"WW2 Troops running away." Topic

One of the issues I have trouble with is troops running away while still actualy capable of coherent combat. Thre do seem to be lots of rules that have troops that runaway on the roles of the die when it seems unlikely to happen in the real world. From my reading MOST (not all) seem to fight on untill they are exhausted and or out oif ammunition etc. this doers not seem to be reflected in many wargames rules.
Excaptions are notae for not being standard types. SOME German forighn units did not put up much of a fight. However many did fight as well as the German nationals.
From you reading of history was the running away (general rather than unique forced troops of an unwilling type) early comonplace, or the exception.

If you were to model it should some troop types/nationalities have specific "triggers" set in the rules to make this behaviour more consistent.

It depends on what 'running way' means in the context of the rules and the tabletop situation. Maybe the unit's leader decides the formation is in a bad situation and makes a tactical withdrawal. Maybe the unit is convinced it's about to be outflanked or overrun and falls back. Those could easily be 'morale failures'.

-Will

Ushcha,

If you mean literally throwing your gear down and running off the battlefield (like the GIs facing the Panzers in the forest in the movie "Battle of the Bulge," the guys that get captured and slaughtered at Malmedy), I don't think that happened very often, haven't read of many instances of that.

The flip side is, if we mean 'involuntarily fell back,' i.e., you've got troops in defensive positions and higher headquarters expects them to stand fast, but they get pounded by enemy supporting fires, watch the enemy cross the line of departure, the defenders fire off a few belts and a few mortar rounds, then fall back to avoid being annihilated, I think that happened pretty regularly.

I think most attacks that succeeded didn't end with a close assault of the objective, they ended with the enemy abandoning the objective (either falling back to a new defensive line, or preparing a counterattack) while the attacker moved up, mopped up a few stragglers/rear guard, and consolidated on the objective.

You see it at lower echelon quite often: a squad is dug-in, receives heavy fire, decides to abandon the position rather than become suppressed and get close assaulted.

You can even apply this to the attacker: how many times do you read of attacks beginning, but they barely get off the start line? They cross the LOD, a tank or two gets hit, arty/mortars causes a few casualties on the infantry, and they call off the attack, against the wishes of higher headquarters.

So, in wargame rules, when a fire result forces a unit to abandon its position, I view it more as the local commander making a decision to withdraw in an (relatively) orderly fashion to avoid being eliminated, rather than a headlong route.

EDIT: Will beat me to it.

V/R,
Jack

Actually, there are loads of examples of troops running away in WW2, particularly on the western front in the later war period and involving all nationalities: US, Brits and Germans.

Apologies for not posting a list here, but the Bulge is a very good example of how the front was a mixture of units on both sides that ran away and units on both sides that stayed to fight despite a seemingly impossible situations.

I don't think troops 'ran away' in WW2 in the way soldiers did in earlier centuries. It was too dangerous to get up and move!

It seems to me that 'defeated' men were more likely to surrender than run. There were some enormous numbers of POWs in WW2.

I see moral failures as representing multiple possibilities to include, at that particular moment in that particular action, the unit in question was physically and/or emotionally exhausted and fell back; a sufficient number of unit members said, "screw this" and fell back on their own in order to create distance; the unit commander (be it a sergeant, lieutenant, etc.) decided that the position was untenable and that the unit needed to fall back, etc. We are taking a subject that is very complicated -- the human reaction to stress, combat, and the unknown – and reducing to a roll of the dice.

I recall Dog and Fox companies of the 506 – 101st Airborne pulling back early in Normandy, leaving Easy on their own. I don't know if that was ordered or involuntary running away?

7th Armored at St. Vith had trouble getting forward because the road was clogged with vehicles of retreating units.

My guess: the difference between bugging out and surrender was how close the enemy was and if there a covered route of escape.

I don't think too many ex soldiers are going to write in the memoirs that they just ran away.

Farnox,

"I don't think too many ex soldiers are going to write in the memoirs that they just ran away."
No, but the guys that didn't are sure as heck likely to bring it up. That stuff goes into unit diaries, men get charged with desertion/dereliction/cowardice, and leaders get relieved for that type of stuff. Hell, that happens sometimes with falling back, much less dropping your gear and running away.

Additionally, I imagine the guys that ran aren't generally the ones that right memoirs.

V/R,
Jack

I think there should be a category in morale results for 'keeping heads down and not firing effectively'. Some rules have it but some go straight to 'run away' which seems harsh.

There is plenty of literature on the responses of troops to the proximity of the enemy.

Once assaulting troops manage to cross both the defensive area fire zone and win the firefight to close within 30m, a very common defender response is to withdraw at that point.

Run away, if you will.

The problem I have with most rules is that it is actually far too hard for troops to withdraw once they are suppressed.

The general observation that units (battalions) tend to fight on until they run out of ammunition or are physically overrun, is correct though, even the subunits are doing all sorts of interesting things.

EDIT: Will beat me to it.

That is ok, your explanation was much more thorough! :)

The general observation that units (battalions) tend to fight on until they run out of ammunition or are physically overrun, is correct though, even the subunits are doing all sorts of interesting things.

Yes, depends in part on what level your game is focused on; a division doesn't rout, but that doesn't mean some battalion isn't falling back to get out of a bad situation.

-Will

Ok,
I was trying to keep my rules out of it but it may not be possible. In our own game the system is designed to achieve the following.

First the fire fighr is about one side gaining the upper hand. That is its rate of fire is such that the target is suppressed ro the extent that they are not able to return fire effectively. Following the "adage First win the Fire fight. Our own rules use teams that have a generalised value wich covere Fear fire and fatigue (which includes indirectly ammunition use / limits). This fire is not sufficent to incapacitate a unit in any reasonable timescale).

Second phase is an assult on the suppressed troops. Generally the assult is expected to succeed if the enemy is suficently suppressed. Some troop quality affects this, but given similar standard that the basic outcome. In this circumstace the target can stay and fight, but is very likely to lose heavily and be renderd combat ineffective, or run away. That is left tio the commander. If they do not run away there damage to the enemy assulting will be massively less than done to themselves so little gain is to be had from staying put. This covers the "adage you need troops to take ground".

Now my question covers effectively troops as it were reluctant to stay in the firefight and hence run off before the outcome of the firefight is fully resolved, potentially one that could have been in their favour. How often is this to be expected to happen?

Now my question covers effectively troops as it were reluctant to stay in the firefight and hence run off before the outcome of the firefight is fully resolved, potentially one that could have been in their favour. How often is this to be expected to happen?

I have a bit of trouble imagining what you are talking about exactly – what do you mean by "could have"? Firefights are resolved by opinion in that sense anyway.