| |
Battle Report: Mekensievy-Gory
John Mclennan and I tried out my Mekensievy-Gory
Scenario. I was the attacking Russians and John the defending
Germans. We both had a company of infantry. I had a small pack of
supporting light tanks and John had a Panzer III and a couple of 3.7 cm Pak 36
anti-tank guns. (John should have had a Stug D or E, but I don't
have any models so we substituted something that was appropriate for the
period.)
Plans
| As the Russian player I had several possible axis of attack. Each
has a relatively narrow entry area which was free of LOS from the
village. I chose the route parallel to the railway line, with the
reinforcements coming from the opposite side of the village.
My plan supposed that my main body would draw the defenders into the
open and at some time my reserves from the main body would conduct an
on-table flank attack. As it happens they ended up going to the
right. |
 |
 |
This photo shows my line of advance from a different angle and at ground
level. |
| As it happens John, as the Germans, deployed as though he anticipated
these plans. He had a platoon deployed on my main axis of
attack, with his two Paks and Panzer in support. A
second platoon covered the axis that the flank attack finally chose, and
his third platoon was on the other side of the railway embankment
defending the second objective. |
 |
Russian Attack
 |
My main body comprised two rifle platoons and three T-26 tanks.
(The tanks are actually from my Spanish Civil War collection, so please
forgive the beret of the tank commanders.)
I advanced my "fire power" platoon - the one with the
attached HMG and FOs - in the lead. They came under fire once they'd
taken the first house and advanced into the adjacent
field.
I kept the second platoon in reserve. I also kept the tanks back
until I knew where the enemy Paks and Panzers were. |
| The "fire power" platoon found itself facing a German rifle platoon and a Pak.
Although German fire kept some elements pinned/suppressed my platoon managed to grind forward.
In reply the German rifle
platoon suffered heavy casualties from the big Russian group fires, and
the Pak fell to a close assault.
Throughout this attack John was having remarkably little dice luck -
particularly with his FOs. For example his four fire missions of
heavy artillery didn't manage to affect any of my stands!!!! Not
even a pin!!!! |
 |
 |
With my main attack pushing forward, John was forced to reveal more and
more of his troops. After the loss of his first Pak he revealed his
Pz III. |
| With my main attack grinding to a halt just short of the objective, I
started probing to the right with one of my T-26s. As it advanced
John revealed his second Pak - in the house next to the railway
culvert and objective - and took a pot shot. He missed but now I
knew where all his tank killers were located.
To try and get things moving in the centre again, I laid down a line of
smoke to block off my rear elements, thus allowing them a good chance of
rallying, and close assaulted the second Pak. I killed the Pak but
his Pz III suppressed my platoon as they advanced into the
building. (Actually this is probably illegal as I think that
occupation of a building after close combat is not subject to reactive
fire - but sometimes you make mistakes.) |
 |
German counter-attack
 |
With my rear elements smoked off, and my lead elements suppressed, John
saw his chance. He counter-attacked. Revealing the remaining
two rifle stands of his second platoon, he close assaulted my suppressed
stands. My smoke blocked any reactive fire. |
| Unfortunately for John, his dice luck let him down again. With my
stands suppressed he was +2, but threw a 1 to my 5, and lost his
attackers. This left him with very little on my side of the
embankment - a HMG, a FO, a rifle stand and the Pz III. |
 |
Russian Flank Attack
 |
Now was the time to commit my reserves. John still had
a reasonable amount of fire power directed towards my main body, so I
opted for the flank attack. I was pretty confident he'd revealed all
of his stands on this side of the embankment, and decided to attack via
the original positions of his second platoon, i.e. where the Pz III
was. |
| My first ploy was a rear attack on the Pz III itself. A good
scheme which was let down by the appalling inaccuracy of the T-26 (I give
them ACC = -1 due to the 2 crew turret). By and large John just
ignored the tank sitting behind him. |
 |
 |
Despite this inauspicious start I committed my infantry reserves in the same
direction. Some stands were pinned by John's sole rifle squad in the
area, but the advance continued and eventually his rifle squad went NO
FIRE. |
| With a NO FIRE giving me free rein I close assaulted. |
 |
 |
Success brought me right next to the Pz III, but my riflemen were
still no match for the panzer so I contented myself with threatening him
from a (small) distance. |
| My only option was to ignore John's tank and take my remaining riflemen
around to the rear of the objective. Given the Pz III and HMG were
both facing my main body, this assault went in unmolested. |
 |
 |
And with predictable results - two rifle stands and a PC will usually
kill an unaccompanied HMG. |
| That gave me one objective. John's Pz III was his only remaining
element on my side of the embankment. It was surrounded, but there
wasn't much I could do to it.
At this time my reinforcements finally arrived giving me an additional
rifle platoon and two BT-7 fast tanks.
With a single rifle platoon and panzer facing nearly a
company supported by five tanks John didn't fancy his chances and
conceded. |
|
Conclusions
It was a pretty decisive Russian victory but we had to agree the major factor
was John's poor dice rolling. There were several times - notably with his heavy
artillery and his counter-attack - where a good die roll would have changed the
game considerably. Such are the fortunes of war.
Bearing this in mind we decided the scenario was pretty balanced as it was
and we didn't tweak it at all.
It also has to be said the game played nothing like the historical
account. In our game I held my tanks back until I'd eliminated the PAKs -
a reasonable strategy, but other options were available, and the
alternatives may have ended in a more historical result.
|
