Achtung Panzer: Nomonhan/Khalkhin Gol

Do u know that Graviteam is making(made?) a new mod: Nomonhan/Khalkhin Gol 1939?
http://graviteam.ua/tactics/gt-nomonhan.html

Nomonhan is a small village near the border between Mongolia and Inner Mongolia, China south of the Chinese city of Manzhouli.
Graviteam Tactics: Nomonhan is a remarkably realistic turn-based and real-time operational/tactical hybrid wargame that continues the series begun by the acclaimed: Achtung Panzer Kharkov 1943
As as we can see on the picture there is a Soviet tank on the front of Japan.
It'll be interesting to see tank battle Soviet vs Japan armor

If you like one -sided battles yes otherwise no interest. The Japanese were no match for the Red Army both infantry and armour.

frinik... The Japanese were no match for the Red Army both infantry and armour.

You must add that most of the Japanese forces of the Kwantung Army had been stripped of their best units and equipment by that time period of the war and shipped off to the other war fronts.

So the Kwantung Army that the Soviet forces engaged in battle was not of the quality that made up the earlier Japanese fighting force in China.

Most of the modern Japanese equipment was later found to be stockpiled and held for the forthcoming Allied planed invasion of the Japanese Islands that Japan knew was going to be the next battle facing the nation.

Unlike the German Army of 1945, the Japanese Army was not defeated and many of the best units were still intact.

http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Operation_Downfall.pdf

There were a very fierce close combat fightings between infantry. Japanese were equipped with swords. I wonder how Graviteam will implement it?



During one attack Soviet lost ~90 tanks. It was a favourite Zhukov style - overwhelm enemy with a big number of forces and don't count losses.

Every time the Japanese army had to fight a Western army after 1942 be it the US, Australia, the UK they were defeated. Their tactics and equipment was second rate. They hoped fanaticism and the willingness to die would trump better material and tactics. If you want to say that the Japanese army was not formally defeated because it did not surrender like the Wehrmacht in May 1945 fine but the fact remains that they were beaten everywhere in Burma, Indonesia and the Pacific except in China where the Nationalist troops were no match for superior Japanese leadership and discipline.

frinik... Every time the Japanese army had to fight a Western army after 1942 be it the US, Australia, the UK they were defeated

Agree with that statement, but when your relying on fighting from a defensive position. The attacking army almost always has the upper hand and will win the battle no matter how well the defenses are emplaced or fortified. There were only a few major battles where the Japanese army was fighting on the offense after 1942.

A couple of statements by Gen. Patton...  

Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man.

I don't want any messages saying 'I'm holding my position.' We're not holding a g**d*mned thing. We're advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding anything except the enemy's b*lls.

We're going to hold him by his b*lls and we're going to kick him in the a**; twist his b*lls and kick the living sh*t out of him all the time. Our plan of operation is to advance and keep on advancing.

We're going to go through the enemy like sh*t through a tinhorn.

Old blasphemous George aside, you are overgeneralizing when you say that the attacking army almost always has the upper hand.  As in everything, it depends.  It only has the upper hand if it is able to arrange it so.  From late 42 to the end of the war the Allies had ever increasing control of the sea and the skies.  This means that they could isolate the battlefield (islands in the Pacific) and bring much greater than 3:1 odds against the Japanese.  Furthermore, it means that the Japanese could not reinforce or replace losses but the Allies could.
Patton was right when he was talking about fixed fortifications like the Maginot line or the West Wall which could be bypassed.  But many of the fortified islands in the Pacific were not bypassed but were directly assaulted.  The defense (when it cannot be bypassed and must be attacked directly) always has the advantage unless the attackers can mold the battlefield.

Napoleon shattered the French army against Wellington's defense at Waterloo. Instead of attempting to maneuver to his left and threaten Wellington's communication with the coast, he assaulted directly. Wellington only had high confidence in about 1/2 of his army, the veterans of the Peninsular Campaign, so he chose the defense (which he was well known for) while he waited for the Prussians to arrive.
It was a close run affair to paraphrase Wellington but Napoleon lost because he attacked a defensive position without a clear preponderance of force and without preventing the defense from reinforcing. That greatly oversimplifying of course.

Guys, Nomonhan Incident was in 1939. Some of you may be thinking of the 1945 end game. I do believe the battle was one-sided. The Soviets had BT-7s but the Japanese did not have adequate tanks or anti-tank weapons. Still I think it would make an interesting game with lesser known light tanks. As 1940 France had shown, even the losing side had one or two interesting fights. Nomonhan was forgotten in the west only because of the war brewing closer to home, but it was no less important, leading Japan to Pearl Harbor. Indeed it was the earliest mechanized warfare.

Graviteam said it would be out in 2015. I hope to see it some time next year.

I love Patton! Always a colourful guy! He was the Donald Trump of war..... I remember seeing the film with George C. Scott who was simply superb in that role. He made Patton come alive! I can only think of Ben Kingsley playing Ghandi who also did the same thing.

Re the fortifications, the Germans proved in 1940 that they were indeed worth nothing not only the Maginot line but the Belgian fortifications of Eban Emael and Odessa in the Ukraine. Hitler did not learn from his enemies mistakes and made the same ones in 1944-45. The Atlantic wall of Normandy 1944 also proved illusory.

The idea of retreating behind so-called impregnable walls hails back from the Chinese Han dynasty and Roman emperor Hadrian. It did not succeed then and does not succeed now.

Re the Japanese, individually they were courageous soldiers but they were commanded based on obsolete code of honour which had served them well during their centuries of inter Japanese wars and feuds but were useless against an enemy which had modern notion of practicality and an impressive material advantage. The Kamikaze weapon and the Banzai charges were clear examples.

The Maginot line was never completed. The Germans avoided it and bypassed through the Ardennes. If extended to the sea and properly manned it may have been different. Two big ifs I grant you. The problem with fixed fortifications on that scale are the expense and that they tie the defense down and spread it out, allowing the attack to choose the time and place of the attack.

Eban Emael could have been defended with a company of infantry with machine guns. They never dreamed anyone would land gliders on the roof. Very imaginative.

Technopiper wrote:The Soviets had BT-7s but the Japanese did not have adequate tanks or anti-tank weapons.

Both countries had the same 'papers' tanks. Any AT gun 37mm could easily destroy any tanks.
Japan has Type 95 Ha-Go, Type 97 Chi-Ha, Type 89 Otsu. All of them were quite adequate against Soviet BT-5, T-26 and armored vehicles BA-10.
Moreover the vehicles doesn't fight itself, the fight carry on by ppl who are sitting inside the vehicles.

Nomonhan was forgotten in the west only because of the war brewing closer to home, but it was no less important, leading Japan to Pearl Harbor.

Khalkin Gol is more popular and well known word, but Graviteam traditionally prefer to use such rare term to get as less popularity for their game as possible
I hope Khalkhin Gol will be available for Steel Blaze also. Thus users will get a good chance for WW2 modding.

Technopiper... Guys, Nomonhan Incident was in 1939. Some of you may be thinking of the 1945 end game

Yes, the subject is Battles of Khalkhin Gol 1939, sorry and it was all my fault, I was sidetrack.







That movie version of the Battle of Khalkhin Gol 1939, looks very interesting.

A 30 page article covering the Khalkhin Gol 1939 as a case study.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a517710.pdf

woofiedog wrote:

A 30 page article covering the Khalkhin Gol 1939 as a case study.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a517710.pdf

Thanks, Woofie for the interesting docs, but I puzzled with this table:
What does it mean? 18500 what is that? It is how many soldiers lost RKKA?

If so, then what does "?"

lockie wrote:Both countries had the same 'papers' tanks. Any AT gun 37mm could easily destroy any tanks.
Japan has Type 95 Ha-Go, Type 97 Chi-Ha, Type 89 Otsu. All of them were quite adequate against Soviet BT-5, T-26 and armored vehicles BA-10.

By "adequate" I mean quantity. Japan was vastly outnumbered in the number of tank, and very few Chi-Ha tanks, probably their best tank of the war. Furthermore, no Japanese tank could match the BT-7 in mobility. I agree with you about the AT guns. That's why I believe it would provide some interesting encounters, reminiscent of early German successes. It was a different kind of war after June 1941.

woofiedog wrote:A 30 page article covering the Khalkhin Gol 1939 as a case study.

Great read. Thanks!

lockie wrote:What does it mean? 18500 what is that? It is how many soldiers lost RKKA?

If so, then what does "?"

The number of Soviet casualties according to Soviet sources. "?" probably means Japanese estimation of Soviet losses was not available.

Nomonhan/Khalkhin Gol would only be interesting to a limited number of people. I agree it isn't the best topic to sell a game. It all depends on how Graviteam view their own product. Do they want a vehicle of profit and success (nothing wrong with that)? Or do they consider it a labor of love (nothing wrong with that either)?

lockie...   What does it mean? 18500 what is that? It is how many soldiers lost RKKA?

The chart is giving the claims from both sides...

USSR claims it lost 18500 personal and lost 207 of it's own aircraft and of killing 61000 Japanese soldiers and shooting down 660 Japanese aircraft.

Japan states it lost 18000 personal and lost 149 of it's aircraft, while having no estimate for Soviet soldiers killed, it states that it's pilots shot down 1200 Soviet aircraft.

So there is a fairly large discrepancy from both sides of the real number of enemy soldiers killed and the actual number of enemy aircraft both sides pilot's shot down.

Tanker... Old blasphemous George aside, you are overgeneralizing when you say that the attacking army almost always has the upper hand.

Old blasphemous George... yes, he like to promote himself as being a lot bigger than he really was.

And I do agree with your statement concerning Napoleon's lost to the Allied forces at Waterloo. One of the deciding factors was, Napoleon did not expect the forces of Von Blücher to advance as fast as they did. Also Wellington was smart to hold the high ground which gave the British forces an edge. But Napoleon really did himself in with those frontal attacks.

Overgeneralizing... no.

Fighting from a solitary position no matter how strong, the defender is always at the disadvantage and the attacker holds the edge. It was only the saving grace that Von Blücher forces arrived at Waterloo and relieved Wellington's forces from defeat from Napoleon.

Woffie, Technopiper
Thanks for explanations!
It's a pity, there is no the number of casualties from the Japan side opinion.

Technopiper wrote:
By "adequate" I mean quantity.

Oh, I see now
No any country in the world could not beat the USSR in the tank quantity.

Furthermore, no Japanese tank could match the BT-7 in mobility.

Could u be more detailed with mobility?
Do u mean that mobility consist of:
- reliability
- speed
- manoeuvrability
If so, then I'd like to note the next: I don't have the data as for reliability. Suppose for the tanks of those period this parameter was equal or even Soviet tanks had less reliability such as BT-7 with a diesel engine.
As for speed then BT-7 is still the best tank in the world right now, but it's a doubtful achievement.
As for manoeuvrability there are two notes:
1. To make a turn the BT-7 driver had to apply the effort equal to 40kg. (It wasn't easy deal and didn't help for easy driving)
2. BT-7 could make a turn only from the stop. It does: tank moves with speed 60km/h. Then driver decided to take a left 30 degrees. He had to stop the tank then take a left, then shift the speed to get 60km/h. To make a turn on the way could be done only by a VERY skillful drivers, coz gear box didn't have synchronizer of the shift and driver had to had a feeling when it was a safe time to make a shift.
So, as my point the mobility of the BT-7(based on the mentioned parameters) is exaggerated. I'd give a first place to BT-7 only because of the more powerful 45mm gun. Though, this sentence subject to discuss, coz Japan tanks had 47/57mm guns.

I agree with you about the AT guns. That's why I believe it would provide some interesting encounters, reminiscent of early German successes. It was a different kind of war after June 1941.

Yes, it's interesting period in the history.

Nomonhan/Khalkhin Gol would only be interesting to a limited number of people.

I'm sure it'll be more interesting to ppl then battles in Africa/Afghanistan/Iran.

I agree it isn't the best topic to sell a game. It all depends on how Graviteam view their own product. Do they want a vehicle of profit and success (nothing wrong with that)? Or do they consider it a labor of love (nothing wrong with that either)?

Graviteam is not interesting to get the profit, coz instead releasing commercial product such as "Steel Fury II", they continued on the "Steel Blaze", which had not any profit at all.
Almost the same thing with "Achtung Star". Instead remarkable battles such as Kursk 43, Normandy 44(with Panthers and King Tigers) they more concentrated on the less known events. But they have their personal toys games and knows what they are doing

lockie wrote:Could u be more detailed with mobility?
Do u mean that mobility consist of:
- reliability
- speed
- manoeuvrability
If so, then I'd like to note the next: I don't have the data as for reliability. Suppose for the tanks of those period this parameter was equal or even Soviet tanks had less reliability such as BT-7 with a diesel engine.
As for speed then BT-7 is still the best tank in the world right now, but it's a doubtful achievement.
As for manoeuvrability there are two notes:
1. To make a turn the BT-7 driver had to apply the effort equal to 40kg. (It wasn't easy deal and didn't help for easy driving)
2. BT-7 could make a turn only from the stop. It does: tank moves with speed 60km/h. Then driver decided to take a left 30 degrees. He had to stop the tank then take a left, then shift the speed to get 60km/h. To make a turn on the way could be done only by a VERY skillful drivers, coz gear box didn't have synchronizer of the shift and driver had to had a feeling when it was a safe time to make a shift.
So, as my point the mobility of the BT-7(based on the mentioned parameters) is exaggerated. I'd give a first place to BT-7 only because of the more powerful 45mm gun. Though, this sentence subject to discuss, coz Japan tanks had 47/57mm guns.

Thank you for the reminder to pull my nose out of just numbers and data!

Yes, when it come to toys for grown men, Graviteam knows what it's doing.

Technopiper wrote:
Thank you for the reminder to pull my nose out of just numbers and data!

No way it is reminder or smt.  I just shared with u my doubts. That's all  
The data abt. BT-7 driving was taken from documental movie:


BTW
BT-7 had also a big problem with tracks. In fact, it was an armored vehicle with ability to use tracks as a second part to get over trenches. It was often when tracks took off. The best area for the BT-7 was a highway, when this tank was ONLY on the wheels. Guess which country had in those period a good highways and was located near USSR

Yes, when it come to toys for grown men, Graviteam knows what it's doing.

 

woofiedog wrote:Tanker... Old blasphemous George aside, you are overgeneralizing when you say that the attacking army almost always has the upper hand.

Old blasphemous George...  yes, he like to promote himself as being a lot bigger than he really was.

And I do agree with your statement concerning Napoleon's lost to the Allied forces at Waterloo. One of the deciding factors was, Napoleon did not expect the forces of Von Blücher to advance as fast as they did. Also Wellington was smart to hold the high ground which gave the British forces an edge. But Napoleon really did himself in with those frontal attacks.

Overgeneralizing... no.

Fighting from a solitary position no matter how strong, the defender is always at the disadvantage and the attacker holds the edge. It was only the saving grace that Von Blücher forces arrived at Waterloo and relieved Wellington's forces from defeat from Napoleon.  

Not to be contentious woofie but it is overgeneralizing to say the attacker always holds the edge and the defender always is at a disadvantage.  History provides dozens of examples of that not being so.  Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, and Malvern Hill are just three that spring to mind.  If you go into the teeth of a prepared defense, the defense has the advantage unless you have great numerical superiority (and against firepower that may be moot) or some other way to equal the odds such as being able to outflank the defense.

Regarding Waterloo, Wellington would not have chosen to defend where he did if he did not believe that Blucher would not join forces with him. He did not "dig in" on his ridge top because he did not want to discourage Napoleon from attacking frontally. It was a conscious decision not to strengthen his line so that Bonaparte would not be tempted to outflank Wellington's right side. There was enough time to have made field fortifications which would have saved the British/Dutch defenders from suffering so much from the French artillery and skirmishers.

One has to remember Monte Cassino( Jan-May1944), the Kurland campaign (September 1944- May1945) , Bastogne, or Khe San in 1968 as examples of defenders keeping the attackers at bay and inflicting grievous casualties to the enemy....

Tanker...   Not to be contentious woofie but it is overgeneralizing to say the attacker always holds the edge and the defender always is at a disadvantage.

Contentious, by all means no. LoL  

I have not read any books or etc concerning the Malvern Hill battle. But have read up on both "Fredericksburg and Gettysburg" and have visited the Gettysburg's battlefields.  And from what I have read they are giving the Gettysbury Battlefields a make over to be more like they did during the battles.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-10-27/battlefields-gettysburg-have-been-getting-interesting-makeover

Fredericksburg was a battle that does not get the coverage that most Civil War battles merit. Yes, maybe a good idea and plan and a battle which would use future technological advancements that are used in later wars, such as air power with the Union forces using balloons for field observation, premade pontoon boats and rifled cannons.

But it was a total flop because Robert E. Lee's and the Confederate Army knew what the Union Army was up to and was able to have fixed defensive positions waiting for the Union Army to cross over and right into the confederate concentrated guns.

But again back to what I have stated and will stand by and state again is... "the best defense is a good offense".

Carl von Clausewitz...  "The best form of defense is attack."  also  “If you entrench yourself behind strong fortifications, you compel the enemy seek a solution elsewhere.”

And even going back a couple of years to the Roman's times... have you ever thought of why the Roman's build "roads"? The road's were not built so they could hide behind walls.

"The Roman Army needed good roads to allow its support and supply train to function. Many of the Strategic Highways built by the Romans followed the Tactical roads established as the Army advanced."

https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig2009/papers/hs01/hs01_hucker_3471.pdf

And the Roman's did have one of their most catastrophic defeats in the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD and the Germanic forces used fortified defense walls and tracks or trails to lead the Roman's into tight ambushes.

So yes, there are battles that were fought and won by using "Static Defenses", but most battles are won with "Offensive Operations".

The whole problem with "offence vs defense" is more complicated than "which has an upper hand". There is also a tactical/strategic aspect to it. The tactical attacker could be a strategic defender, and there could be a confusion of definition during discussions.

In many instances, the defender has the upper hand. But defense is very often a luxury: you want it but you can't have it. The weaker force in a set-piece battle, for example, cannot hope to win a battle of attrittion. Going to the offensive could be the only viable option and, if he fails, would fall victim to history smart-asses. Napoleon had to finish up quick in Waterloo, an Austro-Russian coalition of 100,000 were on their way to France.

Also in many instances, the attacker enjoys the upper hand. By assuming the defensive, you are giving up your own freedom of action, and granting the enemy the freedom of action. By insisting in defending you became a puzzle. Given enough time and freedom, most puzzles can be solved. As to unsolvable puzzles (e.g., Japan vs USA, from a histoy smart-ass' point-of-view), you shouldn't have attempted it in the first place.

frinik... One has to remember Monte Cassino( Jan-May1944), the Kurland campaign (September 1944- May1945) , Bastogne, or Khe San in 1968 as examples of defenders keeping the attackers at bay and inflicting grievous casualties to the enemy.

Yes, there are some examples of battles won by the a good static defense. But even during the siege of Bastogne, which almost collapsed and fell, with only the change in weather to open up air drops and finally being relieved by elements of General George Patton's Third Army did Bastogne at last became a victory for the US forces holding the town and surrounding area.

So, without those "Offensive Air Drops" and relief by the "Offensive movements" of Patton's troops and equipment did the "static defenses" of Bastogne hold out and the battle then became an Allied victory.

frinik... defenders keeping the attackers at bay and inflicting grievous casualties to the enemy.

Was not the whole Italian Campaign pretty much fought this way by the Axis forces with all of the Gothic line, Gustav Line and the many more defensive lines they prepared and look what happened in the end... "they lost".

lockie... Have to say that the Soviet BT-7 tank was pretty much ahead of other tank designs for it's time. Although the BT-7 was lightly armored, it was fast/mobile and had a decent 45mm main gun.

It is a great tank to ride in the SF STA battlefields, as long as you didn't stop long enough to become a target. It is best to keep rolling and only stopping for a quick shot at a target, then get moving again.

Must say... this tank is a prime example of the saying... "Offense is the best Defense".