STALINGRAD

Introduction

These notes are largely based on my reading of the highly acclaimed war history book “Stalingrad” by Antony Beevor. I’ve also recently watched two films about the battle. “Enemy at the Gates” is an American film telling the story from the Soviet perspective (unfortunately with inappropriate British accents). In particular it follows the fortunes of “noble sniper” Zaitsev. “Stalingrad” is a German film telling the story from the German perspective (again, my version is ruined by the voice quality, this time because it is badly dubbed into English, rather than being in the original German with English subtitles). This film follows the fortunes of a particular unit in the Sixth Army through the whole campaign, including fighting in the city, fighting tanks in the snow, and the general degeneration of the army after its encirclement. Both films contain horrific scenes, but it is only after reading Antony Beevor’s book that I realise the films are in fact pretty accurate.

The purpose of this set of notes is to review my Russo-German War wargames and the rules I have created, in light of the above, to see if any changes are needed and also to consider how to wargame the Stalingrad campaign specifically.

I use the term “campaign” to refer not only to the fighting in the city itself, but also to the battles around it. This includes the advance of the German Armies before Stalingrad and the encirclement and annihilation of the German Sixth Army.

Observations

1. The character of the opposing armies was quite different. In particular, the German Wermacht comes across as being composed of very professional soldiers, whereas the Soviet Red Army was much less professional but extremely patriotic. German officers were closer to their men. Red Army officers were incredibly wasteful of the lives of their men. Despite the Soviets living under a harsh and cruel regime, they were fully prepared to sell their lives in its defence. All of this is of course generalisation. For example, there was a large number of Soviets who went over to the German side. When the weather was extremely harsh, the Germans suffered but the Soviets generally seemed to regard it as healthy.

1. As part of the Communist regime, Red Army soldiers were constantly under the watchful eyes of the NKVD, a kind of Communist police. Anyone who showed any indication of not being 100% committed to the Communist ideology or not being 100% committed to killing Germans and defending their country, by selling their lives if necessary, were likely to be removed and executed. This included being outspoken against the regime or not zealous enough in the attack. It also included anyone who was captured by the Germans. At one point in the campaign, NKVD units were ordered to form a second line behind the front-line units, to shoot down any of their own men who tried to retreat.

2. Air attack should not be ignored in wargames. In particular, German Stuka dive-bomb attacks were an important part of the German arsenal of war. Me-109s would also make strafing attacks against convoys. Heinkel 111 carpet bombing attacks, as used to decimate Stalingrad, are outside of the scope of the rules. In the city, the Soviets made attacks at night using U-2 biplanes, as well as dropping supplies to their own men.

3. I need rules for trenches, dugouts and bunkers, barbed wire, minefields and sappers, features associated with the trench warfare of the First World War.

4. I may need to consider night fighting. The Red Army in particular made most of their attacks at night in Stalingrad, mainly because they would not be targets for air attack.

5. On a technical note, there appears to be a much sharper drop-off of anti-tank penetrating ability with range than my current rules allow. The impression I get is that inside “penetration range” hits will normally penetrate, whereas beyond that range they will always fail to penetrate.

6. Regardless of the superior qualities of the Soviet T-34 tank over the German tanks, especially their main battle tank in this campaign the Panzer III, The German panzer forces consistently proved themselves to be far superior. Their superiority was mainly due to much better tactics and much better command/control. This is not currently reflected in my rules.

7. Vehicles would freeze up in the extreme cold, to the point that they may not be started, even after lighting fires underneath the engines.

8. The harshness and brutality of this campaign do not come across in wargames. Should they? Civilians, POWs, deserters, drunks, self-inflicted wounds, confusion, propaganda, partisans, Cossacks, Nazi police and Soviet NKVD. Also of course the severe Russian winter, equipment shortages, starvation, frostbite, disease, battle injuries and field hospitals.

9. The strategic element also does not come across in wargames, but perhaps that is impossible at the scale they are set. Panzer blitzkrieg, fuel dumps, ammunition supply, railheads, horses.

10. The wide-tracked T-34s had better cross-country performance, especially across snow, than other tanks. It also gave them an advantage crossing trenches and beating down barbed wire.

11. Features of the city fighting not mentioned: Snipers, assault squads/storm troop squads, flamethrowers, artillery observers, tanks, petrol bombs and grenades, the Volga! And especially the harshness and ruthlessness of both the living and the fighting.

12. Russians always had better winter equipment than the Germans (obviously, because that was their home environment), including white snowsuits.

13. Soldier morale – is this really an issue? In combat, generally both sides fought like dogs. The incidents of desertion, crossing over, self-inflicted wounds, etc. were at times of relative inactivity or while on sentry duty. There seems to be very few cases of units routing from combat or surrendering. But then Soviet routers would be shot down by their own side, and on both sides men were afraid to surrender because of the treatment they expected to receive.

14. I need rules for Katyusha rockets, which were used extensively.

15. It seems in the winter snows all artillery and anti-tank guns, as well as vehicles, were whitewashed.

16. I don’t believe my Russian village buildings are used accurately. For a start, there would be very few intact. They were either burned down, or on the Steppes, stripped of their wood. All that would remain would be a stone chimneybreast. Secondly, my rules should include the effect of artillery and mortar hits on buildings. Wooden buildings would be completely reduced with one or two hits.

17. Overall, I would like the rules to reflect the differences between the armies, as mentioned above. The Wermacht professional soldiers, showing a high degree of initiative, the Red Army poorly trained yet very brave and patriotic and particularly stubborn in defence. They also seemed to have a limitless supply of people, although of varying quality.

Scenario Ideas

1. Fighting in the city itself, among the rubble and skeletons of taller buildings, perhaps around the bombed factories or rail yards.

2. German armoured thrusts across the Steppes towards Stalingrad and the Volga.

3. The Soviet capture of the Don crossing point at Kalach, spearheaded by a couple of captured German tanks which crossed the bridge unopposed and then opened fire on the Germans, who were completely taken by surprise.

4. The Soviet storming of the airfield at Tatsinskaya, used to bring in supplies to the encircled Sixth Army and evacuate wounded. The JU-52 transports hurriedly tried to take off while Russian T-34s took shots at them.

Changes to the Rules

The following are my first thoughts on how my wargames rules should be changed to reflect the observations above.

1. I am inclined not to change the current rules for armour penetration. Despite my observation #6 above, the rules work very well and it is more likely that any change will make them worse. Also, having played a lot of games with these rules many years ago, I remember the feeling of exasperation when small calibre guns went up against heavy armour, and this is exactly what I want to reproduce.

2. I have already suggested some changes to reflect the differences in quality between German and Soviet troops. All German anti-tank guns get +1 to hit to reflect better sights and better training. Most importantly, the Soviets must have severely handicapped command and control to prevent them using sophisticated attacks or co-ordinating their attacks. The following are possible suggestions for trying to reproduce this aspect: (i) Prevent implicit communication between units, except command elements. This means that units cannot engage any enemy they have not themselves spotted. (ii) Units cannot move and fight independently, but only at a higher level of organisation, e.g. tank “squadron” or infantry “battalion”. (iii) The Soviet player has only a limited number of command actions that can be made in one turn, probably only one. A command action is needed to advance a formation, halt a formation, change the target for a formation (except in defence and subject to target priorities), and so on.

3. Weather effects are generally significant at the strategic level rather than the tactical level. However, the following are suggestions for introducing the effects of severe weather into games: (i) Vehicles allocated to a mission have an “availability”. In cases of extreme weather, their availability decreases so that there is a higher chance that they will not make it at all to the battlefield. (ii) In the case of thick mist, blizzards, etc. aircraft will be grounded and visibility severely reduced so that enemy cannot be spotted at long range. The sound of tanks can be heard before they are sighted, but not infantry. (iii) In extreme cold, all rivers are frozen and can be crossed by troops on foot. Light vehicles can cross if the crossing point is first prepared with wood. In less extreme cold, vehicles can never cross, but infantry may be able to cross at risk to themselves.

4. All Soviet armies should have NKVD representatives, certainly at HQ but ideally also armed NKVD units. Their primary role is to prevent withdrawal. They will always form a second line within firing range of front-line troops and will open fire on these if they withdraw. The German player should enforce this rule. If only represented at HQ, then if any formation is ordered to withdraw, the commander is removed from command and the NKVD officer takes over. From that point on, no withdrawal may ever be ordered. For one turn after the changeover, no orders (command actions) may be issued.

5. Rules need to be added for ground attack by aircraft. Availability or otherwise of aircraft must be determined by the particular scenario being played. Even then, the exact moment of entry and the size of force should be randomised. I see no purpose in physically representing the aircraft with models. The ground attack rules must consider Stukas, Me-109s and U-2s, including nighttime attacks. Rules will also be needed for anti-aircraft defences, particularly flak guns but also the Soviets improvised anti-tank rifles to shoot at aircraft.

6. I need rules for trenches, dugouts and bunkers, barbed wire, minefields and sappers. These must also consider the effect of bombardment, assault and tanks.

7. I would consider nighttime operations as special cases. The scenario must provide any special rules.

8. Aspects of the harshness of the campaign are generally outside the scope of small-scale combat actions. Possibly the vehicle “availability” rule suggested above could also be applied to infantry. Weather, food supplies, etc could affect the numbers and quality of units. If one side is suffering particular depredation compared to the other, for example the Sixth Army after its encirclement, their performance should be reduced with movement penalties and shooting penalties.

9. Ammunition and fuel availability can have a significant impact on combat. Ammunition shortage can be represented by only allowing units a fixed number of turns of shooting, represented by chits. If these are all used up, they cannot shoot. Fuel shortage could be represented either by movement chits similar to those for ammunition, or else by imposing certain restrictions on vehicle movement. This is probably best determined by the particular scenario.

10. One consistently overlooked aspect of military operations in wargames is management of wounded. When units suffer severe casualties, they cannot just continue to move as normal without consideration being given to the movement of wounded, either taking them with them or arranging separate evacuation to rear areas. One possible suggestion for reproducing this factor in a practical way is that when a unit takes a certain number of casualties, as well as removing the casualties, replace one of the unaffected models by a wounded model, reflecting the fact that the performance of the active element of the unit will be reduced by the need to give some assistance to the wounded among the casualties. The wounded figure cannot fight. Furthermore, each wounded model reduces the unit’s movement allowance by say 1”. This needs some further thought. It means that in units which are decimated, rather than the last couple of men fighting on regardless (assuming they are not compelled to fall back), they will be completely pre-occupied with assisting their wounded comrades. They will not be able to fight and will only be able to move very slowly. Alternatively, it could be argued that this aspect is factored into casualty rates. Should the unit as a whole have reduced movement because of a couple of wounded? And what if there are stretcher parties to evacuate the wounded to the rear? In practise, all of this is too complicated to reproduce in a wargame and must be factored in.

11. I would consider giving wide-tracked tanks better cross-country performance. However, this is a minor consideration and could simply add unnecessary complication.

12. Rules are need for flamethrowers, especially for flushing out enemy from bunkers, etc. Consideration should be given to the fact that these men will be prime targets for the enemy. I would suggest that the owning player is forced to remove the flamethrower as the first casualty the unit takes.

13. Special rules are also needed for snipers. They are exceptional shots and have well-sighted rifles that can shoot accurately to a longer range. They also operate in small teams of perhaps two men and are experts in camouflage, including techniques to hide their muzzle flash. In addition, snipers will specifically target enemy individuals, especially officers.

14. Sappers, snipers and recce troops operating in small formations and in white snowsuits should be hard to spot.

15. The rules for surrendering should be reviewed, given that this was relatively rare.

16. I need rules for Katyusha rockets (“Stalin Organs”).

17. I need to add rules for reducing wooden buildings with artillery and mortar fire, and review their degree of protection to troops inside, which would be limited against anything bigger than small arms fire.