a registered member and logged-in to post a comment.
PG-HQ Library - Modern War Hall > Scenarios > SwIs013
Errors? Omissions? Report them!
Page generated in 0.237 seconds.