Jump to content


Photo

Nouvion 1940


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 healey36

healey36

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 825 posts
  • LocationMaryland USA

Posted 06 January 2025 - 10:35 AM

Between bouts of prepping for today's snow storm, we broke out MP for a small scenario. The setting was Nouvion during the third week of May 1940, the British desperately trying to hold escape routes to the Channel ports open. A British ad hoc force comprised of two infantry platoons and three troops of armor (A9, A13, and a few new Valentines) are sent to seize and hold a crossroads near a small abandoned, heavily-damaged farming commune southeast of Nouvion. A German Kampfgruppe (under the command of the familiar Oberst Von Stupp) comprised of three platoons of infantry and two platoons of armor (Pzkpfw IIIE) are similarly sent to seize the crossroads. Skies were overcast, so no available air-support, and no off-board arty in range.

 

Objectives were primarily the crossroads, with the village and a hill northeast of the village both secondary. The British infantry quickly seized the crossroads and advanced into the village, intending to block access to the road junction. The Germans likewise seized the unoccupied high ground while advancing west along the road to the village. Initially without tank support, Von Stupp sent one infantry platoon toward the village where they immediately came under fire. A close assault successfully ejected a British rifle squad from a concrete-block building (garage) the British had hastily occupied. From there, the fight developed into an infantry slog as the Germans tried to clear the remaining buildings while the Brits vigorously defended. The Germans, under heavy rifle and mortar fire, made no further progress. Efforts to encircle the commune with the the other two platoons were similarly blocked, with one pinned along a hedgerow and unable/unwilling to move forward.

 

Von Stupp subsequently brought up one platoon of tanks in an effort to support the infantry. The 37mm gun of the Pz-IIIE proved ineffective against infantry in buildings, but machinegun fire drew better results, especially against some British infantry occupying a barn and farmyard on the northern edge of the village. 

 

The other German tank platoon was sent north of the village to guard against a possible counterattack by British armor. A dust-up with a troop of A9 cruisers was blunted by some medium range AP fire, two of three cruisers knocked out at the cost of one Pz-IIIE.

 

In the closing stages, the platoon of A13s slipped around the southern edge of the town to engage the Pz-IIIE platoon trying to support the ongoing fight in the village. Two Pz-IIIE were knocked out at the cost of a single A13.

 

With little progress clearing the village, little chance of reaching the crossroads, and having lost half his tanks (with additional British tanks observed coming down the road from the northwest), Von Stupp made the decision to withdraw. Victory was awarded to the British for having held the vital crossroads.

 

A few pics:

 

Nouvion d
The table.
 
Nouvion e
German infantry huddle against incoming fire.
 
Nouvion a
British tanks (A9) are repulsed north of the village.
 
Nouvion c
British tanks jump the Germans from the southwest.
 
Nouvion b
Oberst Von Stupp directs the action from safety behind a hedgerow.
 
Good fun for a cold day in January 2025.
 
 

 

 

 


  • Kenny Noe and Peter M. Skaar like this

#2 Phil Callcott

Phil Callcott

    Corporal

  • Members
  • 81 posts

Posted 06 January 2025 - 01:48 PM

Looks like a great game with fun for all,

 

One observation, The first Valentines went into action in December 1941 in North Africa.

 

They were only just starting production in May '40.

 

It's only a game, but maybe the Germans will ask for a replay sans Valentines...  :) 


  • healey36 likes this

#3 healey36

healey36

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 825 posts
  • LocationMaryland USA

Posted 06 January 2025 - 02:27 PM

LOL, we took some license with the Valentines since we're sitting on a pile of early versions and few if any have ever seen table-time. Here (Nouvion), despite getting a fanciful nod in the OB, the Valentines never made it into action as (1) we purposely staged their entry to a randomized later turn, and (2) they move rather ponderously, even on a road (as compared to the cruiser-types).

 

One thing that always comes to the fore in these early-war games is the relative effectiveness of the British 2-pounder. A much-maligned weapon in the minds of many "historians", it often proves quite effective against many opposing tanks (armored targets). Here we watched A9 and A13 tanks make swiss cheese of the German Pz-IIIE. Back in college we looked at the 2-pounder, a gun that, while a low weight-of-shell, had an extremely high muzzle velocity. At a time when there was no access to computer simulation, I recall us doing some lab work trying to understand why the oft-cited claim of poor penetration, especially in comparison to other anti-tank weapons like the much smaller/lighter PTRS-41. We came to the conclusion that it was bollocks (although a fair criticism of the 2-pounder was that it had no HE capability), and that there was good reason the Brits kept the 2-pounder in production for so long.

 

Anyway, agreed, no Valentines in France in 1940. We're hoping to get them legitimately on the table when the Sealion series resumes later this year.



#4 Peter M. Skaar

Peter M. Skaar

    Major

  • Members
  • 431 posts

Posted 06 January 2025 - 05:37 PM

That is a great looking game, Healey, and a great AAR as well.  Sometimes it is fun to do a smaller action rather than games that are bigger and take longer.

I have wondered, a bit, about how effective the 2 Lbr. is in Mein Panzer.  The stats, as given, make it as effective as the short 50mm on German tanks and more effective than the U.S. 37mm and Russian 45mm in terms of penetration.  I admit I don't have any particular knowledge that shows the 2 Lbr. was less effective than shows in the game.

In the North Africa games I have run, the British tanks with the 2 Lbr.. such as the Crusader I and II and the Valentine can hold their own.  The Valentines were the first unit I painted for my British North Africa forces.  Not a bad all around tank for North Africa if a bit slow, the Russians seemed to have liked them and the British kept them in production mainly for that purpose.


  • healey36 likes this

#5 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 696 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 07 January 2025 - 03:44 PM

I concur, it's a great looking table.



#6 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 969 posts

Posted 08 January 2025 - 06:50 AM

Cool game layout!  Looking forward to more!!  Thanks



#7 healey36

healey36

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 825 posts
  • LocationMaryland USA

Posted 13 January 2025 - 03:22 PM

I concur, it's a great looking table.

These "tiles" were made some forty years ago, at least. A few have seen some reflocking over the years, just to make 'em look fresh, but otherwise they are as made. I really like the look of Peter's GHQ Terrain Maker tables, but I'm too old to start over. Others here have posted some terrific tables as well.

 

I still have some unfinished pieces that were developed for a play of the fighting in and around "The Factory" and the Netunno-Cisterna highway during the Shingle (Anzio) battles, both the initial effort to seize it, as well as the German counterattack (Fischfang) to throw the Brits and Americans out. Hope to get to that some day. Hey, any chance to get PzJgAbt. 653 into action with even a few of its eleven Elefants shouldn't be missed, lol.

 

elefant-10.jpg 

Americans looking over a knocked out Elefant at Isola Bella. 



#8 Peter M. Skaar

Peter M. Skaar

    Major

  • Members
  • 431 posts

Posted 14 January 2025 - 12:00 PM

I too need to get my Ferdinands/Elephants into action one of these days.  I have 4 of the GHQ models painted and ready to go. 

 



#9 healey36

healey36

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 825 posts
  • LocationMaryland USA

Posted 17 January 2025 - 12:42 PM

While tank shoot-em-ups are great fun, we really need to work on understanding the nuances of MP infantry combat and that was kinda the point of this small exercise. We messed up a lot, so more exercises will be needed. The biggest problem is we're not doing this often enough and, speaking for myself, rules retention is about down to zero (not a knock on MP, but age in general). Each game seems a refresh. We'll need to put together a string of these played in relative close order to better "get the hang of it".


  • Kenny Noe and Peter M. Skaar like this

#10 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 969 posts

Posted 17 January 2025 - 05:44 PM

Like most things practice, practice, practice, practice....   I love playing w/ infantry on the table top but also do it to infrequently where we have to lookup rules and the game drags on and on or we forget a rule and realize after.  It's a curse I have w/ most games!


  • Peter M. Skaar and healey36 like this

#11 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 696 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 18 January 2025 - 10:47 PM

While there is no question that the bulk of everyone's troops were primarily infantry formations during WWII; it is also true that just about everyone came to the conclusion early on that some kind of armor support was absolutely required to prevent the losses that came from an infantry/arty only attack. The results did not justify the losses incurred without armor support. In trying to set up scenarios based on historical OOBs, it is my experience that there is almost always some form of armored support, even if it is only AGs or TDs. That later in the war the scenario is, the truer that becomes.

 

WMC


  • Peter M. Skaar and healey36 like this

#12 healey36

healey36

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 825 posts
  • LocationMaryland USA

Posted 19 January 2025 - 10:55 AM

Wouldn't disagree with that...combined arms and the old hammer-n-anvil approach is pretty effective (and interesting). A bit of training would have been helpful.

 

Table exercises

  • Peter M. Skaar likes this

#13 Peter M. Skaar

Peter M. Skaar

    Major

  • Members
  • 431 posts

Posted 19 January 2025 - 06:28 PM

I have run Mein Panzer games with infantry (and artillery) before.  If you can get gamers up to speed on the infantry rules that is a good thing.

We are doing tank battles in my group right now for a couple reasons.  One is that I usually run them at my friendly local game store, Imperial Outpost.  The games can't run generally more than 4 hours or so and some of the players are needing to leave after 3 hours.  Tank battles are fun and exciting and the forces close quickly and the core rules are oriented around tanks and other AFVs.

Having said that, I have been looking at doing a solo infantry game in the near future so that I can refresh myself with the rules for infantry and maybe some artillery or mortars as well.  If leg infantry is involved, generally you need a smaller board so that you don't spend numerous turns just moving to contact. 

Once I get a solo infantry game or two under my belt, I may invite a small group of guys to the house to play so that I can teach them that aspect of the game.  The artillery rules can also be added at the same time as most infantry fights would at least involve some company mortars if nothing else.  These would initially be learning games but I think that some of the guys would catch on pretty quickly and some very good games could happen.

I concur with W. Clark that combined arms operations were generally more common in WWII than straight infantry fights.  As a matter of fact, I am considering doing a game where one side has either tanks or assault guns in addition to the infantry while the other side has some sort of long range AT capability whether AT guns or self propelled AT guns.  In the early War scenarios, AT rifles can play a part as most opposing tanks are not that well armored and in the later War you have bazookas and panzerfausts and panzerschreks to deal with.

Like Healey says, it will probably  take a few sessions but with practice, practice, practice, as Kenny says you can have some very nice games. 

I have an observation on adding the various modules.  Be prepared for games to take longer in general.  Adding more stuff gives players more things to deal with.  There will also be more rules to look up.  I am an advocate of doing a solo game or two to learn the new rules and then bringing in a few players - 2 to 4, to teach them to and bring them up to speed in a fairly simple scenario. 

Right now, I have a small core of players in the greater Phoenix area that seem to enjoy Mein Panzer as they keep coming back.  I hope to expand this group over the next few months and get a bit more "depth" into some of my games as well.



 


  • Kenny Noe and healey36 like this

#14 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 969 posts

Posted 19 January 2025 - 08:18 PM

Pete,

 

Well said.  Good luck getting to a full combined arms game!  <grin>


  • Peter M. Skaar likes this

#15 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 696 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 19 January 2025 - 10:44 PM

I'm assuming that your scenario has one side defending and the other attacking as meeting engagements between infantry only are rare. If my assumption is right, then how far apart are you starting from? Perhaps lessening the gap would speed up the action?

 

WMC



#16 Peter M. Skaar

Peter M. Skaar

    Major

  • Members
  • 431 posts

Posted 20 January 2025 - 02:02 PM

When I do set up my primarily infantry game, I will have designated defenders and attackers.  You are right, W. Clark, that infantry rarely just ran into each other.  More typically, one side found a good position to defend and awaited the other side to attack it.

As I mentioned earlier, when setting up an infantry heavy game, where infantry is attacking as well as defending, it is an important consideration as how large the board needs to be.  A smaller board works well with artillery most likely off board if available.  If you are using mech infantry in the attack, the board can be bigger and then the attacker has the choice to make of if or how soon to dismount.


  • healey36 likes this

#17 healey36

healey36

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 825 posts
  • LocationMaryland USA

Posted 29 January 2025 - 09:05 AM

Yup, I agree. Most infantry actions here start with a "defender" in a set position and an "attacker" (starting on or off the table) trying to dislodge them. In this instance, given the small size of the table and limited objectives, we started with both forces off the table. Infantry moves at a pretty good clip along a road, so it didn't take long for folks to reach/occupy their objectives. The absence of off-board arty and no possibility of air support made it a bit more of a chess game (no risk of being obliterated by a well-placed barrage or air-strike). As the German player, I'd have gladly exchanged the Pz-III's for a few Stug's with their short 75mm L/24. Might have made it a bit easier to dislodge the Brits from the ruined village.

 

Artillery, in my MP experience, is terrifically lethal when it comes in on-target. I'm still smarting from watching an agonizingly slow column of Egyptian JS-III's get obliterated by a well-placed Israeli arty barrage at Historicon a while back (Kenny may remember this). A lesson learned, albeit painfully.



#18 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 696 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 29 January 2025 - 09:32 AM

Arty in the defense in WWII is about how long the defender has been in place. The Russians and the Axis were still mostly stuck with having to preregister and that takes some time. It is also often limited by the lack of a radio net and thus requires wire to be strung. I would restrict the Russians and Axis to organic mortars and direct fire IGs if they have recently occupied their positions. The US/UK and Allies equipped by them normally have the radio nets needed to speed the process up considerably.

WMC


  • healey36 likes this

#19 Begemot_

Begemot_

    Corporal

  • Members
  • 56 posts

Posted 29 January 2025 - 10:57 AM

"Arty in the defense in WWII is about how long the defender has been in place. The Russians and the Axis were still mostly stuck having to preregister and that takes time".

 

If this was a problem for the Soviets and the Axis in the defense, how were they able to manage the use of artillery in the moving offense? Or was it left out of the fight? Not talking about a break-through attack.

 

Any good references on how artillery in WW2 actually worked for the combatants?



#20 healey36

healey36

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 825 posts
  • LocationMaryland USA

Posted 29 January 2025 - 02:46 PM

I have a number of books on artillery, but they all dwell primarily on the equipment (guns) while providing little in the way of doctrinal concepts, tactics, or organization.

 

I have found this article by the Army Historical Foundation to be an interesting read, comparing U. S. doctrine to that of the German army:

 

https://armyhistory....i-a-comparison/

 

With regards to the Soviets, most accounts of offensive actions I've read featured massive barrages by vast numbers of pieces brought up for that purpose. I've never read of any capability for providing artillery support in a mobile action, borne out, I think, by the near total lack of self-propelled guns capable of mid-range fire (lots of flat-trajectory assault guns, but nothing along the lines of the Wespe/Hummel type vehicles of the German army or the M-7 Priest of the Americans). My perception; I could be mistaken.

 

 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users