Killer stacks or defense in depth?

[Dr Zaius]

I've seen a lot of different wargaming styles and most of them seem to boil down to two basic types in most cases. I'll call them the killer stack method and defense in depth for lack of better terms.

I would define the killer stack method as a style where the defending player seeks to build a very strong line of interlocking defenses with almost everything he has forward deployed. Large machine guns, ordinance and even vehicles might be integrated right into this network. This kind of defense can indeed be strong, but it can also prove brittle if hit in the right way. The obvious advantage is that the defender stands less chance of being defeated "in detail" while the attacker picks off his units one at a time. Instead, the defender is able to concentrate his firepower for maximum effect right from the beginning. Attackers will likely attempt to penetrate such a defense as quickly as possible and thus minimize the amount of time spent in exposed positions. Also, this type of defense allows the defender to centrally locate his leaders a bit more than is usually possible with a more decentralized style.

The disadvantages of the killer stack method are also clear. If the defense can be decisively penetrated at any point the entire line might prove untenable and force a general withdraw. Should this occur there will likely be a short time where a significant portion of the defender’s units are somewhat disorganized and exposed while they attempt to redeploy into fall-back positions. An attacker who hits the line with enough force to affect a penetration and then aggressively exploits this penetration has a good chance of inflicting so many casualties that the battle will be won.

The other kind of defense is what is generally referred to as defense in depth. This defense is built around the concept that artillery and long range weapons systems are always the greatest threat and always pose the greatest risk of inflicting mass casualties. Large concentrations of troops are to be avoided as these simply create target-rich environments and make the attacker’s job easier. Instead, the defender carefully constructs a layered defense using interlocking fields of fire and kill zones. Terrain will have a major influence on how such a defense will be implemented as will the number and type of troops available. Although some strong points might be integrated into a defense in depth in order to safeguard key terrain, the bulk of the force would not be lumped together. The advantage of this method is that artillery and other long range weapons will be far less effective. It may also be difficult to overcome single defensive points by using smoke because each point is protected by mutually supporting positions. Because the defense has depth to it, this can work to give the defender a small amount of time to reposition forces deployed to the rear should that become necessary during the course of the battle without disrupting the entire line.

This method also has disadvantages. Because the defense is somewhat more dispersed it may not be possible to inflict as many casualties on the attacker. Also, there is a risk of units being defeated in detail should the attacker make effective use of smoke, fog or darkness. Due to the way leaders function in ASL, this method may be more difficult to employ in many situations.

There are other types of defenses as well and I’m oversimplifying this a great deal in order to make the distinction clear. A mobile defense can prove to be the strongest in a lot of situations, but this type of defense is highly dependant of the type of equipment available and the weather. This is also a much more complex form of defense and takes more skill to pull off.

How do you generally tend to play when on defense? Are you an everything up-front man, or do you prefer depth?

 

[Pitman]

Putting everything forward deployed is usually an invitation to suicide. There are two reasons for this; the first is that you will often open yourself up to maximum enemy firepower. The second is that if the enemy manages to slip around a flank, he will have dislodged your ENTIRE position, as opposed to part of it.

This does not mean that you should spread out all your units all over your defensive area, of course.

And everything is ENTIRELY scenario dependent. What will work in one scenario may not work in another.

However, there are several principles that you can use as a defender which will often be profitable to follow:

1. Have at least a minimal upfront force to slow down the enemy and force him to "deploy" (not in ASL terms but real life terms).

2. Your strongest defense should be beyond this point. Not only will the enemy have to deploy again, but this second line will be more ideally situated regarding terrain.

3. Ideally, your forces should be as far back as they can be and still do significant damage. Why have a kill stack up front if its range is enough that it can be to your rear and still be effective?

4. All of your forces should be situated with conscious knowledge of whether they will be "to the last bullet" guys or "run away" guys. All of the latter should have clear routes to a fallback position ahead of time.

5. If you have HIP units, you should have a clear understanding of how their use will aid in your winning the scenario. I've written a detailed article on the six or so main HIP strategies that hopefully will come out in a future Journal. Similarly, if you have vehicles or guns or any other special tools, you need to have a clear understanding--I cannot emphasize that enough--of how they will aid your WINNING the scenario. They should not be wasted on something that cannot directly enhance your chances to win.

6. You need to know from the beginning what your most likely "last stand" is going to be. One of the hardest things to understand as a novice or journeyman player is what the situation is likely to look like on turn 5 or turn 6. But you need to know this, so you can plan accordingly. It is much easier for the attacker to fight "off the cuff," so to speak, than for the defender.

7. You need to understand clearly what your goals are. How will you win the scenario? Will you win it primarily by killing enemy troops (regardless of what the VC are; you can win a "take building X" scenario in this way) or simply by slowing down the opponent or something else? If, for example, you are simply trying to slow down the opponent, then you absolutely cannot put everything up front. You need to maximize each little opportunity to stall the defender, while at the same time setting up the NEXT opportunity to do so.

 

[Nat Mallet]

I'm a killer stack defender. I think the killer stack is a simpler defense than the in-depth defense, for two reasons.

First, all you need to find is a good line to set your defense, and you're there. Sometimes the scenario will give you this line of cover in your starting position, and sometime you'll have to make a run for it since it sits just outside of your deployment zone. But in both cases, it's still much easier than planning an in-depth defense.

Second, it doesn't require you to analyse your force quite as much. Just mix your available units in a way that a concentrated attack on one section of your line won't eliminate all of your leaders, SWs, AFVs, etc.

I do think it's not as efficient a defense as the in depth defense. If the attacker does manage to punch a hole in your line, and he's planned his exploitation of that breach properly, that whole line can be rolled up. It's a lot tougher to do against an in-depth defense.

My question is this: Is a front line defense something inexperienced players use more, or do advanced players use this as well?

Nat

 

[zgrose]

3. Ideally, your forces should be as far back as they can be and still do significant damage. Why have a kill stack up front if its range is enough that it can be to your rear and still be effective?

The corollary to this is don't have a kill stack in a position where they can take fire but would be unable to effectively return fire.

For example, putting 9-2/HMG/etc... stack in a stone building overlooking a open field that the enemy must cross sounds like a great idea to get all those FFMO/FFNAM shots but take a look at your enemy's OB. If he has an AFV with HE, you can be sure he is going to pummel that stack first thing and your FP will be wasted.

Same goes for some of the German vs American scenarios. If your range is 4 and his is 6, try not to setup where he can fire with cover at range 6 since he would be at full FP while you would be at 1/2 FP.

Generally the above cases would tend to favor some time of defense in depth as you optimize your firing positions based on the weapons available to your defense.

 

[RobZagnut]

I’m generally a defense in depth player, but I have to qualify it by saying, “It depends.”

1) What type of front am I dealing with? Does the scenario require me to defend across the whole board length, just a small half board or smaller?

2) What forces and weapons do I get? Do I get Panthers and Tigers that can destroy any AFV they hit or do I get an ATR where I must wait patiently for that side shot to even get a chance of a KIA?

3) What terrain am I setting up in? Is there good rallying terrain in key spots where I can fall back to or is there a point where I must stand and die. You don’t need too much depth on Dense Jungle boards as you can just fall back to the next few hexes, but board 4 is a different story.

4) What are the victory conditions? Do I need to delay my opponent? Do I need to inflict CVP upon him?

5) What forces and weapons does my opponent get? Does he have speedy Half-Tracks and Armored Cars that can get behind me and cut off rout paths? Or does he get slow lumbering Valetines and Matildas?

6) Does the scenario give me Reinforcements on turn 3 or 4? If yes, this might change how I setup.

Too many variables to determine what type of defense I would use.

 

[Pitman]

Zoltan writes: "For example, putting 9-2/HMG/etc... stack in a stone building overlooking a open field that the enemy must cross sounds like a great idea to get all those FFMO/FFNAM shots but take a look at your enemy's OB. If he has an AFV with HE, you can be sure he is going to pummel that stack first thing and your FP will be wasted."

This is not that bad a position, actually. You know that if he moves an AFV up to (let's say four hexes) you, he won't hit you on that turn. On his next defensive fire, he's probably looking at a 5 to hit, and on turns after that, a 6 to hit. That's assuming you are unconcealed. If you are concealed, and he goes area fire, then you are looking at about the same roles, but the likelihood of an ineffectual first hit (like a 6+3). Those are odds that don't make me that uncomfortable. He's got to hit me, and he has less than 50% chance to do so, then he has to have an effect on me, then even if he does I have to blow my die rolls.

Plus, there are ways to really screw with him. If your building has a two hex front, you can always skulk back, out of the acquisition marker, then skulk to the front in the other building hex. If he is using area fire, you don't even have to go back. Or, perhaps your real kill stack is in the back already and that's just dummies up front until he wastes them. One thing I like to do when I can is to have another squad in back, waiting to come up and pick up a dropped MG if the first squad gets toasted.

All in all, the tank versus kill stack battle is not too fearful for me. I tend to be more worried about the tank firing SMOKE and neutralizing the position for a couple of turns.

 

[paulkenny]

I am a defense in depth type, slow the attack down, break a squad or two and defensive force preservation.

 

[AdrianE]

In ASL the kill stack defense is easily broken by the following:
1) SMOKE (one well placed smoke round and you have +4 hindrance to your fire)
2) VBM freeze (can't shoot out of hex)
3) freak results on an otherwise harmless NMC (every one breaks/pins/ fails LLTC)

In ASL defense in depth is made more effective by skulking and rotating units back to gain concealment.

Defense in depth is preferred in ASL if the situation permits it. Some scenarios don't (Going to Church for example).

I'll second all the points made by Mark and Robert. Good advice there.

 

[Pitman]

SMOKE is no guarantee of neutralizing a kill stack, of course, although it will make it less effective. If you have a 9-2 directing, for instance, it can still fire with only a +1 mod against someone not using assault movement.

 

[Sgt. Przybylo]

The Charlie Brown Answer

I like to call this "The Charlie Brown Answer" because it will appear that I am saying "both" to how I defend.

I should qualify the following by saying that much of the decisions a commander makes MUST be dependent on the resources available (as many have said already). That being said, there are a few rules of thumb that are key to a successful defense;

1. Mutually supportive positions that maximize terrain and fortifications (if available). Strong points (with killstacks) can be a part of this, but without support from nearby positions, they can be neutralized, compromising the defense. This brings up the next point...

2. Defense in depth. In order to prevent the enemy from exploiting his advantage when the line is penetrated, a second line of defense should be in place to prevent breakthroughs. It doesnt require much, just enough to prevent full exploitation of a breach, enough to allow point 3...

3. Counterattacks by mobile reserves. Local counterattacks can be lethal to an attacker who, flushed with success, and weakened by the initial assault, isnt ready for them.

Probably the best argument AGAINST killstack defense from Real Life is the June 6 invasion of Normandy. Rommel hedged his bets on the Atlantic Wall...the rest is history.

Just my two cents, and certainly much easier to talk about than execute in ASL.

Gee whiz, I actually get to apply something I learned in the Infantry!

 

[Legion]

i am Definately a Defence in Depth player - my opponent JP is a Kill Stack player.
I like to move and make quick changes in defence/attack, he likes to grab territory and hold on to it

Also i would note that in CGs since breaks do not matter that much in the long run the Defence in Depth makes a broken MMC more likely to rout away before the following double break of death.

Naturally SAN results and CH's are magnified in their effect by the use of Kill Stacks too

 

[ToxicShock]

I've seen a lot of different wargaming styles and most of them seem to boil down to two basic types in most cases. I'll call them the killer stack method and defense in depth for lack of better terms.

How do you generally tend to play when on defense? Are you an everything up-front man, or do you prefer depth?

I would class myself as a counter-attacker. I always look for a local advantage on the defence and try to inflict as much damage as possible. You would be surprised how much can be done with one halftrack or half-squad running around behind the attacker. Of course, this is dependent on all the tangibles (OB, scenario type & length, VC & SSRs, etc.)

 

[Pvt Lobo]

Great discussion

Although I am not a newbie, I haven't played in a while so the tips are great. My defensive schemes haven't worked well since I started playing again. I find that my biggest problem is figuring out what the real issues will be 4 or 6 turns down the line. That really seems to be the key to planning a good defense.

Thanks

Seth

 

[Priest]

I've used both, depends on the situation.

 

[ransh]

I think that one of the keys to a successful defence is having a reserve force that is initially kept back, unengaged by the attacker, and is free to reinforce the front lines at the right spot, once the attacker's main effort is identified. Generally speaking, the size of such a force should be, in my opinion, about 25% - 33% of the defending force, although in smaller scenarios it's usually very hard to spend forces on such a reserve.

Ran

 

[Dr Zaius]

Here are some related comments from real life trainers that some of you may find helpful. These are professional soldiers and marines who teach lessons to real life leaders using wargames as an aid. Most of this is focused on Close Combat (the U.S. Marine Corpes uses this game for official classes), but almost all of the basic principles outlined here will be helpful in further refining your understanding of defensive tactics (and perhaps offensive ones as well).

http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/tactics/ccm.htm

Here are some highlights from the first article (very good stuff):

• Long unsupported assaults are deadly. Assault for short distances, against a lightly armed or well-suppressed position. A single enemy soldier can destroy a squad across 100 meters of open ground.
• A long covered approach is always better than a short open route. Be careful of covered approaches that cannot be covered by an overwatching unit.
• Every unit needs obscuration. Smoke save lives. Every assault and every withdrawal should use smoke.
• Fire and maneuver is the key tactic. Use the majority of your force to overwhelmingly suppress the enemy, and a small assault unit to rapidly close on the objective.
• It's all about suppression. Fire without maneuver is wasteful and indecisive. Effective suppression is the basis for all infantry tactics.
• Units without mutual support are doomed. Mutually supported units protect each other from being fixed or assaulted.
• Mortars are inherently inaccurate. Area suppression is NOT destruction. Rounds are limited, use them well. Don’t waste mortars on bunkers or buildings.
• Concentrate your fire. Fire control insures decisive action. In contact, men will disperse their fire. Sequentially destroying targets with point fire is more effective than distributing ineffective fires.
• Every unit— squad, platoon, and company—needs antitank capability when facing tanks. An infantry unit with no organic antitank weapon is either retreating or overrun. Infantry can only fight tanks in close terrain.
• For anti-tank positions, deep and narrow sectors of fire with defilade on both sides are best. The best sector of fire allows you to engage only one tank at a time.
• Defensive positions are temporary. All units need multiple positions and the ability to withdraw.
• For machinegun positions, deep and narrow sectors of fire, with defilade on both sides, are best. Primary and secondary sectors separated by frontal protection are better.
• Cover is life. Move from one covered position to another. Good cover is relative to a single enemy position. Mutually supporting enemy positions can overcome the protection of your cover.
• Use bounding overwatch to move. A squad in contact needs immediate suppression from another unit. The measure of success is the number of units that can immediately bring suppression to bear upon enemy contact.

This workbook is also a very interesting read. Take a few moments to see what this thing has to offer.

http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/ccm/ccmtoc.htm

 

[J. R. Tracy]

Generally I look at the boards and the VC, and figure how fast the attacker has to move to meet his conditions. I then figure out where I want him to be on the penultimate turn and plan from there. Typically this results in a defense in depth, with all the usual concerns for rally points, fall back positions, reserves, etc. HOWEVER, every so often, a card is broken and an upfront stuffjob defense is rewarded. It goes against the grain of what we read and know about 'proper' defenses, but sometimes it pays to just drop the hammer on the attacker as he enters the board. It's tough to spot and it takes a lot of gumption to attempt (which is probably why it slips through playtesting), but the stuffjob is always worthy of consideration.

JR

 

[Rastan]

To the tactics forum?

 

[David Reinking]

I would add that the Nationality involved will have an impact as to which one will be chosen. I find in my personal playing that the British are better suited for a defense-in-depth (given the relative immunity from cowering) than are say the Chinese/Italians. Of course, the front to be defended will impact the choice every time.

 

[Kenmski]

Depth vs kill stack is scenario dependent. If given the option in one specific scenario, I would probably have some combo of the two.

Regarding the concern in placement of kill stacks. I used to worry about my kill stacks (and guns) being neutralized by enemy fire. Nowadays, if I feel that is where they should be that is where they go, rather then sticking them in some other location that is not as effective . I would rather have my oppoent have to to deal with these stacks than for me to place them in a bad position (and possibly out of play).