Group Andrews (ANZAC Long Campaign AAR)

[vahauser]

An ANZAC Long Campaign

I have chosen a 3,000-point core for an ANZAC Long Campaign. I will be changing my British HQ to an ANZAC unit within the first several battles (as soon as I have enough build points to do so). Further, I will only use ANZAC core units throughout the campaign. I reserve the right to use other nationalities as support units if they can be “historically” justified (per date and theater and location, etc.).

I chose a British Flag instead of an American Flag as my Nation HQ because choosing an American Flag means that you get American artillery response times. I chose the British Flag because British artillery response times are weaker than American.
Campaign Start Date = Sept 1940 (I chose this date because this was the earliest I could reasonably justify getting small ANZAC battlegroup into the war).

I am using Alby’s Enhanced PBEM/Long Campaign Mod.

SELF-IMPOSED LIMITS AND HANDICAPS
A. I am not allowed to use mines, barbed wire, or dragon’s teeth at any time in this campaign. The computer AI may freely do so.
B. Only the scattered mortar units that begin organic to my formations are allowed as on-map artillery throughout the campaign. I am allowed to upgrade these mortar units during the campaign to other mortars (including CS-mortars). No other on-map artillery is allowed (including support units). I am not allowed to buy any air strikes. I am allowed to buy off-map artillery with support points.
C. I am not allowed to use any airdrops.
D. I am not allowed to use any infiltration special operations.
E. I am never allowed to request reinforcements during any battle.
E. During Delay Missions, I must withdraw all my units following Turn 21 of the mission. Note that due to Command/Control ON, my formations might have problems executing the withdrawal, but withdraw they must as soon as possible after Turn 21.

CORE COMPOSITION (3000 points)
1x LRDG Patrol
2x Inf Recon Troops
2x Type II(s) Tank Squadrons
3x Infantry Companies
1x Engineer Company
5x Forward Observer Groups (1 group per LRDG patrol vehicle)
2x 20mm AA Platoons
2x Morris Medium Truck Sections

PREFERENCES/SETTINGS: per the screenshot below.
I am using the FlashFyre Long Campaign Template with only two exceptions noted below.
Exceptions: I did NOT choose Reduced Squads and I did NOT choose Reduced Ammo because I am 100% convinced that these settings ALWAYS hurt the computer AI more than they hurt the human.

[vahauser]

The newly formed Group Andrews, a small mixed-arms force of six companies plus attachments (composed entirely of volunteers from Australia and New Zealand), arrived at Alexandria in mid-July 1940 and was moved to the area around Halfaya (near the Egypt-Libya border) by the end of August 1940. During the first week of September 1940, intelligence indicated that Italian General Graziani planned to cross the Libyan frontier and into Egypt. Group Andrews was put on combat alert.

During the day of 5 Sept 40, Group Andrews was informed that an Italian force of unknown size and strength had crossed the frontier and was approaching their position. Colonel Andrews was ordered to move immediately to intercept the Italian advance.

Battle #1: 6 Sept 1940
Meeting Engagement near Halfaya, Egypt
Time = 0500 hours (dawn)
Weather = Clear
Visibility = 14
Game Length = 35 turns

[vahauser]

Situation at the end of my turn1.

The bulk of Group Andrews is deployed in the north and is tasked to maneuver and engage the northern flank of the anticipated Italian advance. North TF is then to wheel south and continue to engage the enemy upon meeting them.

The engineer company is deployed around my rear-area VHs and is tasked with defending said VHs. Center TF is to advance to meet the enemy if no enemy presence is discovered as deployed.

The AA platoons are deployed to offer covering fire between my two task forces (considered part of Center TF).

[vahauser]

Situation at the end of ANZAC turn 5.

Since I'm playing with C&C ON, my units need to remain in close-formation. Also, restrictions on orders mean that my maneuvers must be relatively simple.

North TF (hereafter Main TF) has taken the northern victory cluster and the Italians have wheeled north in response.

Center TF (hereafter TF-2) now realizes that the Italians are not coming for them and have been ordered forward to support Main TF.

[vahauser]

Situation at the end of ANZAC turn 10.

Main TF has been stopped in their tracks by the massive Italian counterattack. Wave after wave of AFVs supported by off-map artillery is pounding my position. My forces are destroying and routing them in droves, but with an AI Level of 200 the Italians rally almost immediately and charge back into the fray.

A particularly nasty surprise is the appearance of masses of Italian flame tanks. I have designated these as highest priority targets.

Group Andrews is inflicting grievous casualties on the Italians, but are suffering mounting losses in return.

The battle rages on.

[vahauser]

Situation at the end of ANZAC turn 15.

By this stage of the battle, the bulk of the Italian armor has been knocked out and now the Italian infantry is attacking. The lack of coordination between Italian armor and infantry is probably the main reason I can win this battle. The enemy armor charged into battle before their infantry could join them. The Italian infantry is very good and I'm having trouble killing it.

My light mortars have proven almost worthless and I have no other artillery. With an AI Level of 200, the Italians shrug off the little suppression my light mortars cause. This is a problem. Good news is that I am coordinating my armor and infantry better than the Italians and have begun to maneuver in such a way as to encircle the remaining Italian forces.

Also, the 20mm AA guns have proven of little value as well. They don't hit very hard and they are difficult to maneuver in a swirling battle like this one.

The battle rages on.

[vahauser]

Situation at the end of ANZAC turn 20.

Italian Force Morale has finally broken. The battlefield is strewn with burning wreckage. Group Andrews has almost completed encircling the surviving Italian forces and has begun to transmit new maneuver orders (each change of objective requires 3 order points).

I've noticed that the Italian artillery has ceased firing. It must be out of ammunition.

The battle has entered the pursuit and mop-up phase.

[vahauser]

Situation at the end of ANZAC turn 28 (out of 35).

The battle ended at this point since the Italian morale was broken and all the VHs were in Group Andrews's control.

Battle Debriefing to follow...

[vahauser]

Post-Battle #1 Debriefing

The battle ended on Turn 29 out of 35. Although Col. Andrews was pleased with the overall performance of his troops in their first battle of the war, and although he was pleased with the battle’s outcome, he was not pleased about several aspects of Group Andrews which he relayed to his superiors.
1. Col. Andrews was not pleased with the combat effectiveness of his AFVs. The Group lost several tanks to machinegun fire and this was not acceptable to Col. Andrews. He reported that newer, more powerful and effective tanks were needed as soon as possible.
2. Col. Andrews stated that the 20mm AA guns were not very powerful and he doubted their ability to stop a determined enemy air attack. He stated that he felt lucky that no enemy aircraft were sighted during the battle. He recommended that newer, more powerful AA guns were needed as soon as possible.
3. Col. Andrews stated the overall mobility of the Group was sub-standard and recommended a much higher level of motorization as soon as possible.
4. Col. Andrews stated that the Italian infantry the Group had just fought against were faster and better equipped than the Group’s own infantry and recommended that the Group’s infantry be given better armament as soon as possible.
5. Col. Andrews stated that he believed that the Group contained too many small units and that command/control suffered as a result. He recommended that the Group be streamlined and reorganized into a leaner, more efficient force as soon as possible.
6. Col. Andrews stated that he believed the Group to be too light a combat force to engage heavy enemy combat forces on a regular basis in the future. In particular he noted the low combat effectiveness of the Boys ATRs, the 50mm light mortars, and the Bren LMG teams. He recommended that either the Group be upgraded to a heavier combat force or else only sent into action against less-heavily armed opposition.
7. Col. Andrews stated that overall the Group’s victory was due more to Italian tactical bungling than anything else. The Italians had a larger, more mobile, and more powerful force than Group Andrews and yet they allowed themselves to be surrounded and defeated in detail. While complimenting his subordinate officers on their resolute leadership under some very adverse conditions, he stressed that the Group must strive to improve their effectiveness.

High Command did not take Col. Andrews’s report very kindly. HQ responded that resources were limited, new equipment was non-existent, and that the Group simply must make do for the present. Newer, more powerful tanks were being developed, but none would be available for at least the next several months. HQ also flatly rejected Col. Andrews’s recommendation to re-equip infantry units. After some heated discussion HQ did finally agree to allocate four of the new Bofors Portee AA gun trucks (an upgrade of 4x ATR teams) as well as a section of Ammo Supply Carriers (an upgrade of 2x medium trucks). Col. Andrews was given permission to streamline the Group although motor transport was in short supply at present.

[vahauser]

December, 1940
After nearly six months in the desert, the members of Group Andrews could now be considered experienced desert soldiers. The Group was made part of the Western Desert Force and remained near the Libyan Frontier after General Graziani’s offensive had been stopped back in September.

Recently, a gap in the Italian positions had been discovered, and General Wavell devised Operation Compass to take advantage. The Group was loosely attached to the British 7th Armored Division and put on ready status for the coming Operation.

Operation Compass got off to an excellent start, and the Group penetrated rapidly into Libya. An Italian blocking force was reported astride an important road leading to Bardia and the Group was ordered to clear that road.


Battle #2: 4 Dec 1940
Group Andrews Advance vs. Italian Delay near Bardia, Libya
Time = 1200 hours (mid-day)
Weather = Hazy
Visibility = 17
Game Length = 37 turns

AAR to follow within the next few days. . .

[vahauser]

Group Andrews Core at the end of Battle #1 (Sept 1940)

[vahauser]

Core page 2

[vahauser]

Core page 3.

[vahauser]

Core page 4.

[vahauser]

Core page 5.

[vahauser]

Core page 6. (End of Battle #1.)

[vahauser]

Battle #2, 4 Dec 1940, ANZAC Advance near Bardia
Situation at the end of ANZAC turn 1.

TF-Main, in the north, has contacted the Italian line. Since the VHs are 20 points per turn, the Group must move quickly to seize them. This will likely mean heavy fighting and casualties. Time will tell. TF-Main consists of about 90% of the Group and is expected to do almost all the fighting in this battle.

TF-2, in the south, is a minor, small raiding force whose only objective is to seize the southern 20-pt per turn victory cluster on the southern map edge. TF-2 has a couple combat units just in case the Italians counterattack.

GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Why am I attacking along the board edges? Isn’t that a very cheesy and unhistorical way to play the game? I believe not, and I have several reasons for my belief. First, I believe that the board edges represent the “joints” in the enemy line where historically the enemy was weakest. The best historical commanders were the ones who took advantage of those historically weak points in the enemy line (the “joints” between two enemy units in the line). Second, I have very limited artillery assets (a handicap I placed on myself before the campaign began). This means that I must use maneuver instead of massed artillery to accomplish my objectives (which, with C&C ON, presents its own set of challenges). It also means that charging directly into the center of the enemy defenses is likely to get me slaughtered since there is no real maneuver involved in that kind of operation. Third, my core is an extremely light and weak combat force right now. My 3000-pt core has 167 units in it (actually 2800 points with 166 units if you don’t count the A0). This works out to less than 17 points per unit, and that means that the average unit in my core is substantially weaker than a standard line infantry squad (which costs around 22-23 points each). Someday my core will be a heavier battle force with a greater capability of engaging the enemy head on (although even then I will question the wisdom of doing that without artillery to back it up), but that day to come is not this day. Which means that today the Group must maneuver and take advantage of every weakness it can to be successful against a stronger and more numerous enemy (AI Advantage ON, Hard Battle x2, AI Level 200, etc.). Therefore, I do not believe my tactics are unhistorical at all. I believe that many historical commanders would seek to conduct the very same kinds of operations that I am, given the conditions I am fighting under (for instance, historical German blitzkrieg doctrine stressed exactly the sort of narrow penetration followed by encirclement/flanking operation that I am seeking to employ in this battle).
2. Why are my attack frontages so narrow, leaving such wide open spaces? Well, Battle #1 was a meeting engagement and Battle #2 is an ANZAC advance. Both of these kinds of battles involve advancing and attacking instead of standing and defending. Historical WW2 advance/attack frontages were extremely narrow compared to today. Historically, a WW2 Italian infantry battalion would typically advance/attack on a frontage of around 8 hexes, and the large SS Panzer Divsions at Kursk attacked on a frontage of around 50-60 hexes per division. These historical attack frontages are very much less than the map widths generated by the computer for each long-campaign battle (which vary from 40-80 hexes, for combat forces of battalion/regiment in strength). Therefore, I believe that the advance/attack frontages that I am using for Group Andrews are historical. And I will not let myself be lured/suckered into trying to occupy combat maps that are too large for the combat force I am commanding, especially when I am ordered to advance and attack the enemy.

Anyway, on with the battle.

P.S. This campaign will take on a DAR rather than AAR viewpoint hereafter because I can only play a few turns at a time per gaming session these days.

[vahauser]

Situation of TF-2 in the south at the end of ANZAC turn 1.

[Alby]

You have British troops too???
I see a BR LMG team....or did you change the name.
I dont see it in your unit list though..

[vahauser]

Alby,
 
Those are British support troops from 7th Armored.  I used British support troops for this battle.  But all core units are pure ANZAC.  I mentioned in my campaign introduction that I was allowed to use support troops from different nationalities so long as I could justify it historically due to date and location and theater and battle, etc.