Well, part one has given us a load of excitement to begin this game. Anzio, to me, has been one of those necessary unnecessary battles. It pulled in a lot of troops that could have been used to reinforce the main line, preventing its breakout for a few months. On the other hand, if it was not for this battle, Hitler may never have released these units until it was too late to prevent a breakout of the main line. The whole thing is a bit circular. Better it happened and better if it didn't. It was interesting seeing the American communications rule as it's often forgotten that the US used FM radio sets while the Germans used AM sets. The main difference is that FM goes through terrain while AM bounces off terrain, making it effectively line of sight. The US sets have greater range. I've read accounts where in the Lorraine German commanders would have to disengage and find a safe hilltop to update their parent unit's command. Once off the coastal plain in Italy, I see this having a greater impact than in the Lorraine. The final placement of those 5 Shermans could not have been better. They had a brilliant firing position to dominate the table centre. The tank Sherman gets an unjustified reputation of being a cream puff from historians. They always compare it to the Panther and Tigers, claiming it a cream puff. Yet when compared to its contemporary designs such as German medium tanks, it can hold its own. Including that 75mm gun that historians love to belittle. In firefights like this one, I've found that he who has the most viable guns wins the firefight. I'm not a big fan of counting ammunition rounds as the bookkeeping slows the game without adding much to the game. Anti-tank and high explosive rounds were usually in bountiful supply and could be restocked on the run using dead ground cover to achieve this. On the other hand, I believe that special rounds should be purchased separately and counted, such as US 76.2mm Hyper-velocity rounds, the original silver bullet, or the very rare 88mm FSAPDS round for the Tiger I. As usual, the game was left in a bit of a cliffhanger, so I look forward to part 2 to find out how this game finishes. A truly great effort by all involved and a special thumbs up to those involved in the final placement of those Shermans so Jim could come in and take the bow, just kidding, mate.
Good afternoon - Sorry for the late reply. Suffice it to say I was "indisposed" a little this week. Okay, so ... 1) Your comment makes me realize I didn't really express myself correctly when I said what the Allies were going through at Anzio "wasn't necessary." I should have been more clear, Operation Shingle was a solid idea that could have worked, and probably helped draw off German reserves on the Gustav Line. What wasn't necessary was the degree of difficulty and casualties at Anzio. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those crackpots who claim "the roads to Rome were wide open" and "General Lucas couls have taken Rome off the march." But a rapid and sensible expansion on the initial beach head, at least the Alban Hills, would be denied the Germans the high ground from which they so miserably punished the Allies for four months. 2) Yeah, the comm rule is an option for American lists. It costs 20 points, which isn't cheap, but it's an available upgrade for American forward command units. 3) I get what you mean about the Shermans. At closer range, that dual purpose 75 wasn't bad, especially against the kind of targets you run across far more often that Tigers, Panthers, or even Mark IVs and StuGs. Pillboxes, entrenchments, artillery positions, machine gun nests, etc. 4) I actually don't mind the ammo tracking i Battlegroup. It's only for tanks and SPGs, and only for main guns. I love the "challenge" of loading your tanks out before the battle. How much HE vs. AP. It heightens the importance of machine guns on tanks, which in many games are kind of an afterthought. 5) Thanks as always for the great comment! Part 2 goies up later tonight / tomorrow morning!
@JamesJohnson-wq6bs Thanks for your excellent reply, James. True, the basic idea behind Operation Shingle was very sound. Given the fish bone terrain of Italy, it would have been easier to take it by a series of amphibious envelopments rather than one ridge after another. However, the allies were still getting their act together on amphibious landings in Europe at this stage, and all mistakes were heavily punished by the German command. My yes-no-yes opinion is based purely on what transpired rather than what should have been. While I will happily discuss alternative outcomes, it has been my experience that if you change one thing because of the way everything is interconnected, you must change a whole series of other things. Such as a number of war gamers believe the Germans could have won Kursk. For this to happen, you need to find them a tactical reserve, delete the Soviet grand reserve, and postpone the allied invasion of Sicily and Italy. That's a lot of history to rewrite for one proposal. As gamers, we can all too easily get caught up in thinking in straight lines, i.e., effective maximum range and main gun vs. front armour. So dual purpose and secondary weapon systems can be pushed far into the background and forgotten about. I'm looking forward to part 2
Good to see some of the historical specifics of the game. The guys at the sharp end never truly know the context of the battle around them, and neither did I!
Thanks very much Jenn. And yep, there are lots of channels posting battle reports out there, we do our best to include a fair bit of history to set us slightly apart from "the competition." 😅
Nice game, table and battle report! Thanks! But the .50 of the halftrack shooting at the German platoon commander would have hit on 6s, not 5s as it moved.
Thanks very much for the positive comments. For the .50 on the halftrack ... not 100% sure on that. The "Target has Moved" applies to AP and HE shells, per the QRS. There's no such annotation on the Small Arms Rate of Fire table, or Aimed Fire with Small Arms and Machine Guns rules in Battlegroup Core Rules, pp. 24-25.
@@JamesJohnson-wq6bs Yes, there is in the latest version (2019) of the rules. One of the (I believe only 4) changes is that "Small Arms, MG, Autocannon and Flamethrower D6 modifier: Firer moved (or will move) this turn = -1".
@@peterlodewyckx6205 - Gotcha. Yeah, my just checked and my copy of the rules were printed in 2013. Thanks for the heads up, looks like I need to get an updated edition. 😃
Beautiful report we need more battle group videos on RU-vid RU-vid Wonderful Game thank you so much for posting Quick question though when you're doing your double fire order is it just for sake of brevity that you're saying you're gonna fire twice and all your dice at once?each "roll to hit"needs an observation so if you make your first one, you have to roll again for the second Again, just wondering if it was a house rule Keep up the good work looking forward to part two
Thanks very much! So, to answer your questions … I’ve always resolved observation for double fire orders like this: A unit takes a double fire order. You roll for observation. IF YOU MAKE the first one, you just take both shots (at least if they’re both at the same target), as your gunner has clearly spotted the target. If you miss the second one, you get a second observation roll, but only get the one shot IF your make it the second observation roll. Next turn, even if the same unit is firing at the same target, and neither has moved, you still need to make new observation checks (drifting smoke, changing light, the target has shifted cover, etc.). If you make your first observation check, fire on a target, and then want to take your second shot at a different target, a second observation check is definitely needed then. I usually encourage players to resolve each of their shots separately, NOT rolling both chances to hit at once. This way if a shot hits and penetrates, you have the opportunity to try and engage a second target with your second shot (now here we WOULD require a second observation roll). I realize we didn’t always do that, especially with that volley of five Shermans against the Mark IV and the StG near the end of the game. We were running over on time by then and losing some players, so I was trying to get things moving again. But even earlier we were seeing German tanks being “double penetrated” because the players were in something of a rush. I kept warning them not to do that, especially in light of the ammunition rules. :)
Very entertaining battle report! I really like the game notes during replay. We tried battlegroup but were frustrated with the limited orders concerning the infantry and definition of "units". It seemed y'all were using some of the excellent axis allies prep painted minis. Indestructible and table quality painting.
Thanks very much. Yeah, definition of units can be a little confusing, you have to REALLY pay attention during the list building process. Some infantry platoon options are "support options" that are additional units ADDED to the force, others are UPGRADES to existing units. This is intentional, to show the historical differences in doctrine and how units were assembled and trained for combat. And yep, my WW2 infantry collection is a little at hoc ... lots of the old Axis & Allies infantry minis and even painted pieces out of WW2 and Modern "Risk" boxed sets. :D
Those 15 dice should have taken three orders, three observation rolls and three times 5 dice to hit. (Also… if you lose one of these parts you draw a BR chit.) The 251/1 and the squad and the MG team are three separate units. Which is a hassle. But also a tactical advantage. Because you can fire at up to six different targets. And also choose for each shot whether it’s suppression or direct.
Thanks for the great comment and observations. I totally agree about the SdKfz 251, the MG-34 with the infantry, though, were actually an UPGRADE to the German infantry squad (Page 118, Battlegroup Torch). Squad may ADD an MG-34 team for 10 points. We interprested this to make the MG-34 PART of the squad. I realize there are other options for this (cheaper, but MG teams are now separate units), and later in the wat units like Volksturm platoons no longer have this option. One of the things I love about Battlegroup is the detail in the OOBs, how German MG-34s and 42s were usually PART of the squad, instead of part of a separate weapons platoon within the company ... and even this depends on when in the war. For the Americans, yes ... the .30 cal MMG team are SEPARATE. Interestingly, the bazookas are PART of the squad, whereas panzerfaust / panzerscheck / PIATs in other armies are SOMETIMES separate ... again, depending on when in the war and exactly how you build your list. I also agree about the number of orders required. We had the Germans use two orders there (for their list, the MG-34s were part of their unit). The MG-34 on the halftrack was a separate unit though, yes, agreed. And you're right, should have used a separate observation check for that. And also yes ... I keep encouraging these guys to use more suppression "AREA FIRE" checks, but what can I say. They're new to the game and bloodthirsty!
Aha. And sorry for the misunderstanding of the MG34. In all of the lists I use that’s a separate team. On suppression… it wins games. It’s way easier than routing or eliminating a unit. And it costs BR chits to unpin. Anywhoo. Enjoy the games!
@@matthijsclaessen8152 - Agreed, in many lists, the MG-34 team is a separate unit. Even in BG Torch it is, as an option ( I think it's cheaper, and it might come with the tripod rather than the bipod ... basically a company support role rather than a platoon support role). Totally agree on suppression. It unlocks the whole "Fire and Maneuver" concept that's at the bedrock of just about any infantry tactics.
Most of the vehicles are Battlefront, 15mm (originally for Flames of War, I think). Most of the infantry are just pre-paints from the old "Axis & Allies" miniature game.
