# Armchair General



## Destroyer25 (Dec 19, 2009)

I'm sure some of you here are frequent readers of Armchair General Magazine, So I have done what they have done. Wargaming. My family and friends are crazy Wargamers, and so I thought I'd post some scenarios on the forums I go on. *Please be advised these scenarios are not real events, because if they were you'd just... google google google!*

Here is the first scenario.

You are SS-Brigadeführer (Major General), (Your name). Commander of the 1st SS Panzer Division, one of the most formidable units in the Reich. *Your Division has 20 000 men, and 170 Tanks, considerably more than a Wehrmacht Panzer Division. You also have 45 Sturmgeschütz, or Stug, Assault Guns, and finally, you have just received 3 Tiger Platoons(12 Tigers). This brings your total number of Tanks/Assault guns to 227, you also have hundreds of Hanomags, trucks, and many AT guns, artillery pieces and SPGs.* 

Here is the Organization of your Division. (Copy paste, I'm lazy)

Divisional Headquarters Staff (You) 
1st SS Panzer Regiment (Joachim Peiper) 
I/1st Panzer Battalion (67 Panther tank) 
II/1st Panzer Battalion (103 Panzer IV) 
1st SS Panzer Grenadier Regiment (Albert Frey) 
I/1st SS Panzer Grenadier Battalion 
II/1st SS Panzer Grenadier Battalion 
III/1st SS Panzer Grenadier Battalion 
2nd SS Panzer Grenadier Regiment (Rudolf Sandig) 
I/2nd SS Panzer Grenadier Battalion 
II/2nd SS Panzer Grenadier Battalion 
III/2nd SS Panzer Grenadier Battalion 
1st SS Panzer Reconnaissance Battalion (Gustav Knittel) 
1st SS Assault gun (45 Sturmgeschütz) Battalion (Heinrich Heimann) 
1st SS Artillery Regiment (Franz Steineck) 
1st SS Artillery Battalion (2x 105mm Wespe Bty,1x 150mm Hummel Bty) 
2nd SS Artillery Battalion (2x 105mm Bty [towed]) 
3rd SS Artillery Battalion (2x 150mm Bty [towed] ,1x 100mm Kanon Bty [towed]) 
1st SS Werfer Regiment (Klaus Besch) (3x 150mm Bty [towed]) 
1st SS Anti Aircraft Battalion (Hugo Ullerich) (3x 88mm Bty ,2x 37mm Bty)

You also have 6 other support battalions, which are primarily non combat and remain with the HQ. The Engineer Battalion however can be called upon, so if you need to do a bit construction or deconstruction you've got them. 

Here is the organization of the US 3rd Armored Division. It has nearly 20 000 men and 200 tanks, in addition to that it has many M10 Wolverine TDs Tank Destroyers), it also boasts a wide variety of multipurpose guns, ranging from 37mm-105mm. However, non of these guns are nearly as effective in the AT role as your guns. The American 37mm gun is useless against your tanks, and the 105 is inaccurate, only at close ranges does it pose a threat, your biggest worry will be their 57mm guns, 75mm guns and the guns on the M10 Wolverines. 

Combat Units:

32nd Armored Regiment 
33rd Armored Regiment 
36th Armored Infantry Regiment 
54th Field Artillery Battalion 
67th Field Artillery Battalion 
391st Field Artillery Battalion 
143rd Signal Company 
23rd Armored Engineer Battalion 
83rd Armored Reconnaissance Battalion 
643rd Tank Destroyer Battalion 
703rd Tank Destroyer Battalion 
803rd Tank Destroyer Battalion 

Headquarters Units:

Headquarters Company, 3rd Armored Division 
Service Company, 3rd Armored Division 
Division Trains 
Supply Battalion 
45th Armored Medical Battalion 
503rd Intelligence Corps

In total your forces are roughly equal in size, and while the enemy has more Tanks/TDs than you, your tanks are much better. However intelligence reports that elements of a nearby enemy infantry division are in the area, so you might be facing up to 30 000 men. 

Here is your objective, “I Field Marshall Erwin Rommel have been ordered to eliminate the US 3rd Armored Division. I hereby declare the 1st SS Panzer Division, Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, will be the leading Division in this task. Your mission is to destroy this Unit by the most effective means and then take up positions to hold against counter attacks. The 12th SS Panzer, Hitlerjugend, will then come to your aid after you have eliminated the 3rd Armored.”

Rommel has given you freedom of choice to choose your battle plan, something he rarely does. Be advised, failure will not be tolerated, and if things don’t get moving you might get paid a vist by Herr Field Marshall. 

I suggest everyone do a bit of reading on Sun Tzu, his teaching will be helpful in this battle. Also keep in mind the terrain, the US forces are in prepared positions. And the large hill that the majority of the 3rd Armored is dug in on will be a tough nut to crack.

*As for the map I think its pretty obvious. The green lines are the main lines of resistance. Click the image once it pops up, it will become more clear.*







Its 8:00PM, you've been ordered to attack tomorrow morning at 6:00AM.

So, Whats next General?


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2009)

Map doesn't work Herr Field Marshall, we're screwed 

Interesting scenario though, will be fun what the map looks like. I feel the odds are in the German general's favor on this one though, esp. since Allied airsuperiority isn't factored in.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 19, 2009)

1st thing I would do it fire my intelligence officer....


----------



## Destroyer25 (Dec 19, 2009)

What the F***!? No clue as to why the link ain't working. I'll definitely have a talk with my Intellegence Officer. 8)

Edit: Ok, the Intellegence Officer has fixed the map. Now you, the General, must come up with a solution. And if you really need help, me, the Operations Officer, will give you hints. 

Have fun fighting those damn yanks! And don't forget that the balance of hardware isn't everything. There were occasions when those crappy Shermans managed to defeat Panzers, very few occasions though. xD


----------



## Maximowitz (Dec 19, 2009)

Destroyer25 said:


> There were occasions when those crappy Shermans managed to defeat Panzers, very few occasions though. xD




Enough to ensure the Nazis lost though eh? Or are are you thinking of rewriting WW2 as well?


----------



## Njaco (Dec 19, 2009)

We might want to move this to the games section.


----------



## Destroyer25 (Dec 19, 2009)

Maximowitz said:


> Enough to ensure the Nazis lost though eh? Or are are you thinking of rewriting WW2 as well?



Allied airpower won the war, allied armor did little. Any Panzers that were destroyed by allied armor were probably destroyed by Fireflys. It was the P-51s and Typhoons that did all the work.



> We might want to move this to the games section.



Yeah I suppose we could, its not really a typical game though, compared to the other stuff there, this one is very hard.


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2009)

Ok I'll have a look at the possibilities and give it a try.

PS: Remember when making a battle map always include a Legend list.


----------



## Destroyer25 (Dec 19, 2009)

Sorry, I just asumed everyone was firmiliar with the standard WW2 mapping symbols. I suppose not everyone has a mountain of WW2 books. 

*I suggest you all take a look at this, information that I made on WW2 mapping. Once the image appears click it to enlargen.*


----------



## Maximowitz (Dec 19, 2009)

Destroyer25 said:


> Allied airpower won the war, allied armor did little. Any Panzers that were destroyed by allied armor were probably destroyed by Fireflys. It was the P-51s and Typhoons that did all the work.



Actually Herr Rommel I think you'll find the Soviets played more of a part in crushing the Werhmacht in that particular area.

I'll put my money on US 3rd Armoured Division. Your forces are about to run out of fuel due to the bombing of oil production facilities by the USAAF.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2009)

Destroyer25 said:


> Sorry, I just asumed everyone was firmiliar with the standard WW2 mapping symbols. I suppose not everyone has a mountain of WW2 books.



You might want to learn about some of the people here.

1. Most everyone is a serious about studying the history of WW2.
2. Many of us have a small library of books.
3. Most of us are not gamers here, we talk about the real thing.
4. A good many of us have actual military experience.

So...

...There is no need to try and belittle anyone here. Take a look around and learn who is who on the forum.


----------



## Destroyer25 (Dec 19, 2009)

Maximowitz said:


> Actually Herr Rommel I think you'll find the Soviets played more of a part in crushing the Werhmacht in that particular area.
> 
> I'll put my money on US 3rd Armoured Division. Your forces are about to run out of fuel due to the bombing of oil production facilities by the USAAF.



I'm talking strictly about the western front. Yes obviously the Soviets did more damage but on the western front most of Germany's tank loses were do to tactical aircraft. And in this perticular scenario you have sufficient everything, theres no shortages of ammo or fuel. This is post D-Day, June or July. Before the "Gap". Now its your mission to defeat the enemy, its you vs them, no planes. Lets just say its cloudy. xD


----------



## Destroyer25 (Dec 19, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You might want to learn about some of the people here.
> 
> 1. Most everyone is a serious about studying the history of WW2.
> 2. Many of us have a small library of books.
> ...



Dude I just joined, clearly I know nothing about the place, but Maxim asked for a legend, so clearly he doesn't what all the symbols mean. And these are WW2 symbols, not the current NATO ones, things have changed so even if you are in the army you might not be able to read this map.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2009)

Destroyer25 said:


> Dude I just joined, clearly I know nothing about the place,



Then I suggest your chill out...

Like everyone here has told you, you are welcome here, but you better quit with the BS. NOBODY likes that **** here.


----------



## Destroyer25 (Dec 19, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Then I suggest your chill out...
> 
> Like everyone here has told you, you are welcome here, but you better quit with the BS. NOBODY likes that **** here.



Are you just going to yell at me or are you going to participate in the game? Because thats why I made it.

Edit: Oh thats cute, you know changing my signature only proves how inmature you are.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2009)

Destroyer25 said:


> Are you just going to yell at me or are you going to participate in the game? Because thats why I made it.



Are you going to dictate to me and other members of this forum what to do?


----------



## Destroyer25 (Dec 19, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Are you going to dictate to me and other members of this forum what to do?



Hey I'm just asking you to participate in the game, if you don't want to or are unable to then thats fine, but would you mind not yelling at me?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2009)

Destroyer25 said:


> Hey I'm just asking you to participate in the game, if you don't want to or are unable to then thats fine, but would you mind not yelling at me?



I could not yell if I wanted to, have a bit of a cold right now...


----------



## Maximowitz (Dec 19, 2009)

Destroyer25 said:


> Oh thats cute, you know changing my signature only proves how inmature you are.



In about two posts time it's going to say "Ex-Resident A**hole* I suspect. Be very careful.


----------



## Destroyer25 (Dec 19, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I could not yell if I wanted to, have a bit of a cold right now...



Oh aren't you funny, your spam isn't wanted here. If you don't want to participate in the game thats fine, just don't post spam.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2009)

Destroyer25 said:


> Oh aren't you funny, your spam isn't wanted here. If you don't want to participate in the game thats fine, just don't post spam.



As a moderator of this forum, I will "spam" where I want to. You will not tell me (or *ANY* member of this forum) where they can post and where they can not!


----------



## Maximowitz (Dec 19, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> As a moderator of this forum, I will "spam" where I want to. You will not tell me (or *ANY* member of this forum) where they can post and where they can not!




But...but he's our (self-proclaimed) expert on mobile warfare! He's going to lecture at West Point! He's the Canadian answer to Guderian, Hausser and Manstein!

*Laughing fit to burst*


----------



## Destroyer25 (Dec 19, 2009)

Whats funny is that you think your better than me but you still have yet to prove it, if you can't solve the scenario then don't act like your better tacticians.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2009)

Destroyer25 said:


> Whats funny is that you think your better than me but you still have yet to prove it, if you can't solve the scenario then don't act like your better tacticians.



Actually I do not think I am better than anyone on this forum, but I will not be told what to do by a snotty brat who joins the forum and thinks he knows more than anything and has a chip on his shoulder!


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 19, 2009)

Have a nice life, you brilliant tactician you.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 19, 2009)

Whoever shot him, thank you.


----------



## Maximowitz (Dec 19, 2009)

Whooah...slow down.

As has been stated most of us here are historians, not gamers. That's true of a lot of aviation forums, be it here or TOCH or LEMB. We're interested in what *actually* happened, not what might have happened if this or that had occured.

For us it is facts that count, warfare is not an intellectual abstraction to us. Many here have served in the armed forces and have an insight into the realities of conflict.

The wise know when to listen and not to speak.


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2009)

Just because I asked for a map Legend doesn't mean I don't know what the symbols mean Destroyer, but others might not understand them all and I'm far from the only person on this forum. It's time to get off the high horse Destroyer.


----------



## Maximowitz (Dec 19, 2009)

Sh*t, I wrote all that for nothing? *Laughs*


----------



## evangilder (Dec 19, 2009)

That was WAY too much attitude.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Interesting, for a tactical expert, he sure got his arse whupped kinda fast...


----------



## B-17engineer (Dec 19, 2009)

Destroyer25 said:


> Whats funny is that you think your better than me but you still have yet to prove it, if you can't solve the scenario then don't act like your better tacticians.



If you really are 18 that's pretty sad........

He never said he was a better 'fake tactician' than you. He's a moderator. He's obviously better than you


----------



## Erich (Dec 19, 2009)

his post # 7 says it all, he doesn't know squat about airpower vs armor.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 19, 2009)

> his post # 7 says it all, he doesn't know squat about airpower vs armor.



[email protected]! I must be learning something somewhere, cause I thought the same exact thing when I read it!!!


----------



## Marcel (Dec 20, 2009)

I never attent to gamers forums, but are all those kids like that and are they allowing this? Throwing insults, and start flaming the moment they join a board?


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 20, 2009)

Unfortunately, alot of the gaming forums and online gaming sites are like that...

Alot of smack-talking and schoolyard attitudes. They're all experts (so they say) and if anyone questions them, they take it as a personal attack and get thier panties all up in a bunch. 

It gets old real fast...


----------



## parsifal (Dec 20, 2009)

Destroyer25 said:


> I'm talking strictly about the western front. Yes obviously the Soviets did more damage but on the western front most of Germany's tank loses were do to tactical aircraft. And in this perticular scenario you have sufficient everything, theres no shortages of ammo or fuel. This is post D-Day, June or July. Before the "Gap". Now its your mission to defeat the enemy, its you vs them, no planes. Lets just say its cloudy. xD




Where did you get that piece of information from, because it just isnt correct my friend. For example, during the advance to normandy, I think it was Lehr Division, lost something like 120 vehicles, of which only two were tanks. And this is not extraordinary, it was typical. What airpower did do was to act as a "force multiplier" which reduced the mobility of the German formations and increased the ability of the allies to undertake deep penetration encirclements. The German supply system was also basically shot to pieces by allied air power.

So i suggest you try and get your basic facts right before getting into the water with the big boys

For the record my uppety young friend, I am awargamer too, with over thirty years experience. I have won the Australian Boardgaming championships nine times over a twenty year period, and am a major contributor to the ADG publishing group. I also am a periodic guest lecturere at the RMC officer training school at Duntroon

And I never try to put people down on the basis of my record, until I get confronted with absolute smart arsery

So how do you like them apples......


----------



## parsifal (Dec 20, 2009)

folks, on behalf of the world gaming fraternity, I apologise. that is NOT how most of us act, I can assure you, oh except the guys that consistently lose, and they dont last long


----------



## Njaco (Dec 20, 2009)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Unfortunately, alot of the gaming forums and online gaming sites are like that...
> 
> Alot of smack-talking and schoolyard attitudes. They're all experts (so they say) and if anyone questions them, they take it as a personal attack and get thier panties all up in a bunch.
> 
> It gets old real fast...



My favorite is when they think it is so realistic. I was reading a forum about this Modern Warfare game and they were talking about how realistic the game is. I could only laugh and think what they would do when real bullets were coming at them.

Realistic my ass! They are video games and nothing else....



parsifal said:


> So how do you like them apples......


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 20, 2009)

LMAO Nice!


----------



## RabidAlien (Dec 20, 2009)

parsifal said:


> folks, on behalf of the world gaming fraternity, I apologise. that is NOT how most of us act, I can assure you, oh except the guys that consistently lose, and they dont last long



No worries, Parsifal....rest assured, most folks here judge people on their own merits, not based on a general classification. Yer good, bro!

Never knew all that about you, though...that's actually pretty frikkin cool!


----------



## parsifal (Dec 20, 2009)

Thanks for the compliment. I apologise for my reaction, but this guy was just being a little t*rd and bringing the hobby I love into disrepute. Ive seen that type so many times at gaming conventions....they really dont have any idea on the realities of war, and rely on rules obscurities usually to BS their way into a final.

I remember one year in particular, it was a micro armour competion.....there were a series of 12 separate scenarios that pitted the army you had picked against your opponents, in a series of engagements. You basically started with a number of points and "bought" your army from a given nationality. The scenarios were "modern" (from the '80s), and all the little snotty 12 year olds (sorry Harrison), raced off and bought their US or British or Germans, with their hugely expensive tanks and Infantry. generally they could afford a company of tanks, and a similar number of mech Infantry.

My friend and I had no national agenda. We studied the army lists, and the upcoming scenarios , and determined the best, most cost effective force was the Omani army. We fielded on average, two companies of tanks, Landrover borne motorised Infantry, a whole three companies of it, equipped with sagger AT missiles from memory, offboard artillery, and a light airstrike capability. Since nearly all of the scenarios involved an urban objective, our tactics were simple....send the Infantry off to occupy the objectives, and engage the heavy enemy armour with concentrated fire....we used the airstrikes and the off board artillery to engage the approach routes of the opposing Infantry, and our second rate tanks as mobile pillboxes and Infantry killers basically.

The 12 year old brigades got so angry at what we had done that they banded together and said we were cheating....somehow. There was one chap in particular that reminded me of our recently departed friend, so full of himself he would not listen and would not be told. Got beaten....screamed at us and then threw his army on the ground, and jumped allover it. Wanted to do the same with our army, until I told him if he did, it would be the last thing he did conscious....


Truth is that "kreigspiel" style gaming can be useful as a simulation to actually learn about campaigns. The Germans used it all the time to refined plans and trained officers on basic miliatary tactics. It is less well known in the western armies. It is essential though that you fed into the simulation as many of the known variables (and constants) as you can....if you stuff that bit up, your model is going to be innaccurate. 


This guy was not modelling, he was entrapping. His starting assumptions were incorrect, plus he was going to feed in other unknowns that he omitted to tell us in the initial briefing.....I have seen this sort of Shite so many times.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 20, 2009)

parsifal said:


> My friend and I had no national agenda. We studied the army lists, and the upcoming scenarios , and determined the best, most cost effective force was the Omani army...


Well played! That would have been great to see first-hand!


My comments were more toward the online combat sim community than the board-gaming community, but they all have thier detractors. And this guy was no different than the typical "expert" I've encountered countless times in the places I used to haunt.

My personal experiences of the negative sort have been with the younger members and how they can't understand that after 20 minutes or so of bragging about thier awesome abilities and lording over the less experienced pilots, they get shot down inside of a minute and scream foul, cheat and anything else they can think of. Then thier minions (boot lickers) all jump in and say how it was obviously a cheat and start a witch hunt.

And in the end, it was nothing more than them being beat by better piloting and exploiting thier weaknesses...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 20, 2009)

I have heard of Generals having temper tantrums, but I've never heard of one holding his breath until he got his way


----------



## parsifal (Dec 21, 2009)

Anyway, there is a general question we could discuss, if people are interested....could LAH have defeated a division and a half in the latter half of 1944 with no significant air support, and against an allied force that appears to be dug in. Sounds very Ardennes ish to me.

Even though LAH is my favourite SS formation, and a very capable and powerful unit to boot, I think it would have a hard time overcoming such a strong defence. Especially true given the crappy start time....6am. Never heard of a start time for a major offensive that waited until everybody had had a nice breakfast. Also, the supposition that it would be cloudy is faulty....nobody can be sure about the following days weather.


If I were the german I would not be waiting for 6am, If I were the US I would be calling in the extensive corps level artillery formations that always supported the major units. Historically, 3rd Armoured had an additional armoured infantry formation attached, 3 TD battalians and two mechanized AA Bns attached. It had a special bridge building and armoured engineer (flails and other specialist armoure atached) more or less continuously attached from St Lo to the end of the war. 

According to Stantons exhaustive work on the US army formations in the war, 3rd armoured breached the westwall fortifications between Roetgen and Rott with CCA pushing on through the AT obstacles at Nutheim. CCB then leap frogged on to the second belt of westwall defences at AAchen, where heavy losses were sustained in the battle Of Geisberg Hill, against SS formations (but rememeber it was the US formation attacking here). CCB won that battle and also took, but was forced out of the town of Mausbach by strong german counterattack....and so it goes on.....our friend knows that a formation the size of 3rd Armoured was much bigger than he had stated, pretty much the size (or even bigger) of a German Corps at that time. It would have been a very tall order for the german formation to take out the US formation isf both formations were at full strength, and the US Div was on the defensive


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 21, 2009)

That's a good question and there is a possability that the Germans could have done it *IF* they moved quickly, in a "blitz" fashion. And the panzer units were no strangers to moving in the darkness, so why wait 'till 6 when they could have started a push at 3 a.m. or earlier?

Now I'm far from being an expert, but it seems to me that the Allied units had difficulties in responding to a fast counter-offensive. I'm not sure if this was because they weren't used to it, or simply not expecting it. But I beleive that if the LAH were to react swiftly, and in concert (constant and accurate communications would be the key here), they would have a chance to break up the Allied defenders and gain ground before defensive artillery could range in on them.

Just an observation


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 21, 2009)

The proposed scenario is much a 'Kursk-like' one: the Germans are attacking entrenched Allied positions. So they need a 3:1 advantage to achieve success*, while they have only parity. Plus, US forces posses a high ground, so their artillery would have a holiday. 
The only piece of kit giving an edge to the Germans are those 12 Tigers - far to low a number to make a difference.

So even if we scratch air power, the defender would win the battle.


*assuming equipment men are of equal quality


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 21, 2009)

Oh cr*p, I can't believe that I missed out yet again!!!


----------



## Soren (Dec 21, 2009)

Well one thing I want to know here is that besides not having to deal with Allied airpower will the German force have enough fuel to carry out what'ever type attack they please without being in danger of running dry? If so I can think of a few ways in which the Germans are almost sure to win this one.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 21, 2009)

Thats actually a very good point Soren....the supply state of both forces. Also not stated was the training and serviceability states of both forces. If the battle was taking place prior to Falaise, LAH would have exceptionally well trained manpower at its disposal, whilst 3rd Armoured would be lacking in some experience, and not have as many special attachments to the parent formation. 

However if the battle is set to occur late in '44, as part of the Ardennes offensive, or slightly before that, in the clearing of the Westwall defences (and in clear weather), the SS formation had suffered grievous losses by then, and had in fact lost a large part of its trained manpower. It never recovered all of its esprit de Corps after Falaise

I guess if we assume a battle in France '44, we have to accept the German supply system is under severe strain at any time. It was probably under slightly less strain during the Ardennes offensive, but nevertheless was far from satisfactory, as the LAHs attempts to take Stavelot in that offensive clearly demonstrate


----------



## Soren (Dec 21, 2009)

The supply situation of German forces during the Ardenne offensive was abysmal Parsifal, German vehicles having to use captured Allied fuel in order to keep going. Peiper's panzers litterally went hunting for fuel, trying to capture as much Allied fuel as possible.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 21, 2009)

Yes, thats true, but its still arguable whether the situation was not worse in the normandy Battles. I have read that even the frontline formations were restricted to no more than 12 rounds of artillery ammunition per gun per day, and that despite suffering in excess of 200000 casualties to the end of September, the Group West of armies only received (note....received) less than 10% of the required replacements.

Truth is that after the capture of Ploesti, and the systematic pounding of the oil industry under the control of the Reich, as well as the slightly later pounding of the Axis transport network, there was no recovery for the german supply network. All German operations were affected by this all pervading effect, and combat performance was downgraded significantly as aresult. It was perhaps the major effect of the Russian offensives (along of course with the manpower and material losses), and also the major effect of the strategic bomber offensives


----------



## Njaco (Dec 22, 2009)

ahhhh, but if you stick to dopey's game parameters, he said no air support which in my mind, would mean more fuel reserves for tanks, etc.?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 22, 2009)

Njaco said:


> ahhhh, but if you stick to dopey's game parameters, he said no air support which in my mind, would mean more fuel reserves for tanks, etc.?



In Normandy, perhaps, but not so by the time the Ardennesw comes around. As I recall there was virtually no tactical Air support in the days leading up to the German Attack into the Ardennes.

Their supply problems by then were being generated by the loss of the Rumanian oilfields, the destruction of their sysntheic oil supplies, and the near total collapse of their rail network. The petro-chemical industry was an essential part of munitions production, as well as synthetic rubber production so the germans were short of munitions and many lubricants, and rubber, as well as a whole host of other strategic material. The front line units were being starved of supplies for different reasons by late '44, not so much due to the activities of the tactical air forces. There may have been some small improvement ihn supply with tactical air completely removed, but in my opinion not enough to affect objectives and capabilities significantly.

There are very sound reasons why Rundstedt and Model describe the offensive as the "Battle without hope"


----------



## Njaco (Dec 22, 2009)

I believe they were also hoarding a few supplies for Bodenplatte, which, if in this scenario, airpower is not used, might help - alittle?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 22, 2009)

Ok, I did not know that. However, I can only say that if LAH were given unlimited supplies with which to undertake this attack, ther would be extremely serious, strategic effects against the Germans elswhere on the line. By December '44, the whole German line was just a house of cards, and that was mostly due to their terrible supply situation.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 22, 2009)

oh I agree. Just thinking within this scenario. I also question the fighting make-up of the German units as I believe at this late stage, there were a few foreign conscripted units whose fighting health might not be favorable. German side that is.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 22, 2009)

So, if I can be so bold as to assert this scenario is just too biased against the germans, the facts are that at time the Germans could undertake limited counterattacks very successfully. Their ability to mount ad hoc counterattacks, with just a handful of tanks and a few men scraped together showed time and again the continuing fighting prowess of the Wehrmacht. Their theoretical squad level tactics seem to me to be superior to the equivalent Allied ideas, although the RCT concept utilized in the US Army were demonstrating signs of an improved flexibility in US small unit tactics. German small unit leadership was still superior, but beginning to fall away. Allied fire control and artillery support was in my view equal or superior to that which existed in the German Army, though there will be many who disagree with that. I think that the standard of recruit training was by this stage clearly in favour of the allies....the Germans had lost so many men and were combing out their training schools in desperation. The average crew training for their Tank crews was a mere 3 weeks by this stage, and most of the Infantry were just Volksgrenadiers, with very little training past basic.

By comparison 3rd Armoured was a very experienced and battle hardened formation. It had been together since April'41, and had fought in Normandy and across france since 23 June 1944. It had fought in a number of battles with great distinction, and more to the point, had not suffered the crippling losses that now plagued even the most elite formations in the German Army, including LAH. 3rd Armoured had only suffered 1200 fatalities since Normandy (and total casualties of about 4500),so as a unit was still more or less intact. The same cannot be said for LAH, which had been nearly destroyed at Falaise, and had only weeks to absorb fillers for more than 80% of its manpowerat a


----------



## Soren (Dec 22, 2009)

If the supply situation in this scenario is as bad as it was in reality around the time of Ardenne offensive then I don't see success right around the corner. Progress would be swift initially and then suddenly grind to a halt as fuel runs out. 

With adequate supplies however the odds are actually in favour of the Germans on this one. They have some equipment which alone can tie up massive amounts of the Allied force whilst at the same constituting only a small part of the German force. I am ofcourse talking about the 12 Tiger tanks made available. If fuel and spare parts werent gonna be an issue then these 12 tanks could cause the Allied force a lot grief, that is ofcourse unless they are foolishly thrown into attack first and become sitting ducks for Allied artillery. 

As for the 170 other tanks available, we really need to know what types are included and their numbers. Obviously I would prefer to have 170 Panthers, but a more realistic figure would probably be 60 Panthers, 80 Pz.IV G, H's and a mixture of Pz.III's II's. There are also 45 StuGs (My guess type IV's). On top of that hundreds of trucks, cars, halftracks, AT guns, artillery pieces and SPG's. 

So the German force has:
12 Tiger tanks (What type though?)
60 Panther tanks
80 Pz.IV's
30 Pz.II III's (Mixed types)
45 StuG.IV's
_____________________
In total = 227 AFV's

As for the SPG's, well how many do we have exactly? 100?

I mean I can quickly construct a 20,000 man strong German Division which will be able to defeat a 50,000+ man strong Allied division if I get to choose the equipment I want without the fear of running out of fuel or being attacked by Allied a/c. But by 1944 onwards German generals never had the luxury of being able to construct their Divs according to what they wanted most, and they were always left without adequate fuel reserves and spare parts for their equipment. And allied a/c proved a major nuisance to any German mechanized movements.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 22, 2009)

I did a bit more research last night and found a few things out about the historical role played by LAH in the battle

It began the battle with 22000 men attached, and about 5000 men in supporting units attached to it. It had a total AFV complemnent, including units of the 501st Hy Tank Bn with Tiger IIs (these figures are approximate, but neverrtheless acceptably accurate) of approximately 292 AFVs (this figure does not include the hundreds of Halftrack carriers and prime movers attached to the Division, but does include a few sdKfz 251 armoured cars attached to Knittels command, along with the other types. 

The division and its supporting elements was divided into four major Battle groups

KG Peiper
Kampfgruppe Peiper was probably the most famous and controversial German formation of the Ardennes battle. It contained all the tanks from the division along with an attached battalion of King Tiger Tanks (however these heavy units straggled badly, and there is considerable debate about how many actually made it to battle. A good sccount of their battle can be found at this link... Tigers in the Ardennes . Perhaps 20 of the 45 vehicles were able to effectively contribute, the remainder either broke down (many as a result of crashes by inexperienced drivers on the very narrow winding roads), or running out of fuel). Ardennes was not a great battle for the tiger IIs....they just were not a good offensive tank, because of range and weight limitations, and Peiper was not that enthusiastic about them 

Peipers formation was intended to be the “tip of the spear” in the drive to the Meuse River. Peiper was so unhappy at 3rd Fallshirmjager’s engineers progress at building bridges that he sent his own engineers forward to finish the job. Fuming, he finally got his force moving almost 10 hours after the start of the battle. Peiper pushed his column forward relentlessly and his successes included capturing a 50,000 gallon fuel dump at Bullingen, which he used to refill his panzers. So in a tactical sense the unit was not short of fuel at least, although there was not enough fuel to retreat properly after the assault had failed. His opposition consisted of small scattered groups of Americans which he easily pushed aside. Unfortunately, Peiper experienced much trouble advancing his kampfgruppe on the narrow winding roads. What should have been a 10 mile column straggled out over 20 miles in length. Peiper eventually fought his way to Staumont, where he ran into serious trouble against the 30th Infantry and CCA and CCB of the 3rd Armored Division.

His kampfgruppe was cut off there and became desperately low on supplies, having been effectively counterattacked by three very well led and equipped US RCTs . 

On Christmas day Peiper led about 1000 men on foot back to German lines, having abandoned all their vehicles and heavy equipment.

This group was also responsible for the massacre of 86 American prisoners near a crossroads outside of Malmedy as well as the murders of various groups of civilians during this campaign.

At the beginning of the battle this task group consisted of the following formations

II/1 SS Pz Rgt approx strength
48 MkIV, 48 MkV, 8 Ostwind, 8 Wirblewind

501st Heavy tank Bn
45 Tiger II (but see notes above) 

III/1 SS PG Rgt, approx strength
9 x Infantry Companies, 10 x 120 mm mortars, 12 x 75 mm ATG (towed), 120 Htrks (mostly 251/1s) , and 24 AA Htrks (10/4s). Im not sure of the exact small arms availability, but it included something like 80 LMGs, and about 24x81 mm mortars. 6 x 75 mm IG. The Infantry was split about 60/40 between the old G-98 bolt actions and SMGs and assault rifles. The SMGs and the assault rifle guys were used greatly as tank riders. There were approximately 16 SIG-33 tracked 150mm IG attached

I/1 Pz Artillery Rgt
16 x Wespe, 8 x Hummel, 6-8 10/4 AA Htrk

I SS Pionere Bn, SMGs and stgs mostly, about 45 LMGs, 16 81 mm mortar, 6 x quad 20mm (towed), 30 Flame Throwers (man portable) 

84th Flak Bn (attached) 
16 x 88mm (towed), 12 x 37mm Lt AA (towed) 16 x sdKfz 7-1, 24 SdKfZ 8 HT

KG Hansen


Kampfgruppe Hansen contained a full regiment of SS troopers with a bit of artillery. Armor support consisted of Pz IV/70’s in the PanzerJager Battalion. Their job was to advance on a road to the south of Peiper so as to broaden the front and protect the southern flank. Their progress was slow as they got stuck behind the horse drawn artillery of the 3rd Fallshirmjager Division at the beginning. The high water mark for Kampfgruppe Hansen consisted of a failed attempt to recapture Stavelot from the Americans, thus helping to seal the fate of Kampfgruppe Peiper.

I wont go into the full details of its TO&E, though I do have it for anyone interested. Its principal firepower was it 32 Jagdpanzer IV/70s, and 8 105 mm (towed artillery pieces. It had a Pionere detachment attached, and a reinforced PG regiment attached. 

KG Sandig


Kampfgruppe Sandig contained two battalions of infantry and the heavy artillery of the regiment. This formation acted as a reserve and was to follow behind Peiper and Hanson (on both roads) and provide support where needed. 

I dont know if it actually reached the battle area of La Gleize, which I am pretty sure now is the scene of this "fictional" scenario. 

KG Knittel

Kampfgruppe Knittel consisted of a reinforced recon battalion. Its job was to loiter behind the spearhead until a breakthrough had been achieved and then to race forward and seize and hold bridges for the main force. In the end, the breakthrough was never achieved and this formation never got to achieve the glory they had hoped for.

This unit was very well equipped with Armoured cars, and the Infantry had a high proportion of autometic weapons. I am not sure if this unit actually made it to the battle


The following map shows a striking similarity to our friends original map, which is why I strongky suspect his scenario was anything but original. Final locations of Tiger tanks during the defense of La Gleize, 22-24 Dec 1944. Approximate fields of fire and ranges are shown. (from 1:25000 mapsheet Harzé - La Gleize 2-M834 49/7-8, Military Geographical Institute, Brussels) I took this from the Tigers webpage earlier posted


----------



## Amsel (Dec 25, 2009)

Here are a couple of images I have scanned from General Reynolds Menof Steel.


----------



## Juha (Dec 26, 2009)

Hello GrauGeist
Quote:” That's a good question and there is a possability that the Germans could have done it *IF* they moved quickly, in a "blitz" fashion. And the panzer units were no strangers to moving in the darkness, so why wait 'till 6 when they could have started a push at 3 a.m. or earlier?”

First of all, men needed sleep and equipment maintenance. Secondly, maybe Germans had learned something during 3½ years in East, at least in field command level, armoured units driving through forested terrain in dark could be easily ambushed by good quality infantry.

Quote:” Now I'm far from being an expert, but it seems to me that the Allied units had difficulties in responding to a fast counter-offensive. I'm not sure if this was because they weren't used to it, or simply not expecting it.”

I’m really expert either, but for ex. survivors of PzBr 106 would surely disagree, there are several cases when Allied infantry units checked German armoured night counterattacks with heavy losses to Germans.

Juha


----------

