1939 Poles errata

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

User avatar
Arlequín
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:29 pm
Location: King's Vale Royal

Re: 1939 Poles errata

Post by Arlequín » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:32 am

The Italians were unable to pull off a 'Dunkirk' in the desert. Brits especially forget the one soldier in eight that was missing/POW after the French Campaign, not to mention 3/4 of the army's total heavy equipment stocks.

I'm trying to move towards tactical characteristics rather than national characteristics and to what an army did that made it in anyway different to the others. I anticipate it will be a very short list.

andysyk
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: 1939 Poles errata

Post by andysyk » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:47 am

Yep.
There were some very good Italian troops. The Bersaglieri and Alpini were generally competent and easily the equal of any armies regular Infantry. The Paras were excellent and their Artillery and Armoured units suffered from no lack of Moral Fibre. Even some of the Blackshirt units had good combat records.

The faults were of course many, equipment, segregation of command down to low level, poor training, lack of experienced NCOs etc etc

I actually don't like the National Characteristics and in my own games don't bother unless the opponent insists. Most NC could be applied to many other nations armies/tactics.

I also find the different approach taken tactically the most interesting part.

Arlequin just play NWE late war. One Section/Group/Squad. No teams. Green. (As Im sure weve mentioned before) ;)

Actually Early war is good for the difference in tactics.
Many inexperienced troops, those who had regular training would have tried to fight according to their manuals and many campaigns so short that actual practice wouldn't have had much time to develop.

Of course there were many units that simply could not have even tried to apply laid down tactics, as no one knew them, or were capable of practicing them..

I do like COC because it gives me a base to try and game the different tactics. Although the system to me best suits 2 Team-Sections. It can become a bit wonky when you try and add other Teams within the Section as for example the USMC F Series anyway I digress.

User avatar
Arlequín
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:29 pm
Location: King's Vale Royal

Re: 1939 Poles errata

Post by Arlequín » Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:06 pm

Yes, we should be sticking to Poland here, but all above noted and agreed.

The Spanish used three team sections, two to a platoon, so I know it creates issues.

I'm quite happy (more than even) with CoC, it's its application into its lists that often has me looking sideways at it.

gebhk
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:21 am

Re: 1939 Poles errata

Post by gebhk » Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:34 pm

I find my self buying model tanks in Platoon strength. I cant "help" it.

That is the way to go if you want anything like a historical perspective. Tanks were rarely committed in anything less than a company. Aside from the obvious tactical considerations of 'using the fist not spread fingers', the simple reason was that only at that level could some semblance of mechanical maintenance be provided. Folk used to today's machines that will happily transport them up and down the country and across half of Europe without so much as an oil change, often don't appreciate that 1930's vehicles (especially tracked ones) were delicate flowers that required very frequent application of skilled care in order to function at all. Taught by painful experience, even in battle, the Polish TK platoon was followed 600m behind by its maintenance patrol in its own AFV. And despite all that tender loving care being lavished on them daily, the TKs still needed to take a day off for major overhaul after every 2-3 days campaigning (note campaigning, not necessarily battle).

Archdukek
Posts: 4556
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:49 pm
Location: Linlithgow, West Lothian, UK

Re: 1939 Poles errata

Post by Archdukek » Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:03 pm

There is an element of generic listing in the support lists rather than going into the detail in every case. Rich Clarke would be the first to say that if your research shows something different then adjust the lists to suit, that's part of the flexibility of the system. Just make sure that your opponent understands and agrees.

I too favour making some of the support options scenario specific rather than an apparently random choice. Engineers fall firmly into that category, especially Flamethrowers. The use of fixed defences and engineers is best agreed in advance as part of the pre-game preparation in my view. Same too for armour in early war games. I just think it makes for a better overall experience and game narrative.

John

Post Reply