Parkers Crossroads is wrapped up

[Kopfdorfer]

Greetings All,

The Campaign for Parkers Crossroads is wrapped up.
As the sun plummeted from the winter sky over the snowy Ardennes , the little hamlet at Baraque de Fraiture was , finally in German hands.
Throughout the Ardennes , German and American units of all descriptions were strung out on the limited road net , many starved of supply and immobile , only a little better off to their brothers in arms who had either been destroyed , taken prisoner , or in worse ignominy , deserted or surrendered to the enemy.

For me the campaign was overall interesting. The outcome showed many similarities to the historical one , and some stark differences as well. I learned a lot in the design and prosecution of the campaign , and I hope that the playing was interesting to all the participants , as it was to me both as designer and player.

To view the mission planner at campaign end , the login is :
Login name : admin
Password : shaef

Outcome : I tend to view most things wholistically , and my assessment of the campaign is the current point in question , but as we know gamers/simmers often want to know who won the campaign.
I'll leave it up to you to decide the empirical side of things.

In the terms of the Victory objectives that I laid out , the Germans would win the battle given controlling a majority (at least 3) of the five control points at campaign end , one of which must have been Parkers Crossroads
( the intersection at Baraque de Fraiture. The more control points of the five controlled , the more definitive the victory.

As an alternate , if the Germans were to capture and hold an intact bridge across the Meuse/Maas , and keep it in line of supply of at least 50,000 kg of supply at campaign end , it would also be a "Strategic" Victory.

The five control points were :
Baraque de Fraiture (BI-12-6) , Manhay (BI-12-1) , Salmchateau (BJ--12-6) , Houffalize (BJ-11-7) , and La Roche en Ardennes (BG-10-3).

To make things interesting , I did NOT let the Allies know what the German VC were , only that they were to thwart them , so the Allied Command had the extra burden (I thought) of determining just what the Germans had in mind , as well as fighting the military battles.

Regarding the Control Ponts , at the campaign end , the sitrep is :
Baraque de Fraiture - Axis Controlled but in Dispute
Manhay - Allied Controlled but in Dispute
Salmchateau - Axis Controlled but in Dispute
Houffalize - Axis Controlled
La Roche - Axis Controlled but in Dispute

After post campaign discussions , I realized that in terms of control , as a designer I need to specify whether control means undisputed or not. For me these empirical classification of results are of lesser importance than the "feel" of the campaign , but I realize that other users desire to be able to refer indisputably as to whether the campaign objectives have been met or not.

In the historical-comparative world that I enjoy , I will note that historically , St. Vith fell early on the 22 December , while in our enactment , the Germans were unable to settle the matter until late on the 23rd. In addition , while I think no one would dispute the fact that the Germans did wrest control from the Amis - one stubborn Sherman still patrolled the village - the ultimate fate of the brave tankers will be forever unknown , but they did their country very proud.
Not only was St. Vith a determined defensive stand , but the much coveted (Allied) Supply Point there was destroyed in a timely manner by a single Sherman just before the Germans entered the town.

The Germans captured the little St. Hubert airfield early in the campaign , and used it effectively as an emergency field and base for recon and supply drops. The Allies never got it back.

In addition to holding St. Vith (and the few key roads heading west out of it) the Allies also maintained the key intersection at Weiswampach (BL-10-7).
The Germans never dented the line Gouvy (BK-11-5) - Weiswampach along the railroad , and a huge conglomeration of German units was starved of supply between and to the east of these points , sandwiched between these lines and the forces defending St. Vith.
Despite supply drops almost every mission on Dec 23 , they were badly supply starved and were no significant factor in the battle.

Just when it appeared that the Germans had eroded the US positions at Malmedy - Trois Ponts - Stavelot ( which historically were the high tide mark of KG Peiper) enough to break through , reinforcing units from the roads to the north ( Liege) managed to plug the holes and contain these much needed troops.

The passing thought of the German command , that a train resupply might be able to squeeze through from Duren via Monschau to the Malmedy area never came to fruition , as the AMis always had just enough forces present along the route to prevent a passage of the train. Were the Axis Command gamier and less realistic of mind , a train plotted to execute this manoeuvre might have survived , but no real commander was likely to make such an order.

My concept of assigning some units as "dormant" , to represent units available in the battle area and thereby to offer sober second thought as to whether certain routes were to be exploited , while I think is still a viable concept , did not contribute significantly ( in my opinion) to the campaign.
Other commanders may have differing perspectives here.

I am looking forward to seeing assessment of the other commanders/pilots on all facets of Parkers Crossroads.

Kopfdorfer

[StG77_CountZero]

Thanks Kopfdorfer for organising this campaign, i had good time playing it. Thanks to 4Shades also for hosting missions and MP, and thanks to planners on both side.

Looking forward to next campaign.

[IV/JG7_4Shades]

I enjoyed this campaign. The OOB was, to my eyes, well researched and the variation in weather conditions made the flying and navigation enjoyable.

Some things I noted were:

1. The West Front 44 map itself does not lend itself to IL-2 jeep actions as the terrain is too angular and disjointed. But the terrain relief is exciting for ground pounding.

2. The aircraft fuel load constraints were a little too tight, meaning that some airframes were rendered ineffective. Sadly, the default airframe endurances in IL-2 often do not reflect historical performance so we need to factor this into campaign design. Testing of the aircraft performance prior to campaign start is a good idea.

3. It was interesting to consider how/when to best employ artillery barrages, given the large rate of supply consumption and the difficulty of re-supplying the guns.

4. There is an art to issuing ground movement orders, and it seems that even experienced SEOW commanders take some time to understand the ground movement models. On the whole, though, units went where they were told to go.

5. The Axis forces completely avoided Bastogne, but the Allies did not seem to use the Bastogne garrison to disrupt Axis rear-area transport. I guess they didn't have to as the supply limitations were doing that already!

Thanks to all commanders.

Cheers,
4S

[Kopfdorfer]

I agree with your assessments 4Shades, but I should also point out that in terms of point 5) , nearly all the Allied units posted around Bastogne were for over 75% of the Campaign Missions , in "Dormant" mode , and therefore the Allied command could only keep them in supply , and not plot orders for them for most of the campaign.

Kopfdorfer