Quote:
Originally Posted by JTullman
Hi all,
I've been skulking this thread for some time as France 1940 is of great interest to me.
In the past I've been hesitant to play many games in this theater because the earlier panzers are not very enticing nor are the strange allied counterparts. However, this thread has motivated me to do some experimenting.
The French tanks seem to be historically accurate. I am not a historian nor am I an expert so you may dismiss my opinion at will. Basically, as previously discussed, the German tanks (PzMk I, II, III and the IV support version) were not capable of destroying the Char b1 bis or Somua. The Germans succeeded in France through superior combined arms tactics. For the most part they simply bypassed the French armor. France fell in about six weeks with the operation lasting from May 10, 1940 until June 22, 1940.
A great documentary about the early tanks can be found on youtube at:
http://youtu.be/4aNKw3dbwoM
That being said I would like to mention a curiosity that I discovered in the Crescendo of Doom rulebook. Those familiar with Steel Panthers are likely knowledgeable about this board game.
In a special section governing the usage of French tanks:
"Although easily the most heavily armored tank of its time, the Char B had an Achilles heel in the form of an engine grill on the left side which was easily penetrated by AP."
The game allows for critical hits diced against all shots traced through the LOS of this engine grill hexside.
The game also penalized the French tanks because of the aforementioned single man turret and the fact that these were radio-less vehicles.
I realize that this is not the Avalon Hill forum but this was just too interesting not to mention.
I had an absolute blast playing a mini-campaign against the French using Andy's suggestions. For those of you like me who've scoffed at the "primitive" early war tanks remember the ancient saying:
"A poor craftsman blames his tools."  |
the myth re the engine grille 'vulnerability' was based on a single action (see the wiki article on the Char B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_B1).
If it really was a vulnerability then there would have been
multiple reports of the tactic being used. As for example the Allied bouncing of a round off a Panther mantlet, down into the top of the driver compartment. That (rather desperate) tactic
was used, and did work, and several documented examples do exist of its success - but we don't have too many reports of those who tried it and failed....
(The game's critical hit code covers the micro-details of such special situations well enough. There is therefore no need for a "Char B engine cover" rule or a "panther glacis ricochet vulnerability" one).
In reality, Char B formations were defeated by the Germans
operationally rather than tactically - the panzer units bypassed head to head
tactical (SP level) combat and got into the rear of formations where they obliterated the soft vehicles, especially the refuelling vehicles. If they tried to fight head to head vs the B1, they could get severely mauled (as detailed in that wiki article, with the example of a Char b killing 16 odds panzers in a short space of time).
If the game was operational level (division/corps counters) then the German panzers of 1940 running free round the French logistics zone could be seen as an early version (analogue) of the later Allied fighter-bombers, killing the effect of armour by cutting it's jugular (fuel). Panzer 2s do the truck-bashing role just as well as say, panthers would have. Actually, P2s are probably better at that job.
But the game is tactical, and any adverse fuel and ammo logistics situation is not modelled in any way. Fuel is unlimited, ditto ammo. So you have to fight against the enemy that is present, and every unit is full of bullets and beans.
IF something like that were modelled (and how?) then the German player would be laughing in France 40, or in the opening of Barbarossa (where the disorganised Soviet war machine basically had done it to itself - tanks stored in one city, their ammo in another, pre-war mechanical maintenance at pathetic levels, let's purge all the officers, etc).
But just imagine the situation for that same German player in 1944. Say he had spent a gazillion points on shiny Panther companies, then turns up for the game only to be told "As Allied Player I spent the same points on pre-game fighter-bomber interdiction, so of your 17 shiny panthers in each company, 6 will not appear on table due to interdiction, the remainder have only half the ammo, and fuel for just 10 turns movement, and my 3000 points spent on pre-game SEAD have deleted half your AAA assets too" ...
The early war German armour (including Barbarossa) was
light armour, and it acted rather like land-based fighter bombers to get loose in the enemy rear. The good (for that era) command and control of these tanks (radios etc) allowed this sort of thing
against a static adversary who was still in a WW1 linear fighting mentality. After all - the 'blitzkreig' was based on Fuller's 'Plan 1919', which was designed as a method to rupture WW1 trench lines.
But the 'blitz' needed this static-passive adversary to allow it to dance around such a sluggish opponent. By the later war, even the Russians had enough radio/C&C etc to nip off such thrusts. Then the Germans went for heavy tanks to slug it out head-to-head, not the little "tracked fighter bombers" that specialised more in getting into the transport & logistical area and shooting the heck out of supply troops and rear HQs.
NB - the Sherman was also a design that was doctrinally aimed at the "tracked fighter bomber" role. It was highly reliable on long moves on its own tracks - by design. It was
not designed to be a toe-to-toe slugger. The USA saw the Tank Destroyer arm as the boys who would deal with enemy armour in thier doctrine, while the shermans and mech infantry did a 'blitz' into the enemy end zone after the infantry and arty had blasted a hole. But by the time they arrived, bar rare occasions (race across France after the breakout for example, and perhaps some actions in Tunisia) - the front was not amenable to 'blitz' since the opponent was no longer passive-static (WW1 trench mentality) as in 40/41. Note also that the SU tended to use its Sherman formations in this deep exploitation role (the vehicles inherent reliability was a
major factor in such use).
Cheers
Andy
Re: How do you deal with French tanks
. They had no decisive action because they were not numerous. That is a separate chapter.
Re: How do you deal with French tanks
Hybrid Mode
