"coC Gembloux Gap 1940 Palm-off at Perbais (round three)" Topic

Back to Perbais in the third playing of the opening game in the Chain of Command Gembloux Gap campaign. I'm sick of the sight of the place and even more sick of the French defenders. I have an eviction order but they don't seem interested in taking any notice. Maybe this time? Full AAR is link

Great AAR as usual.

Now, if I may ask a question…I'm not that familiar with CoC, but with the total of support you have, why not try to bring in a Panzer? The French defenders seem remarkably devoid of any AT capability, and I guess some 75 mm shells from a Pz IV (or 150 mm from a Bison if they are on hand)would crack these defences?

I'm not that familiar with CoC, but with the total of support you have, why not try to bring in a Panzer?

Oh how I wish. This is a unit from 3rd Panzer. Their armoured regiments are comprised of predominantly PzI and PzII and they had suffered losses against prepared French defences at Hannut. The infantry regiments have been asked to deal with French defensive positions and open up a way for the tanks to exploit. So for this scenario this is a job assigned to the infantry. Of the division's 343 tanks around 300 are the light models and not equipped to handle the French AT guns. I can call on Stukas and the regiments mortars but so far no joy with either!

Great AAR and a good reflection of tactical reality – while there are lots of times an infantry unit wants a tank, there are only so many tanks!

Ouch! That was extremely short and brutal. Has your opponent actually varied his support spending? You seem to be up against the same troops each time.
I wonder if the dice gods are punishing you for changing you tactics (by which I mean you support selection) each time. If it's not the dice but your choices that have let you down then repeating the same approach gives you more chance to apply the lessons from previous attack which may not be the case if trying something different.
I also have a question; why do you usually deploy well forward in the open rather behind a hedges or similar so you are in cover while bringing on other units? It's how I usually do it, although I'm a pretty defensive player it does give some insurance against an opponent who rolls three turns on the trot while you've just got one unit out in the open.

I also have a question; why do you usually deploy well forward in the open rather behind a hedges or similar so you are in cover while bringing on other units?

The wheat fields provide as much cover as the hedges (as long as you remain stationary), so there didn't seem any benefit in sitting further back, as at some point I have to close with the French and move through those fields. Being at effective range wouldn't have altered the result much more and then moving over the hedge and into the wheat field at some stage would have meant no cover at all, so best to deploy into the wheat field and enjoy the cover by not moving.

If we had traded phases one at a time I was confident I had the firepower to keep the French suppressed until the mortar barrage came down. No plan was going to survive three consecutive phases and so no surprise the squad had trouble dealing with 86 fire dice in that time frame. As you say, 'Ouch!'

I didn't realise wheat fields counted as cover, never having used one. I guess it's representing the difficulties of observation / LOS obscuration as it won't stop much, if any, fire.

For this campaign the wheat is described as approximately 3 feet tall so will provide cover only if a unit is stationary. If it moved in the previous phase or is fired on while moving (an interrupt) then it provides no cover. As far as I'm aware it is only specific for this campaign but I could see it being applied in other circumstances depending on the crops and the growing season.

I find it useful to see the difference in cover as this. Light cover represents cover that partially obscures a target and makes it more difficult to see but provides no protection. Hard cover partially obscures the target and provides some physical protection.

Hmmm. Without being picky, you are confusing cover and concealment. Concealment breaks line of sight but does not stop fire. Wheat would be a good example. Cover on the other hand both conceals, because it breaks line of sight, but it also breaks line of fire as it is a physical barrier. An example is an earthen bund that troops can crouch behind. You can then have grades of each. Light concealment makes it a bit difficult to see (light vegetation for example), while heavy concealment makes it very difficult to see (heavy vegetation or line of sight that has to penetrate some distance through vegetation). Once observed, however there is no protection from fire even though actually hitting the target might be more difficult. Grades of cover protect against different types of fire: a wooden hut won't protect as much as a stone building as it won't stop as much fire, even though troops in either might be equally concealed.

thanks, I feel better now. End of lesson

That makes sense and no reason not to apply it that way. Another way of interpreting it is that open ground is a ‘good target'; light cover is a ‘reasonable target', and hard cover is a ‘poor target'.