Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario

[Chief Rudiger]

I'm looking for info on the German forces on "The Island" between the Afwaterings Canal and R. Mass, facing the 51st Highland Division during "Operation Guy Fawkes" in early November '44, to create a resonably accurate OOB for a hypothetical scenario i'm making (see link below for v1 of scenario).

The source i have; "Battalion [5th Seaforths]; A British Infantry Unit's Actions from Alamein to the Elbe" gives the enemy strength as 6 Bn's but not from what formations. I'm assuming they are from the 1st Parachute Army whose components, on 5th Nov, are given on this website: (http://diedeutschewehrmacht.de/1%20fall ... 0armee.htm). Can anyone point me to better information or advise on best way to research this type of thing?

Since the Germans withdrew from this sector of the island pretty sharpish the scenario isn't historical, really, but the map in the book looked interesting so i thought i'd recreate it in BFTB to see what it'd be like if they held their ground.

I'll scan the 2 or 3 pages from the book tommorrow, so people can see what the back story is.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QI66ZDPQ

[Lieste]

Grabbed this one last night, will give it a go and comment once my daughter is in bed this evening.

[Chief Rudiger]

Thanks,

It seems to only be playable as the Allies as the AI doesn't seem to cross the canal in force. This is possible because i set the two RE Fld Coys as immobile (to stop the player using them as Infantry) and purposefully reducing the two ferries to be foot traffic only (to deprive the leading Bns of their Armd support until morning of D2, when the enginneers finish the bridges).

I think the combination of having the engineers immoble and the tanks organic to the infantry bn's means the AI can't build the bridges so doesn't see a way of moving its forces accross the canal.

Overall, I think it plays okay as the Allies, with the Germans mortars "stonking" the canal/dyke crossing points with their heavy mortars and counter attacking anything that breaks into the Drunen/Groenwoud position.

PS. I ommitted all field artillery on purpose as no mention is made of its direct involvement during any of the Seaforth's battles.

[Lieste]

Hmm. I couldn't open the Afwaterings canal "cos" file - it requires an estab that isn't present. The included SeaforthEstab will only compile if some changes are made first:

Vehicle - Humber MkIV (id 641) is 'using' image 3391 which doesn't exist. I set the check-box to 'no image'.
Weapon - 50 cal M2HB (id 563) is using image 3392 which doesn't exist. I set the image to 3225 (an M2HB although not on a ground mount).

With these changes the estab compiles, and the scenario can be opened.

[Lieste]

OOB: Putting all the German infantry under a single Bn HQ forces it to be rather heavily loaded (large command delays likely).
Putting the Stug 'under' the FSL coy seems odd too, and will restrict the freedom of the Stugs (their organic HQ is thus a line foot company, and has long delays, compared to a normal HQ unit, or even better a mot/gp/pzjg HQ).

Current:
Rgt HQ
Bn HQ
1 Coy
2 Coy
3 Coy
4 Coy
8cm Mor Bty
7.5cm Pak Plt
7.5cm Pak Plt
12cm Mor Bty
 FSL Coy
Stug Plt
Regt Base

'Normal' OOB:
Regt HQ
Regt Base
12cm Mor Bty
7.5cm Pak Plt
*Attached Stug
*Attached FSL Coy
~Detached 4 Coy from II Bn
I Bn HQ
1 Coy
2 Coy
3 Coy
8cm Mor Plt
7.5cm IG37 Plt

Note the * and ~ units are cross attached from higher or 'other organic' units resp. It is possible that there would be a scratch KG HQ made from rear svcs elements - if so I'd add a second Bn HQ to hold these elements. Pushing so much into a single Bn HQ is IMO hampering the low level command that the Germans were noted for being good at, even when their troops were tired and 'poor' (which is of course a relative term, and also noted of surrendering/captured troops - which is not regarded as a unit's highest point in it's career in any army )

I wasn't sure about the Second platoon of 7.5cm guns - they could be Pak40 ATG, or 'just' IG37, which still have a useful AT capability... depends on whether the unit was likely to be a VGD or Grenadier formation... and on whether the guns are organic to the Bn, or attached. I translated them as VGD and organic, but your mileage may vary... BTW, as far as I could tell, the IG37 is very different from the IG18 as a weapon... it lacks the high angle capability, and I haven't seen reference to reduced charge shells (the IG18 seems to have had multi-charge capability, making it a direct fire capable mortar, rather than a pure 'gun'). OTOH, the IG37 definitely had a Hl 39A shell available to it in 'quantity' and was higher velocity and more accurate in point fire, making it more useful against light armour.

[Lieste]

You might also want to consider tinkering with the soft factors - the German leadership values should probably be 'better' while (some) of the unit values could be lower - possibly training and fitness for the infantry - experience is probably less hard hit - the few veterans will reduce the mistakes of 'inexperience' a lot.
Morale could be high if they 'should hold' or are planning a fighting withdrawl, lower if they expect to be expelled and don't want to go...
Stubborness - probably fairly high for the German support weapons and HQ, but not too high for the infantry.

Very good factors for the Stug unit - probably... at least in the early war these were elite troops, and did exceptionally well throughout the war. Not spectacular vehicles, so the crews must have had a lot to do with it. Late war? A mix of exceptional and average crews. So take your pick depending on unit reports if possible. Small numbers did useful work though.

Similarly, play with the factors for the Seaforths et al... I assume reasonable fitness and morale etc, but are there any comments that suggest a small adjustment up or down for any of the aggressiveness/morale/fitness/leadership/determination etc factors?

At 50% across the board there is a reliance on numbers/weapons rather than 'elan' and doggedness - although a nightmare to plan and balance, this does make a scenario more interesting...

I personally would aim foot unit traits low-middle and leadership spread over the board, but perhaps others have different ideas? Armour might benefit from mid-high unit traits, esp training and experience - it helps balance the constant retreat all-the-time behaviour of tanks - with better soft factors they only take notice of real threats.

You have the references for this engagement, and some comments might not apply... but I've found that there are definite differences between 'average' and tuned performances from the 'same' units.

[Lieste]

Victory Schedule:
The Allies require an advance of 3-5km to obtain any of their occupation points... they also require 100% of the available points in order to obtain a full victory, and almost all their objectives are secure (10x defending strength).

The Axis begins 'on their' objectives, and is only required to sit 'on' the objectives to score. Strength is immaterial, so long as a presence is maintained. Still a 100% completion required to give full success.

I think that there should be some adjustment to these conditions, but until I play it through what this is won't be clear.
Although the UK infantry Bn didn't have organic armour they did co-operate with 'fixed' units which has a similar effect... so treating it as organic seems ok. However, have you considered bringing it in immediately after the initial planning is done to allow the AI to 'cross' without worrying about vehicles?
The Camerons could start with their sqn attached, but it might give the AI more flexibility if the armour all arrives 'late'.
If the armour is needed to start 'on-map' at start and is hampering the crossing, be aware that the AI is quite keen on cross-attachments, and will make them whenever possible, so you may get the results you want by reforming the armour into a single Rgt under it's own HQ for the purposes of the scn.

[Chief Rudiger]

Thanks for the feedback.

So the scenario files aren't playable, out of the box? I know the compiler came up with some errors but doesn't it always? Coincidently i didn't change either the Humber or the .50 cal so i don't know where that's come from!

What're your thoughts on the scenario once you got it working?

Re: OOB

Yes, the German side is mince as i've no info on the actual units involved. I chose to give the OPFOR Bn 4 Inf Coy so that each of the 4 OBJ could be occupied. I also gave the Bn two AT Pl so that both Drunen and Greonwoud had some longer range AT capability. My inspiration is really the COTA tuturial, Bridge to Lamia - the Germans had this kind of reinforced Inf Bn set up to start with.

The reasoning behind the Fusilier Coy being in charge of the StuG's was to encourage the AI to use it as a seperate force from the Inf Bn, for counterattacking. The inspiration here is the Seaforth's Operation Order, which warns the enemy may have the "Odd Tank" kicking about. I thought a bicycle company + Assualt gun platoon make an ironic "Fire Brigade".

Anyway, i thought subordinating the StuG pl to the Bicycle Coy would encourage cooperation. Do you see this in game? I had also thought about the command load and bumped the Fsl Coy CO up to a Major and gave him 200% Staff Capability, but probably changing the Estab Staff Capacity to 2 would have been a better bet. Pushing the entry time for these units to daylight might also encourage the AI to counter attack with them - right now they tend to become committed to the battle on the night of D1/2 so are kind of ground down.

In reality, the Germans withdrew from both the Drunesche Dyke and Drunen-Groenwoud line without much of a fight, it appears, and the objectives were secured before midnight of D1 - which is approcimately when the Seaforths and Camerons reach the Drunen-Groenwoud line in game if given attack orders from their deployment zone! Also, the Op Order estimates the bridges will be complete around 0800 hrs, which is only a little sooner than possible in game!



All,

I've scanned in the 4-5 pages on the source i've used so you can see what its all about.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=G804Y0S2

[Chief Rudiger]

Wow, two more posts in the time it took for me to do one!

I'll have a play around tommorrow evening after going to the National Library to look at some 51st HD books - might find something concrete on the Germans.

[Lieste]

The Estab doesn't compile if it throws errors. I suspect you renamed your .coe file and then created the scn and edited and 'recompiled' the .xml with errors (which should mean that your version is still playing with stock units?)
The stock .xml has these two errors in it I think, so long ago that I started changing things throughout my version(s) that I can't recall now though.

I haven't actually run the scn yet, just opened the map in mapmaker, and the estab and scn in their editors. The Scn wouldn't open without fixing the Estab, in order to allow it to compile - I don't think it would have run already though without a compiled Estab to use.

[Chief Rudiger]

Hmmm, the could explain a few things.... am certainly not playing with stock estab.

Another thing to look into:

TT01 - Fix Loadsa Stuff

[Lieste]

I note that you use "Highway" supply type, but be aware this cannot be cut to the top level Base (even if "sat on" by an entire armoured division )
I routinely (and currently - it may have been fixed already?) use/replace these with a 'higher echelon HQ/Base' and an Airlanding SEP - which is a dump/arrival point requiring collection. This means that poor routeing or good manoeuvre from your opponent can cut you completely from off map supply. *You might want to nudge the SEP from the map-edge to an objective where the forces are smallish and limited, and the defender can overrun the edges to preserve the SEP..., or you could leave it so the supply can be cut, or use a road type where this doesn't apply at all...

I'd be tempted to give the Germans a 'formal' (if scratch) HQ for their counter-attack/support units, giving them a total of 2 Bn level HQs. It will give the AI more flexibility in planning, and will still allow a 'decent' coordinated defence and a local counter-attack.

With only a single 'forward HQ' it might tend to favour one or the other... penny packeting the other forces.

On the subject of supply: I also have added (for the Germans), a set of Bn Bases - which allow a bit more flexibility in deployment of a single regiment over a wide area - without it the AI feeds supply through the middle (enemy bit) of a bulge you are pinching out, leading to no supply and killed supply runs... with it, each Bn grouping can support a different flank of the same bulge (eg Pz supporting PzGren or vice versa) and still receive supplies from their 'rear' because of the attached Bn Supply column.

Doesn't so often apply to the Allies, as they have more of most stuff, and sometimes can commit a whole Rgt/Bde where the Germans would be delighted to see an entire Bn.

[Lieste]

Fairly simple as the Axis. Even with a 'major D1 attack' obtained by pushing the armour to arrive a bit later from the scn editor, the defenders had no trouble routing the attacks as they came. Losses at D3:

Axis 15/0/0, Allies 1071/0/14, with 0/8/1 units lost to fire/surrender/disbandment.

The Allies hadn't in fact attempted to build any bridges at all - all their armour was on the south bank. This might be better if the engineers and armour arrive a bit later, but together, alternatively, give bridges at start on D1, but delay the arrival of tanks till the bridge should be complete.

This might work a bit better already with the changes made but not released - the continuous routing was noticeable due to limited cover, and the retreat direction was frequently 'towards the guns'. Both of which make the attacker excessively vulnerable here.

Will try as attacker tomorrow, bit late here now to start over.

[Merv0728]

Have a look at www.kiltsrock.com/forum,there is a write up of the op there.
Also have you seen the book The Spirit of Angus by John McGregor.

Alan

[simovitch]

Chief Rudiger,

Looking at your maps on the 1st post I see some problems that you may want to check out. I assume it is a recompiled HTTR map. However, things have changed since HTTR with mixed-mode movement and the rivers and water elements will wipe out your road movement rates if the two elements are close together. You will either have to pull the roads away from the rivers (minor and major) and/or put some crossings in. You can check by using the pathing tools.

Reworking and checking and rechecking the HTTR maps for the BFTB expansion was a major time-consuming effort to get this accomplished.

[Chief Rudiger]

ORIGINAL: Lieste

I note that you use "Highway" supply type, but be aware this cannot be cut to the top level Base (even if "sat on" by an entire armoured division )
I routinely (and currently - it may have been fixed already?) use/replace these with a 'higher echelon HQ/Base' and an Airlanding SEP - which is a dump/arrival point requiring collection. This means that poor routeing or good manoeuvre from your opponent can cut you completely from off map supply. *You might want to nudge the SEP from the map-edge to an objective where the forces are smallish and limited, and the defender can overrun the edges to preserve the SEP..., or you could leave it so the supply can be cut, or use a road type where this doesn't apply at all...

I'd be tempted to give the Germans a 'formal' (if scratch) HQ for their counter-attack/support units, giving them a total of 2 Bn level HQs. It will give the AI more flexibility in planning, and will still allow a 'decent' coordinated defence and a local counter-attack.

With only a single 'forward HQ' it might tend to favour one or the other... penny packeting the other forces.

On the subject of supply: I also have added (for the Germans), a set of Bn Bases - which allow a bit more flexibility in deployment of a single regiment over a wide area - without it the AI feeds supply through the middle (enemy bit) of a bulge you are pinching out, leading to no supply and killed supply runs... with it, each Bn grouping can support a different flank of the same bulge (eg Pz supporting PzGren or vice versa) and still receive supplies from their 'rear' because of the attached Bn Supply column.

Doesn't so often apply to the Allies, as they have more of most stuff, and sometimes can commit a whole Rgt/Bde where the Germans would be delighted to see an entire Bn.

Thanks for all the feedback.

Re: SEP - so the "Highway" trucks are invinsible from the SEP to the top level base? I used the airdrop/landing type on my Merdjayoun Scenario, i think, as i was going to introduce the intermediate Bn base (yet abother link/bottleneck in the chain) with manpack/mule transport (i.e. trucks with very small transport capability) to stress the logistic aspects of fighting a campaign on a shoe string in a mountain range! This is one of the things i liked most about the third party Narvik scenarios - you had a limited number of troops to begin with and a big task at hand. In perpetual daylight attacks were something not to be undertaken lighty!

Still, in this scenario, considering its short length, i didn't pay any attention to the supply aspect. Also, the Axis aren't supposed to come south of the Canal and the Allies should be pushed to get anywhere near the North table edge in time to bother about starving the Germans out.

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Fairly simple as the Axis. Even with a 'major D1 attack' obtained by pushing the armour to arrive a bit later from the scn editor, the defenders had no trouble routing the attacks as they came. Losses at D3:

Axis 15/0/0, Allies 1071/0/14, with 0/8/1 units lost to fire/surrender/disbandment.

The Allies hadn't in fact attempted to build any bridges at all - all their armour was on the south bank. This might be better if the engineers and armour arrive a bit later, but together, alternatively, give bridges at start on D1, but delay the arrival of tanks till the bridge should be complete.

This might work a bit better already with the changes made but not released - the continuous routing was noticeable due to limited cover, and the retreat direction was frequently 'towards the guns'. Both of which make the attacker excessively vulnerable here.

Will try as attacker tomorrow, bit late here now to start over.

Have you ever actually seen the AI build a bridge.... i don't think i have...!

I will play about with the stats as you say.

ORIGINAL: Merv0728

Have a look at www.kiltsrock.com/forum,there is a write up of the op there.
Also have you seen the book The Spirit of Angus by John McGregor.

Alan

Will have a look at both - thanks!

ORIGINAL: simovitch

Chief Rudiger,

Looking at your maps on the 1st post I see some problems that you may want to check out. I assume it is a recompiled HTTR map. However, things have changed since HTTR with mixed-mode movement and the rivers and water elements will wipe out your road movement rates if the two elements are close together. You will either have to pull the roads away from the rivers (minor and major) and/or put some crossings in. You can check by using the pathing tools.

Reworking and checking and rechecking the HTTR maps for the BFTB expansion was a major time-consuming effort to get this accomplished.

This is a scratch built map, using the map series you gave me a link to recently. Didn't realise HTTR maps could be played in BFTB. I don't have that title - is this operation coverred?

Re: overlap - hadn't though about this but i supposed i'm asking for it with all the detail i've tried to cram into the map.

[Chief Rudiger]

Double Post

[Lieste]

Fiddled about a bit with this - looking at it from the German side...

Pushed the entire 5th Camerons and 2nd Seaforths across the Canal, deployed with low cohesion immediately in front of the canal.
The 5th Seaforths are in reserve at scenario start with the two ferries (or building bridges) allowing some access to the north.

The three armour Sdn are set as reinforcements 3 minutes later - this is to allow the AI to plan an infantry only assault, with the tanks dropping into reserve/support by fire. Some trouble with getting them committed later, so to improve this, I might give them their organic HQ, or attach them all to 5th Seaforth or the 152nd Brigade HQ? - This might also be due to the high-effort secure bridge tasks needed to kick-start the engineers - if I expire these early on D2 then the tanks should be freed. This would cause trouble with the last version, as the engineers were temporarily set to 'normal', but I'll see if the AI can use the static ones - they kept switching on/off on the first run through without the high/max effort secure bridges.

I've staggered the start times of the objectives so the AI pushes forward against the 'next' ones, but it seems to think there is not sufficient force to initially hit both villages together... instead concentrating on one at a time - although that could be because of fire/casualties caused by the defenders disrupting his actual plans.

I've added two low priority objectives on the dyke as well, which expire in the morning of D2, as the tanks should be almost ready to cross.

Starting locations for the Germans include some troops (two Coy of Grenadiers) pushed forward to the dyke where the roads cross it. This because the report states the canal and dyke were held, but not the villages. The AI or player can of course abandon these positions and pull back to the rear, but at the risk of being hit in the open while doing so, and with fatigue/less entrenchment.

I'd be tempted to remove the 12cm mortars from at start troops, adding them in response to the attack a few hours later... YMMV.

As far as terrain goes, the whole is far too open - there is no real obscuration of any of the terrain - the dykes that completely block sight in the report do nothing within the scenario, and the 'high ground' to the rear is not significant as the terrain is open/flat.

I would cut the terrain interval from 10m to much less - 2-4m? and explicitly include terrain height in the area of the canal/dyke at least to provide robust cover. The author indicates that 'an entire division' could have been deployed in the lee of the canal feature and the forces south of the canal wouldn't be any the wiser. Hyperbole perhaps, but still different from the totally 'flat' terrain depicted. (Yes, the dykes are present, and have elevation, but they seem not to block LOS in this version yet.)

[Chief Rudiger]

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Fiddled about a bit with this - looking at it from the German side...

Pushed the entire 5th Camerons and 2nd Seaforths across the Canal, deployed with low cohesion immediately in front of the canal.
The 5th Seaforths are in reserve at scenario start with the two ferries (or building bridges) allowing some access to the north.

The three armour Sdn are set as reinforcements 3 minutes later - this is to allow the AI to plan an infantry only assault, with the tanks dropping into reserve/support by fire. Some trouble with getting them committed later, so to improve this, I might give them their organic HQ, or attach them all to 5th Seaforth or the 152nd Brigade HQ? - This might also be due to the high-effort secure bridge tasks needed to kick-start the engineers - if I expire these early on D2 then the tanks should be freed. This would cause trouble with the last version, as the engineers were temporarily set to 'normal', but I'll see if the AI can use the static ones - they kept switching on/off on the first run through without the high/max effort secure bridges.

I've staggered the start times of the objectives so the AI pushes forward against the 'next' ones, but it seems to think there is not sufficient force to initially hit both villages together... instead concentrating on one at a time - although that could be because of fire/casualties caused by the defenders disrupting his actual plans.

I've added two low priority objectives on the dyke as well, which expire in the morning of D2, as the tanks should be almost ready to cross.

Starting locations for the Germans include some troops (two Coy of Grenadiers) pushed forward to the dyke where the roads cross it. This because the report states the canal and dyke were held, but not the villages. The AI or player can of course abandon these positions and pull back to the rear, but at the risk of being hit in the open while doing so, and with fatigue/less entrenchment.

I'd be tempted to remove the 12cm mortars from at start troops, adding them in response to the attack a few hours later... YMMV.

Seeing as this scenario is based on the notion that the Germans did contest the ground i didn't feel obliged to reproduce their deployment. It seems to me the village line is the better of the two lines as once turned the dyke sounds like a death trap.

Point taken about the 12cm mortar.

ORIGINAL: Lieste

As far as terrain goes, the whole is far too open - there is no real obscuration of any of the terrain - the dykes that completely block sight in the report do nothing within the scenario, and the 'high ground' to the rear is not significant as the terrain is open/flat.

I would cut the terrain interval from 10m to much less - 2-4m? and explicitly include terrain height in the area of the canal/dyke at least to provide robust cover. The author indicates that 'an entire division' could have been deployed in the lee of the canal feature and the forces south of the canal wouldn't be any the wiser. Hyperbole perhaps, but still different from the totally 'flat' terrain depicted. (Yes, the dykes are present, and have elevation, but they seem not to block LOS in this version yet.)

Hmm,

the dyke lines overlay 10m ridges that i painstaikingly drew on (Give me AutoCAD!) and in my version they do reduce LOS. Maybe i've zipped the wrong file.

Can you send me your changes to the objectives - this the design part i hate.

[Lieste]

Still tweaking. I think the static engineers are why you aren't seeing bridges - possibly the AI is wanting to swap them over, and they never get 'there'. I saw similar problems (ie a long delay before starting), when both engineers were 'live' but the initial fuel level was low enough to prevent movement. Both then built the same crossing, so the finish time was normal-ish.

Well, yep, I see the 10m height on the dykes.. problem is the ground 'nearby' is 9m, rather than ~2-4m so the dyke has no LOS effect. You'd need to have 'enough' contours to fix the low ground 'low' and still have prominence for these 'major' terrain features. This means at least 3. 1 'low' 1 'mid' and 1 'high' - to get the full prominence might even need 2 'mid' layers, but might be uneccesary

Anyways. The last AI attack kicked me out of the villages (more-or-less) and had cut supply to most of my forces, so it is definitely heading in the right direction. Losses are still rather one-sided ~700/60 and objectives are giving ~87/0 but an improved AI attack certainly
I could hold him where I had forces, but not prevent him slipping through/by, and the reserves were committed and used up just stemming the tide. Another 5-6 hours and I would have been in severe trouble. Without the 12cm tubes at the start, he would have probably reached the village line at dawn, rather than dusk of D2, but I would have probably formed a better defensive line in the village, rather than holding at the tip of the Drunen outskirts and Sempke.