More on Tobruk (Campaign for N Afrika)

[TOCarroll]

I did a little more digging (snooping, really) and found the following stats: The outer ring of Tobruk forts in Bob Cross' Campaign for North Afrika 40-43 have the following combat strengths (before any attacks against Tobruk):
Attack: 53 (86)
Defense: 4 (9)
Movement: 0/0 (0/0)
Supply: 150 (150)
Proficency: 100 (60)
Readiness: 100 (100)
Anti Armour: 5 (0)
Anti Personnel: 41 (71)
Anti Air Hi: 0 (0)
Anti Air Lo: 6 (0)
Defense: 4 (9)
Artillery: 0 (86 range=2)

The second set of figures is for the fort in Tobruk. Nasty![:-] During the assualts I have conducted, the forts are heavily manned. I isolate Tobruk, and try to push back the front so that I can occupy all the surrounding airbases, and make air missions more difficult for the allies. Also, any overland reenforcement is impossible, due to the seige perimiter.
I try to hit the forts with armour, heavilly supported by air and artillery, and (of necessity) backed up by mech. infantry. The casualties are very hi....often 50-75% or more. In most cases, allied casulties are higher, but I still wind up running low on armour. When that happens I use mech infantry, which takes even higher casulties.
I eventually take the fort in June or July, but my force is so reduced that the Brevity or Battleaxe offense rolls right over my depleted army.

I have tried reducing the forts with air attack. It has some effect, but I take unacceptable casulties in aircraft (the forts are manned by units which have a good aa rating). And don't do enough damage before my air force is exhausted.

Seems to me like that leaves the following technique: Isolate the fortress, and soften it up with preliminary air/artillery bombardaments. Follow this with an attack with armour backed by anti-tank, recon, AA, and mech infantry. First time I tried it I got chewed to bits by the big fort in the Tobruk hex, but I didn't know then that it was stronger the the perimiter forts, or that it had artillery incorporated. Thanks to the wonders of "Save game as...", my troops are ready to take another shot at it.

[&o] PLEASE HELP DAK....there must be some of you who have actually captured Tobruk during Rommels First Offensive (I know Bob Cross has, he worte an article about the game...unfornutely no details on Tobruk). How in the hell do you crack this nut? What level of casulties are acceptable? [&:] Is there a way to cheat? [:-]

All comments will be very welcome.

Tom OC

[golden delicious]

I think you're the victim of the designer's determination that the player be unable to take Tobruk prior to the historical date.

[JAMiAM]

Now you see why Rommel simply isolated and pinned the fortress the first time...[;)]

If you've got a siege situation, then work the supply and readiness down on selected hexes by use of small probing attacks. Be prepared to take losses. Depending on your support assets, timing issues, relative force levels and supply conditions, you can either allow, or disallow, support assets from joining in from the beginning of these probing attacks.

If the targets are composed primarily of armored (hard) equipment, then don't expect too much from level bombers or artillery, unless they are very densely massed in the attacks. If there are no significant numbers of passive equipment in the target, then don't expect much benefit from executing a flank attack on the hex. If the fort units are stacked with other units, then you may need to adjust, and flanking attacks might be more helpful. Assuming these two conditions, make the probing attacks early in the turn, with minimize loss/limited attacks using 1/3rd sized sub-units of your most plentifully replaced infantry type units. Then, after a few rounds of this, or even a few turns of it, ratchet up the attacks with full strength, rested armored units, supported by massed directly assigned artillery and air support. Use your fighter-bombers for support, especially if you've driven enemy fighters out of interception range. Put your armored units to either limit loss, or ignore losses for the attacks, and set the artillery and air units supporting the attacks to ignore losses. Then, continue a methodical reduction of the necessary forts to break in.

Bob is a big fan of high attrition rate (low attrition divider setting) scenarios. In cases like this, unless you are using pure armored units to attack with, you will usually have defensive artillery fire break off your attacking units, before they even have a chance to fire, unless you are using very aggressive loss tolerances. Use this to your advantage when making probing attacks, by keeping at min loss, so that your units don't suffer supply usage, but the defenders do. Just remember to switch over to ignore losses when you start launching the killing attacks, and be prepared to take heavy casualties so that you remain in the battle, and cause some in return. Evaporations are common here...on both sides.

Good luck.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Bob is a big fan of high attrition rate (low attrition divider setting) scenarios.

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing, but for the Campaign for North Africa scenario I have on my computer, the attrition divider is 20. That would fit with Bob's philosophy of scaling the value in direct proportion to the turn length. This means ignore losses attacks- which you rightly recommend for low attrition divider scenarios- may well be nasty round burners.

[Chuck2]

You must be looking at a different scenario. It's set to 4 in CFNA 40-43.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: TOCarroll
I have tried reducing the forts with air attack. It has some effect, but I take unacceptable casulties in aircraft (the forts are manned by units which have a good aa rating). And don't do enough damage before my air force is exhausted.

Are you playing with 3.0.0.17? It reduces AA and may help your air force.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: TOCarroll

I did a little more digging (snooping, really) and found the following stats: The outer ring of Tobruk forts in Bob Cross' Campaign for North Afrika 40-43 have the following combat strengths (before any attacks against Tobruk):
Attack: 53 (86)
Defense: 4 (9)
Movement: 0/0 (0/0)
Supply: 150 (150)
Proficency: 100 (60)
Readiness: 100 (100)
Anti Armour: 5 (0)
Anti Personnel: 41 (71)
Anti Air Hi: 0 (0)
Anti Air Lo: 6 (0)
Defense: 4 (9)
Artillery: 0 (86 range=2)

The second set of figures is for the fort in Tobruk. Nasty![:-] During the assualts I have conducted, the forts are heavily manned. I isolate Tobruk, and try to push back the front so that I can occupy all the surrounding airbases, and make air missions more difficult for the allies. Also, any overland reenforcement is impossible, due to the seige perimiter.
I try to hit the forts with armour, heavilly supported by air and artillery, and (of necessity) backed up by mech. infantry. The casualties are very hi....often 50-75% or more. In most cases, allied casulties are higher, but I still wind up running low on armour. When that happens I use mech infantry, which takes even higher casulties.
I eventually take the fort in June or July, but my force is so reduced that the Brevity or Battleaxe offense rolls right over my depleted army.

I have tried reducing the forts with air attack. It has some effect, but I take unacceptable casulties in aircraft (the forts are manned by units which have a good aa rating). And don't do enough damage before my air force is exhausted.

Seems to me like that leaves the following technique: Isolate the fortress, and soften it up with preliminary air/artillery bombardaments. Follow this with an attack with armour backed by anti-tank, recon, AA, and mech infantry. First time I tried it I got chewed to bits by the big fort in the Tobruk hex, but I didn't know then that it was stronger the the perimiter forts, or that it had artillery incorporated. Thanks to the wonders of "Save game as...", my troops are ready to take another shot at it.

[&o] PLEASE HELP DAK....there must be some of you who have actually captured Tobruk during Rommels First Offensive (I know Bob Cross has, he worte an article about the game...unfornutely no details on Tobruk). How in the hell do you crack this nut? What level of casulties are acceptable? [&:] Is there a way to cheat? [:-]

All comments will be very welcome.

Tom OC

Glad you're having trouble - you're supposed to. I've been trying to strengthen the Tobruk defenses for some time. It's almost an impossible task - the offense rules in this scenario. It should be stronger than it was when I wrote the article at SZO, but I will point out that even the PO will eventually still take it.

You don't say if you're playing the PO or PBEM. And if you're playing the full campaign, then a lot must have happened before getting to this point. Critical to taking Tobruk is having the force margin to do so - the rest of the Commonwealth must be overawed by the DAK at the time of the try for Tobruk. This usually requires hell-bent-for-leather speed from the arrival of Rommel. If you're too slow, you'll miss the window of opportunity (as Rommel himself did) and you may have to wait till later to make the try. Because, once that window passes, the Commonwealth will have the strength suck off too much Axis force to allow the attempt to succeed.

[TOCarroll]

Yes...I am playing with the latese upgrade. [:D] Thanks to your feedback, and a shameless number of replays, I have learned some valuble lessons.

The forts can be damaged by repeated massed artillery attacks. (Tough with the range 2 Italian artillery, but there you are.[:'(]

As pointed out, dive bombers are a LOT more effective than level bombers, but they too take high casulties.[:@]

After the Germans take Crete, the Axis get a number of German arcraft reenforcements.[:)].

The casualties were Pyrric, but I managed to capture Tobruk in August, 1941. Most of the dead were returned (fairly quickly) as replacements. Unfortunately not quickly enough....the Brits decimated my front while the replacements were driving or marching from Sirte/Tripoli. Its a loooong haul.....I'm glad I wasn't at the Alimen line at that point.
[:(]

Finally, a question for Bob Cross, or any expert in this scenario. Historically, Tobruk was not as defensable in 1942 (for several reasons, most of which the Axis can not effect). Is this decrease in defensive strength modeled in the scenario? If so, is it merely a function of time, or does in incorporate control of airfields, the strength of the Royal Navy, ect?
I'd love an answer, if anyone knows.[&o]

Thanks for the help.

Tom OC

[Catch21]

2 quick ones:

1) The Royal Navy wasn't prepared to support to the extent they had in 41- given the heavy losses they took then.
2) Desert Air Force bases were further away in 42 and didn't offer as much protection.

Others:

3) Gaps in minefields- and they got exploited quickly.
4) The initial onslaught was a real power punch, by armour and air. A real whirlwind affair and the Commonwealth troops were not as well prepared as first time round.
5) Klopper panicked and destroyed his signalling equipment, leaving little in the way of C&C between him and subordinates.
6) A year's extra experience.
7) You can compare the forces and equipment used on both occasions by looking at a Tobruk 41 and Tobruk 42 scenario- or ones containing them. I'm sure you'll find some differences that might add up to an additional factor or 2.

Others I'm sure will contest or add.

[TOCarroll]

OOPS! [X(] I phrased my question poorly. I agree with the historical notes (good research by General Staff)[:)]! What I wanted to know was: Does the quality of the Tobruk defenses automatically decrease at a certain date? Or, does one have to do things (like drive the Brits into Eqypt, take Malta (tough in this game [:D]), or whatever, to reduce the defensive quality?
 
Also, a point raised by Curtis Lemay -- when is the optimum period for taking Tobruk during Rommel's first offensive? Are there other optimal times?
 
Last but not least: Is there a point in the early game when Tobruk is more vulnerable?
 
NOTE: I am playing the Rommel's First Offensive Scenario, so I skipped the pre March 1941 part.

[Catch21]

So are we really talking scenario-specific here? CFNA? Just to clarify. In which case the scenario designer (Curtis Lemay?) is probably the correct guy to ask.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: TOCarroll

Yes...I am playing with the latese upgrade. [:D] Thanks to your feedback, and a shameless number of replays, I have learned some valuble lessons.

The forts can be damaged by repeated massed artillery attacks. (Tough with the range 2 Italian artillery, but there you are.[:'(]

As pointed out, dive bombers are a LOT more effective than level bombers, but they too take high casulties.[:@]

After the Germans take Crete, the Axis get a number of German arcraft reenforcements.[:)].

The casualties were Pyrric, but I managed to capture Tobruk in August, 1941. Most of the dead were returned (fairly quickly) as replacements. Unfortunately not quickly enough....the Brits decimated my front while the replacements were driving or marching from Sirte/Tripoli. Its a loooong haul.....I'm glad I wasn't at the Alimen line at that point.
[:(]

Well, there you go. Good old attrition does the trick. Once cutoff, the Commonwealth has a very hard time reinforcing Tobruk, due to their seacap limits. It's almost impossible to deliver any armor.

Finally, a question for Bob Cross, or any expert in this scenario. Historically, Tobruk was not as defensable in 1942 (for several reasons, most of which the Axis can not effect). Is this decrease in defensive strength modeled in the scenario? If so, is it merely a function of time, or does in incorporate control of airfields, the strength of the Royal Navy, ect?
I'd love an answer, if anyone knows.[&o]

Thanks for the help.

Tom OC

Yes, as detailed in the briefing, the minefield units are withdrawn sometime just before the historical date of the battle of Gazala, with the message that the Tobruk minefields have fallen into disrepair. It's on a specific turn, which I forget at the moment.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: General Staff

5) Klopper panicked and destroyed his signalling equipment, leaving little in the way of C&C between him and subordinates.

I'd say this was the biggy (I've made a scenario on this subject). The whole South African division seems to have been a little suspect- hence the fact it was deployed as fortress troops in the first place. The Indian, guards and tank brigades fought pretty vigorously but the South Africans don't seem to have been able to offer much support, and they were overrun.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Yes, as detailed in the briefing, the minefield units are withdrawn sometime just before the historical date of the battle of Gazala, with the message that the Tobruk minefields have fallen into disrepair.

Are all the units withdrawn? The fortress' defences seem to have been largely intact- with the exception of the southeastern side, where Rommel delivered his attack.

[TOCarroll]

Thanks, guys. You have made one very happy pseudo-Rommel. I LOVE this scenario.[:D]
 
P.S.   Thanks for the heads up on the breifing. I read it, but the was a lot there, and I didn't correlate the minefield part with the "TANKS" defending Tobruk (which are used to represent minefields). A re-read, and a second read of Bob Cross's articls (SZO) puts things in a fresh light.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Yes, as detailed in the briefing, the minefield units are withdrawn sometime just before the historical date of the battle of Gazala, with the message that the Tobruk minefields have fallen into disrepair.

Are all the units withdrawn? The fortress' defences seem to have been largely intact- with the exception of the southeastern side, where Rommel delivered his attack.

The minefield units are withdrawn, but, obviously, the fortified hexes will remain.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: General Staff

2 quick ones:

1) The Royal Navy wasn't prepared to support to the extent they had in 41- given the heavy losses they took then.
2) Desert Air Force bases were further away in 42 and didn't offer as much protection.

Others:

3) Gaps in minefields- and they got exploited quickly.
4) The initial onslaught was a real power punch, by armour and air. A real whirlwind affair and the Commonwealth troops were not as well prepared as first time round.
5) Klopper panicked and destroyed his signalling equipment, leaving little in the way of C&C between him and subordinates.
6) A year's extra experience.
7) You can compare the forces and equipment used on both occasions by looking at a Tobruk 41 and Tobruk 42 scenario- or ones containing them. I'm sure you'll find some differences that might add up to an additional factor or 2.

Others I'm sure will contest or add.

I'll add one more. Rommel was just about ready, logistically, to attack Tobruk just as Crusader hit him. He was forced to fall back, leaving all the built up supplies behind. But, incredibly, when, after Gazala, he regained the same positions around Tobruk, all the supplies were still there where he had left them - the British had never destroyed them. So no build up was necessary the second time - and that meant the assault developed too fast for the defenders to prep for.

[Montbrun]

At the time of the Gazala battles:

1) The AT trench and much of the defensive perimeter were in disrepair.
2) The 2nd SA Division had very little transport within the Tobruk perimeter. The Transport Companies had been sent elsewhere.