Remainder of replies:
Reconnaissance in Defense: Often used to screen you[r] flanks and can be deployed forward of your main line of resistance. – Yes, that’s how I used it when deploying the Poles in this game.
To see off the enemy recon units preventing them from observing you main line of resistance. – Agree. Admittedly it didn’t happen here, because Polish reconnaissance units could not hope to match the mobility of their German counterparts. This is the kind of thing that’s difficult to capture in a miniature game because the tables are never large enough to encompass the true interrelationship between tactical distances and ranges of the units compared to their movement. Their “spheres of gravity” are always too big for a table too small. Here, German armored cars of Panzer Aufklärungsabteilung 5 (and even PzKpfw IIs of PzRgt 3) were just too fast. They could slip through gaps the Polish skirmish line (using that term loosely) and by the end of Turn 1 recon motorcycle detachments had eyes on the first Polish objective hex – by Turn 2 that hex was under fire.
To break up the enemy attack. Indeed. The video as published so far only covers to the end of Turn 1, but already we can see that happening with Polish cavalry out of Wysoka hitting the motorized vanguard of Schützen Rgt 2./2nd Panzer Division. They’ll be a lot more to come on that, but @yavasa might be able to speak more directly along those lines as he was in command by that point.
Normally the forward recon units would be supported by medium range artillery to smash the now slow moving infantry. – Not entirely sure I would agree, unless the recon units have their own integral artillery support (which hex, some do … German aufklärungsabteilung would usually have a battery of 7.5 cm IGs in their OOB). But conventional regimental or divisional artillery support, usually deployed in a second tactical echelon behind the main line of contact becomes problematic in my view. By the time enemy vanguard or recon units are in range of your artillery, they’re too close. Your main line of contact is probably in range of enemy artillery in turn, and the whole point of this exercise is to disrupt enemy approach vectors at a distance.
That said, I would agree that “defensive reconnaissance” can help vis-a-vis in the establishment of pre-sited fire plans and the like. And of course, if your artillery just has a range advantage over the enemy … you can probably get away with that.
In any event, this would be a theoretical case in Poland, as German artillery far outranged Polish artillery even in weapons of similar calibers and so far as I can tell, Polish artillery batteries were still set up on a direct fire “field gun” model, rather than indirect regimental or divisional fire support.
Normally the forward recon units would then fall back behind units just forward of your main line of resistance and do it all over again. Absolutely. This was the role of US armored cavalry in the classic “Fulda Gap” scenario in West Germany.
It will be interesting to see if there will be a price to pay for being that aggressive rather than withdrawing to slow you down again. – That would certainly be the plan, but spoilers … as we’ll see in Parts 2 and 3, it never happens here with the Poles on this particular battlefield. The differential between German and Polish mobility is just too great. And, in all fairness, the Germans are played by a 25-year veteran of the game who drew the map. To his credit, @yavasa does use his few 7TP and 7TP upgrades in a mobile defense role in the last three turns of the game. No spoilers on who actually wins this game, suffice it to say for now it comes very very close.
Not to say this would be the case on all Polish battlefields. Against a German infantry division, I’m sure this would work great. But here it doesn’t because you’re up against SdKfz 222s, 231s, and PzKpfw IIs. By the time your short range weapons can engage … yes, some of the enemy are already behind you.
Even though there were very few PZ-3s and PZ-4s they tended to make a big difference wherever they were used. Couldn’t agree more. 2nd Panzer Division was a premiere unit and even now our research shows only two platoons of PzKpfw IV (As and Ds mostly) – and no PzKpfw IIIs at all. Like my disclaimer says near the front the video, that was a “historical license” taken to provide a little “tank on tank” action in the game. The Poles were similarly “gifted” with a company of three platoons of 7TP upgrades (10th Motorized Cavalry Brigade had none of these at the time).
What I personally like about the Polish Campaign is that it was mostly fought by armoured vehicles armed with mostly MGs and 2 cm guns. I agree with the history of that statement, where it gets rough is from a gaming perspective. So many tank / armored car platoons that can’t realistically hurt each other (as @yavasa will attest) results in some strange battlefield dynamics (the armored car / tankette demolition derby we saw at the end of Game 02 – Tomaszów Lubelski). I normally enjoy early war games more than late war, because of the primacy of maneuver over raw firepower … but at some junctions here in Poland it’s almost started to feel like too much of a good thing.
You can have your Sdkfz 221 and 222 mix it up with the Polish TK tanks in quite even terms. – this is true, they just can’t overrun. Ranges are 2 hexes (300-500 meters), while movement rates are 6, 8, or 10. So … why fight? Overrun is the only viable game tactic here, and that’s not allowed because no “A” class weapons (autocannon are usually H or AA class). This might be more of a game mechanic corner case, though, easily resolved through a special scenario rule. (H class weapons can overrun assuming enemy DFs are 2 or less).
@yavasa – Yeah – I was sure you guys were talking cavalry vs. armor about this somewhere in the thread or in YouTube. So I mentioned with an addendum “as you guys probably said” so I wasn’t just repeating other people’s contributions. 😀 You’re definitely more knowledgeable on this campaign than I am.
“I think you are allowed a few oversights here.” – Back on Page 5 from @jamesevans140 . I don’t want to ignore it, but I don’t want to respond until I understand more of the context.
Poland 1939 – Preparing for 80th Anniversary of World War II
