GHQ Models Forums

I have the book First Clash that was written as a training subject for the Canadian Army in the mid-80s. I am currently re-reading it and have been fooling around w/my collection of terrain maker with the idea of setting it up for the area of the stand of Oscar and November companies RCR 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group.

However it makes me wonder, just how much of a chance would two infantry companies w/the support of a Armor company have against the bulk of a Soviet tank division? Has anyone ever played this scenario or a like one with the same results as in the book?

For those not familiar with the book the Canadians' mission is to hold for 48hrs to prevent penetration of the Blickheim Ridge to the Buhl plateau. They are penetrated but are able to launch a counter attack which causes the Soviets to halt their attack there and pursue success in another sector. In short the Canadians are successful.

I have the book as well, and plan on collecting a 4th Mech Brigade Group of Canadians for moderns in the near future.

I think the book is fairly accurate, the Canadians held, but the formations were pretty much gutted and would not have been able to stall the Soviets any longer by the end of the 48 hrs.

It probably would be one of those battles that could happen as written in real life, but would not be able to be gamed out in the same way. Just the numbers the Soviets could bring to bear would swamp the Canadians on the game board I would think. Still it would be interesting to try.

I have yet to read it, but I know Fistful of TOW's yahoo site you can get the scenario for it...as well as an updated modern version using the LAVIII and so forth. I think it would be fun to play this out

So 30+ M113s and 13 or 16 Leopard 1C1 against 270 + tanks, the arty, the BMP or BTRs.
48 hours. Not sure I see it....? But I do have my Canadians.

I'm thinking;

B sqd - 5 models
Oscar & Novenber Co. - 3 or 4 models each

Soviet tank Regiment - 31 tanks
Soviet MRR - 31 BMPs

Not counting maybe two M-113s w/TOWs

Yeah I know it sounds lop sided, but if you want to make it a fair fight you could give the Russians more tanks!

I've recently re-read 'First Clash' and can remember the maps, ToEs and deployment (great maps in the book by the way).

Looking at the straight numbers you'd think "Yeah, Soviet steam-roller. Canucks have got no chance."

But this is winnable for the Canadians if the Soviets use typical Soviet tactics, as they did in the book.

And that is the Soviet Tank Division is stretched back for miles and using typical Soviet deployment, ie feed some small units forward to find some gaps, lose a lot of units doing so, so feed in some more but bigger units, lose a lot of them, so feed in some more and so on. The Soviets don't turn up all at once - if they did then yeah, steam-roller.

If the Canucks use delayed fall-back tactics they can really chew-up the Soviets. And the terrain was quite close so that allowed the Canucks to fall-back under cover.

The real pain for the Canucks was having M-113s which were susceptible to even HMG fire, plus limited AT weapons count (TOWs).

Still a good book though.

In the book that kind of happens. First was the recon company, then the advamced guard, which the Canadians smoked, then the main body.

In a game I thought to help balance the forces not only would a Canadian infantry company have a Carl Gustav, but each stand would be understood to have M72s. This way each infantry stand would have a anti-armor capability since I am assuming like the U.S.Army they would be treated as ammunition and not as an individual weapon.

Perhaps also these weapons would be allowed to fire inside of a building even though in real life that's a no-go. Reason is to give the infantry more of an ability to ambush Soviet tanks.

The Soviets had the RPG-18, but when you have 4 Battalions of Mech Infantry w/IFVs w/AT missles, I figure the RPG-7 stand is enough.

I seem to recall reading that NATO troops in NW Europe were trained to fight outnumbered 5:1 and win. Trading ground, using mobility, initiative and terrain vs a dogmatic tactical strategy has long been shown to give enormous advantages to a defender. Read any of the actions described in Arabs at War (K Pollack), the Finnish Winter War, or Australia at Long Tan. At Long Tan, the Australians were still trying to move, regroup and withdraw such that the NVA couldn't locate them in the rubber plantation. In the end they were forming up to assault in full view of the Australians (to maintain visual contact) who called artillery onto them (acknowledgment: NZ FO and guns).

The scenario would be a challenge, but should be achievable.

I like the mapboard you're using cama. Got any bigger views of it and how did you make it?

Cheers, B