Turn 2 End, North Motorised
George Patten (tbc)
An obstacle is not an obstacle if it is not defended
Having no units between the lakes meant 8th Panzer Division was able to cross between the lakes unopposed. Crackaces similarly used this move (see They Crossed The Border at Dawn
tm.asp?m=4360475 - AAR for Axis North of the 2by3+ team game). Instead 8th Panzer found itself routing a cluster of airbases, all of which were pre bombed before routing. Many of these routed to Pskow city (which is routing southwards - surprising direction?). Pskow itself was not garrisoned and being stacked with airbases also meant no units retreated to it - the city was occupied without a fight. But not before the airbases in Pskow were bombed yet again to leave even more damaged aircraft to be lost when the airbases were displaced again. Although supplying 8th Panzer through a swamp is not ideal, I find a bridgehead there helps to outflank attempts to reform a hard Pskow defence around the city. And the bridgehead soon connects up with the Pskow area solving the supply problem. (See They Crossed The Border at Dawn for thoughts on the supply of this move between the lakes).
ORIGINAL: Crackaces
Complete neutralization of a “one hex Pskov defense”
Here you can really see the benefits of ending turn 1 with six motorised units north of the Dvina plus one more on its south bank. With full fuel tanks and not having to cross a major river they capture Pskow. I had been using this opening in the north for more than a year when I played Brief Encounter. And in that time I never failed once to either have Pskow captured or surrounded on turn 2. After showing others screenshots of this I have seen they have used this as well with the same results. My guess is there do not seem to be enough units near that can walk to prevent it. I have never seen this though against a defence using railed in units e.g
tm.asp?m=4309050 . This may even make that "Pskow" defence of railed in units a strategic necessity rather than an option. If you follow through the strategic gameplaying of this, if massing motorised units north of the Dvina on turn 1 means the Soviet side has to spend points, rail in units and massively commit to the North to keep a sufficient defence there, then the Axis player knowing how the Soviet player will react can on turn 2 ....? Perhaps switch Panzer Group 4 to a Moscow first strategy? Whatever it is, reducing the options of a Soviet player and knowing what he has to do next can only be a good thing for the Axis side.
Going through Narva also seems to have gone out of fashion - but it tends to compromise the defence of the Luga if approached from there as well as Pskow. If there had been an opportunity to make a small pocket of units near Pskow I probably would have done that instead. As it is enlarging the front the Soviets have to defend against before the Luga will make this line less defensible now.
4th Panzer group is now completely out of fuel. So at this point the lakes and swamps are an advantage as it means the motorised units can hold a continuous front and not be outflanked. They know the infantry ball behind them already has 11 infantry divisions north of the Dvina and its vanguard will be north of Pskow next turn.
Indeed the problem for 4th Panzer Group comes not from the east but the west. Inevitably there will be some NKVD units and perhaps a weak rifle division undetected somewhere in the Baltics north of the Dvina. By doing nothing except take a short walk they can leave the whole of 4th Panzer Group isolated. The two motorised divisions left south of the Dvina last turn are given the job of mopping up the units in the rear. And given how absolutely critical it is to find any of those units I take to "carpet bombing" the area with recon.
I do not know if this is overkill - but I know with this level of reconnaisance I have never later discovered there was a unit left undetected by it. And Axis have the luxury of de facto infinite recon - so should use it. No doubt it can also be called "spam recon" and yes I did have one eye on fatiguing the airgroups on the airbases which were then being routed at pskow and to its north. But bottom line was I needed near absolute certainty on where Soviet units were in the North Baltics and this is the way to do it.
ORIGINAL: Bear1888
-pskov defense neutralized. The undoubtedly high quality units sough of pskov will have a hard time to get to Leningrad area in time.
And this of course is a common theme I have been following in this AAR. Can momentum and violence of action substitute, or even improve on, a more considered approach? Do units need to be isolated and destroyed to prevent them returning to the defence of Leningrad if they can simply be outrun and left behind from the fight for the city.
