Between a rock and a hard place -- Finland in World War II

World War II is full of amazing stories, but one that gets relatively little attention in the U.S. is Finland's odyssey between 1939 and 1945.

I think it's astounding that Finland escaped World War II basically intact. It's like being in a plane wreck and getting away with just a broke arm.

It's always tough for a small country to be located near a powerful one. A Mexican politician once lamented that Mexico was fated to "be so far from God and so near the United States." I expect that there are similar sayings in the lore of countries like Vietnam and Portugal. How much harder, still, for those small countries caught between two antagonists, like Belgium or Korea.

So the fact that Finland was able to escape the maw of the biggest war in history without being chewed up and spat out is a testament to their fortitude and good sense.

And interestingly enough, they managed this feat while being on the wrong side, to boot.

Most people sympathize with the Finns about the Winter War, their unsuccessful defense against the Soviets over the winter of 1939-1940. There have been a fair number of games covering that conflict, from the classic SPI game Winter War to newer titles such as A Frozen Hell. It's not uncommon to see scenarios from the Winter War in scenario wargames like ASL. In my collection there are scenarios from the 39-40 fighting in Axis & Allies: Miniatures, Down in Flames (shown above) and Check Your 6!

What's usually passed over with little comment is the Continuation War, where the Finns joined the Germans in Barbarossa. My first exposure to the Finns was in the old Avalon Hill game Stalingrad, where they were one of the Axis minor allies. At the time there was little to set them apart from the other Axis minors other than the fact they're units were a little better and the fact that they were dangerously isolated from the rest of the front. In the games we played in our little circle Soviet players usually wiped out the Finns to eliminate a threat to Leningrad. I remember wondering back then, as a teen, why the Finns would take the chance.

Of course the Finns were a lot tougher than that game reflected, and the Soviets had enough on their plate that they couldn't spare the resources needed to crush Finland. But eventually, as the tide turned, the Finns could see the inevitable result and made their arrangements with the Soviets to exit the war. What amazes me is that the Soviets let them.

One wonders if the indomitable spirit the Finns demonstrated had something to do with this. Perhaps the Finns earned the respect of the Russian elites. And the restraint Finland showed during the Continuation War may also have had something to do with it. Despite a lot of pressure from the Germans, the Finns refused to go beyond the limits of the territory they lost to the Russians in the Winter War. And they refused to join actively in the siege of Leningrad.

So unlike all the other Axis minor allies, the Finns avoided being overrun by the Soviets and were allowed to retain their independence during the Cold War (and sensibly, they didn't push their luck, remaining reliably neutral).

Still, the Continuation War gets a lot less attention than the Winter War in western histories. There's the uncomfortable fact that Finland was a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany. But that co-belligerence was an important distinction. Finland and Germany were not allies. Finland did not ship its Jews off to German death camps. And that distinction was noticed in an era that seemed able to recognize subtle distinctions. The United States never even actually declared war on Finland, for example.

Also reducing interest, I think, is that the Continuation War was not particularly fierce. The Finns reined themselves in, and one gathers that the Soviets did little to provoke them. What serious fighting did occur tended to be between those German forces the Finns allowed to operate and the Soviets near Murmansk. Operating at the very far end of the logistical capabilities, the Germans were not able to succeed against the Soviet defenders at Murmansk, which was honored as a hero city.

Many Eastern Front wargames leave the Finnish front out entirely, or just include the portion near Leningrad. Usually there are special rules that prevent the Germans from making the Finns into the sort of potential threat that caused Stalingrad players to sweep the Finns off the board.

I've had a soft spot for Finland's story in World War II. I think they were truly between the rock and the hard place, yet managed to navigate throught treacherous waters to emerge with polity and integrity intact, if not a little battered.

TCS: Bloody Ridge

Bloody Ridge comprehensive review

Tactical Combat Series No. 14

Published: 2005

Designer: Michael S. Smith

TCS Overview

Repeated from earlier reviews. If already familiar with TCS skip this part.

Now published by Multi-Man Publishing, the TCS is one of The Gamers founding lines of series wargames that use a common set of standard rules to allow players to explore many different battles without having to learn a new set of rules every time.

In TCS the ground scale is 125 meters per hex, time is 20 minutes per daylight turn and units are platoons of troops, weapons sections and individual vehicles, so it’s about halfway between the ASL/Squad Leader squad-based systems and the traditional PanzerBlitz/First Battle platoon-oriented systems typically seen in tactical 20th Century wargames. Unlike most of its peers, TCS games always depict specific historical incidents on the actual terrain. There are no “geomorphic” representative maps or generic counters.

Distinctively, the TCS system is much less concerned with the characteristics of the hardware used than the typical tactical wargame. Offensively, units either fire area-effect weapons such as small arms and high explosives or with weapons with a point effect such as anti-tank guns. Similarly, they are either area targets such as soldiers or point targets such as a vehicle, or occasionally both. If armed, the unit has a range and if made up of troops a morale rating. If it’s a vehicle or gun it has a defense rating based on its armor.

Platoons have five “steps” while weapons units have one or two. Vehicles represent individual machines and are either hit (mission kill) or not.

As one would expect there are rules covering special conditions, tactics and needs such as smoke, fortifications and various terrain effects, but the basic structure is very straightforward and, compared to other tactical wargames, uncomplicated. This aspect of the game is deliberately kept simple.The real heart of the game system is the command control rules, which mimics the kind of staff planning that goes into conducting actual military operations at this scale. Players actually draw up their battle plans in schematic form on “op sheets” specifying exactly how they plan to conduct their attack or defense using specific units in specific ways. Once the plan is drawn up it waits while sufficient “weighted turns” accumulate in order to put it into effect. How much time passes will depend on factors such the complexity of the plan, how many different units are involved, the nature of the mission and the overall quality of the unit’s staff work and a die roll. A simple movement plan involving no contact with the enemy by a single company under a highly trained staff might take just a turn or two before coming into effect. On the other hand, a complex, multi-battalion deliberate assault by a poorly-staffed army like the Soviets may never actually happen.

This is a fascinating and unique system that creates a very different pacing from what’s usually seen. Long stretches of time tend to pass with relatively little going on interspersed with periods of intense action. It much more closely resembles the pacing of actual military operations than most tactical wargames.

On the other hand, this is also the system’s biggest weakness. It is wholly unsuited for competitive playing styles. It relies absolutely on the players making good faith effort to act within the spirit of the rules. It relies on them faithfully executing plans that no longer make tactical sense because ground facts have changed since the plan was drawn up. It requires players who will not attempt to wring every possible “legal” advantage the rules might allow but instead try act as the real-life commanders would have. It’s pointless for players whose first consideration is winning to play this. This is a game system for people interested in the journey, NOT the destination.It can be played solitaire fairly easily by drawing up alternative plans for both sides and then dicing among those for the actual plans being used.

Series designer Dean Essig firmly insisted that no game in the series would be made obsolete by any rules changes. All updates to the system are required to be backwards compatible and therefore every game (Except the modern Force Eagle's war) can (and should) be played with the latest edition of the rules, currently 3.1.

Bloody Ridge specifics:

Tactical Combat Series Rules version 3.1

12th-14th September, 1942, Henderson Field, Guadalcanal

One small map

Unit symbols: Weapons and troops are all are full color icons. There are no AFV

Opposing Sides:

U.S.: Elements First Marine Division
Japan: Elements 124th Infantry Regt.

Total number of battalion equivalents (the usual op sheet size) in play: Up to about 9 or so.

Playing time: Up to about 4 hours, according to the box.

Bloody Ridge is small for a TCS game, with a very narrow focus on the fighting for a small, if critical terrain feature -- a ridge overlooking Henderson Field on Guadalcanal. While involving just a few battalions on both sides, it was probably the critical moment in the campaign, as it was the closest that the Japanese ever got to actually capturing the airfield.

The single most dominant feature on the map is the thick jungle that covers most of it. Because jungle costs 3 movement points per hex to enter the Japanese will find they don't have a lot of time to putz around. Their infantry platoons will generally move just two hexes per turn. Here and there a trail exists and the open ridge allows faster, although more vulnerable movement. For the most part it's slogging through jungle, though. And that slog will quickly leave the Japanese support weapons behind, as the machine gun teams. mortar teams and infantry guns can all move just one hex per turn.

The Japanese don't have a lot of supporting weapons in any case, and no real artillery. A cruiser and three destroyers make a brief appearance at the beginning of the battle with a quick barrage, but otherwise its bullets, bayonet sand grenades doing the work. The Japanese are quality troops with morale of "2" for the most part, which would normally be enough to give them a big edge. And they have some special rules increasing their effectiveness in close combat as well. But they're up against U.S, Marines, who have their own special rules giving similar advantages. And the heart of the Marine defense is held by the elite Marine Raider Battalion, with help from the Parachute Battalion. They have morale levels of "1." The Marines also have the benefit of standing on the defense, so they can use their supporting arms more easily, including a few batteries of artillery and some air support, too.

The Japanese labor under a further disadvantage with the poor command prep level of "6." This means implementing any changes to plans will be a long and uncertain affair and makes op sheets with reserves or alternative routes nearly useless. In contrast the Marines generally have comamnd prep level of "4" which designates about average competence. Committing reserves or executing an alternative route is about a 50/50 shot with that rating. The Raider battalion has a command prep rating of "1" which is excellent and means that unit will be very flexible and can use reserves profusely.

All this shapes up as a close-range and bloody fight, hence the name "Bloody Ridge."

There are just four scenarios. The first is an 11-turn depiction of the attack the Japanese planned to carry out on the 12th, but failed to happen because of delays getting through the jungle. This has the weakest Marine defense, so it provides the best chance for Japanese victory. The second scenario extends that assault into the daylight hours.

The second scenario covers the actual fight, over 37 turns, on the 13th and 14th, while the final scenario is an 83-turn campaign game covering all three days.

Bloody Ridge is, by TCS standards, small and makes a good intro to the system. Its available from MMP.

TCS: Screaming Eagles in Holland

Screaming Eagles in Holland comprehensive review
Tactical Combat Series No. 13

Published: 2002

Designer: Nigel Roberts and Bob Runnicles

TCS Overview

Repeated from earlier reviews. If already familiar with TCS skip this part.

Now published by Multi-Man Publishing, the TCS is one of The Gamers founding lines of series wargames that use a common set of standard rules to allow players to explore many different battles without having to learn a new set of rules every time.

In TCS the ground scale is 125 meters per hex, time is 20 minutes per daylight turn and units are platoons of troops, weapons sections and individual vehicles, so it’s about halfway between the ASL/Squad Leader squad-based systems and the traditional PanzerBlitz/First Battle platoon-oriented systems typically seen in tactical 20th Century wargames. Unlike most of its peers, TCS games always depict specific historical incidents on the actual terrain. There are no “geomorphic” representative maps or generic counters.

Distinctively, the TCS system is much less concerned with the characteristics of the hardware used than the typical tactical wargame. Offensively, units either fire area-effect weapons such as small arms and high explosives or with weapons with a point effect such as anti-tank guns. Similarly, they are either area targets such as soldiers or point targets such as a vehicle, or occasionally both. If armed, the unit has a range and if made up of troops a morale rating. If it’s a vehicle or gun it has a defense rating based on its armor.Platoons have five “steps” while weapons units have one or two. Vehicles represent individual machines and are either hit (mission kill) or not.

As one would expect there are rules covering special conditions, tactics and needs such as smoke, fortifications and various terrain effects, but the basic structure is very straightforward and, compared to other tactical wargames, uncomplicated. This aspect of the game is deliberately kept simple.

The real heart of the game system is the command control rules, which mimics the kind of staff planning that goes into conducting actual military operations at this scale. Players actually draw up their battle plans in schematic form on “op sheets” specifying exactly how they plan to conduct their attack or defense using specific units in specific ways. Once the plan is drawn up it waits while sufficient “weighted turns” accumulate in order to put it into effect. How much time passes will depend on factors such the complexity of the plan, how many different units are involved, the nature of the mission and the overall quality of the unit’s staff work and a die roll. A simple movement plan involving no contact with the enemy by a single company under a highly trained staff might take just a turn or two before coming into effect. On the other hand, a complex, multi-battalion deliberate assault by a poorly-staffed army like the Soviets may never actually happen.

This is a fascinating and unique system that creates a very different pacing from what’s usually seen. Long stretches of time tend to pass with relatively little going on interspersed with periods of intense action. It much more closely resembles the pacing of actual military operations than most tactical wargames.

On the other hand, this is also the system’s biggest weakness. It is wholly unsuited for competitive playing styles. It relies absolutely on the players making good faith effort to act within the spirit of the rules. It relies on them faithfully executing plans that no longer make tactical sense because ground facts have changed since the plan was drawn up. It requires players who will not attempt to wring every possible “legal” advantage the rules might allow but instead try act as the real-life commanders would have. It’s pointless for players whose first consideration is winning to play this. This is a game system for people interested in the journey, NOT the destination.

It can be played solitaire fairly easily by drawing up alternative plans for both sides and then dicing among those for the actual plans being used.

Series designer Dean Essig firmly insisted that no game in the series would be made obsolete by any rules changes. All updates to the system are required to be backwards compatible and therefore every game (Except the modern Force Eagle's war) can (and should) be played with the latest edition of the rules, currently 3.1.

Screaming Eagles in Holland specifics:

Tactical Combat Series Rules version 3.1

22nd-23rd Sept., 1944, Veghel, Holland
Two full-sized maps
Unit symbols: AFV, weapons and troops are all are full color icons.

Opposing Sides:
Allied: 101st Airborne Division (partial) and elements of the British XXX Coprs
German: KG Walther (elements 107th Pz Bde, 1st Bn-16th VG Regt., SS KG Frundsberg, 1st Bn-21st FJ) KG Huber (1035 Regt., KG Von der Heydte)
Total number of battalion equivalents (the usual op sheet size) in play: Up to about 19 or so.
Playing time: Up to about 20 hours, according to the box.

The first TCS game published under MMP's logo after The Gamers was sold, Screaming Eagles in Holland provided some evidence that the series would continue after publication of new games became sparse in the new century. In the first 8 years of the system there were 11 titles published. In the last 10 years only three (or four if GD '42 appears soon).

Screaming Eagles in Holland is a pretty straightforward TCS game, with a good mix of all arms and quality troops for the most part on both sides. The Allies have elite paratroops, Sherman tanks and a decent amount of artillery, although a little lighter in size than they're used to (mostly 75mm Pack Howitzers). The Germans also have paratroopers, as well as SS infantry, some regular infantry, '88s', assault guns, Panthers and Panzer IVs. The Allies have a chance for some air support, as do the Germans as a variant, so just about every aspect of the rules comes into play.

The Allies have an edge in command quality, with command prep ratings of 2 or 3, compared to the 3 or 4 of the Germans. In addition the Germans are limited to just seven implemented op sheets (3 for KG Huber and 4 for KG Walther) and the two KG cannot coordinate in any way, representing the problems the Germans had historically in sequencing their attacks. The two German groups were attacking from opposite directions and had no communication with each other. They weren't even in the same corps! The best way to play this game is with at least two German players who are not allowed to communicate with each other.

As so often with TCS games, many of the special rules have to do with terrain considerations peculiar to a specific battlefield. In this case, the dominant characteristic of the area around Veghel was its extreme flatness and wet ground. In an extreme contrast for those who have played Leros, Hunters From the Sky or Semper Fi!, there's just one contour line on the entire map! One small 20 meter-high knoll is the only significant high ground.

In order to prevent unrealistic long-range fire, lines of sight between 0 elevation hexes are caped at a maximum of 10 hexes because in reality there existed numerous small LOS obstructions such as bushes that aren't big enough to rate a terrain symbol but did limit visibility.

Still, some long-range spotting is available, making artilelry and mortars useful. Beside the knoll and many buildings, the countryside is also dotted with windmills and church steeples, which make good observer perches.

The flat ground is waterlogged in many places, restricting cross-country mobility on much of the map, especially for vehicles. This limits the effectiveness of the armor units on both sides considerably, but probably hurts the Germans more because their tanks are better than the Allied armor while much of their infantry is inferior to the U.S. airborne troops.

One interesting side note is that one of the units in the U.S. OB is Co. E, 2nd Bn, 506th Parachute Infantry, which was the topic of the famous book and television miniseries Band of Brothers. The fighting in Holland is in Chapter 8 of the book and Part 5 of the miniseries.

There are just four scenarios in the game, which is about half the usual number. The first is a 77-turn campaign covering the entire battle over two maps. The second concentrates on the second day's fighting on both maps, and so it amounts to a shorter campaign game. The last two are shorter (10-13 turn) one-map fights suitable for an evening's play.

TCS GD '41 review

GD '41 comprehensive review
Tactical Combat Series No. 9
Published: 1996
Designer: Wig Graves

TCS Overview
Repeated from earlier reviews. If already familiar with TCS skip this part.

Now published by Multi-Man Publishing, the TCS is one of The Gamers founding lines of series wargames that use a common set of standard rules to allow players to explore many different battles without having to learn a new set of rules every time.

In TCS the ground scale is 125 meters per hex, time is 20 minutes per daylight turn and units are platoons of troops, weapons sections and individual vehicles, so it’s about halfway between the ASL/Squad Leader squad-based systems and the traditional PanzerBlitz/First Battle platoon-oriented systems typically seen in tactical 20th Century wargames. Unlike most of its peers, TCS games always depict specific historical incidents on the actual terrain. There are no “geomorphic” representative maps or generic counters.

Distinctively, the TCS system is much less concerned with the characteristics of the hardware used than the typical tactical wargame. Offensively, units either fire area-effect weapons such as small arms and high explosives or with weapons with a point effect such as anti-tank guns. Similarly, they are either area targets such as soldiers or point targets such as a vehicle, or occasionally both. If armed, the unit has a range and if made up of troops a morale rating. If it’s a vehicle or gun it has a defense rating based on its armor.Platoons have five “steps” while weapons units have one or two. Vehicles represent individual machines and are either hit (mission kill) or not.As one would expect there are rules covering special conditions, tactics and needs such as smoke, fortifications and various terrain effects, but the basic structure is very straightforward and, compared to other tactical wargames, uncomplicated. This aspect of the game is deliberately kept simple.

The real heart of the game system is the command control rules, which mimics the kind of staff planning that goes into conducting actual military operations at this scale. Players actually draw up their battle plans in schematic form on “op sheets” specifying exactly how they plan to conduct their attack or defense using specific units in specific ways. Once the plan is drawn up it waits while sufficient “weighted turns” accumulate in order to put it into effect. How much time passes will depend on factors such the complexity of the plan, how many different units are involved, the nature of the mission and the overall quality of the unit’s staff work and a die roll. A simple movement plan involving no contact with the enemy by a single company under a highly trained staff might take just a turn or two before coming into effect. On the other hand, a complex, multi-battalion deliberate assault by a poorly-staffed army like the Soviets may never actually happen.

This is a fascinating and unique system that creates a very different pacing from what’s usually seen. Long stretches of time tend to pass with relatively little going on interspersed with periods of intense action. It much more closely resembles the pacing of actual military operations than most tactical wargames.

On the other hand, this is also the system’s biggest weakness. It is wholly unsuited for competitive playing styles. It relies absolutely on the players making good faith effort to act within the spirit of the rules. It relies on them faithfully executing plans that no longer make tactical sense because ground facts have changed since the plan was drawn up. It requires players who will not attempt to wring every possible “legal” advantage the rules might allow but instead try act as the real-life commanders would have. It’s pointless for players whose first consideration is winning to play this. This is a game system for people interested in the journey, NOT the destination.

It can be played solitaire fairly easily by drawing up alternative plans for both sides and then dicing among those for the actual plans being used.

Series designer Dean Essig firmly insisted that no game in the series would be made obsolete by any rules changes. All updates to the system are required to be backwards compatible and therefore every game (Except the modern Force Eagle's war) can (and should) be played with the latest edition of the rules, currently 3.1.

GD '41 specifics:
Tactical Combat Series Rules version 3.1

22nd-25th October, 1941. South of Tula, Russia
Two full-sized maps
Unit symbols: AFV, weapons and troops are all are full color icons.

Opposing Sides:
Russia: 6th Guards Rifle Division, part, 4th and 11th tank Brigades, 1st Bn, 201st Parachute Brigade
German: Grossdeutschland Motorized Infantry Regiment, elements of 3rd and 4th Panzer Divisions
Total number of battalion equivalents (the usual op sheet size) in play: Up to about 20 or so. Playing time: Up to 40 hours, according to the box.

GD '41 continues the TCS saga of the Grossdeutschland Regiment that started in GD '40. The goal is to depict one battle from each year of the war from the perspective of this elite German army unit.

GD '41 may be the epitome of what the TCS system should cover, a combined arms battle with a good mix of armor, infantry and artillery between two roughly equal forces with some real choices between strategies.

This iteration of the TCS system has very few special rules, the standard 3.1 rules being sufficient to cover most eventualities.

Most of the special rules cover peculiarities of the Russian forces, including "encouraging" commissars, battalion-sized artillery shoots, physical forward observers, restrictions on tank fires, "bunching up" and limits on the number of op sheets available. Most of these rules already appeared in the earlier Black Wednesday game.

Heavy weapons are transported using inherent trucks, wagons or halftracks in a rule becoming standard fare in TCS. Also making an appearance are two new "standard rules" refining infantry guns ability to fire at point targets in some situations and making infantry and ATG "special B" targets that are usually affected by fire as area targets except in certain circumstances.

The five scenarios follow the by-now well-established TCS routine of breaking the historical battle up into discrete phases by location or time in order to accommodate players with time or space limits as well as an overall campaign. There's also a "prequel" scenario that covers the fighting before the Grossdeutschland Regiment appeared, which mostly provides a chance for the Russians to have some fun blunting a too-hasty German attack.

As usual, the Russian side is probably the more challenging to play. The Russian player is limited to just one implemented op sheet per brigade/regiment which means that he doesn't have a lot of flexibility and his five formations (4th Gd. Regt., 10th Gd. Regt., 1-201st Para, 4th Tank and 11th Tank) can't cooperate on the battlefield. In addition, the tank brigades are committed piecemeal by die roll. On the other hand, the burden of attack is on the Germans, the Russians are well-fortified and their tanks are as good as the German ones or better.

The Germans do have an important firepower advantage with more and more flexible guns and plentiful air support. The German advantage in command should give them a sufficient edge.

As usual with TCS, players who are looking for a balanced or "fair" fight are likely to find the game wanting, but for players interested in the dynamics of World War II battlefield tactics GD '41 is another good choice.

TCS Leros

Leros comprehensive review

Tactical Combat Series No. 8

Published: 1995
Designer: David Friedrichs

TCS Overview

Repeated from earlier reviews. If already familiar with TCS skip this part.
Now published by Multi-Man Publishing, the TCS is one of The Gamers founding lines of series wargames that use a common set of standard rules to allow players to explore many different battles without having to learn a new set of rules every time.

In TCS the ground scale is 125 meters per hex, time is 20 minutes per daylight turn and units are platoons of troops, weapons sections and individual vehicles, so it’s about halfway between the ASL/Squad Leader squad-based systems and the traditional PanzerBlitz/First Battle platoon-oriented systems typically seen in tactical 20th Century wargames. Unlike most of its peers, TCS games always depict specific historical incidents on the actual terrain. There are no “geomorphic” representative maps or generic counters.Distinctively, the TCS system is much less concerned with the characteristics of the hardware used than the typical tactical wargame. Offensively, units either fire area-effect weapons such as small arms and high explosives or with weapons with a point effect such as anti-tank guns. Similarly, they are either area targets such as soldiers or point targets such as a vehicle, or occasionally both. If armed, the unit has a range and if made up of troops a morale rating. If it’s a vehicle or gun it has a defense rating based on its armor.

Platoons have five “steps” while weapons units have one or two. Vehicles represent individual machines and are either hit (mission kill) or not.

As one would expect there are rules covering special conditions, tactics and needs such as smoke, fortifications and various terrain effects, but the basic structure is very straightforward and, compared to other tactical wargames, uncomplicated. This aspect of the game is deliberately kept simple.

The real heart of the game system is the command control rules, which mimics the kind of staff planning that goes into conducting actual military operations at this scale. Players actually draw up their battle plans in schematic form on “op sheets” specifying exactly how they plan to conduct their attack or defense using specific units in specific ways. Once the plan is drawn up it waits while sufficient “weighted turns” accumulate in order to put it into effect. How much time passes will depend on factors such the complexity of the plan, how many different units are involved, the nature of the mission and the overall quality of the unit’s staff work and a die roll. A simple movement plan involving no contact with the enemy by a single company under a highly trained staff might take just a turn or two before coming into effect. On the other hand, a complex, multi-battalion deliberate assault by a poorly-staffed army like the Soviets may never actually happen.

This is a fascinating and unique system that creates a very different pacing from what’s usually seen. Long stretches of time tend to pass with relatively little going on interspersed with periods of intense action. It much more closely resembles the pacing of actual military operations than most tactical wargames.

On the other hand, this is also the system’s biggest weakness. It is wholly unsuited for competitive playing styles. It relies absolutely on the players making good faith effort to act within the spirit of the rules. It relies on them faithfully executing plans that no longer make tactical sense because ground facts have changed since the plan was drawn up. It requires players who will not attempt to wring every possible “legal” advantage the rules might allow but instead try act as the real-life commanders would have. It’s pointless for players whose first consideration is winning to play this. This is a game system for people interested in the journey, NOT the destination.

It can be played solitaire fairly easily by drawing up alternative plans for both sides and then dicing among those for the actual plans being used.

Series designer Dean Essig firmly insisted that no game in the series would be made obsolete by any rules changes. All updates to the system are required to be backwards compatible and therefore every game (Except the modern Force Eagle's war) can (and should) be played with the latest edition of the rules, currently 3.1.

Leros specifics:

Tactical Combat Series Rules version 3.1
12th-17th, 1943, the island of Leros, Greece
Three full-sized maps
Unit symbols: AFV, weapons and troops are all are full color icons.
Opposing Sides:
Commonwealth: 234th Infantry Brigade, reinforced; Italian coastal artillery
German: Kampfgruppe Mueller with elements from the 22d Air Landing Division, Brandenburg Division, 1st Bn, 2nd Parachute Regt., 2nd Bn 22nd LW Field Regt. and 3rd Bn, 440th Infantry Regt.
Total number of battalion equivalents (the usual op sheet size) in play: Up to about 8 or so.
Playing time: Up to 120 hours, according to the box

The Tactical Combat Series seemed to have an affinity for invasion games in its earlier days. Even Matanikau featured a scenario with Marines coming ashore in Higgins boats. In Omaha the invaders came by sea, in Hunters From the Sky the invaders came by air. And in Leros, they come by both.

Leros uses the same airlanding system as Hunters and its own naval transport and landing system, although it has similarities to Omaha. Most of the game's special rules revolve around getting to the island, although a few also deal with a few minor aspects of the island battle.

Leros presents an interesting situation because the invaders do not have a significant numerical advantage over the defenders, nor a huge edge in quality.

The main things the Germans do have going for them is the sheer size of the island and their uncontested air supremacy.

The island, while small in an absolute sense (just a few miles from end to end) is still relatively large for a defending force that only amounts to three battalions at start. The Germans can land literally anywhere, although some beaches are clearly better than others. A few places are too well covered by Italian coastal guns to be practical, but Germans willing to brave some losses have more options than the British defenders can cover.

The classic solution to the British problem would be a mobile defense, but this is where the second German advantage comes in. Every turn there will be German aircraft overhead, making movement around the island very difficult for the British.

Historically the battle was very hard-fought and evenly balanced, but ended in a British defeat that Winston Churchill thought very humiliating so late in the war.

As was becoming the typical TCS pattern, the game provides multiple scenarios depicting various parts of the battle limited by area or time as well as a campaign game that can use any of the three-map scenarios as a starting point. While the forces involved are not large by TCS standards, the number of turns can be heroic, up to 275, so this is still a pretty big game when played as a campaign. There is one small, one-map, 4-turn scenario involving about a dozen German company-sized units against about 8 companies worth of British that is the best bet for an evening's play.

A few minor variants add some additional Allied forces such as a high-quality company of Greek commandos and a low-quality battalion of Italian garrison troops. There's even a chance for some British air support if the British player is feeling too persecuted by the Luftwaffe.

The British command wasn't very effective and this is reflected with a rather below-average prep rating of 5 and a restriction of no more than 6 implemented op sheets, which is a very unusual restriction for a non-Russian army in TCS. They also don't get the usual staff modifier.

On very important errata clarifies that Italian coastal guns only get to fire at one beach zone per turn. The published rule directly contradicts itself within six sentences, which is an embarrassing oversight. Still, it's worth noting that the amount of errata in the TCS line is generally fairly limited by wargame standards and rarely critical.

There's probably no TCS game where vehicles play a smaller role than in Leros. Even in Matanikau, which was set in the jungles of Guadalcanal, there were some tanks and half-tracks. In Leros the only "fighting" vehicles are some unarmored flak halftracks the Germans can lug to the island. And some of the heavy weapons on both sides have integral "nominal trucks" to move them around. That's it.

Both sides have a lot of different ways to approach the battle and it's unlikely players will exhaust all the possibilities, so this game has high replayability.

TCS Hunters From the Sky

Hunters From The Sky comprehensive review

Tactical Combat Series No. 6

Published: 1994
Designer: W.G. "Wig" Graves

TCS Overview
Repeated from earlier reviews. If already familiar with TCS skip this part.
Now published by Multi-Man Publishing, the TCS is one of The Gamers founding lines of series wargames that use a common set of standard rules to allow players to explore many different battles without having to learn a new set of rules every time.
In TCS the ground scale is 125 meters per hex, time is 20 minutes per daylight turn and units are platoons of troops, weapons sections and individual vehicles, so it’s about halfway between the ASL/Squad Leader squad-based systems and the traditional PanzerBlitz/First Battle platoon-oriented systems typically seen in tactical 20th Century wargames. Unlike most of its peers, TCS games always depict specific historical incidents on the actual terrain. There are no “geomorphic” representative maps or generic counters.
Distinctively, the TCS system is much less concerned with the characteristics of the hardware used than the typical tactical wargame. Offensively, units either fire area-effect weapons such as small arms and high explosives or with weapons with a point effect such as anti-tank guns. Similarly, they are either area targets such as soldiers or point targets such as a vehicle, or occasionally both. If armed, the unit has a range and if made up of troops a morale rating. If it’s a vehicle or gun it has a defense rating based on its armor.Platoons have five “steps” while weapons units have one or two. Vehicles represent individual machines and are either hit (mission kill) or not.As one would expect there are rules covering special conditions, tactics and needs such as smoke, fortifications and various terrain effects, but the basic structure is very straightforward and, compared to other tactical wargames, uncomplicated. This aspect of the game is deliberately kept simple.
The real heart of the game system is the command control rules, which mimics the kind of staff planning that goes into conducting actual military operations at this scale. Players actually draw up their battle plans in schematic form on “op sheets” specifying exactly how they plan to conduct their attack or defense using specific units in specific ways. Once the plan is drawn up it waits while sufficient “weighted turns” accumulate in order to put it into effect. How much time passes will depend on factors such the complexity of the plan, how many different units are involved, the nature of the mission and the overall quality of the unit’s staff work and a die roll. A simple movement plan involving no contact with the enemy by a single company under a highly trained staff might take just a turn or two before coming into effect. On the other hand, a complex, multi-battalion deliberate assault by a poorly-staffed army like the Soviets may never actually happen.
This is a fascinating and unique system that creates a very different pacing from what’s usually seen. Long stretches of time tend to pass with relatively little going on interspersed with periods of intense action. It much more closely resembles the pacing of actual military operations than most tactical wargames.On the other hand, this is also the system’s biggest weakness. It is wholly unsuited for competitive playing styles. It relies absolutely on the players making good faith effort to act within the spirit of the rules. It relies on them faithfully executing plans that no longer make tactical sense because ground facts have changed since the plan was drawn up. It requires players who will not attempt to wring every possible “legal” advantage the rules might allow but instead try act as the real-life commanders would have. It’s pointless for players whose first consideration is winning to play this. This is a game system for people interested in the journey, NOT the destination.
It can be played solitaire fairly easily by drawing up alternative plans for both sides and then dicing among those for the actual plans being used.Series designer Dean Essig firmly insisted that no game in the series would be made obsolete by any rules changes. All updates to the system are required to be backwards compatible and therefore every game (Except the modern Force Eagle's war) can (and should) be played with the latest edition of the rules.

Hunters From The Sky specifics:
Rules: Tactical Combat Series Rules version 3.1
May 20-23rd, 1941, Maleme, Crete
Two full-sized maps
Unit symbols: AFV are full color icons, Weapons and troops are map graphic symbols
Opposing Sides: Commonwealth: 5th New Zealand Brigade and elements of various other British, Australian, New Zealand and Greek formations
Germans: Sturm Airlanding Regiment, reinforced with elements of the 5th Mountain Division and 7th Air Division
Total number of battalion equivalents (the usual op sheet size) in play: Up to about 18 or so.
Playing time: Up to 20 hours, according to the box

With the 3.1 version of the rules the Tactical Combat Series would reach the maturity and stability that could carry it through the next decade and more.

The artillery system was now brought into the regular action phases providing a fully streamlined sequence of play with the minimum amount of fuss. Also simplified was morale, with morale losses now tracked at the battalion level instead of the company level."Buttoning up" was added to the armor rules, doing something to reduce the effectiveness of armor.
The major unresolved issue of 3.1 was the stodgy interaction of armor with other armor and anti-tank weapons. Many players thought there should be a more dynamic "dueling" kind of mechanism to better reflect the nature of tank combat, but addressing that issue was put off to the future.
Oddly enough, Hunters of the Sky makes very little use of any of the new features of version 3.1. There are just five tanks in the game (all British) and very little artillery (a grand total of seven batteries).
The biggest oddity of Hunter of the Sky is that it's the one game in the series that doesn't use the command rules at all. Considering that the command rules are basically the heart of the entire game system, this is very odd indeed.
The Germans are completely unhindered by any command considerations at all and can be used however the player sees fit. The biggest challenge for the Germans is landing in one piece. Almost all of the Germans arrive by air, either in gliders, by parachutes or by airlanding. Each has its risks, particularly if the Commonwealth still has some functioning anti-aircraft guns in range of Maleme airfield.
On the other hand the Germans are very powerful. Many German platoons have a firepower of "9" which makes them one of the strongest shooters in the entire TCS line. They also have a base morale of "1" which means they will almost certainly fight down to their last step. Every one of these guys that gets show down by AA fire or lands in the sea is therefore a big victory for the Commonwealth, because they're going to have a tough time dealing with them once they land.
The Commonwealth does have a few tanks and the Germans have almost no antitank capability. They have a few 37mm ATG, but the "AT" rule that normally allows infantry a close assault ability against armor is suspended for this game. But the tanks are too few, not very strong and the best ones (a pair of Matildas) are also prone to break down, so they're not a game-changer.
Meanwhile the Commonwealth is laboring under two big handicaps. First, the Germans have complete air superiority and there will be Stukas and Me 109s blasting the British almost every turn.Second, the Commonwealth does have a command control restriction. Each battalion has a battalion defense zone, which is defined by a 10-hex radius from a certain hex. Their units can operate freely within that zone, but not outside of it until "released." In the historical game the battalions aren't released until midnight on 21 May, but as an optional rule there can be a die roll to release units, which aids the Commonwealth a bit.Commonwealth units within a battalion defense zone that haven't moved are considered "dug in," but once they move they permanently lose that status. No other units in the game can ever be dug in, which is usually a function of being on a Prepared Defense op sheet in this game system.
Obviously the Commonwealth player has to devoted a lot of thought to his initial setup because he's not going to want to move very much. Being dug-in provides an important -1 column shift on the area fire table that the Commonwealth will badly need facing the firepower-rich Germans. Perhaps even more important, being dug in provides a beneficial -2 modifier on the morale table.
Aside from the rules needed to detail the German air assault there aren't many special rules in Hunters. Perhaps the most colorful is the ability of the Germans to capture and use some British equipment, up to four Bofors guns and a couple of trucks.
The first three scenarios break down the action into its main phases with relatively short 23-45 turn lengths. There's also a grand, 204-turn, campaign game that covers the entire four-day fight. Players can either use the historical German landing schedule or create their own.
This game plays quicker than the usual TCS game because there's less paperwork involved, but it's still a large game without any really small scenario.

TCS: GD'40 comprehensive review

GD '40 comprehensive review

Tactical Combat Series No. 5
Published: 1993
Designer: W.G. "Wig" Graves

[b]TCS Overview[/b]
[i]Repeated from earlier reviews. If already familiar with TCS skip this part.
Now published by Multi-Man Publishing, the TCS is one of The Gamers founding lines of series wargames that use a common set of standard rules to allow players to explore many different battles without having to learn a new set of rules every time.
In TCS the ground scale is 125 meters per hex, time is 20 minutes per daylight turn and units are platoons of troops, weapons sections and individual vehicles, so it’s about halfway between the ASL/Squad Leader squad-based systems and the traditional PanzerBlitz/First Battle platoon-oriented systems typically seen in tactical 20th Century wargames. Unlike most of its peers, TCS games always depict specific historical incidents on the actual terrain. There are no “geomorphic” representative maps or generic counters.
Distinctively, the TCS system is much less concerned with the characteristics of the hardware used than the typical tactical wargame. Offensively, units either fire area-effect weapons such as small arms and high explosives or with weapons with a point effect such as anti-tank guns. Similarly, they are either area targets such as soldiers or point targets such as a vehicle, or occasionally both. If armed, the unit has a range and if made up of troops a morale rating. If it’s a vehicle or gun it has a defense rating based on its armor.
Platoons have five “steps” while weapons units have one or two. Vehicles represent individual machines and are either hit (mission kill) or not.
As one would expect there are rules covering special conditions, tactics and needs such as smoke, fortifications and various terrain effects, but the basic structure is very straightforward and, compared to other tactical wargames, uncomplicated. This aspect of the game is deliberately kept simple.
The real heart of the game system is the command control rules, which mimics the kind of staff planning that goes into conducting actual military operations at this scale. Players actually draw up their battle plans in schematic form on “op sheets” specifying exactly how they plan to conduct their attack or defense using specific units in specific ways. Once the plan is drawn up it waits while sufficient “weighted turns” accumulate in order to put it into effect. How much time passes will depend on factors such the complexity of the plan, how many different units are involved, the nature of the mission and the overall quality of the unit’s staff work and a die roll. A simple movement plan involving no contact with the enemy by a single company under a highly trained staff might take just a turn or two before coming into effect. On the other hand, a complex, multi-battalion deliberate assault by a poorly-staffed army like the Soviets may never actually happen.
This is a fascinating and unique system that creates a very different pacing from what’s usually seen. Long stretches of time tend to pass with relatively little going on interspersed with periods of intense action. It much more closely resembles the pacing of actual military operations than most tactical wargames.
On the other hand, this is also the system’s biggest weakness. It is wholly unsuited for competitive playing styles. It relies absolutely on the players making good faith effort to act within the spirit of the rules. It relies on them faithfully executing plans that no longer make tactical sense because ground facts have changed since the plan was drawn up. It requires players who will not attempt to wring every possible “legal” advantage the rules might allow but instead try act as the real-life commanders would have. It’s pointless for players whose first consideration is winning to play this. This is a game system for people interested in the journey, NOT the destination.
It can be played solitaire fairly easily by drawing up alternative plans for both sides and then dicing among those for the actual plans being used.
Series designer Dean Essig firmly insisted that no game in the series would be made obsolete by any rules changes. All updates to the system are required to be backwards compatible and therefore every game (Except the modern Force Eagle's war) can (and should) be played with the latest edition of the rules.[/i]

[b]GD '40 specifics:[/b]

Rules: Tactical Combat Series Rules version 3.0

May 15th-16th, Stonne, France, Battle for France

One full-sized map

Unit symbols: AFV are full color icons, Weapons and troops are map graphic symbols

Opposing Sides: French: Elements of the 3rd DCR and 3rd Motorized Divisions
Germans: Gross Deutschland Motorized Infantry Regiment, elements 10th Panzer Division

Total number of battalion equivalents (the usual op sheet size) in play: Up to about 17 or so.
Playing time: Up to 20 hours, according to the box.

GD'40 was the first TCS game that featured a lot of tanks. And this one has a [i]lot[/i] of tanks! The Germans field a couple of companies of tanks, assault guns and armored cars, for a total of 59 AFV. But the French really bring it, with as many as four tank battalions and some stray companies of recon and tanks as well, for a total of up to 142 AFV. This game showed that the TCS system could handle armor as well as its forte, infantry and artillery.

The GD in the title refers to the Gross Deutchland elite German army unit that fought throughout the war. The '40 refers to the 1940 campaign, which was the GD's baptism of fire. The idea behind the GD series of games is to follow the Gross Deutchland through the entire war, with one game from each year of the war featuring a significant battle from the unit's history. The Gross Deutchland was a strong regiment in 1940, but ended the war a division, making this an ambitious project that should end up with at least six TCS titles.

GD '40 was the second game under the 3.0 version of the TCS series rules, which replaced the rigid sequence of play used earlier. Now most of the action took place during "action phases" in which units moved, fired and close assaulted/overrun as desired by the phasing player in any order desired.

The major exception to this full integration of activity was the artillery system, which still operated in its own artillery and call for fire phases before the action phases, although this artillery subsystem as much quicker and easier than what had gone before. Now the mission's target was selected, the amount of fire in EFSs (effective sheafs) was announced, the player adjusted the target location using a die roll and then placed the EFS as indicated. The fire was then resolved. In GD '40, representing main force battling in Europe, there's a lot of gunnery involved. The French have up to 8 batteries of 75s in support, while the Germans have as many as nine of 105s. This is enough to strain the EFS system and would prompt a final simplification of the system in the next iteration of the rules.

There are very few special rules in this game. Some German units are motorcycle troops, and an optional rule appears covering trucks and half tracks that doesn't represent them on the map as had been previous practice, but instead allows infantry units at least 20 hexes distant from the enemy to have "instant trucks." Later games in the series would explore this idea further, as it saves cluttering up the map with lots of marginally useful trucks and also helps avoid unrealistic PanzerBlitz style tactical misuse of transport assets.

Aside from rules detailing artillery and air support, the only notable special rules make note of the poor morale of certain French infantry units and the number of French tanks that broke down on the way to the fight. There's also an optional rule allowing for a stronger-than-historical French commitment of forces.

The historical scenarios are fairly straightforward. The first depicts the GD capturing Stonne, a small French village perched on a commanding hilltop in the middle of the map. The second scenario depicts the French counterattack retaking Stonne while the third shows the 69th regiment of the 10th Panzer taking Stonne back. All three of these scenarios are relatively short at 16-19 turns, so players will pretty much be stuck trying to execute their initial op sheets as there really isn't enough time to get new ones implemented.

The fourth scenario covers the whole day's fighting, which [i]will[/i] allow for changing plans and optionally can continue through the following day with a couple more battalions of French joining in.

No guidance is provided on scenario balance, but the historical back and forth suggest that the two sides were pretty evenly matched.

The system's armor rules, while workable, have been criticized for not having the right feel for armored combat. The 20-minute turns that work so well for infantry fighting work against the quick "duels" that characterize tank firefights. The new 4th edition rules may change that, but the game still works OK even under 3.0 and 3.1 rules, largely because the tanks involved have such short ranges that they're going to do most of their fighting are knife-fighting ranges anyway.

All-in-all, GD'40 is a deservedly popular game in the series and may very well have been its breakthough title. Wargamers like their tanks, and GD'40 showed the way for a larger role in the game system for armor. More tanks appear in GD'40 than in all four of the earlier games put together.

From my game blog at http://pawnderings.blogspot.com

TCS: Omaha comprehensive review

Omaha comprehensive review

Tactical Combat Series No. 3
Published: 1991
Designer: Dave Powell

TCS Overview

Now published by Multi-Man Publishing, the TCS is one of The Gamers founding lines of series wargames that use a common set of standard rules to allow players to explore many different battles without having to learn a new set of rules every time.

In TCS the ground scale is 125 meters per hex, time is 20 minutes per daylight turn and units are platoons of troops, weapons sections and individual vehicles, so it’s about halfway between the ASL/Squad Leader squad-based systems and the traditional PanzerBlitz/First Battle platoon-oriented systems typically seen in tactical 20th Century wargames. Unlike most of its peers, TCS games always depict specific historical incidents on the actual terrain. There are no “geomorphic” representative maps or generic counters.

Distinctively, the TCS system is much less concerned with the characteristics of the hardware used than the typical tactical wargame. Offensively, units either fire area-effect weapons such as small arms and high explosives or with weapons with a point effect such as anti-tank guns. Similarly, they are either area targets such as soldiers or point targets such as a vehicle, or occasionally both. If armed, the unit has a range and if made up of troops a morale rating. If it’s a vehicle or gun it has a defense rating based on its armor.

Platoons have five “steps” while weapons units have one or two. Vehicles represent individual machines and are either hit (mission kill) or not.

As one would expect there are rules covering special conditions, tactics and needs such as smoke, fortifications and various terrain effects, but the basic structure is very straightforward and, compared to other tactical wargames, uncomplicated. This aspect of the game is deliberately kept simple.

The real heart of the game system is the command control rules, which mimics the kind of staff planning that goes into conducting actual military operations at this scale. Players actually draw up their battle plans in schematic form on “op sheets” specifying exactly how they plan to conduct their attack or defense using specific units in specific ways. Once the plan is drawn up it waits while sufficient “weighted turns” accumulate in order to put it into effect. How much time passes will depend on factors such the complexity of the plan, how many different units are involved, the nature of the mission and the overall quality of the unit’s staff work and a die roll. A simple movement plan involving no contact with the enemy by a single company under a highly trained staff might take just a turn or two before coming into effect. On the other hand, a complex, multi-battalion deliberate assault by a poorly-staffed army like the Soviets may never actually happen.

This is a fascinating and unique system that creates a very different pacing from what’s usually seen. Long stretches of time tend to pass with relatively little going on interspersed with periods of intense action. It much more closely resembles the pacing of actual military operations than most tactical wargames.

On the other hand, this is also the system’s biggest weakness. It is wholly unsuited for competitive playing styles. It relies absolutely on the players making good faith effort to act within the spirit of the rules. It relies on them faithfully executing plans that no longer make tactical sense because ground facts have changed since the plan was drawn up. It requires players who will not attempt to wring every possible “legal” advantage the rules might allow but instead try act as the real-life commanders would have. It’s pointless for players whose first consideration is winning to play this. This is a game system for people interested in the journey, NOT the destination.

It can be played solitaire fairly easily by drawing up alternative plans for both sides and then dicing among those for the actual plans being used.

Series designer Dean Essig firmly insisted that no game in the series would be made obsolete by any rules changes. All updates to the system are required to be backwards compatible and therefore every game (Except the modern Force Eagle's war) can (and should) be played with the latest edition of the rules.

Omaha specifics:

Rules: Tactical Combat Series Rules, 2nd Ed. (version 2.0)

June 6-8, 1944 Normandy, France, D-Day


Four full-sized maps

Unit symbols: AFV are silhouettes, Weapons and troops are map graphic symbols

Opposing Sides: German: 352d Infantry Division, partial, but reinforced. Variant adds elements of the Panzer Lehr Division

U.S.: First Infantry Division, reinforced

Total number of battalion equivalents (the usual op sheet size) in play: Up to about 25 or so.

Playing time: Up to "hundreds"of hours, according to the box

Omaha was the third Tactical Combat Series game and probably the most ambitious ever.The game's topic is the invasion across the beaches of Normandy at Omaha Beach. It's a division-sized amphibious assault into a heavily fortified zone. It's a very big game.

The special rules in Omaha are about as long as the series rules. Just about every conceivable factor is covered, from the different kinds of landing craft, naval fire, air support, beach defenses and more. The ocean even goes in and out with the tide.

In keeping with series precedent, no particular rule is very complicated on its own and all the procedures are straightforward. It's merely the sheer mass of everything that makes it a "monster." I won't say that two people can't play it, but this screams "club project" all over it.

During pre-game planning players can draw up op sheets, but most of these will end up being wasted for the U.S. side as their units tend to land at the wrong beaches, so the game allows a sort of abbreviated "line entry" orders system to be used, which skips most of the detail in favor of trusting the players to play honestly. Units that land at the wrong spot can march along the beach to the right spot if they choose, and then execute their planed orders, but this often isn't wise. Getting off the beach as soon as possible is vital, so it's usually better to just deal with the spot you ended up.

Units coming ashore are exempt from any command control until the reach the "shingle" on the beach, which is about at the high tide mark. Getting off the shingle and moving inland requires a kick in the pants and there to provide the boot are a random selection of leader counters drawn from the historically available battalion, regiment and division leaders. It's a throwback to an earlier leadership style but it worked. Units within three hexes of a leader can move and fight freely. The leaders all disappear at the end of the day, however, so the players need to reorganize their forces into cohesive formations before that.

There are six small teaching scenarios using company-sized firefights to show off elements of the rules.

The major part of the game are the seven scenarios depicting major parts of the invasion battle divided up temporally and geographically. Only one of these, a battalion-sized skirmish on one part of the map, could be termed small. All the rest are major projects. The eighth scenario brings it all together for a grand, three-day 129-turn campaign game. Good luck!

There's also a 9th scenario that assumes Rommel was able to position the Panzer Lehr division close to the coast. Nothing like sending some Tigers and Panthers rumbling towards the beaches. A later Operations Magazine variant changed the Tigers and Panthers to Mark IV tanks, but either way it appears like a grim variant for the U.S.

All the scenarios are rated for balance, with ratings from 0 to +4, indicating that the U.S. is favored. While American losses will be severe, the reality is that there aren't a lot of Germans behind the beaches and the ones there aren't very good. The only scenario rated in favor of the Germans is the Panzer Lehr one at a -1.

The "optional" "Miller Artillery Tables" are not really optional in this game with the printed rules. There's a lot of lead in the air and I would strongly recommend playing with the 3.1 rules or later and skipping straight to that more streamlined system.

Omaha stands out among the TCS line for its scale and the drama of its topic. If you get to play it you'll be left with something memorable.

I'm a Stuart tank fan

I've been a fan of the Stuart tank ever since I was little.

I'll admit it's an odd choice. It's not a sexy tank like a Panther or King Tiger. It's not a real effective tank like a T-34 or Sherman. It's not a historically significant tank like an FT-17 or T-55. It's not even a really awful but colorful tank like an M13 or Type 93.

But it was the first tank I remember seeing myself, in the steel, as a child. There was one poised in the middle of a square near a shopping center my mother liked to frequent. It was a war memorial. There were a lot of those scattered about the New Bedford area in the years after the Second World War. Later I became aware of a couple Sherman tanks, a few 57mm anti-tank guns, a German PaK 40 ATG and some .30 cal machine guns, but the Stuart was first.

I asked my mom what it was and she told me it was a "World War I" tank. Later, when I was a little older and started reading I quickly discovered she was mistaken and it was a World War II tank. As a matter of fact, it was an M3A1 tank.

Folks interested in a detailed recounting of the Stuart's stats and service history can check it out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_tank

My reading revealed it was a tank that wasn't altogether successful, so I developed a little bit of an underdog's fondness for the little tank.

And darn if it didn't keep showing up. One of my favorite comics was The Haunted Tank, which featured the ghost of Jeb Stuart watching over the crew of an M3 Stuart tank as it battled through North Africa and Europe against the Nazis. The little haunted Stuart even took on an beat some Tiger I Tanks (with some ghostly help).

The tank also showed up in a memorable Twilight Zone episode about some National Guardsmen who end up going back in time to fight at The Little Big Horn (although without tank, unfortunately).

It's even Tank Girl's tank!

When I became a wargamer I started playing with Stuarts whenever I got the chance. They were usually pretty easy to have back in those days. Everybody wanted Panthers and Tigers anyway. Actually, if you wanted to play with any other kind of tank (T-34s, Shermans, Matildas, etc.) you'd probably get your chance. I remember seeing some pretty improbable arrays of King Tigers and Panthers on some miniatures battlefields.

Stuarts showed up occasionally in board wargames, too. They were actually pretty decent in Avalon Hill's Tobruk game. It was a good early 1942 tank, about equal to a Pz III or Crusader.
Still, by the time the U.S. troops got to use it against the Germans in late 1942 it was obsolete and therefore Stuarts in most wargames don't leave a very good impression. Their primary use and usefulness -- recon -- doesn't usually play a big role in board wargames so Stuarts tend to be under-represented.

The little tank gotten a more respect lately, I think. It's showed up three separate times in the Axis & Allies miniatures game (twice British and once U.S.), each time sporting the "All Guns Blazing" special ability allowing it an extra shot against soldiers. It's got high speed and decent stats for a 15-point piece making it a reasonable build selection.

Anytime it appears in a Pacific War setting it tends to be useful. It's at least as good as any of the Japanese tanks it's likely to face and its anti-infantry ability is actually better than a Sherman in some ways. In games as diverse as Echelons of Fury- Pacific, Up Front!, Matanikau and Advanced Squad Leader it can be a big help against Japanese troops. In ASL, especially, that 37mm canister round can be deadly.

It might not be powerful or sexy, but the Stuart still played an important role in America's fight against the Axis. It succored the British in the desert when they needed large numbers of a decent, reliable tank to hold back Rommel and aided the Soviets, too, when they needed quantity and reliability. Stuarts freed up Shermans from scouting and screening roles and provided the chassis for a lot of supporting vehicles such as howitzer carriers, recovery vehicles and recon scouts.

After the war it soldiered on in a lot of smaller, third-world armies where its simplicity, ruggedness and reliability were appreciated.

And it helped spark at least one little boy in Massachusetts to study history, serve in the military and discover a life-long hobby.

The Other BEF (long post)

First published in Strategy & Tactics No. 122, Nov. 1988.
Minor edits


The Other BEF
by Seth Owen


IT’S UNLIKELY that General Otto Fretter Pico realized that he was making a mark on South American history in the closing days of April 1945. His sur­render of the German and Italian troops under his command, and himself, to Brazilian troops climaxed the first ever overseas campaign by South American combat soldiers.
The presence of South Americans gave the Italian campaign the distinction of being the first in history that included sol­diers from every inhabited continent on the globe.
In January of 1942 the Brazilian Govern­ment broke off diplomatic relations with Germany, Japan and Italy. Soon German U-boats started sinking Brazilian mer­chant ships, including five in s -two days. In response. Brazil declared war on Germany and Italy on he 22nd of August 1942
Initially its military efforts were limited to convoy protection and aerial patrolling. Brazilian President Getulio Vargas wanted to take a more active role in the war and met with President Roosevelt in January of 1943. The U.S. President promised to help Brazil train and equip troops for service in Europe.
The original goal was to form an expedi­tionary corps of three divisions, but only the 1st Division, Brazilian Expeditionary Force (BEF), ever made it to Europe.
Various existing units formed the divi­sion during the closing months of 1943. The division included the 1st, 6th and 11th In­fantry Regiments, four artillery battalions from three different regiments, and the 9th Engineer Battalion. New support units were organized from many different exist­ing units around the country.
The division was organized and equipped as an American Infantry Division. Nine battalions of infantry organized into three regiments provided the major combat elements. Three battalions of 105mm howitzers and a battalion of 155mm howitzers, each with 12 guns, provided most of the division's firepower. Supporting the division were an Engineer and Medical Battalion, and company-sized reconnaissance, maintenance, administrative and quartermaster units. Rounding out the order of battle was a platoon of Military Police and a band.
American field manuals and regulations had to be translated to Portuguese, training had to be conducted on equipment ranging from M-1 Garand rifles to 155mm Howitzers, and American staff procedures had to be learned. Officers trained by U.S. Army schools conducted the initial training while the translators worked on getting the publications ready.
The fledgling BEF spent the first half of 1944 training in Brazil. During the summer the troops were organized into embarka­tion “squadrons”. The first squadron left Brazil on the 2nd of July and arrived in Naples on the 16th of July. The first element consisted of the 6th Infantry Regiment, one artillery battalion, and about a third of the supporting troops.
Upon arriving in Italy, the arriving ele­ments of the BEF conducted additional training. General Marcarenhas de Moraes, commander of the BEF, met with Major General Willis Crittenberger, commander of IV Corps, on 9 September to arrange for the commitment of the Brazilians to com­bat. The 6th Regiment staged a large war-game exercise on 10-11 September. The American umpires certified the unit as ready.
Operation ANVIL, the invasion of Southern France, drained seven veteran divisions from the Italian front. Two addi­tional divisions deployed to Greece. The resulting severe shortage of manpower pushed up the commitment dates for the U.S. 92nd Infantry Division, the BEF and the 10th Mountain Division. The U.S. 45th Anti-Aircraft Artillery brigade was con­verted to infantry and renamed Task Force 45 to hold part of the front.
Even though the rest of the division was not ready, General Mark Clark decided that the BEF’s 6th Infantry Regiment should form a Regimental Combat Team (RCT) and be committed to combat.
This RCT, known as the “BEF Detach­ment,” took over a portion of the front lo­cated just north of Pisa along the Serchio River on the 15th of September, 1944. It was a large front, over six miles wide, facing the 16th SS Division.
The initial experience for the Brazilians was positive. Patrols could not make con­tact with the Germans. The BEF advanced to follow the German retreat. After a few days a new German front was established along a chain of heights.
One called Monte Prano made an excel­lent observation post, surveying the entire Brazilian position. Brigadier General Eu­clydes Zenobio da Costa, commanding the BEF Detachment, determined to seize it.
For six days Brazilian Artillery and American tanks bombarded the German positions. A platoon of the 2nd Company, 6thIn~ntryRegiment fought its way to the top of the mountain over two days, losing five dead and 17 wounded. With the loss of this key location, the Germans pulled back to still another defensive line further north.
North of Pisa, the Serchio River flows down a steep-sided valley from some of the highest peaks in the Apennines. The BEF detachment spent October pushing up this valley in pursuit of the slowly retreating Germans.
On the 31st of October the Brazilians suffered their first reverse. At dawn, under cover of a heavy rainstorm, the German troops attacked the 3rd company, 1st Bat­talion, 6th Infantry from front and flank The unit didn’t establish proper security measures and was completely surprised and forced to retreat. More attacks caused the rest of the BEF to pull back from its ad­vanced positions.
In November the BEF Division de­ployed to a new sector, the Reno River Valley. Reunited, they were destined to spend all but the final weeks of the cam­paign there.
The Reno River flows to the northeast, passing by Bologna on the way to the Adriatic.
Dominating the roads through the val­ley was a strong German position on the Monte Castello. IV Corps decided to elimi­nate this position and ordered Task Force 45 to do it. Attached to TF 45 was the Brazilian IIIrd Bn, 6th Infantry Regiment and the divisional recon company. Provid­ing support was the IInd battalion, 1st Self-Propelled Mortar Regiment armed with towed 105mm Howitzers.
The Germans repulsed the initial as­sault on 24 November. On the 25th,. after some adjustments, TF 45 repeated the at­tack and succeeded in gaining the heights, only to be pushed back off by the German counterattack
In the last few days of November the rest of the 1st Division, BEF was brought on line. Corps ordered the division to “cap­ture the ridge which runs from Monte Bel­vedere to the northeast, including Monte Castello, for the purpose of preventing the enemy from viewing Highway 64.”
Occupying Monte Castello was a battal­ion of infantry from the 232nd Infantry division. To assault the German position, an assault group of three Infantry battal­ions (I/1, III/11, III/6) supported by three platoons of U.S. tanks and two battalions of Brazilian Artillery (105mm) attacked the dawn on 29 November. The attack make steady progress until noon. Counterattacks forced back one battalion, causing the entire attack to falter, By nightfall the Brazilians were back at the line of departure.After this reverse, the Brazilian commander decided to prepare more thor­oughly. Artillery and air strikes bom­barded the German positions for six days.
The new assault force consisted of two battalions of infantry (II/1 and Ill/I). Their support was much more extensive than that of the earlier attack. Two mortar com­panies, a U.S. Tank company, and the en­tire Brazilian Division Artillery, reinforced by an American Artillery Battalion, added needed firepower.
Surprise was planned for the attack on 12 December. The attack would have no ar­tillery preparation. The morning opened with a heavy rain and fog, cutting visibility down to 50 meters.
American Artillery compromised the chance for surprise by firing some harass­ment missions on the enemy positions, alerting the defenders. The enemy de­tected the Brazilian attackers as soon as they crossed the line of departure and they met stiff resistance immediately. The at­tack quickly bogged down. The reserve tried to outflank the German positions, but heavy fire drove them back. The fourth attack on Monte Castello was a failure.
The rest of the winter was spent on the defensive. Patrols maintained contact, but neither side made any offensive moves.
In February, IV Corps made a renewed effort to clear the Germans from the heights overlooking the Reno Valley. To lead it off, the newly arrived 10th Moun­tain Division attacked first to seize several strongpoints supporting the Monte Cas­tello position. The 1st Squadron Brazilian Air Force and the BEF’s artillery supported the mountain troops' attack.
General Moraes organized the BEF at­tack to seize Monte Castello as follows: The 1st Infantry Regiment was to make the main attack, while the 11/11th made a cov­ering attack on the right (east) flank.
Using the positions just captured by the 10th Mountain, he planned a converging attack on Monte Castello, with the I/1st hitting the left flank while the III/1st hit the front. In local reserve was the II/lst. The rest of the 11th Regiment (less the II/11th) was ready to exploit the breakthrough.
Supporting the attack were the divi­sional engineers, the division artillery, and one battalion of American guns.
On the 21st of February, the Brazilians stepped off. Directing their artillery with forward observers, they blasted the Ger­man positions as they advanced. The Bra­zilian Infantry penetrated the defense with a hard close-quarter fight
Over the following three days a slow pursuit down the valley ensued, finally checked by a strong German counterattack on the 25th.
The BEF spent March readjusting the~. lines and preparing for the final Spring Offensive. General Mark Clark, commander of the Allied forces, planned to finish off the Axis with a massive offensive into the Po valley.
The Brazilian division was assigned to cover the Corps’ left flank for this offen­sive. The first objective of the division, along with the 10th Mountain Division and the 371st Regiment (from the 92nd Infantry Division) was the Montese line.
The offensive kicked off on the 14th of April, 1945. Supported by American ar­mor, the Brazilians doggedly pressed their way through the German positions. By mid-afternoon one battalion had pene­trated the center of the enemy line. By nightfall they captured most of the first day’s objectives.
Continuing the attack the following day, further progress through the German defensive belts continued. On the 16th and 17th, the advance paused, while the 10th Mountain Division caught up on the right flank.
The Brazilians redeployed into the Panaro River valley on the 18th and 19th of April, and began a push down that valley against weakening German resistance.
By the 22nd, they fought their way down the Panaro to the wide expanses of the Po valley. Elsewhere, other allied units also reached the valley floor and the Ger­man forces were in disarray, confusion and retreat.
Once in the Po valley, the Allied forces pushed the pursuit vigorously. German attempts to stand, or even blow bridges, were overtaken by events.
IV Corps ordered the Brazilian division to pursue towards the northwest, in the direction of France. Moving on parallel routes they harried the retreating Axis troops, capturing hundreds each day.
To speed the advance it was necessary to find motor transport for the infantry. Taking a calculated risk, the Brazilian commander stripped his artillery of its transport to motorize his infantry battalions.
The Brazilians formed several flying columns of infantry mounted on trucks and American tanks. The major enemy force being pursued by the BEF was the 148th Infantry Division along with remnants of the 90th Panzergrenadier and Italia divisions.
The 148th made its last stand at the town of Fornovo. Bringing it to bay was the veteran 6th Regiment. On 28 April the 6th Regiment, supported by a platoon of American tanks, launched converging attacks to isolate the German forces in Fornovo. Despite several counterattacks, the Germans were pressed into a smaller pe­rimeter.
For several days surrender negotiations had been going on. On the morning of the 29th, General Fretter Pico agreed to surren­der his forces. Starting at noon with the wounded, the Axis columns passed into captivity. It took two days to accept the surrender of the entire force.
Last to surrender was General Fretter Pico and his staff, on the 30th of April, 1945. Captured were 14,779 men, with 80 guns and 1500 vehicles. On the 2nd of May, the Italian campaign ended with the general surrender of all Axis forces in Italy, the first theatre-wide capitulation of the war.


Bibliography
The Brazilian Expeditionary Force by its Com­mander, Marshal J.B. Mascarenhas de Mo­raes, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.

Cassino to the Alps, U.S. Army in World War II, Mediterranean Theatre of Operations. By Ernest F. Fisher, Jr. Center of Military History, United States Army, Washington, D.C. 1977.

Report of Operations of the IV Corps in the Italian Campaign. Monthly reports from 1 January to3l May, 1945 onfile at the Morris Sweet Technical Library, Fort Sill, Okla­homa.

The Final Campaign Across Northwest Italy. August, 1945. Headquart&s, N Corps, U.S. Army.


Table 1
Distribution of Casualties by Branch
Sept. 16,1944 to Dec. 31, 1944 Jan. 1, 1945 to May 2, 1945
Infantry 97.0% 92.5%
Artillery 1.0% 1.0%
Engineer 1.0% 1.0%
Cavalry 0.5% 0.5%
Other 0.5% 5.0%

Table 2
Losses by rank
Infantry Reg’ts Div. Total
1st 6th 11th
Privates 117 82 99 339
NCO 25 23 29 105
Officer 6 2 2 13

Remarks: The officer casualty rate is very low. The highest ranking officer killed was a captain.