"Battles where reinforcements made a difference?" Topic

I was nattering with a mate the other day about scenario design and he made the observation that those which depend on the arrival of reinforcements are a bit of a cliche and also unrealistic – in WW2 there were almost no battles where this happened. That is, parachute drops aside, it is hard to think of many battles where one side held on until reinforcements arrived and then won.

This seemed unlikely to me but I genuinely cannot think of any such battles, at least not at a tactical level. Generalising like mad, it seems to have been more often the case that some strategic intervention elsewhere was where reinforcements were deployed. So the Russians didn't pour men into Stalingrad, they launched Operation Uranus instead.

Are there any examples of reinforcements being fed into a battle and turning the tide?

Battle of the bulge seems the obvious reply.

Bataan, The Philippines, early 1942.

What is your mate's definition of reinforcements?

Most battles had reinforcements somewhere. It is a basic tactic. Reinforcements are troops not initially committed, usually without a specific mission or a contingency mission. Some units were in the vicinity of the fight, some where moved there. Even Stalingrad had them. No, the Soviets didn't pour lots of men into the city, but they continuously fed in enough units to maintain the defense. They may not get mentioned in the great histories, but they were there.

To some degree, this is what was happening in October-November 1940, as the Greek divisions along the frontier fell back slowly in the face of the Italian offensive, while additional troops were mobilized,moved towards the front, and then took the offensive. Perhaps this is more at the strategic level than the tactical, though.
Grelber

As CS says, it depends what you mean. The most fundamental thing in modern tactics (for high intensity warfare anyway) is that both attackers and defenders deploy in great depth, those uncommitted forces are available to reinforce success or counterattack to restore unfavourable situations.

A very simple example is the Battle of Cambrai, all the ground gained in the first couple of days was lost to counterattacks by the reserve divisions positioned to undertake that very task.

The IDF tank units holding the Golan Heights in 1973 did actually hold out against stupendous odds until relieved by reinforcements, as did those bits of the Bar Lev Line which hadn't been overrun in Sinai.

This stuff depends partly on what level you are talking about.

btw wrt Stalingrad, Stavka fed in just enough reinforcements to stop the city falling while building up the flanks – which was their strategic goal of course.

Tactically, '2 up and 1 back' is fairly standard. Does the '1 back' count as a reinforcement?

Yeah, I'd be inclined to say almost all battles are turned by reinforcement at the critical point or the lack thereof.

It may not be in a 'cavalry arriving in the nick of time' sense, but all troops have a very limited combat endurance before ammunition, fuel and nerve runs out or the men just drop from exhaustion. Add in losses too of course.

Reinforcements could be local reserves, a fresh company rotating into the line or just the drip drip drip of replacements.

"Tactically, '2 up and 1 back' is fairly standard. Does the '1 back' count as a reinforcement?"

This has been tactically sound for thousands of years.

So the Russians didn't pour men into Stalingrad, they launched Operation Uranus instead.

Like Cold Steel and Martin Rapier say, Stalingrad was reinforced continually. I'd actually cite Stalingrad as a prime example of a battle where reinforcements are fed in to stave off defeat before the counter offensive (which was encircling the city rather than through the city but that changes none of the analysis) brought victory.

For wargaming purposes, it depends what game you play, what level it represents and whether you are playing to a historical scenario of course.

Phil
P.B.Eye-Candy

The Golan Heights in October 1973. The Syrians expected that it would take the Israelis 24 hours to mobilize their reserves. By then, they thought they would have been able to ocuppy most of the Golan and take defensive positions on the Heights. Though in the North, the Israelis managed to hold up the Syrian onslaught, on the Southern Golan the Syrians broke through Israeli defenses and then went to capture Nafakh. It was the oportune arrival of hastily mobilized reserves -in 15 hours, rather than the 24 the Syrians believed- what allowed the Israelis to stop the Syrian advance, and then counterattack.

In wargaming terms, and depending on the level of representation, reinforcements arriving to the battlefield could represent either reserves that had been hold back by higher command, or the feed of recently arrived units in the case of a meeting engagement (Shiloh and Gettysburg come to mind).

Again, it depends what you mean, but reinforcements were key in numerous campaigns and battles at all tactical levels.

Let's look at Normandy:

Tactical level:

Pegasus Bridge: Reinforcement of Howard's coup de main force, first by 7 Para, then by 1 SS Bde. On the other side, the Germans were reinforced first by elements of 716 Div and then by elements of 21 Pz Div.

Breville: 12 Para attacking are reinforced first by a company of 12 Devons and then by 22 Ind Para Coy, enabling them to hold what they had captured at great cost.

Villers-Bocage: The reinforcement of Wittmann's Tiger company by Moebuis' company finished off the 4 CLY squadron at Point 213 and then enabled a general attack to be mounted into the town. This was then reinforced by further tanks from Pz Lehr Div. On the British side meanwhile, the reinforcement of Carrier and Anti-Tank Platoons from the Queen's Brigade into the town defeated the German attack. However, further reinforcement by 2 Pz Div finally forced the British 7th Armd Div to withdraw.

At the Grand-Tactical Level:

The Orne Bridgehead: The reinforcement by 21 Pz Div and 346 Div increasingly threatened the Airborne Bridgehead, though the reinforcement by 51 Highland Div finally stabilised the situation.

Hill 112: The reinforcement of 10 SS Pz Div by 1 SS & 9 SS Pz Divs finally finished off the British assault.

Op Goodwood: The reinforcement of 21 Pz Div by elements of several other panzer divisions finally halted the British armoured divisions.

Op Bluecoat: The movement of II SS Pz Korps to reinforce the collapsed Aunay/Vire sector finally stopped the deep penetration of British VIII Corps.

Strategic Level:

There was continual reinforcement of the Normandy Bridgehead by both sides. However, as Allied reinforcement generally out-paced the German reinforcement, panzer divisions were repeatedly used to 'hold the line' rather than form armoured counter-strokes. Occasionally, the Germans did manage to reinforce with sufficient infantry and FJ divisions to allow the panzer divisions to disengage, though these were fairly rare instances.

If you look at it from the other way (no reinforcements) the Japanese lost the Pacific islands because the COULDN'T get reinforcements.

Disagree on Bluecoat, the Panzers used to blunt and slow it, were meant for stopping the American breakout attempts further west. The fact the British got in the way prevented them from doing so.

German Counter offensive at Mortian, where the "Lost Battalion" of the 30th Infantry Division held onto the hill 314, surrounded by SS, until the 35th Division broke through to them.

Fred,

Yes they were, but that doesn't get away from the fact that they acted as reinforcements for the crumbling German line between Aunay and Vire.

Krasni Bor, Spanish Blue Division.

Operation Epsom certainly was an example.
The arrival of II SS Panzer Korps from Russia changed the whole battle.

2 up, 1 back is a standard tactical deployment that allows the commander to keep 1/3 of his force uncommitted initially. Is that a reinforcement? It all depends on your definition. The uncommitted unit can reinforce either committed unit or be used on a different mission, like flanking opposition.

Reinforcement is a tactical mission, not a unit designation.

Battle of the Bulge.

Battle for Caen in 1944.

Battle of the Pacific – naval.

Battle for North Africa.

Battle over the Reich – US and British defeat the Luftwaffe.

The Battle of Schmidt in 1944. US forces occupied Schmidt and Kommerscheit. Lt. Fleig's tanks arrived too late to save Schmidt but they were in the nick of time to help the troops defending Kommerscheit fend off an assault by the 116th Panzer.

On Bataan during the opening battle the Japanese pierced the 57th Infantry's line. Two reserve companies counterattacked during the final stages of the action and repulsed the Japanese assault, restoring the 57th's line and driving the Japanese attack force inland from Manila Bay.

German Counter offensive at Mortian, where the "Lost Battalion" of the 30th Infantry Division held onto the hill 314, surrounded by SS, until the 35th Division broke through to them.

Speaking of "lost battalions", there was also the famous case of a battalion of Texans getting surrounded by Germans in Vosges mountains in October 1944. Finally the 442nd Regimental Combat Team managed to break through and get them out.

In big battles with divisions involved, then the troops fighting at any one time is very small. Mechanised troops cannot last many hours in battle. The Tiger proabley only 4 hours if it keeps moving, then it has to be replaced while it re-fuels. That again is just how it is. The front line keeps swapping as materiel runs out. It is not re-enfocement. With UK forces they tended to tow more and more artillery into position if things went awry. Is this re-enforcement, or just best practice.

The "cavelry arriving in the nick of time unplanned is not credible but lots of other "arrivals" have beed pre-planned.

The front line keeps swapping as materiel runs out. It is not re-enfocement.

Well if it's not reinforcement, what is it?

How could I have forgotten Quatre Bras? The Allied reinforcements were crucial to holding the position; the failed arrival of potential French reinforcements ensured French defeat.

Actually, wasn't every amphibious assault where the attackers arrived in waves an example of reinforcement at the tactical level?

Same situation in the defence where reserves are fed into positions that have not been taken by the attackers in the initial assault.

As to Napoleonic battles, the classic example is Waterloo.

I think he means within the context of a tactical battle (or a one day wargame).

If you play at the one to one level with short turns (say 5 minutes), its unlikely that reinfocements could reach the battle in time (say you play 10 turns thats 50 minutes to asses the situation, send for reinforcements, have them "saddle up", drive/march to battle, deploy and then intervene).

If you use platoon level with say 15 minute turns – then yes timely reserves can arrive and with a spirited counter attack recapture an objective. But even then they would need to be near by and dedicated to the function.

TomT

At the small-scale tactical level, your reinforcements will essentially be the third section that remains uncommitted, or the third platoon in the company or the fourth company in the battalion… It makes little difference.

It's been a few years since I acquired and read through the whole Batlezone Normandy series of books. 13 titles spanning from Orne Bridgehead to the Falaise Pocket Superb series for the wargamer with lots of highly detailed tactical maps with unit locations and arrivals.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any of the tactical engagements covered in this series that *didn't* hinge on reinforcements arriving! If I scoured through the books, I might find a few, but I doubt it. General pattern of tactical battles in Normandy = Allies attack (if does not quickly succeed, continuously feed in more troops until success); after Allied success, Germans quickly regroup and counter-attack (as soon as reinforcements arrive, either that same day or the next); repeat until Germans are fully driven away (usually when they run out of reinforcements to send in).

Yea, it probably depends upon the scope of your game, e.g. a few hours of battle, one day battle, month long stuggle, months/years long operational/strategic battle.

Since many battles last more than a day, and the smaller ones probably aren't documented well, if at all, that is heard to confirm definitively, I suspect. However, as you point out, eventually most engagements are won by the side that can bring the most forces to bear, in short order.

The Falklands land campaign seems to be the rare exception to that rule, where mobile, and air-mobile troops smaller in number beat larger numbers of troops regularly. The Argentines were poorly lead, and supplied, leading to their defeat.

Reading about the battle of Fallujah U.S. units were constantly ambushed and pinned down until reinforcements were able to arrive within minutes or hours. That pretty much sums it up for most modern tactical battles including Vietnam where squads are initially pinned down by opposing forces and they either hold on until another squad is able to flank or reinforce the pinned squad. If another squad is unable to reinforce then retreat/tactical retrograde is the only option.

I'm pretty sure Custer would have appreciated his reinforcements on Last Stand Hill…as would Cornwallis at Yorktown and Paulus at Stalingrad

The Stalingrad tractorworks certainly provided up to the minute reinforcements!

I guess the debate could go along the basis of pre-allocated reserves, The 2 up one back is allocated reserves. Re-enforcement could then be additional troops not pre-allocated to that fight or not in a pre-prepared position/forming up point local to the combat awaiting the call to intervene. Lord Lovats commandos would then be re-enfocements, on the basis they are pre-allocated but are not in pre-prepared position/forming up local to the combat.

To meaningfully discuss this we probably need to define both what is mean by 'reinforcements' and what constitutes a 'battle'.

'Battles' in WW2 were generally quite large engagements involving multiple formations (potentially multiple armies) over extended geographical areas and time periods.