Galerie de la Begemot - 2nd Edition

This is a general forum for all types of posts related to Military models.

Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1

Post Reply
Begemot
E5
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:11 am

Re: Galerie de la Begemot - 2nd Edition

Post by Begemot »

Mein Panzer Cold War - The S2’s Demonstration

Introduction

(This is a continuation of the "1000 Yard Dash" series of AARs - this time using the Mein Panzer rules with some slight modifications to the basic scenario.)

Back in the day when I was a young lieutenant of infantry in Germany, the battalion S2 (the staff intelligence officer) set up a demonstration for the battalion’s officers. Summoned to the Battalion HQ we were presented with a sand table and an array of blue and red counters from the SPI game “Firefight” (this was a board game commissioned by the US Army to help teach its people about modern war) deployed in the sand. The topic was how a US mechanized infantry company (the blue force) could defend itself using its TOWs and Dragon ATGMs against the attack of a Soviet motor rifle regiment (the red force) mounted in BMPs. Neither force had any support, neither artillery or close air.

The S2 proceeded to explain his purpose and then advanced the rigidly arrayed Soviets towards the carefully deployed US force. The Soviet counters quickly disappeared from their formation as they moved forward, each a victim of a TOW or Dragon. The Soviets force was rapidly defeated and the US force suffered scarcely at all. This was very gratifying to the assembled officer group and I recall no questions concerning the validity of the demonstration. I considered privately that it would indeed be a wonderful thing if our enemy would be be so obliging as to carry on as demonstrated by the S2, but I suspected that reality would probably be somewhat different.

Since OGDW has yet to publish its Cold War rules and data for the Mein Panzer system, but has, teasingly, published some data for US and Soviet forces (published on this site as Chapter 58) and as time for all of us is running out, I decided to use what OGDW has provided and try some Cold War scenarios using what was at hand. Thus this AAR which uses the S2’s demonstration as a test bed for the Mein Panzer system in a Cold War setting circa 1976.

Situation

The US force is a standard mech infantry company of the time, which has taken losses in its infantry forces (each infantry platoon has lost a squad in a previous engagement), but with its mortars and TOW section intact. Three Dragons remain, apportioned one to each platoon of infantry.

The Soviets are a standard full strength motor rifle company of 10 BMPs with infantry and with a 4 tank platoon of T-62s attached.

Neither side has any artillery or air assets in support, with the exception of the US mortars.

Both forces are rated as Regulars for troop quality.

The US company has taken up a hasty position on a hill and has had time to dig in, but no more. The two TOWs are deployed on the flanks and are in Overwatch. The Soviets will attack across a kilometer of of open ground from a wooded area.

Image

The view of the field from the Soviet side. The Soviets will attack out of the woods. They must cross a kilometer of open ground.


Image

The US position from the Soviet perspective. TOWs are on either flank.


Image

The rear of the US position showing the mortars.


The Engagement

On Turn 1 the Soviets get the initiative and start their attack. The T-62’s lead, advancing at speed. The overwatching TOWs react: the first TOW misses because the target T-t2 spotted the incoming missile and reacted causing a miss; the second TOW kills its T-62. The TOWs are activated and get a second kill on a T-62. The BMP platoons follow their tanks and the US Dragons engage the tanks. The turn ends with the T-62 platoon destroyed.

Image

The end of Turn 1. The Soviet tanks are destroyed. The US has taken no casualties.


Turn 2 gives the initiative to the US. The TOWs fire and kill a BMP on the Soviet left. The BMP’s squad is able to escape from their vehicle. A Dragon kills another BMP on the Soviet left, its squad also escapes. The leftmost BMP platoon activates and fails its morale check and Breaks, turning tail and heading back to the woods. The center BMP platoon becomes Shaken and then takes a kill on a BMP from a Dragon. This platoon also turns about and heads to the woods. The right BMP platoon, seeing the attack falling apart joins in the retreat. In two short sharp turns the unsuppressed US ATGM defense destroys the Soviet attack.

Image

The field at the end of Turn 2.


The S2 smiles, satisfied his demo has gone so well. LT Begemot keeps his counsel.

The US wins with no losses. The Soviets have lost 50% of their vehicles.

The Soviet counter demonstration of this scenario will follow soon.

Lesson
Do not attack against an unsuppressed non-degraded ATGM defense.

Notes

Mein Panzer works well for the Cold War period, unsurprisingly. Besides the increased lethality of weapons the greatest feature of the Cold War battlefield in its middle and late periods was ATGMs. This was the part of the system that I spent the most time with and here I found some issues.

How to understand the results of Missile Reaction was a bit of a puzzle in that the die roll results chart wasn’t clear. I finally decided that after applying all the listed modifiers to the troop quality level of the targeted vehicle and rolling the die that a Critical Success occurred if you rolled a 1; a Critical Failure occurred if you rolled a 20; a Success occurred if you rolled equal to or less than the modified TQ number. A Failure was any other roll. If this interpretation is wrong, please let me know.

ATGM range effects were an area that I modified. Using the current modifiers a TOW (OM1 = 2), fired by a Regular US gunner (TQ = 12), against a normally moving target (-1), target defensive modifier = 0, at range of 36” (-5) produces a To Hit probability of 20% (To Hit = 4). Pretty low. If the target is moving evasively then this To Hit probability goes to 0%. All the data I’ve seen relative to ATGMs is that their hit probability improves with increasing range as the gunner refines his aim. The Mein Panzer range modifiers assume the longer the range the less likely one is to hit. Reasonable for guns and rifles, but not so for ATGMs.

This is an anecdotal statement from a US Marine TOW gunner on his experience with the TOW that was posted on a game site that had just published a Cold War computer game. He thought that the game misrepresented the accurracy of the TOW:
First of all, after working with the TOW missile system for 8 years in the USMC, it don’t make me a TOW missile expert, BUT ...

We had issues with the regular TOW, then the ITOW, then finally the TOW 2 came out and we had big issues with the TOW 2. Shooting just the regular TOW missile 10 times, we would get a failure rate of approximately 3-4 missile failures. Most of those issues being a broken wire from the gun platform to the missile itself. We also had 2 missiles that blew up only 20-30 yards, which was an issue by itself because the TOW missile wasn’t supposed to arm its warhead until it went over 50 yards … When you fired your TOW missile after the missile leaves the launch tube the gunner is trying to acquire its target, then while that’s going on, the flight motors kick in and you can’t see ****!!!!! Around after 10-15 seconds now you can finally make sense out of everything, you can now see the target, see the IR light on the missile and now your heart is pumping hard now because in another 6-10 seconds, your target is getting ready to be obliterated, and they don’t even know it!!!!

So if [you] can start making the TOWs less accurate at shorter ranges that would be a start, say from 50 yards to 1,000 yards the hit rate should only be around 60 to 65 percent, from 1,000 – 2,000 yards the hit accuracy will now be getting better so I would say 70-90 percent, then from 2,000- just over 3,000 yards my percentage would go from 80-95 percent.
With this as a guide I created the following Range to Target modifiers for wire guided ATGMs using a Regular US TQ of 12 to work to the hit percentages indicated in the TOW gunners recollections:

* Up to 2” – not allowed (within arming range)
* Up to 6” - +0
* Up to 12” - +2
* Up to 24” - +3
* Up to 36” - +4
* Up to 48” - +5
* Up to 60” - +7
* Up to 72” - +9

Also, for wire guided ATGMs I disallowed the Evasive Movement modifier.

BMPs were not listed in the Chapter 58 tables so I used the PT-76 numbers for the BMP.

Hopefully, my efforts here will encourage and spur on the completion the Mein Panzer Cold War product.


Begemot
The summer grasses.
For many brave warriors
The aftermath of dreams.
--- Basho

Please visit my website "Lair of the Begemot": (https://lairbegemot.blogspot.com)

BurtWolf
E5
Posts: 1062
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:48 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: Galerie de la Begemot - 2nd Edition

Post by BurtWolf »

Excellent write up, and enjoyed it very much! Have to try Mein Panzer one of these days…. It strikes me that, perhaps more realistically, the Soviet’s presumably would’ve used some sort of artillery to bang up the TOW positions once engaged? Or Soviet doctrine doesn’t allow for unplanned support like that?

Thanks for sharing!

Begemot
E5
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:11 am

Re: Galerie de la Begemot - 2nd Edition

Post by Begemot »

BurtWolf - Glad you liked the AAR. The lack of artillery is absolutely unrealistic and when I post the companion AAR, "The Soviet Demonstration", the results will be different. I kept artillery out of this game to zero in on the Mein Panzer ATGM subsystem and to commemorate an absurd demonstration that was delivered by a battalion S2 back in the day.

Begemot
The summer grasses.
For many brave warriors
The aftermath of dreams.
--- Basho

Please visit my website "Lair of the Begemot": (https://lairbegemot.blogspot.com)

BurtWolf
E5
Posts: 1062
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:48 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: Galerie de la Begemot - 2nd Edition

Post by BurtWolf »

Yep that training scenario back in the day seemed well … deficient. It will be interesting to replay with artillery and maybe even some counter-arty?

redleg
E5
Posts: 3396
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:02 am
Location: Riverside, CA

Re: Galerie de la Begemot - 2nd Edition

Post by redleg »

Fantastic AAR Begemot, as always! I checked out your site and read through the other AARs you had posted. Great format for them - I love that they include a more personal storyline!
Redleg's Website: micropope.webstarts.com

Begemot
E5
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:11 am

Re: Galerie de la Begemot - 2nd Edition

Post by Begemot »

Mein Panzer Cold War - The Soviets' Demonstration

Introduction

My previously posted AAR, The S2’s Demonstration, showed how an unsuppressed ATGM defense by a depleted US mechanized infantry company using TOWs and Dragons could decisively defeat a Soviet attack by a full strength motor rifle company mounted in BMPs and supported by a platoon of 4 T62 tanks. Granted, this was an unrealistic scenario with the absence of artillery, but it did demonstrate how lethal an unsuppressed ATGM defense could be.

This AAR, The Soviets' Demonstration, takes the same forces with the same mission, but now with both sides having artillery in support. In this scenario, the Russian God of War (Бог Войны) will speak.

Situation

It is the summer of 1976. The US force is a standard mechanized infantry company of the time, which has taken losses in its infantry forces (each infantry platoon has lost a squad in a previous engagement), but with its mortars and TOW section intact. Three Dragons remain, apportioned one to each platoon of infantry. The US force has a battery of 155mm artillery on call for Final Protective Fires (FPF).

Neither side has any air assets in support.

Both forces are rated as Regulars for troop quality.

The US company has taken up a hasty position on a hill and has had time to dig in, but no more. The two TOWs are deployed on the flanks and are in Overwatch. Their mission is to hold the hill they are positioned on.

The Soviets are a standard full strength motor rifle company of 10 BMPs with infantry with a 4 tank platoon of T-62s attached. The Soviets have a battalion (3 batteries of six guns) of 122mm artillery allocated to provide preparatory fires, 2 fires of HE and one fire of smoke.

The Soviets will attack across a kilometer of of open ground from a wooded area. Their mission is to seize the hill.

The Soviets will apply the concentrated fire of its artillery battalion on the US position to suppress the US defenses so that the attacking infantry and tanks can cross the open ground with minimal losses. This is in accord with Soviet practice: put a heavy barrage on a target in as short a time as possible to gain suppression and minimize the artillery’s exposure to counter-battery fire.

For example: the Soviets estimated that a battery of 6 guns would require 33 minutes to effect the destruction of a mech infantry company. Using a battalion of 18 guns would take 10 minutes.[1]

Image

The view of the field from the Soviet side. The Soviets will attack out of the woods. They must cross a kilometer of open ground.


Image

The US position from the Soviet perspective. TOWs are on either flank.


Image

The rear of the US position showing the mortars,


The Engagement

Turn 1 sees the Soviet barrage begin of the US position. The effects are severe. Both TOW tracks are destroyed, an APC is destroyed and another is immobilized. One infantry squad takes a casualty and another is eliminated. This causes the left US platoon to Break, but they remain in place – nowhere to go except into the storm of fire. After seeing the effect of the barrage on their lost brothers the surviving APCs pull back down the hill to escape getting hit. All other US units in the beaten zone are pinned or suppressed. The Soviet attack force remains concealed in the trees.

Image

Turn 1: The Soviet barrage begins.


Turn 2 and the barrage continues to pound the Americans. One squad takes a casualty and morale begins to come under pressure – another squad Breaks and another becomes Shaken. Now the Soviets emerge from the trees, moving at speed towards the smoke and dust enshrouded hill. No Dragon gunner is going to expose himself and his weapon to this storm fire. The Soviet artillery has so far successfully suppressed the US ATGMs.

Image

Turn 2: The Soviet advance begins.


Turn 3 and the Americans are still effectively suppressed. Combine suppression with line of sight blocked by smoke and dust from the barrage and the Americans can’t call in their mortar or artillery support. Attempts to recover from the Broken and Shaken morale conditions fail. The Soviet artillery changes to smoke. The Soviet attack continues the advance.

Image

Turn 3: Smoke begins to fall on the objective.


Turn 4 and the Soviets, gaining the initiative, drive through the smoke and into the American position as their barrage is lifted. This puts the Soviets behind the Americans who slowly begin to recover from the shock of the barrage. Their Shaken squad recovers, but US left platoon fails morale recovery and remains Broken.

Image

Turn 4: The barrage lifts and the Soviets drive into the US position.


Turn 5 and the US commander, realizing that the Soviets are on top of him, calls the US artillery onto his own position. Now the Soviets pay, as the 155mm shells take their revenge: one T-62 is knocked out as are three BMPs. The Soviet infantry escapes from their vehicles but are Suppressed. But the artillery does not discriminate and the US takes a hit on one of its squads with two others Suppressed as well. Scattered small arms fire breaks out and a few attempts with LAWs fail. Two of the T-62 tanks break out of the trees on the backside of the US position which causes the US APCs to take flight. The US mortars, seeing the panicked retreat, up stakes as well.

Image

Turn 5: The US calls down artillery onto its own position.


Image

Turn 5: The Sight of Russian tanks sends the US rear into flight.


Turn 6 and the US artillery continues to fall on the US position. Another BMP is killed with its squad escaping the vehicle. A confused fire fight continues on the hill where the US artillery does not fall and begins to go in the Soviets’ favor. The US center platoon, forced to make a morale check, Breaks. With US artillery and Soviet small arms fire coming at them from their rear and flanks, they take heels down the front slope of the US position.

Image

Turn 6: The US position begins to collapse.


Turn 7 and the US company commander, having lost contact with his command, lifts the American artillery fires and assumes an escape and evasion posture. The Soviets destroy the last US squad on the US right and the broken US squads in the center continue their flight. On the US left the remaining US squad keeps up the desperate fight, inflicting casualties on the Soviets pressing in on their fighting positions.

Image

Turn 7: The final agonies.


Turn 8 sees the last US resistance eliminated and the fleeing US squads in the open field chopped down. The US company HQ continues to successful escape and evade. The US vehicle park has fully left the field. The Soviets begin to reorganize and consolidate the objective.

Image

Turn 8: Победа! (Victory!)


US Losses: 2 x TOW tracks
2 x M113s
6 x Infantry squads (100%)

Soviet Losses: 1 x T62
5 x BMPs
2.5 x Infantry squads (39%)


Conclusions

Clearly, artillery was the decisive element in this scenario. It inflicted most of the casualties on both sides and for the Soviets it successfully shut down the US ATGM defense, allowing the Soviets to close with the Americans without loss.

Was this a realistic scenario? Certainly more so than in the previous AAR, The S2’s Demonstration. The reality would be somewhere between the extremes of these two scenarios, though closer to this one rather to its predecessor. Any significant Cold War combat which excludes or severely minimizes Soviet artillery will be, in my considered opinion, understating the reality.

I would like to compliment the Mein Panzer rules for their treatment of the effects of HE (high explosive) artillery on vehicles. Vehicles are at fairly severe risk here, and all but one vehicle were lost to artillery. This tracks with studies that the Soviets carried out and which the US confirmed in its own studies in the 1980s (see https://www.scribd.com/doc/151124802/Wh ... Kill-Armor). I have used two other rule sets (TacForce and Dunn-Kempf) produced in the 1970s which used earlier US data on artillery effects and which produced less damage to armor, thereby encouraging armor drive-throughs of artillery barrages as a viable tactic. Not a good idea in Mein Panzer nor in the real world.

Mein Panzer works well in the Cold War environment and I’m looking forward to the release of the Cold War rules and data for this period.


Questions

Q: Why didn't the US Mortars fire?"

Reason 1: No line of sight for the mortar observer. Smoke, dust and explosions under a barrage encourage you to keep your head down.

Reason 2: The guys with the mortars would hear the Soviet barrage, but wouldn't know what was happening. Do they, in the absence of orders (remember the FO is trying to keep his head safe) fire a barrage on their own initiative? On the game table, one sees a lot. If you are on the ground you don't see so much, so ignorance of the situation breeds doubt and indecision. And you don't have unlimited ammo. Do you fire it up at what may be phantoms of the imagination? Explain that to the CO when it's time for the real mission and you've fired up your stock. So indecision and lack of command direction kept the mortars from firing.

Q: Why didn't the US use counter-battery fire?

I gave the Soviets their preferred scenario conditions. It was their demo after all.

Notes

[1] Baxter, William, “Soviet AirLand Battle Tactics”, Presidio Press, 1986, pg. 184.
The summer grasses.
For many brave warriors
The aftermath of dreams.
--- Basho

Please visit my website "Lair of the Begemot": (https://lairbegemot.blogspot.com)

BurtWolf
E5
Posts: 1062
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:48 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: Galerie de la Begemot - 2nd Edition

Post by BurtWolf »

Bravo! I feel like I can hear the “broken arrow” call on the radio! Would the mortars have been preregistered on certain areas thereby allowing them a few scattered attempts?

Great write up once again, thanks!

chrisswim
E5
Posts: 6581
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:22 pm
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Re: Galerie de la Begemot - 2nd Edition

Post by chrisswim »

Nice write up, I enjoyed reading the scenario. Thank you for posting.
Chris

Begemot
E5
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:11 am

Re: Galerie de la Begemot - 2nd Edition

Post by Begemot »

M60A1s and M88 Recovery Vehicle

I'm working on building an American tank company circa 1976 and thus far I've completed a platoon of M60s (five tanks) and an M88 recovery vehicle. These are in the winter verdant MERDC camouflage pattern.

Here are the tanks:

Image

Image

Image

Image

Now, the M88. I encountered one of these in the wild on a summer twilight on the Grafenwöhr training area in 1976. It came grumbling down a dirt road until it got to my location where it turned around, its engine roaring, the ground trembling under its treads and flame coming out of its exhausts. The poor beast was lost. It rumbled back down the road looking for home. Made quite an impression on me.

Image

Image

Image

Now a side-by-side to show the relative sizes.

Image
The summer grasses.
For many brave warriors
The aftermath of dreams.
--- Basho

Please visit my website "Lair of the Begemot": (https://lairbegemot.blogspot.com)

redleg
E5
Posts: 3396
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:02 am
Location: Riverside, CA

Re: Galerie de la Begemot - 2nd Edition

Post by redleg »

That's awesome Begemot! Beautiful vehicles! Please keep us updated with your company as you add more tanks!

Is the tank company that you are building a specific company?
Redleg's Website: micropope.webstarts.com

chrisswim
E5
Posts: 6581
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:22 pm
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Re: Galerie de la Begemot - 2nd Edition

Post by chrisswim »

Begemot, very well painted M60 and M88. Look great.
Chris

pmskaar
E5
Posts: 1891
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 5:45 am

Re: Galerie de la Begemot - 2nd Edition

Post by pmskaar »

Excellent work, Begemot. I am looking forward to seeing the complete company as well.

Begemot
E5
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:11 am

Re: Galerie de la Begemot - 2nd Edition

Post by Begemot »

Guys - Thanks for the kind remarks, I'm glad you like the work.

Redleg - There is no specific unit that I have in mind, though the concept for my tank company and the earlier completed US mech infantry company is units of the 2nd Brigade of the 8th Infantry Division in the late 1970's. The battalions of the brigade were the 1-13, 1-87, and 1-39 (my old alma mater) Mech and the 1-68 and 2-68 Armor.
The summer grasses.
For many brave warriors
The aftermath of dreams.
--- Basho

Please visit my website "Lair of the Begemot": (https://lairbegemot.blogspot.com)

Begemot
E5
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:11 am

Re: Galerie de la Begemot - 2nd Edition

Post by Begemot »

Soviet WW2 Figures

Here are examples of GHQ WW2 Soviet infantry figures I've painted for use in my wargames. I painted them to show the variety of colors that could be found in the various items of clothing and equipment.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

A platoon leader (he has a map case on his left side):
Image

Image

A company command group:
Image

Image

A battalion command group:
Image

Image
The summer grasses.
For many brave warriors
The aftermath of dreams.
--- Basho

Please visit my website "Lair of the Begemot": (https://lairbegemot.blogspot.com)

pmskaar
E5
Posts: 1891
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 5:45 am

Re: Galerie de la Begemot - 2nd Edition

Post by pmskaar »

Very nice close-up pictures of your WWII Russians, Begemot! There sure are a variety of different shades of the uniform colors.

Post Reply