The Commander Series Forum

All,

The Soviet commanders are in the process of ratcheting up the level of responsibility and opposition for a fresh unit in preparation for an offensive scheduled for May 1987 to finally conquer the Panjshir Valley.

Battlegroup Aronofsky has been tasked with clearing the small village of Namiyan northeast of Bagram. Mujahadeen resistance is expected to be light, but they are expected to put up a fight. What they don't know is that the Mujahadeen has recently been infiltrating units into the villages near Bagram in preparation for their own spring offensive.


Overview of the table, which is 3' x 2', with North being 'up.' Battlegroup Aronofsky will enter from the left (West), looking to clear the bottom in the bottom right (Southeast) corner. Top center is Hill 75, top right is Hill 80, bottom right is Hill 50. The two blue strips are canals, left is Canal 1, right is Canal 2. Battlegroup Aronofsky is not on the table yet, and the Mujahadeen are represent as blinds (which are actually singly based 10mm figures).


Friendly forces: Battlegroup Aronofsky, led by Captain Aronofsky (single figure at top left), with Lt Oleynik's tank and a ZU-23 of Weapons Company mounted on a BMP chassis. Bottom right is Lt Sharpova's platoon (1st Platoon, 1st Mechanized Company) of a BMP and two rifle teams, top right is Lt Dyachenko's platoon (2nd Platoon, 1st Mechanized Company) of a BTR and two rifle teams.


I rolled up the blinds and this is what the board looks like as the action starts: Lt Oleynik's tank leads the column, followed by Lt Sharpova's platoon (BMP and infantry), then Lt Dyachenko's platoon (BTR and infantry), with the ZU-23 BMP pulling up the rear. The Mujahadeen are as follows: a dug-in rifle team on Hill 75, a rifle team on Hill 80, the Mujahadeen commander and a quad 14.5mm HMG in a patch of woods (center right, just north of the highway), a dug-in rifle team at Canal 1, two rifle teams behind the village walls, and a dug-in Technical mounting a 14.5mm MG just West of them (there were 10 blinds, I rolled all of them up at the start, three were dummies).


And it wouldn't be one of my batreps without some close combat/melee (there were four, actually).

For the full report and a bunch more photos, please visit the blog at:
http://blackhawkhet.blogspot.com/2014/04/b...

Stay tuned, I should have another report posted tomorrow. It's not the same campaign though, I'm play-testing some skirmish rules for a gentleman using singly based figures and individual activation. It should be a good time.

V/R,
Jack

Interesting AAR and comments. I've just picked up "The Bear Went Over the Mountain" (then discovered you can download it for free as a pdf: www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA316729

As to the morale/units being eliminated issue: could you justify that as casualties representing not just physical damage to the unit but the erosion of its morale too? So although your dice may tell you that you've just killed 6 men could it actually be one kill, one serious wound and 4 guys who've just remembered very important appointments somewhere else?

Just spotted that "The other side of the mountain" is available as free download too: http://www.tribalanalysiscenter.com/TAUDOC...

HobbitMiles,

Thanks for the links. I actually read "The Bear Went Over the Mountain" on a plane on my way to Afghanistan back in 2001, but had never seen "The Other Side of the Mountain."

You're right, of course, regarding looking at casualties as an erosion of morale, and that's how I normally look at casualties with multi-based units, but for some reason it's a mental block for me with individually-based figures, where I tend to think of a man gone as a man down. I know it's silly, but it's just one of those mental hang-ups I have with rules. With singly-based guys it just seems like I want a bit more fidelity, so I'd prefer to see the unit actually get brushed back due to morale than to disappear due to casualties.

V/R,
Jack