Chapter 18

Second World War Wargaming

The Second World War (1939–1945) has always exerted a compelling fascination over many wargamers, given that the unsuccessful attempts by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan to subjugate their respective continents, gave rise to some of the most memorable campaigns in the history of conflict.

The chief characteristic of twentieth century warfare was the sheer destructive power of the weaponry involved. The infantry were now equipped with rapid firing breechloading rifles, with machine guns providing even more potent support. This rendered the old mass formations obsolete: men on foot could only survive by operating in dispersed array, going to ground whenever they were shot at. Artillery presented an especially potent threat to most troops; its bursting high explosive shells were infinitely more dangerous than the cannonballs of the Horse and Musket period.

The Second World War was also noted for the greater mobility of the troops thanks to the internal combustion engine. Artillery and anti-tank guns were frequently drawn by vehicles rather than horses; some infantry went into battle in armoured personnel carriers; and tanks played a very significant if not necessarily dominant role on the battlefield.

Any set of wargames rules must reflect the wide range of destructive weaponry involved in the Second World War, as well as the greater mobility of all troops. I have selected four main varieties of unit, as with my previous rules; I have however departed from my usual practice by recommending a particular scale of figures. This is because the suggested 1:72 (or 1:76) scale plastic infantry guns and tanks are available from high street toy and model shops. The scale is also compatible with model railway scenery, allowing for the purchase of terrain from the same sources. The four troop types used in my wargame are described below:

1. INFANTRY

The dispersed formation of foot soldiery allows for easy access to woods and towns. Its combat performance is generally adequate, except against tanks. Infantry units (representing around forty real life soldiers), were equipped with some light anti-armour weaponry such as bazookas or small anti-tank guns, but armoured vehicles were generally under limited threat from men on foot, except in the confined spaces of urban areas – here, infantry could get to point blank range and inflict serious damage.

2. MORTARS

This is a generic term covering not only 81mm mortars, but also 75mm light artillery pieces – heavier weapons had such a long range that they could never realistically appear on a small wargames table; they would not be deployed at the low level actions depicted in my scenarios. Mortars would generally be located at some distance from the action, firing at targets that they could not themselves see, but which would be observed by friendly units in radio contact with the mortar unit. Their effectiveness was most pronounced against infantry; high explosive shells could not however pierce the armour of tanks, apart from when a direct hit happened to strike lucky and contact an especially vulnerable part of the vehicle. Mortar units represent about three weapons and their crew.

3. ANTI-TANK GUNS

These very specific weapons are deadly against tanks, but rather ineffective against other units. This is because they shot directly at their targets, rather than at a high trajectory and having shells land on top of any victims. Direct fire was always less potent than a plunging shell when directed against personnel or artillery; anti-tank guns were moreover only supplied with a limited number of high explosive shells – their chief purpose was to engage and destroy enemy tanks. Anti-tank gun models represent about three guns and their crews, along with their towing vehicles (the limited table space does not allow for the depiction of the latter in physical form).

4. TANKS

It is all too common for tanks to enjoy too much prominence and effectiveness on the wargames table; their eye-catching nature can seduce rules designers so much, that an appreciation of their true performance is often lacking. Armoured units perform respectably rather than brilliantly against most units in my rules; they are however deadly when fighting enemy tanks (armoured engagements were historically very short and exceptionally destructive). This reflects the fact that tank guns were essentially anti-tank weaponry in a turret, with similar strengths and weaknesses that apply to units of anti-tank guns; tanks were however also equipped with machine guns, which is why they are more effective against enemy personnel targets than is the case with anti-tank guns. Tank units represent about three vehicles.

The fluidity of movement and dispersed formation is provided for by allowing interpenetration, with all units being able to move through each other. Infantry is rewarded despite its being much slower than some units, by virtue of its capacity to operate in difficult terrain such as woods and towns.

Specific rules for observing targets are a new feature of this set. These are primarily intended to allow other units to locate targets for friendly mortars, which can then be deployed out of harm’s way. The observation range is the same as that of most weapons (12”), allowing for easy memorization.

So far as shooting is concerned, dispersed formations allow all units to enjoy a 360º field of fire. Ranges are short: that for mortars is 48”, but other units are restricted to 12” – this accounts for the limited visibility of some targets, but also that the effective range of weaponry is not always anywhere near its theoretical maximum. The varying capabilities of troop types against different targets, is covered and effectively explained in the table for casualty assessment; one can instantly see which units are most effective against particular targets, and deploy them accordingly on the wargames battlefield.

Casualties can be reduced by deploying vulnerable units in appropriate terrain, as seen by infantry in woods or towns. It is readily understandable why being under cover would diminish losses, but is less ostensibly apparent why tanks should derive similar benefits when positioned on hilltops. This does however reflect the situation when an armoured unit would be deployed behind the crest of a hill, with only the tank turrets presenting a target. This so-called ‘hull down’ position allowed armour to engage the enemy with full effect, but only suffer limited casualties in return.