Defending The Westwall : An End Of Series Review

[vince hughes]

Maybe their should be a completed module review section in this forum ? Anyway, if you want and have time for a long read. Here is a thread that a coffee may enhance ?

Having finally completed a module after 132 scenarios played, I thought, like Hugmenot and Matt.W before me, I would post a completion synopsis upon the forum. Following this, I would be highly intrigued to be able to benefit from anybody else that in the future takes the trouble to post their final results of the same completed Westwall module. Even more so if they are all played against a real opponent as were these 10 battles.

This 10 battle scenario pack which came out of AP as one of five downloads designed by Mike Perryman depicting the Siegfried and Aachen campaigns over 50 scenarios really does touch upon a subject in WW2 that I find absolutely fascinating. Without going into too much historical detail as to why it fascinates me, I’ll just say a defeated army perhaps not so defeated as thought by their enemies, and a fresh new allied army now dragged down and facing the rigours of attritional war themselves does make for a truly battle royale. This completed series was played by me solely representing the German forces throughout the module and coming up against three different US players. Wayne Baumber, Alan Sawyer and Tony Langston. The scenarios were played between Nov 2009 – Nov 2012.

As the defending Germans, the issues that became apparent to me over the series were six-fold. Those issues were a) Being outnumbered - b) VC’s often dependent on defending designated terrain features – c) VP’s for losses inflicted and sustained – d) Often having initiative 2pts lower than the Americans – e) Facing heavy OBA numbers – f) Facing numerically superior AFV’s and often a mass of APC’s.

This is how I decided or ended up tackling each issue in a ‘general’ basis. My main aim here is to stir discussion and receive the positing of other players ideas or previously used tactics, whether successful or unsuccessful.

A – OUTNUMBERED: In 7 of the scenarios the Germans are well outnumbered. Five of them are in straight-forward manpower and tank totals. The other two of the mentioned seven scenarios may have had INF units on a par in numbers but allocates the US side with between 15 to 23 x M3 platoons as handy firepower extras. It therefore became immediately apparent that spreading out my forces evenly would merely attract an enemy attack en masse on some part of the wafer thin line. If this occurs, the Germans can easily be rolled up and at the same time, only offer penny-packet weak resistance. To combat this, I found that rather than spread out units, it was often far more profitable to keep them in strong groups, capable of helping themselves, and where possible, trying to get their firepower to somewhere between 11-16 direct fire points and backed with a useful leader. At the same time, I also attempted to keep groups within a semblance of supporting distance of each other. Not always possible, but certainly something I had to bare in mind. In this way, direct closing US attacks would see DF against them going up 3 columns for Opp.Fire and being adjacent. This would leave the American asking or at least worrying whether such attacks were worth the risk in casualties. Such groups of defenders would also be able to confidently fight assault battles defensively on a decently high column that had a good chance of inflicting casualties too. In other words, I tried to make my stacks frightening and able to inflict VP casualties, but at the same time without being too juicy when compared to my other stacks. In line with this I had to be conspicuously aware of not stacking too heavily for fear of enemy OBA and also, avoid having a dirty great hole blown in my line should a real-juicy stack be overrun.

B – DEFENDING TERRAIN FEATURES: Unsurprisingly, given the subject matter, all 10 scenarios involve control of terrain features being required in some way or another. 9 of these scenarios require the Germans to defend them. Of those that require defending, 6 of the scenarios allocate Victory Points (VP’s) for designated terrain hexes that are controlled at the end of play. The way I chose to effectively defend in these situations was as follows. Pre-game I would add up the VP’s of all hexes that afforded such points. Then, with that total, work out how many of those hexes and their points totals I could get away with forsaking, or put another way, not bother defending, thus releasing me to use my perceived scant forces to defend lesser ground in a more effective way and in concentrated groups as desired in ‘case-A’ above. Thus, the plan being that the Americans could be given some ground without even having to fight, and yet, the ground given up would be worthless unless the Americans made their moves for the positions that WERE defended. In the last 5 scenarios, the Germans are also assisted by the mud. This slows down the Americans to a crawl in some instances and in each turn that American units fail to advance, time will be eaten up. This therefore gives the US commander double-trouble. On these occasions I even found it useful to deploy far forward if this meant that US forces had to start even further back. In the Lohn Town scenario for example, this actually gains the Germans three turns of ‘peace’ as the Americans set up positions have to be set well back.

C – VP’s FOR LOSSES INFLICTED AND SUSTAINED: One clear rule of deployment came through to me in these hard pressed-defence situations. Defend in depth and only defend the defensible. Do not try to cover all VP / VC locations (as per para.B above). To inflict pain in the form of losses on the aggressors, I realised that units and bombardments had to be concentrated into ‘clumps’ that could inflict losses on their own strength. I decided that defending penny-packet style led only to 7col DF and 8-16col bombardments. To inflict casualties with these required double 1’s and 6’s. Far too risky and reliant on good fortune. So where possible, infantry stacks of 11 or 16 DF often augmented with strong-points could turn out to be fearsome prospects, especially when advanced upon with the Opp.Fire bonus and in closing stages, the adjacent bonus. Stacks composed of a GREN, HMG and a leader with a ‘1’ bonus for firepower for 16pts, or 2 HMG’s and a strong-point for 22pts always proved troublesome thorns. Likewise, artillery needed, where able to fire on the 30col, whether as OBA or on-board. This of course was not always possible, and I resisted the temptation in such circumstances to place my mortars and the like in LOS of counter-fire just to gain the +1 self-spotted bonus. Mortars tend to die easily when they do this by attracting fire. Preserving them throughout the game so that they would always be there firing away was always more beneficial rather than exposing them to enemy attack via OBA. On the losing of steps, it is of no surprise to state that towns were always the best location to husband my resources and keep them safe. Entrenchments also go without saying when they are part of the OOB. Given the amount of US OBA in most scenarios, I mainly stayed away from woods when possible as they offer no protection from OBA and also disallowed the ability of digging-in. I should add here that a total aversion of woods should not be interpreted from this as it was very dependent on the US OBA capability. Light-woods and dug-in was often a preferred option in which to minimise casualties instead of normal woods. In the muddy scenarios, I also found it useful to place my defending troops where possible, 4 hexes or 800m from covering terrain to the enemy. With just a 2MF, this would mean that I would get 2 turns of Opp Fire against the enemy before they could even muster their own forces for any useful assault.

D – LOWER INITIATIVE: In no less than 9 out of the 10 scenarios in this pack, the Germans have a starting initiative of 2 less than the Americans. PG chat boards are filled with posts and AAR’s about one side’s higher morale and the obvious advantages that brings. But comparatively speaking, 2+ initiative is rarely mentioned. Yet, this advantage gives one side so many more possibilities. By winning the initiative dice roll by just one more than the opponent, they instantly receive 2 activations ahead of their enemy. The chances of losing initiative (i.e.: Your enemy rolls 3+ higher than yourself) are low, something like 1 in 9 times and perhaps less once ties are resolved. So with a 2+ initiative advantage, the Americans can generally count on going first and should, all things being equal, be enabled to play at least one bolder move per turn than their enemy in the hope of getting first AS, as well as react to adverse situations quicker than the Germans. The way I countered this in what seemed the best ways possible was a policy of sit-tight and take it. By using good leaders to support under fire units, I had the Germans suck up American fire first. This had to be done where the US still had other unused troops that could still move still in a later activation. The rule being, do not loose off or fire the German bolt whilst the Amis still had resources. Thereafter, there was one of three choices open to the defenders. Either fire-back when the US had activated those units threatening your stack, or, recover DIS and DEM units (some DIS units need to be recovered before this stage to avoid a second hit making them DEM), or, if the Americans came in close, fire point blank to get the enemy to soak up losses. On the subject of these defensive fire attacks, targeting useful enemy leaders, ENG, HMG and FLM units was a priority. This would make enemy assaults on my positions as weak as I could conceivably make them. Another tactic was to take out ‘cheap’ targets when able and safe to do so. By this, I mean hitting M3’s with AT fire or Opp.Firing at them as they come in close with available small arms fire that could get onto the 22col of the DF chart (I find the 16 chart too difficult to get X results). Although any morale checks are ‘misses’, an X wipes the vehicle out. The reason for this was to get the US initiative to roll down quickly. Once US initiative is level with the German, then the US player’sr method of play and tactics should change and become more containable ? It should result in the Americans becoming instantly less bold and the battle can be fought on a more even footing.

E – FACING HEAVY OBA NUMBERS: This has been addressed in most paragraphs above. But the use of towns and entrenchments would bring down the effects of this by 2 often life-saving columns. Refusing to present targets not only aided reduction of losses and VP’s, but would often frustrate the enemy player. What can be more annoying than having a powerful resource and not getting to use it as one would like. Refusing to come out into open ground, staying in limiting terrain unsighted whilst the Americans were more than 3 hexes away. Agitating the player in this way probably brought on some benefits I was never aware of!

F – TOO MANY ENEMY AFV’s: The Americans are usually equipped with good numbers of AFV’s whilst the Germans usually make do with either a couple of StG’s or a Tiger tank. The German armour, due to its fearsome guns are most often at their best being used in positions that show what they CAN do rather than WHAT they do. By holding them back rather than firing at bait targets, their ability to neuter American armour is possibly just as an effective a tactic to use as it is to try and fight a few enemy tanks and then lose your own eventually. That all said, if the American player activated all his units and easy targets presented themselves, there was no harm in using my own resource in these situations. What I always avoided was firing them off early and allowing potential unactivated enemy units with a +2 initiative to get a two move jump on fired Tigers or StG’s. If these beasts get swarmed by infantry then they would have been in serious trouble.

So they were main issues facing the German defenders. There were most certainly plenty of others, but the above 6 points kind of threaded through consistently in the module.