Training Battles (for G40 Beginners)


  • Just a quick note to say that I’ll be away all day Friday, so I’ll return to this discussion sometime over the weekend when I get a chance.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    @CWO:

    Or is it to provide a simple demonstration of the A&A combat system, with the chosen battles mainly just providing a background setting for purposes of flavour and colour?

    Exactly  :-D

    I think it would be too tall an order to ask for much beyond that, since as you rightly point out A&A is essentially a strategy game, and particularly great at simulating the tactical. Still, I think we could get some reasonably historical but still fun battles to play out.

    Oh that is a cool idea Baron! I suppose initially I was envisioning battle set ups that could be run independently of the game map, but it might be cool to create a more advanced tier of Training battle that used the map as well for concepts like deadzones. I dig it


  • @Black_Elk:

    @CWO:

    Or is it to provide a simple demonstration of the A&A combat system, with the chosen battles mainly just providing a background setting for purposes of flavour and colour?Â

    ExactlyÂ

    I think it would be too tall an order to ask for much beyond that, since as you rightly point out A&A is essentially a strategy game, and particularly great at simulating the tactical. Still, I think we could get some reasonably historical but still fun battles to play out.

    This is good to hear because it makes the task a lot easier.  Modeling actual battles accurately would have been a real “witch with a capital B”.  Using historic battles simply as the background context of a small-scale, tightly focused training exercise, and doing so just for the purpose of firing up the imagination and enthusiam of the students, sounds both fun and practical.

    So with this being established, the next thing I’d recommend would be for you to start by listing all the exercise types you want to conduct, and to then ask the folks here to suggest battles that would provide the best context for those exercises.  (I think this would be preferable to going in the opposite direction, meaning the concept of starting out with a list of battles and then devising exercises to fit them.)  You’ll probably get several battle suggestions for each exercise type, and it would then be up to you to decide which one you’d prefer as your background story for each exercise.  For each final choice, you (or someone else) could write the little historical blurb (just a couple of paragraphs should do) that would explain to the students the general background situation of the exercise.  You’d then follow this by the specifics of the student tasks: the Order of Battle on each side (number and types of forces deployed), the capabilities of each unit (attack / defense / movement values + special abilities), their starting positions on the map, their objectives and victory conditions, and the details of how the dice and other mechanics function.  You’d also indicate how mcuh each unit costs – not because any units will be purchased (since they won’t be in such an exercise), but just so that the players will know how much each unit is worth (which may affect their decisions about what units to commit to battle at which locations).

    For starters, I’ll think about these three battle types that you mentioned…

    Infantry vs Infantry
    Tanks vs Infantry
    Tanks and Infantry vs Infantry.

    …and see what might be good WWII battle choices.


  • Here are some initial suggestions:

    Infantry vs Infantry

    • Stalingrad, Autumn 1942
      The battles inside the city from September to November were heavily based on the use of infantry (though in a house-to-house street-fighting environment, an aspect which the training exercise shouldn’t try to replicate)

    Tanks vs Infantry

    • Kursk (just one small part of it), July 1943
      Lots of actions to choose from; Wittmann would be a good source for precise suggestions, but off the top of my head I’d suggest focussing on part of Model’s 9th Army attack against part of Rokossovsky’s Central Front

    Tanks and Infantry vs Infantry

    • The Mortain counter-offensive (a.k.a. Operation Luttich), August 1944
      5 German divisions (3 Panzer, 2 infantry) vs. 5 Allied (primarily US) infantry divisions
  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    @CWO:

    Here are some initial suggestions:

    Infantry vs Infantry

    • Stalingrad, Autumn 1942
      The battles inside the city from September to November were heavily based on the use of infantry (though in a house-to-house street-fighting environment, an aspect which the training exercise shouldn’t try to replicate)

    Tanks vs Infantry

    • Kursk (just one small part of it), July 1943
      Lots of actions to choose from; Wittmann would be a good source for precise suggestions, but off the top of my head I’d suggest focussing on part of Model’s 9th Army attack against part of Rokossovsky’s Central Front

    Tanks and Infantry vs Infantry

    • The Mortain counter-offensive (a.k.a. Operation Luttich), August 1944
      5 German divisions (3 Panzer, 2 infantry) vs. 5 Allied (primarily US) infantry divisions

    I love it! This basically exactly where I was driving with this. Cool trainers with a simple backdrop like the ones you just suggested for the Infantry and the Tanks.

    The think the next step would be artillery and mech. Combined with those two.

    Then perhaps Air vs Air.

    Fighters vs Fighters
    Fighters and Tactical bombers vs Fighters Tactical bombers.
    Any of these with strategic bombers added in on attack or defense.

    Air and Ground vs Air and Ground with aa guns.

    Then introduce Naval

    Destroyers vs destroyers, or destroyers vs cruisers
    Subs vs destroyers or cruisers
    Destroyers vs subs

    Then get the air and the capital ships into it

    Battleships vs destroyers or cruisers
    Fighters or Tac Bombers vs Battleships

    Carriers and air vs destroyers or cruisers or battleships
    Carriers and air vs Carriers and Air

    Any instances of subs fighting capital ships
    Or any battles to explain the complex interaction between subs destroyers and air (I expect this would probably be the most challenging to lay out from the history.) But perhaps you could design the battle to represent a “campaign” of a few battles combined as if a single engagement (for the purposes of designing a training combat scenerio. ) I think the Air vs Naval could potentially be very informative for players to see in operation, because that plays a large part in the game.


  • Here are some ideas for the next batch.  If I come up with additional ideas later, I’ll post those too, but the ones below would probably work all right.  Some I’ve left blank (or filled in only with vague suggestions) because I can’t think of any historical examples which fit precisely that combination, or because the combination seems problematic to me.

    Artillery and Mechanized Infantry combined with Infantry and the Tanks

    • The Ardennes Offensive, May 1940
      An effective combined-arms campaign, notably in the phase which saw the Germans crossing the Meuse.

    Fighters vs Fighters

    • Battle of Britain, Summer-Autumn 1940
      A classic dogfighting example.  The exercise’s descriptive paragraph should note that these fighter-versus-fighter actions didn’t exist in isolation; their context was the German bombing campaign against Britain.  As I recall, the RAF’s Hurricanes would typically go for the German bombers, while the higher-performance Spitfires would tackle the escorting German fighters.

    Fighters and Tactical bombers vs Fighters and Tactical bombers

    • [Specifics to be determined]
      If this said “Fighters vs Fighters and Tactical bombers” the answer would be easy: the early phases of the Battle of Britain in which the Luftwaffe was foolish enough to include Stukas in its attacking formations.  Stukas had been very effective in Poland and in the 1940 campaigns in the Low Countries and France, where they operated at short ranges from their bases and had good protection from friendly fighters.  Over Britain, however, where these factors no longer applied, their slow speed and lack of maneuverability caught up with them: they got slaughtered by the RAF and were soon withdrawn from action.  For an actual “Fighters and Tactical bombers vs Fighters and Tactical bombers” scenario, the best bet would be a battle somewhere on the Eastern Front (I can’t think of a specific one) in which the Russian Stumkovik and the cannon-armed tankbuster version of the Stuka were both in use.  The scenario could be semi-fictitious in nature, unless someone here can think of a specific battle that actually used this comibation of forces.

    Fighters and/or Tactical bombers with strategic bombers added in on attack or defense

    • [Specifics to be determined]
      If you take out the Tac bomber component, any of the Mustang-escorted American daylight bombing raids against Germany would work nicely.

    Air and Ground vs Air and Ground with AA guns

    • [Blank for now]
      I can’t think of any historical examples of such a combination, which frankly seems a bit improbable.  Air versus Air and AA guns would be easy to portray by using the British night-time bombing campaign against Germany, with the German defenses consisting of night-fighters and FLAK guns.

    Destroyers vs destroyers, or destroyers vs cruisers

    • The Channel Dash (Operation Cerberus), February 1942
      The German battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen made a daring and successful dash from Brest to Germany, right through the English Channel.  This feat profoundly mortified Great Britain, which had been very disorganized in its response to the situation.  One of the piecemeal actions taken by the Royal Navy was an attack againt the German ships using six destroyers and three destroyer escorts.  It failed.

    Subs vs destroyers or cruisers

    • [Specifics to be determined]
      Probably the best option would be the US submarine campaign against Japan in the Pacific.  I can’t think of a specific example at the moment.

    Destroyers vs subs

    • [Specifics to be determined]
      The Battle of the Atlantic would be the best choice for illustrating this.  It’s too bad the movie The Enemy Below is fictional because it depicts a great destroyer/U-boat one-on-one duel.

    Battleships vs destroyers or cruisers

    • The Battle off Samar [note that it’s “off”, not “of”], October 1944
      Halsey having been lured to the north by a Japanese decoy formation, Admiral Kurita’s force of 4 battleships (including the superbattleship Yamato), 6 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers and 11 destroyers was able to sail unopposed towards the approaches of Leyte Gulf, where the American invasion of the Philippines was under way.  The area was defended only by a small American task unit, Taffy 3, commanded by Admiral Sprague and consisting merely of 6 escort carriers, 3 destroyers and 4 destroyer escorts.  Hopelessly outmatched and caught completely by surprise, the Americans nevertheless threw themselves against the superior Japanese forces with such gutsiness that Kurita withdrew, on the assumption that powerful US reinforcements had to be nearby.  The A&A training exercise could focus on the destroyer-versus-battleship aspects of this engagement.

    Carriers and air vs destroyers or cruisers or battleships

    • Ark Royal vs Bismarck, May 1941
      After sinking the Hood and crippling Prince of Wales, Admiral Lutjens had detached Prinz Eugen from Bismarck and was proceeding alone towards France.  Admiral Tovey, pursuing far behind aboard King George V, had no hope of catching Bismarck unless she could be slowed or stopped.  The carrier Ark Royal, heading in Bismarck’s direction from Gibraltar, launched two air strikes against the German battleship and, on the second attempt, miraculously hit her major weak spot, her rudder, hopelessly jamming it and causing Bismark to lose the ability to steer.

    Carriers and air vs Carriers and Air

    • Midway, June 1942
      Two good options to choose from here, depending on which specific attack (US versus Japan or Japan versus US) you’d like to model.  There was the US dive bomber strike which crippled three of Nagumos’ four carriers in a few minutes; note that the Japanese fighter combat air patrol was absent at that moment (it had been pulled down low by the earlier American torpedo bomber attack, so it wasn’t at its patrol altitude when the dive-bombers showed up).  The Japanese launched a couple of strikes against the Yorktown, which both damaged her, but I can’t recall if the Japanese planes had to tangle with any defending US fighters in the process.

    Any instances of subs fighting capital ships

    • [Specifics to be determined]
      See this thread for examples: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34274.0
      Note that this depends on what you consider to be a “capital ship”.  The conservative definition (in WWII terms) is limited to battleships and battlecruisers; the broader definition includes carriers.  Ironically, Shinano, which was sunk by a US sub, was a battleship that had been converted into a carrier midway through its construction, so it kind of straddles both categories.

    Or any battles to explain the complex interaction between subs destroyers and air (I expect this would probably be the most challenging to lay out from the history.)

    • [Specifics to be determined]
      I’d argue that “explaining the complex interaction between subs destroyers and air” is beyond the scope of what a small-scale A&A training exercise can accomplish, at least in any sort of detail.  Your best bet for a simple exercise involving those units would be to set it in the Battle of the Atlantic, with an Allied convoy as the prize, German U-boats as the attackers, Allied destroyers as the surface defenders, and the air component s being supplied on the Allied side by escort carriers and by shore-based Liberators and on the German side by FW-200C Condors.  The scenario could be semi-fictitious in nature, unless someone here can think of a specific battle that actually used this combination of forces.

  • Here’s a possible format for the kind of short historical blurb that could be included at the beginning of each training exercise document.  I picked the Air-vs-Air exercise as an example.  I didn’t include a title, nor any of the specifics of the exercise (the order of battle, the exercise victory conditions and so forth) because those all depend on what Black Elk specifically has in mind, so those elements would best be handled by him.

    –---------------------

    Britain, August 1940.  In the skies over southeastern England, the Battle of Britain has reached its critical phase.  The Luftwaffe, seeking to achieve the air superiority which Germany must have in order to launch a successful amphibious invasion of the British Isles, is sending its planes to attack the vitally important airfields of the Royal Air Force.  The goal of the Heinkel, Dornier and Junkers bombers is to knock out of action the RAF Fighter Command squadrons which have been stubbornly defending Britain’s airspace since July.  Fighter Command’s meager resources are being stretched to the limit to protect the indispensable aerodromes, and casualties on both sides are mounting rapidly.

    Alerted by radar that large enemy formations have taken off from France and are heading westward across the English Channel, RAF Hurricane and Spitfire fighters scramble into action.  The Hurricanes will have the job of shooting down the Luftwaffe bombers.  The high-performance Spitfires will be responsible for tackling the German fighter planes which are escorting the bombers.  The Spitfire pilots know they will be facing one of German’s most effective fighters, the fast-climbing and powerfully-armed Messerschmitt Bf 109.  In the dogfights that will result, the pilots on both sides will have to use all of their skills and the full capabilities of their machines to emerge victorious.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    This is fantastic!  Seriously,  I love it!  I’m going to put this to use in my next multi.  Even for seasoned vets, I think these trainers with the historical blurbs would make for excellent warm ups and refresher (especially for people coming to the newer games like 1942.2 or Global from the older games like Revised or Classic.

    Yeah I can see the difficulty with the tactical bombers. The trick is that with the unit interactions laid out in the rule book Tac Bombers get that bonus +1 to attack when paired with fighters or tanks if that unit interaction was to be demonstrated perhaps a focus on tanks might be easier rather than the fighters. But for the Air on Air I love the Battle of Britain idea with the Stuckas getting reamed hehe. To show how the fighter might boost a Tac bomber I suppose the idea of a vague scenerio in the east would work. I quick sample if needed, but so far I love the battles you’ve laid out. I can already tell this is going to be great fun for my players.

    The example above is great! Perfectly suited

    Once the blurbs are drafted I will totally type these out on “trainer cards” and suggestions with unit match ups for each. So glorious!

    Thanks for always being Johnny on the spot with the historical breakdowns man! These are perfect
    :-D


  • @Black_Elk:

    The example above is great! Perfectly suited
    Once the blurbs are drafted I will totally type these out on “trainer cards” and suggestions with unit match ups for each. So glorious!
    Thanks for always being Johnny on the spot with the historical breakdowns man! These are perfect

    Glad you liked 'em.  Looking forward to seeing your trainer cards if you could post a couple of sample pictures here when you’ve completed a few cards.

  • 2024 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17

    Excellent examples by CWO Marc here. I have one additional suggestion: for “Air and Ground vs Air and Ground with AA guns”, I’m thinking of the Battle of Berlin. The German “Flakturme” definitely played a role in that battle, although they of course also shot at land units, which doesn’t quite match A&A. And while I thought that the Luftwaffe was virtually nonexistent at the time, Wikipedia still mentions more than 2,000 German planes involved in the battle.
    The concept of “defending the capital” would nicely match a characteristic situation where such forces meet on the A&A board.


  • I am surprised at the figure of 2000 planes. I thought aviation fuel was a problem and with all the Russian planes in the air, I’d be astounded if they had many successes.
    I have a book on the last year of the Luftwaffe; might see if I can find any evidence to back up that figure.

  • 2024 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17

    @wittmann:

    I am surprised at the figure of 2000 planes. I thought aviation fuel was a problem and with all the Russian planes in the air, I’d be astounded if they had many successes.
    I have a book on the last year of the Luftwaffe; might see if I can find any evidence to back up that figure.

    I was equally surprised, and now that I check the German Wikipedia page, they mention “more than 100 planes”, which more closely matches my perception of the situation. Your book may provide us with some clarity in the matter.


  • At a quick glance: LF6 (in the East) had 1524 serviceable aircraft on 9-4-45.
    Only 20 Bombers! Were 641 Fts and 533 Tacs.
    The reasons the numbers were so high are: planes held in storage parks
    For immediate replacement of losses and the shortage of fuel for the piston engined planes. Many sat out the war well defended, camouflaged and dispersed in blast pens.

    I have not been able to see more than a hundred sorties per day.
    The Russians had 7000 planes for the Berlin 16th April battle.
    I did see that on the 7th April 59 ME262 sorties were flown (the highest number) from Jagdverband 44, Galland’s command.

    It is a good book: Alfred Price’s The Last Year of the Luftwaffe.

  • 2024 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17

    Thanks, Wittmann.
    Anyway, the Germans still had some planes left, so the Battle of Berlin might work as an example of “Air and Ground vs Air and Ground with AA guns”.


  • I think if you want to refight some historical battles with the help of A&A you should alter a few very basic A&A-rules!

    For example the Battle of Britain (as mentioned before):
    The German luftwaffe looked much stronger than the RAF, but that was only on paper. A&A represents this paper-war, but fails to give a more accurate representation of such battles.

    Don’t look too much into the below numbers, as these vary quite a bit in literature. The tactical considerations are much more important.
    At the start of the battle, the luftwaffe had ~3000 aircraft available (total of fighters and bombers), but ‘only’ ~1250 pilots to fly them.
    RAF’s fighter command could only muster ~700 servicable FTR (and ~9000 pilots to fly them), so on paper they were outnumbered on equipment only. And RAF bombers are not even included in this picture.
    The real thing was different Ofc. The German FTR could not escort their TAC/STR all the way to the targets (not even if based in Holland), pitting them against fighter command defenseless. Really, bombers are no match for fighters and would definately never ‘hit on the same roll of the dice’ as in A&A. This easily explains why the Luftwaffe suffered much more losses than the RAF. The battles were mainly (but not only) FTRs (RAF) versus Bombers (Luftwaffe).
    To top it off, the Luftwaffe was fighting above enemy soil, so a downed German pilot would not fight another battle but became a POW. Therefore, Germany could increase it’s available pilot pool only to ~1600 over the course of roughly a year.
    Since ‘The Few’ started the battle with ~9000 pilots (of which only ~3000 were assigned to rotational duty) I think it is needless to mention the increase of the British fighter pilots, but as the wiki page hilariously states: “If Fighter Command were ‘the few’, the German fighter pilots were fewer”.
    And of course the Brits were clever enough to produce more aircraft than they lost, so the odds for the luftwaffe became worse by the day.

    With careful consideration this can be translated into a playable battle.
    Brainstorm:
    I think in short it comes down to Germany throwing unescorted bombers into Britain, hoping to clear some through against the RAF fighters.  FTR-ranges should be 3, not 4; FTR should hit much better during dogfights (like rolling @ 3 or below) and dogfights should also take place before land and naval battles (even if the result of scrambling) if the defender so desires. So not only before an air raid. The number of aircraft that can scramble should be greatly increased (Dowding system). Also during dogfights, the defender designates the opposing class airlosses (being bomber or fighter) and intercepting FTR can take part in both the dogfight and the following land/naval battle (as they defend friendly territory/coastal waters and have much better and quicker reaction times than the attacker). Escorting FTR cannot, but attacking Bombers can. Attacker may split its FTR-force into escorts and ‘FTR-bombers’. A FTR-bomber shoots @ 1 during dogfights and is in all respects a bomber for this purpose, but it is allowed to fight the following land/naval battle if it survives (rolling @3 as normal).

    Set-up the European map, but only everything from Berlin + Malta and to the west and north of it and not Africa. Income of Germany would be 25 IPCs turn 1 and turn 2 and nothing after that. UK: 20 per turn, Italy:none, USA: 35 pre-war, 60 at war (turn 3). Germany will receive 19 IPCs from capturing france, of course.
    Rationale: More German income would invite Russia into Berlin and the eastfront is out of the scenario. Italy and the UK are assumed to fight over Africa, hence the drain of their income.

    Now go wild on Sea-Lion dreams. The axis win if they can capture and hold London for 2 consecutive turns and the allies win if the axis have not won at the start of turn 6.

    If you want to add more complexity even, you could add an available pilot pool. Planes shot down over enemy territory/seas reduce its number by 1 per plane but if shot down over friendly territories/coast nothing happens. A major Power cannot have more aircraft on the map than it has available pilots. You 'll need to experiment a bit with available pilots for every nation ofc. (and the rate at which it increases every turn), but it is obvious that the axis are in desparate need of pilots and the allies are not.

    Please remember this is only a brainstorm and may be unplayable but if nothing else, it could serve as an idea for a scenario set-up.
    Furthermore this should be a more historical accurate representation, but hmmm, more challenging for the axis to win  :-D. So you should balance it for your personal purposes (represent a more historical battle, or giving each side a roughly equal chance to win). Good luck!

  • '17 '16

    If someone really want to play a F2F G40 with a more historically based SBR, which works statistically there is 2 better ways at least than all planes @1:

    Whether giving Fighters @1 First Strike vs (StB and TcB) Bombers @1.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34118.msg1314303#msg1314303

    Or only gives Fighters @1 and Strategic Bomber @0  (TcB @0?, not defined)
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34227.msg1317357#msg1317357

    This can be also a third one:
    Fighter @1 First Strike
    Tactical Bomber @1 Regular
    Strategic Bomber @0

    Anything higher than @1 will probably shift the balance, one way or the other, IMO.

    Probably the second and the third method will better depict any dogfight over Britain.

  • 2024 2023 '22

    @der-kuenstler

    I agree!

    12 interesting battles (a German land unit represent a division and a Soviet land unit two divisions, a Soviet tank corps is actually a division, and all naval battles include the actual numbers of ships fought):

    Battle Of Prokhoshova: One of the biggest tank to tank battles of the war, it was one of the biggest and most publicised German successes in the Battle Of Kursk, which was fought in summer 1943.

    Soviet units (on the attack): 3 tanks, 2 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 artillery

    German units (on the defence): 3 tanks, 1 tactical bomber, 2 fighters

    First Naval Battle Of Guandacanal: The First Naval Battle Of Guandacanal was a final Japanese attempt to win the Guandacanal campaign. Set at night, both sides had a hard time spotting each other, resulting in many near collisions and playing well into the Japanese advantage of night fighting. Despite this, one Japanese battleship was sunk, the first of the war.

    Japanese units (on the attack): 2 battleships, 1 cruiser, 11 destroyers

    American units (on the defence): 5 cruisers, 8 destroyers

    Formosa Air Battle: After the losses at the Battle Of The Philippine Sea, Japan had enough aircraft and ships for one final, decisive battle. Whilst this would culminate in a the Battle Of Leyte Gulf, Japan was unsure where the Allies would attack. As a result, when the Allies began launching carrier based air raids on Formosa, Japan used up the last reserves in this air battle, ensuring that when the Allies landed in the Philippines later that year, Japan would have little air cover or opposition.

    Japanese units (on the attack): 7 fighters, 7 tactical bombers

    American units (on the defence): 6 battleships, 15 cruisers, 57 destroyers, 10 aircraft carriers, 11 fighters, 11 tactical bombers

    Battle Of Moscow: After pushing though Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Estonia, Lativa, besieging Leningrad, and entering Russia and conquering Smolensk, the German army stood near Moscow. With the striking power of three panzer armies, the Soviets mobilised all reserves and Siberian divisions to defend the capital-in the end, the bitter cold was too much for the Germans and the Soviets launched a massive offensive, undoing most German gains during the battle.

    German forces (on the attack): 47 infantry, 9 mechanised infantry, 14 tanks, 3 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 24 artillery

    Soviet forces (on the defence): 43 infantry, 6 mechanised infantry, 3 tanks, 3 fighters, 1 tactical bomber, 14 artillery

    Battle Of Okinawa: As the Allies closed in on Japan and defeated the garrison on Iwo Jima, the final obstacle to the mainland was Okinawa. The last big battle of the war, Japan was determined to make a final last stand on the island, and exert their most supreme efforts short of the home islands.

    Note: Each American and Japanese division is a single piece, whilst every transport unit equals 70 transports, a destroyer unit equals 8 destroyers, and ships bigger than a destroyer will be represented individually. Naval ships (such as minelayers and submarine chasers) that are not represented as units in the game shall be excluded.

    American forces (on the attack): 20 battleships, 38 cruisers, 21 destroyers, 24 aircraft carriers, 6 transports for the naval battle, 7 infantry, 4 artillery, 1 anti aircraft artillery for the land battle

    24 fighters and 24 tactical bombers are available to use on land or at sea.

    Japanese forces (on the defence): 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 2 kamikazes for the naval battle, 2 infantry, 1 artillery for the land battle

    Battle Of Denmark Strait: In 1941, several months before Operation Barborossa, Bismarck, a powerful battleship during World War 2, was completed, and the ship and the cruiser Prinz Eugen on a massive raid to attack merchant ships. Alarmed, the British sent two powerful capital ships to the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen’s route though the Denmark Strait, the gap between Scotland and Greenland. In the ensuring battle, Bismarck sunk the symbol of British naval supremacy and power, the Hood ad over 1400 lives with it. The resulting grief and anger empowered the British to deploy every available ship to hunt it down and destroy it. Despite success, to this day, the Bismarck still haunts the nightmares of the Royal Navy.

    German units (on the attack): 1 battleship, 1 cruiser

    British units (on the defence): 1 battleship, 1 damaged battleship

    Second Battle Of El Alamein: As Rommel entered Egypt, it seemed as great riches for Germany and Italy were at hand. To Rommel, to his men, and even to Hitler and Mussolini, the key to winning the war was provided-Alexandria, Cairo, the Suez Canal, the British Empire itself. But after being stoped at the First Battle Of El Alamein and the Battle Of Alam El Hafa, Rommel was forced to dig in as British strength grew rapidly from American aid. The massive British counteroffensive that followed pushed Rommel across Egypt, Libya, into Tunisia, and, following the American Operation Torch, all hope for the Axis in Africa was lost.

    Note: All units here represent one regiment.

    British units (on the attack): 23 tanks, 32 infantry, 11 mechanised infantry, 53 artillery, 8 fighters, 6 tactical bombers

    German units (on the defence): 2 tanks, 6 artillery, 5 mechanised infantry, 4 infantry, 6 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 anti aircraft artillery

    Italian units (on the defence): 16 infantry, 16 artillery, 5 mechanised infantry, 2 tanks, 6 fighters, 2 tactical bombers

    Battle Of Alam El Hafa: After the succesful Battle Of Gazala and the failed First Battle Of El Alamien, Rommel knew that massive Allied reinforcements were on the way, which the Axis could not match with losses in supply ships. In an attempt break though into Egypt before the inevitable British counteroffensive, Rommel launched the final Axis offensive in the Western Desert campaign and in Egypt. However, Allied air superiority, and more importantly, Ultra, forced Rommel to withdraw. From now on, the Axis could only defend in Egypt, with the only hope being a breakthrough in the Middle East from the Caucasus, which never materialised. A close battle, without Ultra, Rommel could have raced on to the Suez Canal, thus prolonging the war. One of the most important uses of Ultra indeed.

    Each unit represents a division.

    German units (on the attack): 4 tanks, 1 mechanised infantry, 5 infantry, 4 fighters, 2 tactical bombers

    British units (on the defence): 2 infantry, 2 tanks, 6 fighters, 4 tactical bombers

    Operation Crusader: After Rommel’s devastating advance across Libya to the Egyptian border, he was unable to capture the important port of Tobruk. Despite massive attacks, Tobruk held on, making Rommel unable to invade Egypt. With the time gained, the British launched a massive attack, which was successful. Despite being able to catch the British armoured units in the flank by driving back to the Egyptian border, and destroying more tanks than he lost, Rommel was forced to withdraw across Libya, setting the stage for a massive build up on both sides for the next, phase of enormous attacks at Gazala and El Alamein.

    Note: All units here represent one regiment.

    British units (on the attack): 13 tanks, 12 artillery, 24 infantry, 5 mechanised infantry, 8 fighters, 4 tactical bombers

    German units (on the defence): 2 tank, 6 infantry, 2 artillery, 1 mechanised infantry, 2 fighters

    Italian units (on the defence): 10 artillery, 14 infantry, 3 mechanised infantry, 2 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 3 tanks

    A German or Italian (can’t decide) mechanised infantry unit will also be part of the Axis.

    Battle Of Crete: After the fall of Greece, British and Greek forces hoped to hold Crete as an excellent naval base as well as a launching point to bomb the Romanian oil fields. Several air fields have finished or nearly finished construction, although RAF units were not permanently present. Hitler, worried about the bombing of the crucial Romanian oil fields, and the Luftwaffe hoping to regain prestige after the defeat in the Battle if Britain, ordered an airborne invasion of Crete as the Axis have gained air, but not naval superiority, with an amphibious option out of the question. The goal was to capture the biggest air field on the islands, which would allow transport aircraft to land reinforcements. The attacks was not meant to interfere with Operation Barborossa, although the loss of many paratroopers forced Germany to abandon air drops behind the Soviet front line. The biggest and last major attack of the Fallchirmjager, the high casualties incurred convinced Hitler that the Fallchirmjager were no long effective, ordering them to fight as normal infantry, whilst the Allies were impressed with the German victory and started forming paratroopers as well as air field defence units.

    Note: All units here represent one regiment.

    German units (on the attack): 4 strategic bombers, 4 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 8 infantry, 1 artillery

    British units (on the defence): 3 artillery, 17 infantry, 1 mechanised infantry, 2 anti aircraft artillery

    Siege Of Sevastapool: After the devastating intitial shock of Operation Baborossa, Germany and Romania advanced into the Crimea to prevent the Soviet from bombing the Romanian oil fields, destroying much Soviet resistance. However, the Soviets had heavily fortified Sevastopol and used the Black Sea fleet to transfer the Separate Coastal Army from the Siege Of Odessa for the defence of the city, formed several additional brigades of infantry, and provided gunfire support. The result was a siege that lasted for more than 9 months, with Axis air superiority making up for the lack of infantry on the German side and the many World War 1 era artillery pieces used. Due to the long siege, many enormous artillery pieces, designed for destroying the Maginot Line, most notably the largest artillery piece ever, Schwere Gustav, were able to be brought up to the front line and used, although they had limited effect due to the lack of ammunition. Despite the success, the delay the siege caused and the absence of the German Eleventh Army helped contribute to the Soviet victory against Operation Case Blue. In a rare call for help, Germany asked for their Italian allies for several motor torpedo boats, due to the Italians having wide expertise on this matter, using them in both World War 1 and 2, to assist air operation in preventing the Soviets from evacuating the city. Two interesting vehicles used in the attack were the Goliath tracked mine, a remote controlled vehicle aimed at blowing up and destroying the Soviet fortifications, and the Stug 3, an infantry support vehicle aimed at also destroying the fortifications at Sevastapool, although later in the war was also an effective tank destroyer.

    German units (on the attack): 10 infantry, 1 tank, 4 artillery, 4 fighters, 2 tactical bombers

    Soviet units (on the defence): 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber

    Operation Bodenplatte: As the German momentum in the Battle Of The Bulge slowed, Hitler, with the weather clearing, ordered a massive air offensive against the Allies to gain local air superiority to regain the speed necessary for victory. Although the Allies lost many aircraft destroyed on the ground, the losses were replaced within a week, and few pilots were lost. Meanwhile, large amounts of German squadron leaders, many of which were veterans, were killed, who could not be replaced, and aircraft losses were also quite high, which could not be easily replaced with the Soviets destroying enormous amounts of aircraft in the east. In the end, not even temporary air superiority was achieved, and the Luftwaffe was destroyed beyond repair, not accomplishing or doing anything significant for the rest of 1945.

    German units (on the attack):

    American units (on the defence):

    British units (on the defence):

    Note: I am unable to find information on the amount of Allied aircraft present in the attack. Can you help me with this please? Thank you!

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 1
  • 43
  • 5
  • 11
  • 1
  • 17
  • 2
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

30

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts