Monday, May 5, 2008

Phase Line Smash armored cav

One of the pleasures of a real in-depth military simulation such as Phase Line Smash is the insight it can provide into actual historical events.

PLS is, perhaps, the most ambitious solitaire manual wargame ever attempted. The basic game has 55 pages of rules, in small type! A good chunk of the other 55-page book in the game also has rules.

But a large portion of the second book is a detailed battle history of the portion of the Gulf War fought by the VII Corps. The roughly 44 pages of history-related material would probably be a 100+ page book if published in the usual format for hardcover history books, so this is no simple set of designer's notes.

One of the facts depicted in PLS is the differing employments of the two armored cavalry regiments deployed for Desert Storm. Both were storied formations with long and distinguished histories.

The 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment assigned to VII Corps is the longest continuously serving regimental-sized unit on active service, dating back to the original 2nd Dragoons from 1836, which was renamed the 2nd U.S. Cavalry during the Civil War.

The 3rd ACR assigned to XVIII Airborne Corps started its organizational existence as Regiment of Mounted Rifles in 1846, (hence it's nickname of "Brave Rifles") and was later renamed as the 3rd. U.S. Cavalry during the general reorganization of the mounted branch on Aug. 3rd, 1861.

Almost 130 years later the two venerable regiments were in the Arabian desert preparing to take part in the largest armored battle in history.

The game designer notes, however, that the two regiments were employed quite differently even though organized the same.

The 2nd ACR operated independently, under VII Corps control, as an advance element of the corps. It was reinforced with an entire brigade of field artillery (the 210th FA Bde), which was a very unusual subordination of a colonel-level command to another colonel-level command. It's a testimony to the professionalism of the late 2oth Century (and early 21st Century) U.S. Army that it could make this kind of command relationship work smoothly without the kind of drama about ranks and date of rank one is used to seeing in military history. Certainly the 1861 U.S. Army could never have tried something like that! The unconventional reinforcement aside, the 2nd ACR was fulfilling a very conventional role as the advance element for a heavy armored corps.

The 3rd ACR, on the other hand, was assigned directly to the 24th Mechanized Infantry Division, in effect becoming a fourth maneuver brigade for that heavy division. The 3rd ACR wasn't even much weaker than the 2nd ACR. It didn't have an FA Bde in support, it did have an attached FA battalion, to in total it was merely 24-guns smaller. Why the different treatment?

The game doesn't say, and I don't know if any of the commanders ever explicitly explained their decisions. It could have simply been due to the personal preferences of the respective corp commanders, and if Lt. Gen. Gary E. Luck had commanded VII Corps instead of XVIII Airborne, and Lt. Gen. Frederick M. Franks Jr. headed XVIII Corps instead of VII Corps maybe things would have been done differently.

But analyzing the situation by the Army method known as METT suggests that the decision might well have been the same even if the corps commanders had been switched because there were significant differences in the conditions facing the two corps.

The M in METT stands for Mission, the the mission of the XVIII Airborne Corps was to act as the flank guard for the entire Coalition army assembled for the offensive to liberate Kuwait. The corps was supposed to prevent any Iraqi forces from interfering with Coalition plans.

The E stands foe the Enemy. In the XVIII Corps zone Iraqi forces were sparse and deployed in widely separated strong points. They were not strong, but they were located in many distinct positions that would have to be neutralized.

The first T stands for terrain. For the airborne corps there were miles and miles of trackless desert to cross. The corps area of operations was very spread out.

The final T is Troops Available. For the XVIII Airborne Corps there was the problem of coordinating different nationalities and troops with very different capabilities. There was a very light, ground mobile force based around the small French division reinforced by a brigade of truck-borne U.S. paratroopers. There was an airmobile force comprised mostly of the 101st Airmobile Division and there was a heavy mechanized force built around the 24th Mechanized Division.

Given the dispersed enemy, huge distances and disparate capabilities of his units Luck evidently decided that the best approach would be to decentralize control as much as possible. Thus it made sense to subordinate the 3rd ACR directly to the 24th Mech instead of trying to coordinate their actions remotely at corps level.

On the VII Corps front things couldn't be more different.

The Mission of VII Corps was to engage the most powerful enemy armored force and destroy it in direct combat.

That Enemy force was the six-division Republican Guard (reinforced by several divisions worth of regular Iraqi troops). While the course of the war revealed the limitations of the Iraqi forces, pre-war planning had to give them the benefit of the doubt. It was a substantial enemy force.

The terrain was still trackless, but it was constrained by unit boundaries on both left and right which meant that the VII Corps would be operating in a fairly constricted space given its size.

And that size was considerable, as the Troops Available comprised five heavy armored divisions. While there were some variations in equipment and size, all five divisions were large, very heavily armored extremely mobile ground forces. Orchestrating their movement, let alone their fighting, would require close supervision by the corps headquarters, tremendous synchronization and adherence to strict timetables.

And helping those armored divisions keep their timetables was the responsibility of the 2nd ACR, which raced ahead of the corps to clear the way and make sure that no Iraqi forces of any size was able to act as a speed bump to slow down any part of the VII Corps. Franks planned to wheel the entire corps and smash into the flank of the Republican Guards with annihilating force. It wouldn't have taken much to throw the whole schedule off kilter.

So given the realities of METT the different employment strategies for the 2nd ACR and 3rd ACR make perfect sense, and are even reflected in the game. Consider how much more difficult coordinating the boundary issues between the XVIII Corps and VII Corps would be if extra levels of command were included. Instead the player (who represents VII Corps commander Franks) can deal with the 24th Mech alone on his flank, instead of multiple units.

Phase Line Smash is an amazing study of this singular campaign and even unplayed it's is worth having.

5 comments:

  1. Thanks for the thoughtful assessment. At the time it came out I think a lot of buyers were expecting something more fast and light, which was not what PLS was intended to be, so got rated accordingly. It looks like over the years people who were looking for this kind of study finally got a chance to dig into it (it does take time and attention) and enjoyed what was in there. The OB details were a great deal of fun to get into, most of them I got from interviewing participants during the year after the war, poring over their personal and unit papers.

    Now that it's 22 years later, I believe the opinion at the time was 3d ACR was OPCON to 24th Mech due to a combination of 1) an Airborne Corps didn't know how to properly use an ACR (logically, they wouldn't), so they had to put it under a heavy organization who would know how to operate it, and 2) McCaffrey was a bit of an empire builder and liked having another heavy brigade. I believe the most fair thing to say is that since McCaffrey was already running his division he couldn't readily oversee 3d ACR in an independent corps-level mission at the same time, so operating it as a fourth maneuver BDE focused on flank screening was a practical compromise.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the thoughtful and appreciative assessment. When the game came out it was not terribly well-received; I think a lot of people assumed this would be something quick and light, rather than an in-depth study. In the years since then it appears that the guys who did want something like this finally got a chance to pull it out and devote the time and attention to it they’d always wanted to, and a number of nice appreciations have popped up on the Internet, yours included. In making this, Frank and I wanted it to be an accurate representation of what actually went into a corps operation to make it turn out so well. With the more recent reviews, it appears that we finally did find the kindred spirits we made this game for, and that is always rewarding.

    Re: 3d ACR, after 22 years my recollection from talking to people in all three units is that 3d ACR was made OPCON to 24th Mech (not really doctrinal) because of the sense that XVIII ABC did not really know how to use an ACR as a corps asset (logically they would have no experience with this), and that as the (US) mechanized operational know-how was in 24th Mech, give it to them to use properly. Here opinions diverge a bit, including the notion that McCaffrey was a bit of an empire-builder and would snap up all assets offered to him. I think it is fairer to say that as a division, 24th Mech/McCaffrey didn’t really have the ability to oversee 3d ACR operating in a corps-level mission (i.e., as a peer rather than subordinate unit, same level as 24th Mech), so a good compromise was to place 3d ACR under 24th Mech, but use them in a primarily flank securing/screening role. Which is basically what you derived in your analysis, but from another direction.

    3d ACR’s organization in Desert Shield was fascinating. As one of the first heavy units in theater it served as a magnet for lots of heavy units in case they had to quickly go to war. I don’t have the material in front of me, but like 2d ACR, 3d ACR at one point was a mini-division, with additional armored battalion fragments attached, and at one point even its own MLRS battalion and battery. Obviously not doctrinal, but if the balloon went up without warning they needed some kind of organization. These things mostly got farmed out elsewhere in XVIII ABC (mostly to 24th Mech) when VII Corps closed in theater and allowed 3d ACR to be pulled from the line to swap out their M1s for M1A1s.

    Thanks again,

    Dave Nilsen
    PLS co-designer/developer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the additional insight. I was just making my best guess based on the facts presented in the game. It's nice to see I was in the ballpark based on your more direct knowledge.
      PLS I think of as a history book in game form more than a game. I think it was wise to make it a solitaire game.

      Delete
  3. Thanks, Seth. The reason there are two posts from me is that the first one didn't show up for a day or two, so I thought it had gotten eaten, and wrote it again but with some additional information added. It looks like they both just got hung up in a queue somewhere.

    "History book in game form" is a nice way to look at it. That would actually be a fun genre to get into, but it actually evolved into that form rather than being intended that way. It was intended from the beginning to be solitaire, as it was just too hard to imagine anyone wanting to play the Iraqis. In fact, expecting much interest in the game at all was probably going too far, as there was a dismissive sense of, "that was too easy" afterwards. The genesis of the game was when Tom Clancy said to Frank, "we didn't need a whole corps, we could have done it with a single ACR, or a troop of Girl Scouts." Those kind of popular misconceptions derive from the fact that, "making something look easy" is not the same as, "it IS easy," and is a discredit to all of the hard work and professionalism that it required. So the desire to help people see that more clearly, coupled with GDW's position as a Gulf War analyst led to the game.

    As I was working on it in the year immediately following the war, I had the opportunity to review a large number of returning unit commanders and got a tremendous amount of detail, allowing me to refine and sharpen elements of the game. And then the Schwarzkopf-Franks flap blew up, so we really needed to address that (the game shows that we came down firmly opposed to Schwarzkopf's assertions—which I found disingenuous: he claimed to have gotten over it, but then repeated them in his best-selling autobiography). And before you knew it, the game had the opportunity to address in detail all of these current events, and I thought it would be a crime with all of the relevant primary research to not do so, as the research was already there. So I pushed our budget people to get the second booklet added to allow room to get it all in. That's why the price and UPC were on a sticker, we had to raise the price of the game to cover the added components.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks, Seth. The reason there are two posts from me is that the first one didn't show up for a day or two, so I thought it had gotten eaten, and wrote it again but with some additional information added. It looks like they both just got hung up in a queue somewhere.

    "History book in game form" is a nice way to look at it. That would actually be a fun genre to get into, but it actually evolved into that form rather than being intended that way. It was intended from the beginning to be solitaire, as it was just too hard to imagine anyone wanting to play the Iraqis. In fact, expecting much interest in the game at all was probably going too far, as there was a dismissive sense of, "that was too easy" afterwards. The genesis of the game was when Tom Clancy said to Frank, "we didn't need a whole corps, we could have done it with a single ACR, or a troop of Girl Scouts." Those kind of popular misconceptions derive from the fact that, "making something look easy" is not the same as, "it IS easy," and is a discredit to all of the hard work and professionalism that it required. So the desire to help people see that more clearly, coupled with GDW's position as a Gulf War analyst led to the game.

    As I was working on it in the year immediately following the war, I had the opportunity to review a large number of returning unit commanders and got a tremendous amount of detail, allowing me to refine and sharpen elements of the game. And then the Schwarzkopf-Franks flap blew up, so we really needed to address that (the game shows that we came down firmly opposed to Schwarzkopf's assertions—which I found disingenuous: he claimed to have gotten over it, but then repeated them in his best-selling autobiography). And before you knew it, the game had the opportunity to address in detail all of these current events, and I thought it would be a crime with all of the relevant primary research to not do so, as the research was already there. So I pushed our budget people to get the second booklet added to allow room to get it all in. That's why the price and UPC were on a sticker, we had to raise the price of the game to cover the added components.

    ReplyDelete