Barring the way to Moscow ... October 1941

Having introduced Murray to WW2 Spearhead in 6mm, we decided to have a look at playing it in 20mm. The issue with this is that, when retaining the same ground scale (a preference I have for two reasons .. retaining my sanity by not adding yet another layer of memory challenge, and an acknowledgement of the limited table top 'real estate' at my disposal), vehicles and gun stands then take up a disproportionate amount of that tabletop real estate, negatively impacting issues of troop density.

 The visual aesthetic is also an issue as suddenly the tabletop can appear to be 'crammed' with tanks. We are old enough to remember those childhood 'gaming experiences where this was so. These are not the fiondest of memories.

So, despite all of that, I set up a 1941 Russia scenario inspired by the actions of Katukov commanding an independent tank brigade, causing mayhem for the German panzers advancing towards Moscow. Katukov's success lay in a series of effective ambush actions. I decided to simplify things as this was a second introductory game - it would be an encounter game, an advance to contact.  The German objective was to get acroos the narrow river, and take the road bridge, or the ford, to allow the mostly horse drawn logistics, and the follow up infantry, to continue to advance in support. The Russian objective was to hold the river and halt the German advance.

The battlefield, the Germans advancing from the left, the Russians from the right.

The German OOB, a veteran tank battalion (under strength), and two regular infantry battalions, with some air support (sorry the Stuka is a late war model, it's all I had.. use your imagination, go on!!). The German commander also had the advantage of a battalion of off table 105mm artillery guns.

The Russian independent tank brigade, supported by an under strength cavalry regiment, and an additional (green) infantry battalion

The German attack plan

The Russian attack plan

The Russians had the advantage of four manoeuvre units to the Germans' three, albeit that their attached infantry battalion was 'green'. As this was another introductory game, we didn't use the advanced rules for cross attachment.

Initial advances

The German right flank battalion

The Russian left flank advance was undertaken by the cavalry regiment, and the light tank battalion  from the division's assets (yep, for the rivet counters out there, those are T70s when at this early stage they should be T60s.. again, go on, use your imagination.. just this once)

The Russian cavalry unit included the cart mounted MMG.. the Tchanka.. this had been modelled years ago by old friend Gerard who sadly passed a couple of years ago)

The Russian armour.. at this early stage these tank brigades were mixed in composition, a BT7 command, a T34/76A, and two T26s. The BA32 is the regiment command stand. The armour had an AA asset attached too.. the quad Maxim mounted on a GAZ truck.

Our plans ended up being quite symmetrical (mirror images, in fact), so the Russian armour came up directly against the veteran German armour. This did mean that the game was probably less interesting at a tactical level.

The armoured action begins

Murray successfully calls in an air attack, but fails to hit.,., he did this twice (the scenario allowed two air attack missions).. rolling a 1 and then a 2 .. normally a bomb attack like this would hit on a 2, but the defending AA, while failing to destroy the aircraft, did make it more difficult to hit.

The armoured fight heats up

Action on the Russian left also takes off, with the first Russian casualties (I forgot to dismount the cavalry.. blimey!!!)

Under cover of the Russian armour, the infantry pushes forward to also attack the German armour which has advanced without infantry support.

The Russian armour succeeds in destroying one of the sections of Pz IIIs (remember that in Spearhead one model represents from 3 to 5 vehicles, so it's not a 1:1 tank action going on here).

 

You get the idea.. with all of the explaining, coaching, and general wargames yarning, the game only proceeded to 5 turns, whereas it really needed 10-12 to allow a conclusion. In a normal evening's gaming we would achieve that. There was a lot of learning going on, and no doubt there will be more games.

Here's the thing, well multiple things:

1. Spearhead is a game that is outcomes focussed. It rewards combined arms planning. Murray had  his armour unsupported by infantry, and they MAY have then paid the price (we always have to remember that ultimately we play a game with dice, so there are no certainties). I think he was surprised by my decision to push the Russian infantry forward against his armour. Some would argue that is unrealistic.. however as I said, this is an outcomes focus. As my infantry were supported by my own armour, the target priority rules meant the infantry could do what they did. 
2. 20mm isn't the ideal scale at which to game Spearhead, as I stated in the introduction. However both Murray and I cut our teeth on 20mm models and games as youngsters. I have often thought about selling my 20mm collections because they get so little use. However we both (even at our more advanced ages) enjoy the 20mm aesthetic on the tabletop. Perhaps it's nostalgia? Who knows, but I think this is the reason I have been reluctant to dispose of these armies. The secret is just to keep vehicle numbers down. I suspect that on a 6x4 playing surface you wouldn't want any more models than we had, otherwise you end up with that 'wall to wall tanks' problem, an aesthetic neither of us likes.
3. Spearhead is an elegant rules system. Is it perfect? Hell no.. but then no rules system is. Does it create some possible planning, command and control challenges for the player? Hell yes.  But from years gone by we both remember those arguments that ensured about whether the tank commander could pop out of his cupola and fire his pistol, or whether you were shooting at the front or the side, or whether the side armour was 68mm or 71mm. Spearhead eliminates these and offers a coherent challenging game for players. As a personal comment I all too often see rules systems come onto the market that offer all that was bad and little of what is good in this regard.