Kharkov '43, Krasnyy-Liman or Bust AAR

[ComradeP]

Nice AAR.

Looking at the scenario, it seems a historical timetable is very hard to achieve, as it is in many other scenarios.

Not being able to move and assault with infantry units, and the shaky quality of many Soviet formations makes the Soviets ineffective against determined resistance in bad weather conditions in scenarios where the clock is not ticking in their favour.

The Red Army is good at attrition warfare, but the combined arms/mobile operations that are required to get to objectives on time are difficult to pull off. It's even trickier in scenarios where all German motorized/mechanized infantry gets a 2 hex move in snow conditions, which is the case in the non-variant scenarios with infantry speed 5. With speed 4, only A quality infantry units can move 2 hexes in the snow.

[MikeC]

Nice AAR.

Looking at the scenario, it seems a historical timetable is very hard to achieve, as it is in many other scenarios.

Not being able to move and assault with infantry units, and the shaky quality of many Soviet formations makes the Soviets ineffective against determined resistance in bad weather conditions in scenarios where the clock is not ticking in their favour.

The Red Army is good at attrition warfare, but the combined arms/mobile operations that are required to get to objectives on time are difficult to pull off. It's even trickier in scenarios where all German motorized/mechanized infantry gets a 2 hex move in snow conditions, which is the case in the non-variant scenarios with infantry speed 5. With speed 4, only A quality infantry units can move 2 hexes in the snow.

I'll have to compare my progress to the historical timetable. Do victory point levels reflect this timetable? If the historical timetable is achieved, does this result in a draw? Think of the old question posed by Avalon Hill advertising, can you do better than Napoleon/Lee/Rommel?

Using the victory point levels as a guide, I think the scenario is at least slightly pro-Russian. The entire 41st Guards Rifle Division was destroyed, with the exception of one rifle battalion, the engineer battalion, divisional artillery, and divisional HQ. In spite of these excessive losses, the scenario ended as a draw.

From my point of view, my opponent made few, if any, mistakes. So if I managed a draw under these circumstances, I think the scenario must be at least slightly pro Russian.


Thanks for your comments and your interest.

[ComradeP]

The historical result in this case would be a very comfortable major victory for the Soviets in terms of VP's that would be in Soviet hands when the historical rate of advance is achieved, so in that sense the VP distribution seems to be pro-Soviet like you say. Capturing all objectives between the Zherebets and the Severnyy Donets, as well as a single crossing somewhere with a positive casualty point differential gets you a major victory.

The Gallop scenarios and the main campaign starting on February 2nd show the starting positions at the start of February 2nd, when the Soviets are driving through a 40 kilometre gap in the Axis lines in the area where the exit hex is in this scenario.

As with many games, the PzC series has a tendency to exaggerate or amplify certain results/conditions. Snow is a major handicap, which makes it difficult to accomplish historical advances. Looking at the position of the Soviet spearhead at the start of the Axis counteroffensive, it's remarkable how far the Soviets managed to advance with their limited (in numbers and capabilities) mobile forces. Such an advance is very difficult to replicate, which can also be seen in the "the scenario is pro-Axis" reviews of the longer scenarios as the engine makes good units great and bad units worse due to how the mechanics work.

As there's no reason not to defend objectives until the last man and the last bullet in short scenarios as force preservation isn't required, you tend to get epic last stands that wouldn't have taken place historically or piles of units in a handful of locations.

What's not entirely clear to me is how and why 19th Panzer historically ended up where it starts the February 2nd scenarios, as it seems like a strange move to make.

[MikeC]

As there's no reason not to defend objectives until the last man and the last bullet in short scenarios as force preservation isn't required, you tend to get epic last stands that wouldn't have taken place historically or piles of units in a handful of locations.

I'm seeing this in a current game of the "Fall of Kharkov: Liberation" scenario. My SS Panzerkorps is ready to start street fighting in Kharkov to hold objectives. No matter how the game turns out, this "defense to the last" is very a-historic in this situation. But it is the only avenue to a German victory in the scenario. A historic abandonment of Kharkov would preserve the Panzerkorps, but would result in a Soviet major victory.