Panzer Grenadier Battles on November 21st:
Desert Rats #16 - The Panzers Pull Back Desert Rats #19 - The Panzers Return
Desert Rats #17 - The Tomb Of Sidi Rezegh Jungle Fighting #7 - Line Of Departure
Desert Rats #18 - A Pibroch's Skirl South Africa's War #5 - Irish Eyes
Errors? Omissions? Report them!
Here We Stand!
C&CV1: War in the East #9
(Defender) Germany vs Soviet Union (Attacker)
Formations Involved
Germany 2nd Motorized Rifle Battalion
Soviet Union 3nd Tank Division
Display
Balance:



Overall balance chart for CCV1009
Total
Side 1 3
Draw 0
Side 2 2
Overall Rating, 5 votes
5
4
3
2
1
3.4
Scenario Rank: 477 of 940
Parent Game C&CV1: War in the East
Historicity Alt-History
Date
Start Time 12:00
Turn Count 16
Visibility Day
Counters 95
Net Morale 0
Net Initiative 2
Maps 3: 4, 7, 8
Layout Dimensions 84 x 43 cm
33 x 17 in
Play Bounty 157
AAR Bounty 165
Total Plays 5
Total AARs 2
Battle Types
Inflict Enemy Casualties
River Crossing
Urban Assault
Conditions
Off-board Artillery
Scenario Requirements & Playability
C&CV1: War in the East Base Game
Eastern Front Maps + Counters
Introduction

Soviet doctrine demanded that counterattacks be mounted at every opportunity no matter the operational situation. Early in the invasion, local commanders followed these orders. Aggressive German movements early in the invasion often caused gaps in flank security, and that might let some of the better-led and faster-moving Soviet forces cut behind German lines and attack German security forces guarding major bridgeheads. Holding such a bridgehead would be crucial to the Germans, since its losses would cut the supply lines of the units leading the invasion.

Conclusion

This is a quick scenario where the Soviet player gets some revenge for the first scenario, and where the German Leader Characters get to really prove themselves in battle.


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).
  • 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

Display Order of Battle

Germany Order of Battle
Heer
  • Mechanized
  • Motorized
Soviet Union Order of Battle
Army (RKKA)
  • Motorized

Display Errata (4)

4 Errata Items
Overall balance chart for 20

The reduced direct fire value of the Heer HMG became 5-5 starting with Fall of France.

(plloyd1010 on 2015 Jul 31)
Overall balance chart for 495

One unit from Eastern Front has a direct firepower of 3-5 on its reduced side instead of the normal 4-5

(garbare83686 on 2023 Nov 26)
Overall balance chart for 532

The StuG IIb appearing in the original Panzer Grenadier game had an Anti tank value of 4-7. As of Eastern Front Deluxe (2005), continuing onward through the 3rd and 4th edition games, the anti-tank value has been 4-4.

(plloyd1010 on 2022 Jul 21)
Overall balance chart for 951

The reduced direct fire value in Kursk: Burning Tigers is 4-4.

(plloyd1010 on 2015 Jul 31)

Display AARs (2)

Leaders on the move
Author campsawyer
Method Solo
Victor Soviet Union
Play Date 2010-01-01
Language English
Scenario CCV1009

My second scenario in the series, with three LT's accumulating promotion points they go on the defensive with the 2nd Tank Division looking to stop there attack. Given that one LT has AT experience this will help. The Soviets bring out a KV-1 and the Germans don't have much to counter it. Cross-fire, cross-fire.

The one Lt stacks with the 37mm AT gun but it killed during the engagement by Soviet OBA fire. The others distinguished themselves recovering troops and trying to hold the line. The Soviets went on to win a close game, 24-22 vps. One of the Lt's was promoted to Captain and the other was able to get another skill, Survival.

0 Comments
You must be a registered member and logged-in to post a comment.
Here we Stand.
Author Poor Yorek
Method Solo
Victor Germany
Play Date 2011-06-19
Language English
Scenario CCV1009

This AAR follows four turns (of sixteen). The game is in abeyance due to the summer vacation of my playing partner. Still, the battle now seems likely to be determined.

Fundamental Objective: Germans attempt to hold a bridgehead against Soviet combined arms attack.

Soviet force: four infantry companies; a strong on-board AT/Art component; and eight tank platoons (mixed: BT-7; T-28; T-34; and KV-1).

German: A reinforced motorized rifle battalion. The reinforcing armored elements are 2xStugIIIB and 1xPz38t.

Germans have three victory areas: a bridge hex in the center of the western board; a four-hex town in the north-east of the western board; and a seven-hex town in the center of the middle board. The eastern board has not (yet) been used in our action.

Scenario "Broke?": The VP conditions stipulate a 13 point change from German to Russian control of the bridge hex. Each town hex, however, effects a 5-point change from German to Russian control. Put another way, each of the towns is more valuable in itself than the bridge hex. To my mind this VP schedule "breaks" the scenario since it would actually encourage the German player to defend the towns preferentially compared to the bridge itself: this is not what (I think) would be the case "for real." I believe that the VP schedule should reflect what a real German commander would do: use the towns to advantage to slow the Soviet attack (and wear down his forces), but fall back to hold the bridge at all costs. For that matter, what a Soviet commander would do: possibly by-pass the towns with some holding infantry, but make every effort to capture the bridge. Put another way, if the Soviet player takes only the seven-hex town (21 VPs) leaving the bridge and four hex town to the German player (13 VPs), then the Soviet player wins (caveat: each player also gets the usual 1 VP per opponent step loss). My point here is not that this is necessarily bad in and of itself, but as the scenario description so emphasizes the "guarding (of) major bridgeheads," I felt the VP schedule, by undervaluing the bridge hex, did not convey this tactical situation. Hence, my giving this scenario a '1'.

The play itself was fairly dramatic, however. The Russian player sent two attack groups: Inf;HMGs; and the light armor & the KV-1 to attack the four-hex town: nine Rifle platoons and the 3xT-34's to attack the seven-hex town: mortars and artillery drove for the large field to set up.

German set-up: essentially one company (3xINF + 1xHMG) in each of the towns & the bridge area. One Stug in each town; the Pz38t guarding the road to the bridge.

Four-hex town battle. Soviet infantry took a pounding upon approach via opportunity fire and the Stug & 75mmIG took out several steps of light Soviet armor (also, on turn one, the Stug from the other town was brought along the road to a firing position to cover the east of this town (fire on turns 2 & 3; then returned back on turn 4: this was not as easy as it sounds here, this Stug dodged three T-34 shots and an adjacent 45mm AT gun shot!). One Stug step lost, but the other remained in good order. Soviet assault (turn four) went well, with a roll of 6 on the 18 Col (Germans lost a full RIF platoon) vs a roll of 2 on the 13 col for German defender. Germans reinforced this hex with 2 INF. So situation here is one hex contested by assault; two other town hexes with half a Stug and the other with a lone (now) 75 mm IG. The Soviets still have a full strength RIF, HMG, and the KV-1 (along with some demoralized half-steps on the board edge trying to recover). So whilst the Soviets will pay some more blood here, the Germans will likely be unable to hold this town.

Seven-hex town battle: perhaps because of trying to rush the game, the Soviet Rifle companies tried a "charge of the light brigade" vs. the German company holding the seven-hex town. The German player prior to this had five consecutive '6' or '7' rolls on various decent DF or IF attacks - perhaps this display of poor shooting emboldened the Soviet commander. But, here, an '11' on the 22-col and a '3' on the 45 col (16 col attack + 2 for adj + 1 for three units in a hex - I deferred OF), lead to four step losses total and a rash of demoralizations/disruptions. Three Russian rifle companies are in taters before the town, at the mercy of initiative for turn five. So at this stage, the Soviet attack here seems stymied; the 3x T-34s here will be taking shots at the lone Stug.

At the end of turn four:

Soviets: four VPs (all due to Ger step losses). One town hex contested by assault. Germans: forty-eight VPs (twenty-three VPs for Soviet step losses (tanks x2); twenty for ten town hexes currently under control; and five for the brige).

Projection:

As the Germans do not actually have units in all seven of the large town hexes, I'd posit the Soviets eventually having six town hexes (total) under their control by game end for a total of 18 VPs there; the Germans will hold the bridge; the Germans would thus have five town hexes (10 VPs) + bridge (5 VPs) = 15 VPs. Thus, ultimate victory will eventually then depend upon the step loss differential which currently is in favor of the Germans by 23 to 4). How this projects out will be interesting: the Soviet infantry is largely in tatters: can the Germans pound them with compound morale failures before they recover? Armor wise, the Germans have killed off the Soviet light armor; the T-34s and KV-1 will not be so easy and the Stugs may have had their time in the sun.

Will finish in about six weeks.

0 Comments
You must be a registered member and logged-in to post a comment.
Errors? Omissions? Report them!
Page generated in 0.334 seconds.