Author	Les Staurt (Soviet Union)
Method	VASSAL
Victor	Germany
Participants	unknown
Play Date	2019-12-28
Language	English
Scenario	PGUM005

This was a second playing of the Tiger Trap? scenario, and the results differed greatly from the first.

The two Nazi infantry platoons deployed 3 hexes from the bridge, and the single Tiger platoon 5 hexes away, which gave the Tigers excellent cover of the bridge, but left the infantry with no anchors on either flank, exposed and easy to bypass.

Hanging back and attempting to destroy the Tigers at a distance is not a valid option as the Tigers have a much better chance of destroying the T34As at long range than the T34's have of destroying the Tigers. Not to mention the threat of being assaulted by Axis infantry once across the bridge.

The superior armor and firepower of the Tigers leave few options for the Soviets but to dash across the bridge, bypass the infantry, and close the range on the Tigers, to have any chance to destroy the Nazi tanks. Although offset by superior firepower and armor, the limited quantity of the Axis forces is a weakness. To win the Soviets must win the initiative and attempt to use their numerical advantage to destroy the Tigers before they can eliminate the Soviet tank threat. And once committed, the Soviets have little chance to withdraw and try again if the first assault fails -- it's an "all or nothing" attack that will either leave the battlefield littered with wrecked T34s, or a destroyed platoon of Tiger tanks.

The outcome of the first playing of this scenario was a spectacular victory for the Soviets! Once across the bridge the Tigers were only able to reduce one platoon, and the Soviets passed their moral check, leaving the entire Soviet command virtually intact. The result was a flanking maneuver by the T34s that placed the Tigers in a deadly cross-fire. Winning 2 activations in the 3rd turn gave the Soviets the opportunity they needed to attack with both flanks before the Tigers could return fire, and excellent gunnery by the T34s destroyed the Tigers.

This, the second playing of this scenario, resulted in an equally spectacular Nazi victory.

After the T34s dashed across the bridge and fanned out, the Nazi infantry closed to within a hex of the T34s. Then the Tigers worked over the T34s, reducing and demoralizing two platoons. The Soviets continued their advance in an attempt to flank the Tigers and place them in a cross-fire. Attempts to rally the demoralized platoons failed and they routed back to the bridge. The Tigers then continued their attacks on the hapless remainder of the T34's. The result was the destruction of another platoon and reduction/demoralization of a fourth. With 4 platoons destroyed and/or reduced and demoralized, and only two remaining unscathed, and infantry assaulting the demoralized units, it was clear that the Soviets had been soundly defeated and the game was called.

This scenario (designed to teach players the mechanics of the armor rules I suspect) is also an excellent example of how initiative can drastically influence the outcome of a scenario. Winning 2 activations in the first game gave the Soviet player the opportunity to destroy a superior unit before it had an opportunity to reduce the threat. Failure to win the initiative resulted in disaster for the Soviets in the second game. Poor gunnery on the part of the Tigers in the first game, coupled with excellent moral and gunnery rolls by the Soviets, are two additional factors that played a major role in the games outcome, but the ability to move/shoot first, and more than once, was the deciding factor in the first game.

In summary, while it may seem impossible for the Soviets to win this scenario, it's not a given, and even superior units may be overcome by inferior units with good leadership and competent game play.