"Struggling with low numbers" Topic

The Bursk Scenario is proving challenging. One of the problems is getting our head round such low numbers in attack and defense. In the Bursk Scenario we are running defense with basically isolated 8 man units in trenches but not connected to the next strongpoint which may be around 1000m away. Similarly attacking in very low numbers say 2 APC's and a Tank is alien when you are used to NATO where you would expect at least say a Platoon with an attached tank. However they would be attacking more than a basic section.

The reports note Russian attacking in 2 to 8 man groups. It hard to see how that works unless you are at least attacking a similar number of troops. You lose of course, but repeat several times and you may make a dent in the defenders.

Anybody go ideas as to how this works in the real world? Without that I can't tell if our rules work credibly at this level or not. You can't validate a system without something credible to validate it against.

During WWII the Germans had some pretty low trrop densities when they were being pushed out of Russia. Perhaps what you are doing is more akin to WWI trench raids with multiple raiding parties. Not particularly helpful, but that is what popped into my head.

79thPA I think you are right, at the end of WW2 many tactics were being established that are still in place now. However "classic" WW2 games are not designed to reflect this bit of the real world and are much less able to adapt to it than PERHAPS our set is.

However without some idea even as to how it was done in the real world I am struggling.

We are using the rules to guide us, based on our design it may give plausible results buy without a reference its difficult to assess.

We could end up down a rabbit hole doing the wrong thing. If you do the wrong thing you may fail, the rules may have done it right, the players just did the wrong thing and so plausibly failed.

We have seen this effect before on a D Day landing Scenario, re-looking at the defenses we had got them wrong. Get them right and the answers now looked in line with the real world. Basically the rules were right, as it showed the flaw in our defense definition.

Have you spoken to anyone who has fought in Ukraine or been over there?

Wolfhag

Why not just your existing rules, and punt?'
It doesn't seem like anything to lose sleep over.
Trust what you've done.

Yes, it sounds like your tactics aren't working. You'll learn, eventually. At least the mistakes you make aren't being paid for with real human lives…

The meat assault is sacrificial recon to reveal positions so they can be destroyed by artillery, glide bombs and drones. How this might look in a game is move your sacrificial recon onto the table, it gets killed and then the Russians follow up with a massive bombardment of revealed positions. Repeat the process as often as needed until the meat assaults actually survive and take some ground.

sacrificial recon

W.T.F.

@stoppage

Do you not understand the concept or are you offering your moral indignation? I am not sure based on your response. I am not being snarky or disrespectful these are sincere questions.

Ah, but they are Communists. They care nothing for human life!

sacrificial recon

There is some truth to that but they do have a defined mission. Basically, most of them are new and poorly trained troops who are expendable.

In Bakhmut they started using 3-4 teams of 4-6 guys each team is armed slightly differently. Their task is what I would call a small Recon in Force. They get the Ukie defenders to open fire and give away their positions. Behind the recon units are real troops with a drone operator, NODs who will call in mortars once the defenders have been identified. They also act as a blocking force similar to the NKVD in WWII.

If that attack fails they normally have a follow-up one in a few hours.

This is vastly different than WWI or WWII.

Wolfhag