USSR Strategies for the Middle East

[rkr1958]

I started this thread to discuss USSR strategies for conquering Persia and Iraq in 1940 while still neutral. I also want to consider axis counter strategies to a neutral USSR doing such. I hope to draw on the vast experience of better players than me, which is by far the vast majority of you, to stimulate discussion and flesh out all this.

In addition to my game with Pat I also try to keep a solo game going. I like to use these (solo) games to try out different strategies and tactics. In February of next year (2017) it will be three years since I made the best wargame (board or computer) purchase of my life. That's when I bought MWiF, not ever owning or playing WiF. Knowing next to nothing about (M)WiF I started my MWiF gaming journey mid-February 2014.

In my current game with Pat and in this recently started solo game I'm unflatteringly reminded that even after 3-years of playing MWiF that I'm still a novice when it comes to solid strategic play. One serious obstacle that I believe I face compared to those of you who own and cut your teeth on the cardboard and paper version of this game is that it's nigh impossible to move a handful of units around to analyze and try out various strategies in smaller theaters such as the Middle East. Well, that was true for me until now. See, I've figured out how to edit a game file and move units around the map, which gives me the ability to explore and test out a variety of plays.

The screen cap below if from my current solo game, which I'm abandoning, but am now using as a vehicle to discuss Soviet Middle Eastern and axis counter strategies. This screen cap is from Mar/Apr 1940 and shows the disposition of Soviet forces just before they declared war on Persia. I soon learned how horribly bad this disposition was.

[rkr1958]

Let me continue with my tale of bad play. The Soviets had four bombers in range of Tehran with tactical factors 3, 3, 3 and 2. However, one of the 3-bombers was at extended range so could only be attacking with 1.5, rounded up to 2, factors. Another disadvantage of never owning or playing the cardboard and paper version is that I've never had to learn all the rules. I've just let the computer handle that for me.

One "rule" that's important that I didn't know until going through all this was that the number of attacking ground support air factors applied is limited to the total of the (modified) land combat attack factors. So, to compound me idiot deployment, I decide to save all those tactical factors, which are double during the surprise impulse, for ground support. Well, that was a mistake since I could only get 6 USSR ground factors adjacent to Tehran, which was my most grievous error. That is, not positioning two corps and a division with 4-movement in hex where I have Zhukov along with a Soviet fighter. Why I put the fighter these I don't know. But because that was a swamp hex I had to keep Zhukov there until I could rebase the fighter or it see eliminate due to "overstacking" if Zhukov moved. And, I haven't even mentioned the other units on the west shore of the Caspian Sea. All I can say is that having all these units there reinforce the idiocy of this disposition.

[rkr1958]

I show the odds for two land combat attacks against Tehran. The first (or top) one shows the odds for the attack against an organize defender. In my game, I decided not to attack at these odds which turned out to be a mistake. The weather turned and Persia survived the turn. Even with all these mistakes, at +7 the lone defender would have been destroyed with a roll of 7 or higher. The chance of that was 85%. The chance of the attacker surviving the attack and eliminating the defender was 31%. All I focused on was the 31% of successfully taking Tehran. What I didn't consider was that if I carried out the attack but failed to take Tehran but eliminated the defender that even if Persia survived the turn that I would only be facing one defender next turn instead of the two that I eventually faced and had to deal with.

The second (or bottom) land combat assumes that I did know that ground support was limited to the number of (modified) attack factors, which is 6 in this case, and that I used the other air units to successfully disorganize the defender. Let's consider this case for the moment.

If you recall, I had four bombers with tactical factors of 3, 3, 1.5 (3), 2 within range of Tehran. Since this was the surprise impulse, the maximum ground support was obtained with only one 3-bomber (i.e, 3 x 2 = 6 ground support factors). This left 3, 1.5 (rounded to 2) and 2 bomber for a ground strike against the Tehran defender. If all three bombers were used, owing to the surprise impulse, the chance for disorganizing the defender is equal to (1 - 0.7*0.7*0.8*0.8*0.8*0.8) x 100% = (1 - 0.2007) x 100% = 79.93%. So, very nearly a 4 out of 5 chance to disorganize the defender if the three bombers were used.

Even with one land unit attacking, the odds of eliminating a disorganized defender was 94% and the odds of eliminating the defender with the lone attacker surviving to take Tehran was 45%.

So even with this boneheaded deployment of Soviets forces that limited the attack to a single ground unit I should have attacked but didn't. I decide to wait and was punished by poor weather that saved Persia for this turn.

It was at this point I decide to abandon my solo game and use my game editing skills to try out different setups for comment and improvement.

[rkr1958]

So I edited my solo game file to come up with my first cut at the minimum to ensure the capture of Tehran of the surprise impulse. Now this setup doesn't include any forces that would be needed to conduct an invasion of Iraq. Certainty something I want to consider but later and hopefully with the help of more experienced players.

[rkr1958]

This setup produced a land combat composed of 12 ground factors and 12 ground support air factors, which resulted in a +15 attack. An attack that guarantees Tehran will will be captured. The 12 ground support air factors comes from 2 of the 4 air units available.

If one wished, the +15 attack could be improved to +17, which reduces the chance of losing units, by disorganizing the defender. With a 2 and 3 factor bombers left the chance of disorganizing the defender is: (1 - 0.7*0.7*0.8*0.8) x 100% = 68.64% or nearly 7 in 10. While the ground strike to disorganize the defender uses up two more Soviet air units, it does reduce the chance of losing units from 14 to 7%. Whether or not that's worth using the two additional bombers depends of if they could be used for other things (such as the invasion of Iraq).

[rkr1958]

As in my solo game, the next impulse with this minimal setup saw the weather go from fine to storm basically shutting down all operations in Iraq. A strong reason for taking Tehran on the surprise impulse.

[rkr1958]

So in gaming all this one thing that occurred to me was an axis counter strategy where Persian was aligned by Japan. As Japan, wouldn't it be nice to let the USSR invade Persian but you get all their oil. So the Japanese response I scripted was to position three division and one marine corps that could reach the Persian Gulf on the axis impulse after the Soviet invasion.

I'm playing with limited oversea supply so I need a convoy/transport chain from the Persian Gulf back to a Japanese supply source. My Japanese setup assumes an intent to surprise the Soviet player so CP points are NOT pre-position in the Bay of Bengal or Arabian Seas as not to "tip off" the Soviet player to Japanese intervention.

[rkr1958]

So my first look at this possible Japanese (axis) counterstrategy was for Japan to take a naval which allowed the movement of the intervention force into the Persia Gulf and ...

[rkr1958]

the established of a supply line back from the Persian Gulf through the Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal and then to a Japanese supply source.

[rkr1958]

This screen shot shows Japanese forces on the next axis impulse in which they took a land. Even with the turn continuing, they still only occupy 2 of the 3 oil points.

The problem with the naval followed by a land was that Japanese land forces couldn't disembark until the next axis impulse. And if the turn ended due to a combination of weather or mid to late turn invasion of by the Soviets of Persian then this force could be stuck at sea in the Persia Gulf when the turn end. However, if that happened they could return to base in BandarShapur and Bushehr but would only control 1 of the 3 oil points. I assume this correct?

[rkr1958]

So I think a better strategy than taking a naval followed by a land is for the Japanese to take two combines in a row (assuming the turn last for two more axis impulses after the invasion).

This cap shows the Japanese forces in Persian Gulf after the two naval moves of the first combine.

[rkr1958]

The combine allows for three units to disembark on the first axis impulse. Note that the Japanese control 2 of the 3 oil points on the first axis impulse after the Soviet invasion.

The downside is that the Japanese with the combine doesn't have the naval moves to establish overseas supply assuming you're playing with that optional rule and you haven't pre-positioned CPs in the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal.

[rkr1958]

However the Japanese if the axis get a second impulse can use the two naval moves of their next combine to establish that supply line and ...

[rkr1958]

make the necessary land moves and disembarks to occupy all three oil points and vital port of Bandar Shapur.

What do you think about all this?

[Orm]

What do you think about all this?

I am thinking that if the premise for this thread is that USSR is neutral? Then Japan is just wasting energy if USSR captures Teheran the first turn.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Orm

What do you think about all this?

I am thinking that if the premise for this thread is that USSR is neutral? Then Japan is just wasting energy if USSR captures Teheran the first turn.

Wouldn't Japan keep what they occupy on the same turn that a neutral USSR invaded Persian?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: Orm

What do you think about all this?

I am thinking that if the premise for this thread is that USSR is neutral? Then Japan is just wasting energy if USSR captures Teheran the first turn.

Wouldn't Japan keep what they occupy on the same turn that a neutral USSR invaded Persian?

No. Or Japan would keep it until Persia is conquered. After conquest, Japan only keeps control of it if they are at war with Japan.

Here is the key rule sentence.

13.7.1 Conquest
.....
All units from the conquered side in that country are now moved to the nearest friendly hex outside the
country that they may stack in, unless they are at war with the conqueror.

[Orm]

It is a very interesting gambit for Japan to occupy the Persian oil but Japan must be prepared to DOW USSR.

[Centuur]

Yes, that's the trick here. That's the reason why a Japanese force coming to the "aid" of the Persians should be large enough to hold the oil fields. One corps and a couple of division won't do the trick. Japan needs three - four corps and an HQ there to keep the Soviets from driving them back into the sea...

Also, that's the reason why the USSR should at least deploy in more troops than the 12 factors which you used to take Teheran. An HQ and 2-3 good corps should be added to make sure that in case of a Japanese intervention, the Red Army can react to the Japanese force in Persia.

It all depends on what assets do the Japanese have available in case of a Soviet attack on Persia. Where are the Japanese HQ's? Can they attack Vladivostok in the surprise impulse or are they heavily involved in China? And very important: how far are you in the current turn?
The Axis wants a lot of impulses in early war. Now, for the USSR to attack Persia, it needs 1 impulse with fine weather in the Med. It is also best to attack late in the turn (high impulse number), since if the turn ends directly after Teheran gets taken, means that the end of the Japanese aggression towards the USSR.

Usually, one can conclude that the Japanese are either waiting for something to happen against Persia by the USSR (which means that there are corps sitting in ports doing nothing against the Chinese, which is perfectly allright where the USSR are concerned) or they cannot mess around in Persia in force (which is also perfectly allright where the USSR are concerned). And if STAVKA has a couple of nice units at the Manchurian border, that might means that a Japanese DoW starts a nasty war in the far east, letting the Chinese get of the hook....

[brian brian]

Well, against the "improved" Russian set-up approaching Teheran only from the east, the Persians could gamble on the turn-ending as well in some situations. They don't absolutely have to set-up in Teheran - if they set up in the mountain hex one hex to the east, the Russians would need 3 impulses to take Teheran at all. This also might see a Japanese land unit reach Teheran via rail, possibly with shaky, temporary supply by sending Japanese TRS to the sea zones off India.

Or if the Russian air deployments are a touch lazy with bombers only in range of Teheran mostly, the Persians can risk some reduced surprise impulse Ground Strikes by setting up a bit to the south and then occupy the mountain hex to the NE of Teheran. Or simply set up there and force the Russians to roll well enough to not flip all of the surviving attackers (granted, with full doubled air on the surprise impulse - but with the Persian CAV also doubled on defense for a straight 4:1 / +8, unless a Ground Strike also went through).



In some Grand Strategic game situations, as the Japanese I pretty much want the Russians to DOW Persia, which can yield a lot more goodies for the Japanese than grinding through the Chinese only. There is a lot to be said for the Russians not attacking Persia at all. But if they do, the historical option of a combined invasion with the CW can't be discounted either, if the Japanese are well positioned for intervention. And if the battle is really going to be about the oil, the Russians can build a Parachute unit, or two.