1. TOandEs
  2. Topics

Dealing with Battalion Defense

brucew
 

Gentlemen,

 

This is another in an irregular series of Questions for People Who Know More Than I Do about military/combat subjects I am unequipped to answer.  I’m working on a set of division-level WWII game rules.  They are brilliant (several friends have assured me), but I’m still dissatisfied with my mechanism for forcibly displacing battalion-size units.  Most histories and memoirs deal with this phenomenon in general terms, but none that I can think of go into much detail on the mechanics, offer timelines, or recount specifics of the “crumbling” process that could result in the abandonment of a position the battalion is trying to hold. 

 

My infantry battalions usually consist of three-four company stands (plus a headquarters and weapons/close support stands).  An attack on one of these battalions, if successful in the course of a nominal five hour combat turn, might result in the elimination or displacement (withdrawal) of one defending company, and possibly the consequent withdrawal of another.  Or, the same result might befall the attackers, depending on the dice.  But it doesn’t seem to happen fast enough in many games, often leaving the defenders still in place and defiant past the point that their historical counterparts would have decamped.

 

Naturally, there’s hundreds of variations and exceptions to this simple rule of thumb, depending on countless historical engagements.  So I’m looking for a formula of some sort.  Or an excellent study.  Or even a good reference work that deals with lots of battalion-level combats from which I could start drawing valid conclusions.  There’s many studies and models that deal with attrition, yes …but is there one – even a quick and dirty one – that deals with the dynamics of holding or taking terrain?  I’m confident that some sharp CGSC student or Beltway Bandit has produced something on this; has anyone heard of one that might be useful?

 

Many thanks in advance!


Bruce
Peter F Model
 

The US military did a paper on combat at this level, FM 105-5 You can find the link here;

http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/FM105-5%2867%29.pdf

I created a video based on some elements of this paper, this can be found here;

https://youtu.be/aDa7lg4pYGE

The topic is not a simple one. In the US paper there is a difference between defenders in position and those not in a prepared position, which is what you may be after.

On 6/03/2023 14:52, brucew wrote:

Gentlemen,

 

This is another in an irregular series of Questions for People Who Know More Than I Do about military/combat subjects I am unequipped to answer.  I’m working on a set of division-level WWII game rules.  They are brilliant (several friends have assured me), but I’m still dissatisfied with my mechanism for forcibly displacing battalion-size units.  Most histories and memoirs deal with this phenomenon in general terms, but none that I can think of go into much detail on the mechanics, offer timelines, or recount specifics of the “crumbling” process that could result in the abandonment of a position the battalion is trying to hold. 

 

My infantry battalions usually consist of three-four company stands (plus a headquarters and weapons/close support stands).  An attack on one of these battalions, if successful in the course of a nominal five hour combat turn, might result in the elimination or displacement (withdrawal) of one defending company, and possibly the consequent withdrawal of another.  Or, the same result might befall the attackers, depending on the dice.  But it doesn’t seem to happen fast enough in many games, often leaving the defenders still in place and defiant past the point that their historical counterparts would have decamped.

 

Naturally, there’s hundreds of variations and exceptions to this simple rule of thumb, depending on countless historical engagements.  So I’m looking for a formula of some sort.  Or an excellent study.  Or even a good reference work that deals with lots of battalion-level combats from which I could start drawing valid conclusions.  There’s many studies and models that deal with attrition, yes …but is there one – even a quick and dirty one – that deals with the dynamics of holding or taking terrain?  I’m confident that some sharp CGSC student or Beltway Bandit has produced something on this; has anyone heard of one that might be useful?

 

Many thanks in advance!


Bruce

-- 
Peter F Model Geschäftsentwicklung Verkaufsleiter Oracle Konzern
Adresse: Wörthersee-Südufer-Straße 55, 9073 Klagenfurt-Viktring Skype ID: pfmodel
Phil Yates
 

Here's a study on force change of combat posture that looks at what factors appeared significant: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA201405


On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 at 16:52, brucew <brucew@...> wrote:

Gentlemen,

 

This is another in an irregular series of Questions for People Who Know More Than I Do about military/combat subjects I am unequipped to answer.  I’m working on a set of division-level WWII game rules.  They are brilliant (several friends have assured me), but I’m still dissatisfied with my mechanism for forcibly displacing battalion-size units.  Most histories and memoirs deal with this phenomenon in general terms, but none that I can think of go into much detail on the mechanics, offer timelines, or recount specifics of the “crumbling” process that could result in the abandonment of a position the battalion is trying to hold. 

 

My infantry battalions usually consist of three-four company stands (plus a headquarters and weapons/close support stands).  An attack on one of these battalions, if successful in the course of a nominal five hour combat turn, might result in the elimination or displacement (withdrawal) of one defending company, and possibly the consequent withdrawal of another.  Or, the same result might befall the attackers, depending on the dice.  But it doesn’t seem to happen fast enough in many games, often leaving the defenders still in place and defiant past the point that their historical counterparts would have decamped.

 

Naturally, there’s hundreds of variations and exceptions to this simple rule of thumb, depending on countless historical engagements.  So I’m looking for a formula of some sort.  Or an excellent study.  Or even a good reference work that deals with lots of battalion-level combats from which I could start drawing valid conclusions.  There’s many studies and models that deal with attrition, yes …but is there one – even a quick and dirty one – that deals with the dynamics of holding or taking terrain?  I’m confident that some sharp CGSC student or Beltway Bandit has produced something on this; has anyone heard of one that might be useful?

 

Many thanks in advance!


Bruce


--
Cheers
Phil Yates
Mircea Pauca
 

From various readings, mainly Trevor Dupuy - Understanding Defeat, it resulted defeat of a larger unit (say a regiment or a division) in prepared position comes mostly after a subunit 1-2 levels below is crushed by overwhelming power, say 4:1 to 8:1, then local enemy exploitation threatens the flanks and supply lines of the other portions of the larger defender. 
{Paper pointed above - Fain et al 1988 Forced changes of combat posture - was its main precursor/source}

If physically and organizationally agile enough, the not-yet-affected defenders may withdraw just in time to remain useful further back. Or other elements of the defending side counterattack locally the attrited and momentarily confused attackers, so restoring a coherent defense system.

Modelling in wargames depends much on time, unit and terrain scales.
e.g. in the operational Tigers in the Mist, units (regiments, some battalions; day turns divided in 3 impulses) are defeated purely attritionally but then the player must do the withdrawal just in time / or else. If an unit already expended its fuel/energy/flexibility (e.g. by just arriving there in a previous impulse), then it will be encircled, that's it. Defending with much weaker firepower, plus some automatic extra attrition cumulating at the end of each day.
- in the grand tactical D-Day at (Omaha etc) Beach by John Butterfield, units (companies) defend with mostly an ambush/uncertainty value; when first attacked, they reveal some keywords which may be attacker weapons (say mortar, HMG, demolitions etc) or situations (Flanking helps often! here means 120 degrees between attackers) which make the attack 'easy', 'solutions of the tactical problem', else it's much harder; on the approach, attacker attrition/confusion also loses some of the same capabilities needed. Retreat of 'Defeated' German defenders may happen automatically from the system/bot if they have a supply line; same unit may appear elsewhere. If cut off or a fixed Resistance point, they are lost.
- in many higher-operational wargames there is an explicit retreat/loss tradeoff in some CRT results (say 1/1R) where retreat may be chosen instead of (some) loss, or extra loss instead of retreat, maybe at varying 'rates' depending on terrain. Representing same actions 'below the grain' of that simulation - withdrawal of forces becoming exposed, or local counterattack.

Thank you for thinking about these,
Mircea Pauca, Bucuresti, Romania

În lun., 6 mar. 2023 la 10:31, Phil Yates <philyates65@...> a scris:

Here's a study on force change of combat posture that looks at what factors appeared significant: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA201405

On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 at 16:52, brucew <brucew@...> wrote:

Gentlemen,

 

This is another in an irregular series of Questions for People Who Know More Than I Do about military/combat subjects I am unequipped to answer.  I’m working on a set of division-level WWII game rules.  They are brilliant (several friends have assured me), but I’m still dissatisfied with my mechanism for forcibly displacing battalion-size units.  Most histories and memoirs deal with this phenomenon in general terms, but none that I can think of go into much detail on the mechanics, offer timelines, or recount specifics of the “crumbling” process that could result in the abandonment of a position the battalion is trying to hold. 

 

My infantry battalions usually consist of three-four company stands (plus a headquarters and weapons/close support stands).  An attack on one of these battalions, if successful in the course of a nominal five hour combat turn, might result in the elimination or displacement (withdrawal) of one defending company, and possibly the consequent withdrawal of another.  Or, the same result might befall the attackers, depending on the dice.  But it doesn’t seem to happen fast enough in many games, often leaving the defenders still in place and defiant past the point that their historical counterparts would have decamped.

 

Naturally, there’s hundreds of variations and exceptions to this simple rule of thumb, depending on countless historical engagements.  So I’m looking for a formula of some sort.  Or an excellent study.  Or even a good reference work that deals with lots of battalion-level combats from which I could start drawing valid conclusions.  There’s many studies and models that deal with attrition, yes …but is there one – even a quick and dirty one – that deals with the dynamics of holding or taking terrain?  I’m confident that some sharp CGSC student or Beltway Bandit has produced something on this; has anyone heard of one that might be useful?

 

Many thanks in advance!


Bruce


--
Cheers
Phil Yates

Andrew Holmes
 

Bob Mackenzie wrote some essays on the subject.

https://testofbattle.com/upload/bob/index.html

Regards
Andrew HOLMES

On Monday, 6 March 2023 at 03:52:49 GMT, brucew <brucew@...> wrote:






...  So I’m looking for a formula of some sort.  Or an excellent study.  Or even a good reference work that deals with lots of battalion-level combats from which I could start drawing valid conclusions.  There’s many studies and models that deal with attrition, yes …but is there one – even a quick and dirty one – that deals with the dynamics of holding or taking terrain?  I’m confident that some sharp CGSC student or Beltway Bandit has produced something on this; has anyone heard of one that might be useful?
Mage
 

If you haven’t looked at the Dupuy Institute publications list, you should. The paper that Phil sites is one of theirs. DPI publications can be found here <http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/tdipubs.htm>. Many times once you have the title of one of their papers, you can then find the paper in PDF on the web.

On 6Mar23, at 2:31 AM, Phil Yates <philyates65@...> wrote:

Here's a study on force change of combat posture that looks at what factors appeared significant: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA201405
brucew
 

Many thanks to Mage, Andrew, Mircea, Peter, and Phil – for your excellent assistance and recommendations concerning Battalion defense modelling!  I haven’t yet read all the material you suggested, but have begun.  If I can’t come up with anything better, at least I’ll have the satisfaction of knowing that this problem has bedeviled others much smarter that I am.

 

Thanks again, gentlemen!

 

Bruce

 

From: TOandEs@groups.io <TOandEs@groups.io> On Behalf Of Mage
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 10:21 AM
To: TO&Es <TOandEs@groups.io>
Subject: [External] Re: [TOandEs] Dealing with Battalion Defense

 

If you haven’t looked at the Dupuy Institute publications list, you should. The paper that Phil sites is one of theirs. DPI publications can be found here <http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/tdipubs.htm>. Many times once you have the title of one of their papers, you can then find the paper in PDF on the web.



On 6Mar23, at 2:31 AM, Phil Yates <philyates65@...> wrote:

 

Here's a study on force change of combat posture that looks at what factors appeared significant: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA201405

 

 

1 - 7 of 7