• Blitz Shadow Player
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


Panzer Battles 2 - The Official Teaser Thread
11-10-2015, 04:07 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-10-2015, 04:09 PM by ComradeP.)
RE: Panzer Battles 2 - The Official Teaser Thread
Zitadelle was a very German plan (a double envelopment pincer) fought out in a very un-German way with the exploitation force also being the breakthrough force due to the infantry divisions having been weakened/destroyed in winter 1942-1943 or holed up in strategically irrelevant areas like the army dug-in on the Kerch Peninsula. PB Kursk does a good job of showing the strain inflicted upon the mobile units.

The Soviet defensive plan was also very Soviet: lure the Germans in, then strike their flanks. The problem was that the initial German breakthrough in the south was so successful that the reserves that would need to be used in the counterattack had to be committed early. That's why the Germans in the Orel salient faced a very dangerous Soviet counterattack (operation Kutuzov) shortly after starting their own offensive, whilst the Soviets only started operation Rumyantsev in August as losses had to be replaced first. The Soviets first tried to entice the Germans to move their mobile units elsewhere by attacking near Izyum and across the Mius.

For the SS units involved, the Mius battles were as costly or more costly than their participation in Zitadelle due to the nature of the fighting: on the southern front at Kursk, the Germans had the initiative and could also pull back to their starting positions without much Soviet interference due to the Soviet mobile reserves being burned out. On the Mius, the SS had to stop waves of Soviet attacks in a war of attrition that they were not really meant to be fighting, being mobile units geared towards exploitation.

The German doctrine of immediate counterattacks that ended up being quite costly over time instead of giving up ground when possible is something that we'll be seeing in Normandy as well, and on this scale the effects will be more noticeable than on a strategic scale.

The nice thing about such a smaller scale game, is that you get to understand why a certain battle went in a certain way, and also a much better grasp of the nuances in unit composition and tactics. On the strategic scale, the divisions in the opposing armies are fairly similar in composition and unless you're interested in a certain front and know the history, it can feel like they all play in a similar way.

In Normandy, the characteristics of each nation will be more pronounced than at Kursk due to the nature of the fighting and all of the participants fighting in "their" style.

As the Germans, strategic necessity requires you to place your mobile units at the front after it widens due to a shortage of (reliable) infantry formations. Your forces are still very powerful due to the German transition from large formations to smaller formations with a greater number of support weapons, but your staying power is diminished as you can't absorb the losses you could absorb at the start of the war without a serious drop in effectiveness. With the units that would normally function as the operational reserve on the frontline by mid-late June, preventing Allied breakthroughs becomes a juggling act where the Allies keep throwing more balls at you which you have to keep in the air.

As the British, your manpower situation is problematic as severe losses can't be sustained. British industry is functioning at high capacity however, so material losses can be replaced. That encourages fighting like Montgomery did: tanks leading the way as replacing tanks is easier than replacing infantry. This also means the success of an attack depends on the success of the opening tank attack, unless strong follow-up forces are available. The success of a British offensive will depend on how well the fighting in the first half day or so is going. If the tanks get through, you might win. If they get bogged down, you'll lose hundreds of tanks for little gain. Again, just like the historical situation.

For the Americans, the main limitation is transport capacity in getting men and equipment across the Atlantic. When available, they give lots of everything to everybody. A 3 division infantry corps has as many tanks in supporting tank battalions as a full strength Panzer division. Your army is geared towards broad front offensive, it's not very subtle and the terrain in Normandy prevents quick breakthroughs unless the enemy has no reserves, so the reserves have to be worn down first. What is not well known is that the first stage of Cobra wasn't all that unlike the opening of the ground phase of Market Garden where, as your forces are advancing down just one or two main highways, a German blocking company here and there can cause delays completely disproportionate to their size. When you get going however, you're nearly unstoppable.

For both of the main Allied sides and their supporting forces, actually deploying your men in a situation where you can use them to maximum effect is a challenge by itself and it probably won't be possible until the front widens. This gives each of the operations it's own feel, from the confined fighting to widen the front by another mile in the first few weeks to making the successful breakthrough in July happen.

In terms of variety, smaller scale Normandy games like the upcoming PB Normandy have a lot to offer to the player as shown by the scenario list and due to having something for everybody is probably also a good entry point into wargaming compared to a still fairly technical game like PB Kursk where you have to enjoy and understand breakthrough operations through fortified lines and exploitation tactics to have a good chance of winning.
Quote this message in a reply


Messages In This Thread
Friday Update : August 7th - by Strela - 08-07-2015, 11:52 PM
RE: Panzer Battles 2 - The Official Teaser Thread - by ComradeP - 11-10-2015, 04:07 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 97 Guest(s)