Author: Reiryc (---.171.56.43.charter-stl.com)
Date: 12-07-03 21:11
Kharkov ?42 ? Designer Notes
Introduction
I. KHARKOV '42 - AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
The Soviet Strategic Position, January 1942
The German Strategic Position, January 1942
The January Battles
A Bulge is Born
The Soviet Strategic Position, Spring 1942
The German Strategic Position, Spring 1942
The May Battles
The Plans
The Soviet Attack
II. BUILDING KHARKOV '42
Why Kharkov ?
The Scenario Design Team
The Map
The Order Of Battle
Wig Goes To Maryland
Bringing It All Together And Making Scenarios
III. SCENARIO INFORMATION TABLE - KHARKOV '42
Complete listing of each Scenario
IV. ORDER OF BATTLE
Soviet Order Of Battle
German Order Of Battle
V. BIBLOGRAPHY - KHARKOV'42
Introduction
The award-winning game system created by John Tiller and Greg ?Sturmer? Smith in the original game of the Panzer Campaign Series, SMOLENSK ?41, set the standard for the rest of the games planned for release. For the 2nd game in the series, the team of Jim Dunnam and Wig Graves brought their research to create NORMANDY ?44, released in the 2nd Quarter of 2000. For this third installment of the Series ? KHARKOV ?42, John Tiller called upon the design team of Saunders & Blackie.
I. Kharkov ?42 ? An Historical Perspective
by Kurt Dietrich and Michael Avanzini
The battles for Kharkov cover the period from mid-January to the end of May 1942 while the game focus is mainly on May, there is a scenario covering a winter battle. The battles started as an expansion of the Soviet winter offenses that pushed the Wehrmacht back from the gates of Moscow.
The Soviet Strategic Position, January 1942
The Soviet offensive in front of Moscow started on December 5, 1941. Along the length of the front, from Orel north to Leningrad, the German forces were pushed back. By early January, Stalin wanted to expand the offensives, with the thought of regaining the Dnepr River line and recapturing Kharkov.
The German Strategic Position, January 1942
During December 1941 and January 1942, the German Army fought for survival amidst the mass of Soviet offensives. The German Army units were depleted from the campaign through the summer and autumn of 1941.
Hitler ordered the front to be held, with no retreat. This resulted in the tactic of forming hedgehog defenses centered on towns, villages, or even a few huts. This also provided shelter from the bitter Russian winter for the unprepared Wehrmacht.
The January Battles
The initial battles in the Kharkov area started on January 5, 1942. By the end of March 1942 the Red Army had fought itself to a standstill, with many goals unfulfilled.
In early January 1942, Marshal Timoshenko?s southern fronts (Bryansk Front, Southwestern Front, and Southern Front) went over to the offensive against the northern flank of the German Army Group South.
The objectives were to encircle Kharkov from the north and south, in a pincer movement. With the German front broken, the Soviets would advance to Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye, regaining the Dnepr River line, with a further advance to the Sea of Azov. This would recover the Donets Basin and Taganrog area, while encircling the majority of Army Group South.
In early January the Soviets opened offensives to the north of Kharkov. Bryansk Front?s 61st, 3rd and 13th Armies were to attack in the Orel/Kursk area while Southwestern Front?s 40th, 21st and 38th Armies were to attack in the Kursk/Belgorod area. The attacks by Bryansk Front started slowly and soon stalled. Southwestern Front?s 40th Army?s attack made some progress on the left flank, with an advance of 30 kilometers. Timoshenko fed in the 21st Army to reinforce the center and right wings. The 21st Army was to co-operate with the 38th Army, to take the city of Belgorod. These attacks failed in the face of strong German defense, centered on hedgehog strongpoints, and constant German counterattacks.
A Bulge is Born
With the halt of the attacks to the north of Kharkov, Timoshenko struck further south with Southwestern and Southern Fronts (38th, 6th, 57th, and 37th Armies). Soviet 6th and 57th Armies advanced over of 30 kilometers, but were held at Balakleya and Slavyansk. From January 22 to the 24, three Cavalry Corps (1st, 5th, and 6th) were introduced to widen the breakthrough. 1st and 6th Cavalry Corp was directed toward Slavyansk, with 5th Cavalry Corp operating to the left of 57th Army toward Barvenkovo. Stubborn German resistance halted 6th Army?s attacks against Balakleya.
After January 24th, 9th Army was introduced between 57th and 37th Armies. A bulge was forming in the German lines south of Kharkov. Timoshenko filled the bulge, while requesting reinforcements from Stavka to continue the offensive. Stavka sent 315 tanks and four rifle brigades, with the objectives of advancing to the Dnepr River and a second drive to Mariupol or Malitopol, as the situation developed.
6th Army and 6th Cavalry Corps advanced to the Orel River, cutting the Kharkov-Lozovaya rail line, and taking Lozovaya on January 27. Further, advances to the north, between Balakleya and Krasnograd, were stopped by the Germans.
Southern Front advanced to the south toward Slavyansk and Artemovska, with 9th Army from the west and 37th Army from the east. 57th Army struck southwest, with 5th and 1st Cavalry Corps advancing toward Krasnoarmeiskoye and Gavrilovka.
The Germans reinforced the southern flank of the bulge with the 3rd Panzer Corps in the Kramatorsk-Krasnoarmeiskoye area. With increasing resistance, the Soviet attacks were slowed and finally broken. Soviet units were dispersed to deal with constant German counterattacks. However, a bulge of some 80 kilometers deep was punched into the lines of Army Group South.
The Soviet Strategic Position, Spring 1942
Stalin?s plans for the spring of 1942 were guided by two misconceptions. First was that the Germans were planning to renew their attack on Moscow. And the other was that the Soviets were strong enough to counter that attack while undertaking offensive operations of their own.
The German Strategic Position, Spring 1942
The German Army viewed the winter battles as a temporary setback and planned to conclude the war in 1942. As a result of the 1941 campaign, it was clear to the German High Command that the Wehrmacht was not capable of an attack along the entire front. The Germans planned to regain the initiative by launching a major offensive in the south of Russia. The plan called for Army Group South to seize the Donbas region, cut off the transport of oil along the Volga, and to capture the main oil supply facilities in the Caucasus.
The May Battles
The battles around Kharkov were an extension of the winter battles in the same area. Stalin wanted the Soviet forces to go over to the strategic offensive, to push the German Army back. Along the southern fronts, this meant regaining the Dnepr River line.
Soviet Marshal Zhukov warned Stalin that the Red Army did not have the strength for such ambitious plans. He wished to conduct limited offensives to keep the German Army off balance, create strong defenses around Moscow, and accumulate mechanized reserves to counter the expected German thrust. Stalin insisted on a full offensive tilt, completely overestimating the Red Army?s capability.
The Plans
The Soviet plan was for a two pronged assault, north and south of Kharkov, to cut off the German 6th Army. With this accomplished, a further drive was to proceed to Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye on the Dnepr River.
The 28th Army was to attack westward from the area of Volchansk and link up with the Soviet 6th Army attacking northward out of the Izyum bulge. They were to meet west of Kharkov. After the 28th and 6th Army linked up, the 57th and 9th Armies were to join in for a westward advance to the Dnepr River.
At the same time, the German Army was planning a series of offensives with the following objectives:
1) Eliminate the Barvenkovo bridgehead (Izyum bulge),
2) Sieze a bridgehead over the North Donets River,
3) Advance to the Oskol River, and
4) Advance to Voronezh as part of ?Fall Blau? (Operation Blue), then advance to Stalingrad and the Caucasus.
The first two phases of these operations was planned as Operation Friderikus. This operation planned for 6th Army to attack the northern shoulder of the Izyum bulge with 1st Panzer and 17th Armies attacking the southern shoulder. This would trap three Soviet Armies inside the bulge.
The Soviet Attack
Soviet attacks north and south of Kharkov opened on May 12, preceded by an hour artillery and air bombardment. In the Volchansk area, 28th Army overwhelmed German defenders and advanced 20 kilometers. Striking north from the Izyum bulge, Soviet 6th Army advanced 24 kilometers toward Krasnograd.
On May 14, an important aspect of the battle occurred. The German fronts had been opened. Tactically, in hindsight, this was the moment for Timoshenko to commit his mechanized and mobile forces. However, Timoshanko hesitated, waiting for a more favorable situation through faulty intelligence of German concentration and intentions.
The German 6th Army managed to hold 28th Army by resorting to hedgehog defenses, and sharp local counterattacks. The hedgehog defenses sapped Soviet offensive strength as the Soviet forces concentrated on reducing these positions instead of bypassing them. German counterattacks disoriented the Soviet soldiers. By these means, 28th Army was stopped 19 kilometers short of Kharkov.
On May 15th, to the South of Kharkov, elements of Army Group Bobkin came close to capturing Krasnograd, but the attack stalled.
The Soviet attacks had disrupted German plans for Operation Friderikus. The forces available for the northern pincer were dispersed to halt the Soviet offensives. Army Group South planned to launch Operation Friderikus with only the southern prong. German 17th Army was reinforced with 1st Panzer Army for the counterstroke against the southern face of the bulge.
The German attack started on May 17. The attack developed quickly. 16th Panzer Division captured Izyum on May 18. 3rd Panzer Corps attacked northward, threatening the communications of Soviet 6th and 57th Armies, and 5th Cavalry Corps.
By May 18th the Soviet General Staff proposed to call off the offensive and turn the units of 6th and 57th Armies around to face the German threat. Southwestern Front?s Military Council convinced Stalin that the German threat was greatly exaggerated. Stalin therefore refused to halt the Soviet offensive and to withdraw from the bulge. This doomed the Soviet forces attacking within the bulge.
The German pincers closed on May 23. The Soviets deployed 37th and 38th Armies to hold the German attack from advancing further eastward.
The Soviet forces in the bulge concentrated for an attempt to break out of the pocket. For three days, they battered against the German lines. As the Soviets attacked eastward, the German 6th Army closed in from the north and west, crushing the Soviet forces in the pocket against 1st Panzer Army. By May 29, it was all over.
The German Army mopped up the trapped Soviets, capturing 22 infantry and 7 cavalry divisions. For the entire operation the Soviet Army lost 277,000 men killed, wounded and captured, 652 tanks and 4,924 artillery pieces. Soviet 6th, 9th, and 57th Armies were destroyed.
The German Army, wishing to exploit their success and position themselves for the coming ?Fall Blau?, conducted two local offensives by 6th Army and 1st Panzer Army. These attacks forced Southwestern Front back to the Oskol River.
II. Building Kharkov ?42
by Glenn Saunders and Dave ?Blackie? Blackburn
Why Kharkov ?
The decision to pursue Kharkov as the third title of the Panzer Campaign Series was made in the latter half of 1999 as part of the long-term plan that calls for games to alternate from east-to-west, then back to the east. This made Panzer Campaign #3 a Russian Front title. It was also felt that in a new series, with such a great number of possibilities, it was more appropriate to not produce all the well-known battles first. Instead a mix was sought, where a well-known battle would, perhaps, be followed by a not so well known battle. The Soviet Spring offensive at Kharkov is not very well known so it fits to follow Normandy.
Another consideration was that Kharkov offered both sides a mobile offensive and that had not been done before in this series. Smolensk offers the offense, but it highlights a German attack, with the exception of a few add-on scenarios where the Russians are the attackers. In Normandy of course, the Allies generally attack and the Germans defend.
Over time, information from the Russian archives has become available in the west. Historians have now been able to piece together the actual course of events that differ greatly from the mythology surrounding post war Soviet accounts. Any gamers interested in the details of this battle and why so little is known about it, will find many answers in the book ?Kharkov 1942: Anatomy of a Military Disaster? by David M. Glantz. This book was the main Soviet source used for Kharkov '42, and although he sometimes replicates Soviet source errors in his translation (through no fault of his own), he is still by far and away the best new source of information, particularly on the Soviet side of things.
The Scenario Design Team
The Saunders & Blackie team is a unique partnership of two designers who have worked together on several projects, long before finally meeting face to face. The Saunders part of the team, Glenn Saunders, is perhaps better known to many players of the Panzer Campaign Series as he has been actively providing assistance and insight on a number of Internet forums to players of SMOLENSK ?41 and NORMANDY ?44. The Blackie part of the team is Dave Blackburn. Blackie has been around designing scenarios and maps for a variety of wargames, but now only works in the Panzer Campaign Series with Glenn. The team is Canadian, and proud of it.
We got involved with John Tiller and the Panzer Campaigns after finishing up another wargame also programmed by John but produced by another game company. While Saunders & Blackie have been listed individually in close to 20 game credits for various roles, this is our first effort as the lead scenario designers for a single game.
The Map
The first element in the development of any Panzer Campaign Game is the map. You can read and make notes on any action or battle you like to simulate, but until you look over the ground in game terms, by looking at the game map, it is very hard to tell how an idea will develop into a scenario.
The Kharkov map, like Smolensk before it, is based on slightly post-war Russian sources. John Tiller made the map himself, showing he is never far away from any of the nitty-gritty work that comes with creating a game. This particular map has been ready since before the first game in the series, Smolensk, had even been released. However, for new Panzer Campaign projects under development, Saunders & Blackie now do most of the mapmaking. Blackie is in fact John?s Chief mapmaker on the team.
Building a map ? a good accurate map - is a time consuming and often tedious task, much of which is unknown to the people who play the game. In the case of Kharkov, all 87,420 individual hexes that make up the map had to be looked at and judged in several passes, comparing a blank hex grid overlay on an actual late 1940?s map of Russia. The first pass in making the map is to draw on the drainage system. This step helps to give you the lay of the land and therefore assists in the next grueling stage, that of contouring the topography based on the 1 km grid. Next cultural data (woods, towns, roads, etc.) fills in the blank topographical map image. Finally, labels are placed to ensure players who read about the battles can even locate specific villages.
The Order of Battle
With the map in place, the next element required for the game is an Order of Battle (OOB). Work on the Kharkov OOB started with Greg ?Sturmer? Smith who made the first pass. Greg began this task shortly after the Smolensk game was completed. He worked on the OOB, as and when time was available to him, while the remainder of the Panzer Campaign Team focused on developing NORMANDY ?44.
Anyone familiar with SMOLENSK ?41 and NORMANDY ?44 knows that although both games are based on the same engine, they are unique in the style of play. One is an exploitation battle and the other is a campaign largely of attrition. KHARKOV ?42 is neither, as both combatants will get a chance to play the aggressor. Also, the structure of the OOB differs greatly, with NORMANDY ?44 using a smaller unit scale than SMOLENSK ?41. With Normandy, some players have commented that the high unit density slows down the play, yet with fewer, larger sized units in Smolensk, players are less able to deploy their forces. With KHARKOV ?42 we have opted to use a blend of the best of what both Smolensk and Normandy had to offer.
The original Kharkov OOB as laid out by Smith was patterned after Smolensk?s battalion level system. Early in the development, we foresaw the need to have separate German anti-tank battalions, sub-divided into company sized units, so they could be placed to face the Russian armor along the axis of the greatest threat. However, in an early prototype scenario where the OOB was made up of infantry in battalion size units, we found that the Germans were unduly handcuffed and lacked the flexible deployment required to stop the initial Soviet attack.
An infantry regiment normally consisting of three battalions could only be stretched to defend 3 hexes and any Zone-of-control frontage associated. However, if one hex in the line became the focus of a Russian attack, there was a need to reinforce that position with a company or two from a quieter sector, but with only 3 units in a regiment this was not possible. Also, it was not possible to deploy a battalion with 2 companies in the forward positions and 1 in reserve as was often the practice. Therefore, we decided to breakdown the German portion of the OOB into company size units. With this a regiment would now consist of 9 units allowing for flexible deployment. It also means for the Germans the Toolbar button for Combine\Breakdown becomes very important in game play.
This company level flexibility also seemed to fit with the fact that the German command structure at this point in the war is generally regarded as superior to the Soviets. Therefore most of the Soviets units remained as battalions, with the AT guns integrated within the combat values of the infantry where they were deployed, except of course for the separate AT gun regiments which are attached to higher level HQs.
We faced a choice with the Soviet armor and opted to have these units in company strength. This decision was not made based on command flexibility, but rather the diverse equipment that made up a Soviet tank brigade. A Soviet tank battalion was generally made up of a mix of KV-1?s, T-34?s and T-60?s tanks. So our choice was to have separate units for each type of tank, in doing so this provides for greater Soviet tank mobility, or to mix the variety of tanks types into a single hybrid unit using combined average attack and defense strengths. After considering all points we decided that company size Russian tank units based on tank type seemed like the best choice, even if not ideal solution.
Throughout the development, we were determined to find our own middle ground with Kharkov design issues - to make the game work for Kharkov and not simply follow the model set by the earlier games of the series. An example of this is the Corps Attachments rule. The Soviets had very few Corps at this point in the war. New Tank Corps were being established, but by and large, Soviet divisions were attached directly to Army HQ?s. So the Corps Attachments rule was amended so that Soviet divisions could be moved from one Army to another and the Army HQ functions as the Corps level for the Attachment rule. We considered allowing for some regimental attachments, as there was clearly a practice of the Germans to mix regiments from division to division. However, we found that allowing this resulted in ?gamey? tactics that took away from play. So the regiments assigned to a division at the start of the campaign are fixed for the period of the battle.
Another variation from previous games revolves around the Soviet air units. With previous Panzer Campaign Games the air units were all attached to the highest level of command, and with this, any air unit could basically support any ground unit. However, in researching this battle, it was clear that the Soviets again did not enjoy this same flexibility and actually took time to transfer some air units from one command to another in response to the re-deployment of the Luftwaffe. Therefore, as other games of the series, German air units are under direct command of the top level German Army HQ thus allowing any available air elements to support any ground units.
However, the Soviet air units are not nearly as flexible. The Soviet Command is divided into two main Fronts, air units are attached to the formations Southern Front Aviation and Southwestern Front Aviation. Air units from one Front can?t support ground units from the other Front and will now appear in the Air Mission Dialog as a grayed out entry. Also, some Army Aviation units are attached directly to particular Army HQ?s. These air missions can only support that Army, or are alternatively transferred to another Army, in the same manner as you transfer an infantry division. The total effect of the various air command levels is that to players it may appear that the Soviet Air Force is a complete muddle. To a certain extent, it is that way by design in an attempt to simulate the poor organization that existed.
One must keep in mind that as restrictive as the Soviet air situation may appear, it still does not match that which existed during the battle. For example, on the first day of the Soviet Offensive, Army Group Bobkin received no air support at all due to a communications foul up. But in the Campaign Game, Army Group Bobkin is free to get air support from Southwestern Front?s Aviation.
The next development we discovered affecting the OOB concerned the Axis side. In the early stages of the Campaign Game, the Germans needed to close up holes in their lines by moving units in formations smaller than divisions to the trouble spots. This created situations where regimental battlegroups (KG?s) became ?low-on-ammo?
due to their remote proximity to their Divisional HQs. The result was the need to insert Regimental HQ Units (RHQs) into the Axis OOB. This decision added over 75 unit counters to the game.
We were still trying to keep the counter density in check however, and with this in mind we decided that panzer formations did not need to be subdivided into platoons as was the case with Normandy. So a Panzer Division in Kharkov is approximately 40 company level units as opposed to the 16 battalion sized units in Smolensk or over 120 platoon\company sized units in Normandy. The size of an Infantry Division (in number of units) in Kharkov is roughly the same as Normandy at around 30 to 60 units as opposed to less than 20 units in Smolensk.
Still, with the German OOB being converted to company size units, and the addition of Regimental HQ units, the number of German unit counters in the game had doubled from the OOB that we had started with. However, unit density remained less than Normandy because of two factors. The Kharkov OOB has roughly 2500 units as compared to the approximately 7200 units in Normandy and the Kharkov map covers over 87,000 km vs. the smaller Normandy Map covering around 25,000 km. So, less total units on a smaller map where the front lines in Kharkov stretch for over 500 km gave us the unit density balance we were after for this game.
Wig goes to Maryland
Even though this third installment of the Panzer Campaign Series is under the direction of the Saunders & Blackie Team, the Research/Design Team of Jim Dunnam and W. G. ?Wig? Graves played a key advisory role in helping to guide the project with the lessons they learned from Normandy. Of all of the help they provided, the best example is the research Wig contributed from the National Archives in Maryland. This proved to have a significant impact on the accuracy of the German OOB.
Wig?s purpose for visiting the Archives was to assist Greg Smith by filling in the German OOB with units we referred to as ?ants?. This is our working name for those extra, or auxiliary, units that are assigned to Corps and Army HQs. We wanted to do it right and get the best possible information on these auxiliary units. We?re referring to units like Flak, Pioneer regiments with specialized bridging equipment, and additional artillery assets, among others. We were after the strength, composition, and unit ID numbers for these units, the answer lay in microfilms of captured German records from a number of different sources.
As Wig dug deeper and deeper into these records, he discovered much more than just the information on the ??ant?. We learned that the neatly structured German divisions had, by this date in the war, changed to a great extent, with regiments and battalions attached and detached throughout the whole German Army in this sector. Few Infantry Divisions at the start of the battle actually had their original 3 regiments under their command. Some of these variations were readily seen while placing the Axis units in the Campaign Game ? for example: we knew from situation maps in the Kharkov book by Col. Glantz, that one regiment of the 68th Infantry Division was attached to the 298th Division. We also had a very good idea where the 298th Division was located. However, the focus of this book is based primarily on Soviet sources.
What we didn?t know, until Wig?s extremely detailed research into German records, was exactly which of the regiments of the 68th had been attached to the 298th. It turns out the answer was not simple. The regimental size KG from the 68th, assigned to the 298th, was made up of 3 battalions from two different regiments of the 68th Division. Furthermore, this didn?t make the 298th a stronger division for it had detached one of its own regiments, the 526th Infantry Regt., as the main combat force for KG Konradi.
The closer Wig studied the German information, the more convoluted the actual organizational structure became. As further examples, the 79th Infantry Division had an extra regiment attached from the 168th Division. The 168th Division enters on the north edge of the game as reinforcements, but it is made up of only one of its three original regiments, the 417th Regt. The I/248th Battalion detached from the 88th Division and the II/183rd of the 62nd Infantry Division round out the remainder of the Division. The third regiment of the 68th Infantry Division, the 442nd Regt. was in turn assigned to the 88th Division. And the list of changes to the organization of the OOB goes on and on.
So, we have Wig Graves to thank for one of the most detailed OOB I?d say has ever been created for a battle of this scale on the Russian Front. Wig?s research was also used to supplement the material from Glantz for the Germans? start positions in the large campaign scenarios. I particularly wanted to point this out because with so little information generally known about this battle, the depth and extent of the research might be lost on a casual observer.
Bringing it all together and making Scenarios
Even before the first draft of the OOB was finished, much thought and research had already gone into the scenarios for Kharkov ?42. John Tiller lead the way by creating two Day #1 operational area scenarios.
For the Saunders & Blackie team, the first task approaching this project was to read the Col. Glantz? book, then combine their ideas by assembling all the relevant information in chart form. This chart helped to number the ideas, coin a catchy title for each if one ?jumped out?, and recorded book/page/paragraph numbers that referred to the potential scenario. That way, we could both refer to a particular idea and be looking at exactly the same page references. For us, scenario design is truly a joint effort. There is no set pattern for how the scenarios are created. Often Blackie will lead and I (Glenn) will pick it apart before it goes to testing, or vise versa. Sometimes the seed of the scenario idea will come from me, but Blackie begins to build it and as he does, some very interesting twists and turns can develop, so that the final scenario may be quite a bit different than the original idea.
Some scenarios just seem to flow and appear to fall together, but most take a fair amount of work. A lot of effort goes into making the scenario ?just right? and there have been times when Blackie and I are fight over ideas to make sure that nothing happens by accident. Details, even such insignificant things like the title or the wording in the overview are set that way for a reason. We feel that attention to these details help to make a good scenario a great scenario. The total result of our effort is two sets of eyes, and two points of view, combining for what we hope will result in a challenging experience.
One of the goals we like to address when we make games is to tell a story through the scenario, and teach a little history to those that want to learn as well as enjoy the game. This is something that came from our own past wargaming experience. Often the events are not well known and this is certainly the case with Kharkov. Many reference books on the Russian Front will focus only on the Germans drive for Stalingrad in the summer of 1942. Here for Kharkov, we were starting with a setup featuring a huge bulge in the German lines. So the first questions became ?Where did this bulge come from and how long had it been there??
These questions were the genesis of the scenario #01 ? ?#01 A Bulge is Born? as well as the Campaign Maps that Mike Avanzini is now well known for providing for all John Tillers? Games. Mike and I were discussing this upcoming game on ICQ late one evening and we needed an effective way to tell the story of this battle with a couple of good illustration maps. We were also looking for more detailed information on the formation of the Izyum Bulge. Mike had ideas and materials to address both and drafting skills that I was unaware of. John Tiller quickly noted the potential of Mikes? Kharkov situation maps and had Mike make a set for each of his games, even the older ones that had already been released.
For the Izyum Bulge, Mike knew of a History Internet forum where his post drew the attention of David Glantz, one of the most respected historians with respects to the Russian Front in World War II and the author of the principle reference book we were using. This additional information not contained in the book, rather it was self publish material that Col. Glantz had. Thus a small, little known piece of information on how, why, and when the Izyum Bulge was formed became a part of the game.
From this starting point, and with John?s initial work on the Staryy Saltov and Velikaya Bereka scenarios, Blackie and I began to work though the idea chart. We had as one goal to ensure we made a bit of everything for everyone. For that purpose, we made all types of scenarios - small, medium, large and HUGE! For this, we set aside our personal taste in scenarios. We both tend to favor short, sharp, actions that can be played in a few hours. We were careful to include a mix of scenarios that were more of a challenge vs. the AI, as well as some that could be better played for Human vs. Human Play. Indeed many scenarios can be played from either side or Head-to-Head by email.
Portions of the scenarios developed are hypothetical, or ?WHAT-IF? settings. For us to consider making a ?what if? there must be some historical basis for the idea. As an example there is mentioned in the Soviet record, times when German Parachute troops were dropped around Ternovaia. Yet we found no German record of these airborne operations. What the Russians recorded was likely supplies being air dropped and recovered by German soldiers surrounded in that pocket. Still, the Soviet information provided the basis for an interesting idea, although we admit to stretching the drop strength from 300 to something closer to 1000 paratroopers.
The premise for a good scenario is an interesting situation on varying terrain that can be depicted with accurate information. Only after those conditions are met, can you move forward with the idea and set logical objectives and achievable victory conditions. The objectives in game terms are doubly important in that they not only contribute to the points required for victory, but they are a critical method to explain to the AI (or even the Human), the situation presented in the scenario. In this respect, the objectives explain the scenario goals, and the victory point levels define how high or wide are the goal posts are set.
During the Normandy ?44 project, we found scenarios that we developed worked best if we provided some guidance to the player on the side to choose when playing the battle. The intent was not to suggest the only way the scenario could be played, but to provide a hint for maximum enjoyment, as to us the Panzer Campaign artificial intelligence (AI) is more capable than any other that we had worked with. So we began the Kharkov scenarios with the idea that we would have a preferred play method for most, if not all the scenarios. The problem was, with some scenarios, we just couldn?t decide which way was the best method to approach it. Rather than do some scenarios with designer guidance and others without, we went to the testers, asked them to look at the scenario, and to decide themselves how it should be played, then to tell us.
I suppose in hindsight, it wasn?t fair of us to ask, but nonetheless, we were surprised with the input we received. Some playtesters were playing a scenario as the attacker and having fun. Others, playing the same scenario were defending and also enjoying themselves. There was no clear consensus to be had, and it was the lack of consensus that convinced us to abandon hints on how any scenario should be played.
We should point out that the scenarios were optimized using the default turn structure play method ? that is not using the phased turns offered by the optional rule Manual Defense Fire. The Alternative Combat Resolution Optional Rules were NOT used and we strongly recommend you not use these Optional Rules in Kharkov. You are free to experiment with them, but your ability to achieve the prescribed victory level will certainly be affected. Also, the testers generally selected Fog of War ON, although a couple of them played with it switched it OFF, specifically to observe the AI action and to help us in asking for AI improvements.
I think it is fair to say that as good as any AI in a wargame is today, it cannot learn, and therefore it does not have the ability to analyze information better than a human. In fact, when you come down to it, rarely are two humans equally matched, and even when they are, there is luck and die rolls involved in play. So we elected to optimize the scenarios for average play, and let you pick the side to play, vs. the AI, or Human vs. Human play and to provide attainable objectives and victory levels. For some scenarios we provided a historical version, then an alternate with some added strength to one side, so that a balance could be found between AI and Human Play or between two human players with varying skills.
Varying player ability was a factor that we were able to consider while optimizing the scenarios. It takes all kinds to make up a Test Team and our group of testers encompasses a broad range of age, knowledge (historical, game and computer), and of course player ability. It has to be this way, because if you build a team with all experts, you could end up with scenarios that are too difficult for average players. Furthermore, the game has to work for new players, so game concepts must be clear to more than just veteran wargamers if the game is to have the broad audience appeal we hope to attract.
A wise old scenario designer taught us that a scenario, as clever as it may be designed, is only as good as the Testers who have provided the designer with the input. So it is effective testing that is truly the key in making a great game. Therefore it is here in closing that we want to take a moment and once again thank the guys ?in the trenches? who helped bring this project together - our Playtest Team comprising of:
Mike Avanzini
Ed Booth
Ted Cardwell
Earl Cook
Steve Duncan
Lee Elmendorf
Lanny Erdos
Jim Gorman
Dave Hickman
Bob Hutchison
Chris Mello
Chris Wilson
Thank you so much guys! We couldn?t have done it without ALL of your keen eyes and dedication!
?now, lets go make another one.
III. Scenario Information Table - Kharkov ?42
Filename Title StartDate Map
Size # of
Turns In Brief
#01-BarvenkovoW #01 A Bulge is Born 18 Jan 1800 26 Winter scenario showing the Soviet 5th Cavalry Corps? offensive to take Barvenkovo.
#00-Started #00 Getting Started ? ?Staging for the Main Event? 27 Apr 825 10 TUTORIAL: Hypothetical situation deploying a Soviet Guards Armored Brigade.
#02-Campaign-Full #02 The Second Battle of Kharkov 12 May 84,500 140 Full Campaign Game of the Soviet Spring Offensive of 1942 to encircle and capture Kharkov.
#03-Campaign-1stHalf #03 Campaign Game - The Soviet Spring Offensive 12 May 84,500 60 Soviet Spring Offensive terminating on May 19th, 1942.
#04-Starry Soltov #04 Bridgehead on the Northern Donets 12 May 1000 6 Initial attack in the north by the Soviet 28th and 38th Armies. (Historical)
#04a-Starry Soltov #04a Bridgehead on the Northern Donets 12 May 1000 7 Alternate version of #04 with stronger Soviet Forces.
#05-Velikeya Bereka #05 Out of the 'Izyum Bulge' 12 May 450 7 Soviet 6th Army?s initial attack in the south from the Izyum Bulge.
#05a-Velikeya Bereka #05a Out of the 'Izyum Bulge' 12 May 450 8 Alternate version of #05 with additional Soviet armor.
#06-Mironovka #06 Into The Breach 12 May 700 8 Initial attack on the Krasnograd axis by Soviet cavalry of Army Group Bobkin.
#06a-Mironovka #06a Into The Breach 12 May 700 8 Alternate version of #06 with additional Soviet armor.
#07-Grushino #07 Left Hook to Kharkov 12 May 1700 7 Initial attack in the south by both the Soviet 6th Army and Army Group Bobkin.
#07a-Grushino #07a Left Hook to Kharkov 12 May 1700 8 Alternate version of #07 with early release of Soviet 2nd Echelon Forces.
#08-Murom #08 Bypass to the South 13 May 450 8 Small action: Soviet 76th and 233rd Rifle Divisions? attempt to take Murom.
#09-Ternovaia #09 Trouble in Ternovaia 13 May 325 8 Small action: The Soviet forces? first attempt to take the German stronghold of Ternovaia.
#10-Privole #10 Panzers from Privole 13 May 600 9 Small action: The German 3rd Panzer Division counter-attacks from Privole.
#11-Hill 214.3 #11 Hill 214.3 14 May 225 6 Small action: German attempt to take the vital ground around Point 214.3 with elements of 3rd Pz Division.
#12-Termovaia #12 Relieving the Ternovaia Garrison 15 May 650 10 German counter-attack using 3rd and 23rd Pz Divisions to relieve the garrison in Ternovaia.
#12a-Termovaia #12a Desperate Drop 15 May 650 10 WHAT IF: A version of #12 with German Airborne forces included.
#13-Veseloe #13 Prickly Krikly 15 May 250 8 Small action: A desperate attempt by a Soviet artillery unit to pause the 3rd Pz Division?s counter-attack.
#14-Krasnograd #14 Timosheko?s Choice 15 May 3,250 24 WHAT IF: Marshall Timoshenko had committed 21st and 23rd Tank Corps early in the south?
#15-Chuguev #15 Charge to Chuguev 16 May 4,500 24 WHAT IF: The Soviets had committed their some of their 2nd Echelon Forces early near Chuguev?
#16-Karlovka #16 Hero of the State 16 May 1,400 20 WHAT IF: The Soviets had attached the 21st and 23rd Tank Corps to Army Group Bobkin near Krasnograd? (Features Lend Lease Tanks)
#17-Petrovka #17 Noskov's 6th Cavalry 16 May 900 14 Gen Noskov?s 6th Cavalry Corps? contribution to the assault on the Krasnograd axis.
#18-Friderikus #18 Operation Friderikus 17 May 33,500 86 Campaign: Operation Friderikus: The German counter-attack to pocket the Soviet Forces in the south.
#18a-Friderikus #18a "Hands Free" Friderikus in Hindsight 17 May 33,500 86 Campaign: Operation Friderikus: Same setup as above, but no FIXED Units for greater Soviet flexiblity
#19-Barvenkovo2 #19 Roar of Thunder 17 May 1,150 8 Small action: 14 Pz Division?s attack south of Barvenkovo.
#20-Slavyansk #20 Anatomy of a Military Disaster! 17 May 7,000 30 The intial 3 days onslaught of Operation Friderikus on the south face of the bulge.
#21-Slavyansk2 #21 Escaping Castastrophe 17 May 7,000 30 WHAT IF: Soviet intelligence reacted correctly and was prepared for Operation Friderikus?
#22-Izyum #22 Cutting the Turkeys Neck 18 May 2,200 14 Soviet 51st Rifle Div and 30th Cavalry Div fiercely defend the Donets River crossings.
#23-Lozovaya #23 A Day Trip for 16th Panzer 20 May 1,950 10 Swift German reaction to Soviet 2th Cavalry Corps operations by 16th Pz Division.
#24-Balakleya #24 Stiletto to the Neck 21 May 4,000 26 Von Kleist closes the pocket in Operation Friderikus.
#25-Lozovaya2 #25 The Price of Combat 22 May 6,300 40 Choice between Soviet attempt to breakout of the pocket, or German attempt to clean it up.
#26-Petrovskaya #26 Combat Order #00330 23 May 700 18 WHAT IF: The remnants of Soviet 6th and 57th Armies had been organized to attempt the breakout?
#27-Bishkin #27 One Piece at a Time 24 May 720 18 23rd Pz Division?s attempt to cut up the main pocket into smaller pieces.
IV. Order of Battle
The Second Battle of Kharkov, - May 1942
Soviet Order of Battle
SOUTHWESTERN DIRECTIVE (Marshal S.K. Timoshenko)
Southwestern Front (Marshal S.K. Timoshenko)
21st Army (Lt. Gen. V.N. Gordov)
76th Rifle Division
227th Rifle Division
293rd Rifle Division
297th Rifle Division
301st Rifle Division
10th Tank Brigade
28th Army (Lt. Gen. D.I. Riabyshev)
13th Guards Rifle Division
38th Rifle Division
162nd Rifle Division
169th Rifle Division
175th Rifle Division
244th Rifle Division
6th Guards Tank Brigade
57th Tank Brigade
84th Tank Brigade
90th Tank Brigade
3rd Guards Cavalry Corps
5th Guards Cavalry Division
6th Guards Cavalry Division
32nd Cavalry Division
34th Motorized Rifle Brigade
38th Army (Lt. Gen. K.S. Moskalenko)
81st Rifle Division
124th Rifle Division
199th Rifle Division
226th Rifle Division
300th Rifle Division
304th Rifle Division
22nd Tank Corps (not fully formed)
13th Tank Brigade (acted as separate Tank Brigade)
36th Tank Brigade (acted as separate Tank Brigade)
133rd Tank Brigade (acted as separate Tank Brigade)
6th Army (Lt. Gen. A.M. Gorodniansky)
41st Rifle Division
47th Mountain (Rifle) Division
103rd Rifle Division
248th Rifle Division
253rd Rifle Division
266th Rifle Division
337th Rifle Division
411th Rifle Division
5th Guards Tank Brigade
37th Tank Brigade
38th Tank Brigade
48th Tank Brigade
21st Tank Corps
64th Tank Brigade
198th Tank Brigade
199th Tank Brigade
21st Motorized Rifle Brigade
23rd Tank Corps
6th Tank Brigade
130th Tank Brigade
131st Tank Brigade
23rd Motorized Rifle Brigade
Group Bobkin (Maj. Gen. L.V. Bobkin)
270th Rifle Division
393rd Rifle Division
6th Cavalry Corps
26th Cavalry Division
28th Cavalry Division
49th Cavalry Division
7th Tank Brigade
Southwestern Front Reserves
2nd Cavalry Corps
38th Cavalry Division
62nd Cavalry Division
70th Cavalry Division
277th Rifle Division
343rd Rifle Division
71st Separate Tank Battalion
92nd Separate Tank Battalion
132nd Separate Tank Battalion
278th Rifle Division
156th Tank Brigade
168th Tank Brigade
Southern Front (Col. Gen. R.Ia. Malinovsky)
9th Army (Maj. Gen. F.M. Kharitonov)
51st Rifle Division
106th Rifle Division
216th Rifle Division
333rd Rifle Division
335th Rifle Division
341st Rifle Division
349th Rifle Division
78th Rifle Brigade
15th Tank Brigade
121st Tank Brigade
57th Army (Lt. Gen. K.P. Podlas)
14th Guards Rifle Division
99th Rifle Division
150th Rifle Division
317th Rifle Division
351st Rifle Division
37th Army
275th Rifle Division
295th Rifle Division
296th Rifle Division
3rd Tank Brigade
Southern Front Reserves
5th Cavalry Corps
30th Cavalry Div
34th Cavalry Div
60th Cavalry Div
12th Tank Brigade
RVK Reserves
242nd Rifle Division
114th Tank Brigade
German Order of Battle
Army Group South (Field Marshal F. von Bock)
6th Army (Col. Gen F. Paulus)
XXIX Army Corps
88th Infantry Div
75th Infantry Div
168th Infantry Div
XVII Army Corps
79th Infantry Div
294th Infantry Div
3rd Panzer Div
LI Army Corps
297th Infantry Div
44th Infantry Div
71st Infantry Div
260th Pioneer Bn
604th Pioneer Rgt
VIII Army Corps
108th HU Div
62nd Infantry Div
454th Security Div
4th RU Div
652nd Pioneer Bn
23rd Panzer Div
113th Inf Div
305th Inf Div
921st Pioneer Rgt
244th StuG Bn
17th Army (Col. Gen R. Ruoff)
XI Army Corps
KG.Konradi
Brigade Georgescu
1st RU Div
298th Infantry Div
2nd RU Div
20th RU Div
3/560th PanzerJager
700th Lehr Pioneer Rgt
XXXXIV Army Corps
16th Panzer Div
68th Infantry Div
384th Infantry Div
97th Jager Div
KG 384th Inf Div
658th Pioneer Bn
313th Pioneer Bn
673rd Pioneer Rgt
LII Army Corps
101st Jager Div
257th Infantry Div
389th Infantry Div
245th StuG Bn
939th Pioneer Rgt
1st Panzer Army (Field Marshal E. von Kleist)
III Panzer Corps
1st Gebirgs Div
14th Panzer Div
100th Jager Div
60th Infantry Div (mot)
670th PanzerJager Bn
9th Jadg Kdo (anti-partisan)
612th Sich Rgt
45th Wach Bn
Gruppo Barbo
627th Pioneer Bn
511th Pioneer Rgt
IV Army Korps
295th Infantry Div
76th Infantry Div
94th Infantry Div
74th Pioneer Bn
V. Biblography - Kharkov?42
BOOKS:
Bishop, Chris, The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II; London, 1998.
Chamberlain, Peter, and Doyle, Hilary; Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two; Arms & Armour, London, 1978
Carell, Paul, Hitler Moves East 1941-1943, Bantam Books, 1966
Erickson, John, The Road to Stalingrad: Stalin's War with Germany, Yale University Press, New Haven & London 1975/1999
Fleischer, Wolfgang, Russian Tanks and Armored Vehicles 1917-1945, Schiffer Publishing Ltd, 1999
Glantz, David M.; Kharkov 1942, Anatomy of a Military Disaster Through Soviet Eyes; Ian Allan Publishing, England, 1998.
Glantz, David M.; self publish - Red Army Combat Operations ? Volume II The Winter Campaign 5?December 1941, 27 April 1942.
Hamilton, Scott S. and Smith, Gregory M., HPS Simulations: Encyclopedia of Land Combat, HPS Simulations, 1997
Jentz, Thomas; Panzer Ttruppen 1; Schiffer Publishing, Atglen, PA, 1996.
Morozov, Colonel Vasili, "The Kharkov Offensives" in History of the Second World War magazine Marshall Cavendish USA Ltd 1973.
Neihorster, Leo W.G.; German World War II Organizational Series, Vol 4/I; Neihorster, Canada, 1994.
Poirier, Robert G. and Conner, Albert Z.; The Red Army Order of Battle in the Great Patriotic War; Presidio, Novato CA, 1985.
Patrick, Stephen B., Kharkov: The Soviet Offensive, Strategy & Tactics Magazine, No 68, 1978.
Salisbury, Harrison E., The Unknown War, Bantam Books, New York, 1978.
Sharp, Charles C.; Soviet Order of Battle World War II, Vol I to XI; Nafziger, West Chester OH, 1995-6.
Tessin, Georg; Verbande und Truppen der Deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945; Osnabruck; Biblio Verlag
U.S. War Department; Handbook on German Military Forces; Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 1995.
Zaloga, Steven J. and Ness, Leland S., Red Army Handbook 1939-1945, Sutton Publishing Ltd, 1998
NATIONAL ARCHIVES (Microfilm/Microfiche/Paper Documents):
Capture German Records [Record Group 242]:
Series Rolls Organization Description
T-78 404 OKH German OOB charts
T-313 45 1.Pz.AOK German OOB charts
T-313 268 1.Pz.AOK German OOB charts
T-312 693 17.AOK German OOB charts
T-312 1677 6.AOK Operational data/maps
T-314 487 XI.AK German OOB data
T-314 1036 XXXXIV.AK German OOB charts
Order of Battle of the Soviet Army
Military-Academic Directorate of the General Staff of the Soviet Army ? January-December 1942.
|
|
