R EF ERE NC E B OOK
Table of Contents
Designer’s Notes............................................................. 2
26.0 Footnoted Entries............................................ 2
27.0 Game Elements............................................... 13
28.0 Units & Weapons............................................ 21
29.0 OB Notes........................................................ 33
30.0 Historical Notes.............................................. 39
31.0 Mapmaker’s Notes.................................................. 40
32.0 Order of Battle........................................................ 41
33.0 Selected Sources & Recommended Reading.......... 48
GMT Games, LLC • P.O. Box 1308, Hanford, CA 93232-1308
www.GMTGames.com
2
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
Designer’s Notes
I would like to acknowledge the contributions of lead researchers
Vincent Lefavrais, A. Verspeeten, and David Hughes to the notes
appearing in this booklet, portions of which have been lifted rather
liberally from their emails and edited by myself. These guys have
my gratitude for a job well done. I’m very pleased that they stuck
with me to the end of this eight-year project.
26.0 Footnoted Entries
The following notes refer to the footnoted entries in the Rule Book
and Scenario Book.
countryside characterized by small fields rimmed with thick and
steeply embanked hedges and sunken roads, containing small stout
farms with neighbouring woods and orchards in a broken landscape.
Studded with small villages, ideal for defensive strongpoints…”
6 Close Terrain. There are few gameplay differences between close
terrain types. Apart from victory objectives, which are typically
village or woods hexes, the only differences are a +1 DRM to Recovery rolls in village hexes, a Modifier Chit which favors village
and woods over heavy bocage, and a higher MP cost to enter woods.
Furthermore, woods is the only terrain type that blocks LOS with
respect to spotting units at higher elevation. For all other purposes,
close terrain is close terrain. Note that all three types conveniently
use the same dark green background color on the map.
1 2.2.1 Interpreting the Unit Counters. For the ID boxes of the
German units, I used the historical color-codes where practical:
pink for panzer regiments, scarlet for panzer artillery regiments,
black for pioneers, and gold for armored reconnaissance battalions
(Panzer-Aufklärungsabteilungen). I have A. Verspeeten to thank for
this excellent suggestion. Light green is normally associated with
Panzergrenadier units, but since there are so many German units of
this type, I opted to use white instead to keep the total amount of
“color clutter” to a minimum.
2 4.2.2 Seulles Boundary. The British 50th Northumbrian Infantry
Division (a.k.a. the “Tynes and Tees”) was facing off against the
remainder of Panzer Lehr just west of the Seulles. The bridge at 0207
is not a valid exit for Lehr/21PD units because it would place them
right in the front lines of the 50th Infantry Division.
3 4.5.1 Attached Transports. Universal Carriers have light armor,
granting them immunity against small arms fire. Note that those
units denoted as having Universal Carrier attached transports (“U”)
include models such as the scout carrier and Bren gun carrier. The
marginal CS, RAS, and AT values of these units are derived from
a number of Bren LMGs and PIATs, and in the case of the Carrier
Platoons, 2” mortars. By contrast, the Loyd Carriers have no armor
or weapons.
More info on the Univ. Carrier can be found in the notes section
for British Weapons (28.2.2) while more info on the British Carrier
Platoons and Scout Platoons can be found in the Unit Notes (28.2.1)
as well as footnoted entry 12.6.1. See also notes pertaining to Crusader Tractors and Schwimmwagen in the Weapons section (28.2.2
and 28.3.2 respectively).
4 4.5.6 Survival Table. This table provides a simple method for
determining what happens to transported units when their transport
takes a hit. If the transported unit is a mortar, British MG, or towed
gun a step reduction is more likely than with other types of units.
Mortars and British MGs qualify because they are the only weapons which are loaded into open-topped transports. Unlike infantry,
which could quickly dismount under fire, these types of weapons
were more difficult to unload or unhook, and were more reliant on
their transports to carry their bulkier ammunition. Infantry units
also suffer step reductions less frequently because they represent a
relatively large number of men as compared to a heavy weapons unit.
5 5.0 Terrain. Lloyd Clark’s book Operation Epsom says of the ter-
rain: “The most northerly section, the first to be crossed by the British
attack, was made up of hedgeless fields up to the insignificant Mue
stream. (…) Further south (…) there was good defensive bocage
7 5.1.2 Bocage. The ground over which these battles were fought
had a number of wide open areas, but the photo recon imagery also
shows many regions of dense bocage. This is especially true near
Cristot and Tilly-sur-Seulles, in the regions west and north of Juvigny, and pretty much everywhere on the southern half of the map.
By “dense” I mean there are portions of as many as six or seven
individual fields in a single 425 yard hex, all separated by hedgerows! However, this is not the norm, with one to three fields per hex
being more typical of a bocage hex in the game. Early versions of
the playtest map and Terrain Effects Chart distinguished between
orchard and bocage, but in reality this terrain is a mish-mosh of
both, and rarely does orchard appear in a hex without hedgerows.
The need for two densities of bocage became apparent as soon as I
began to code the hexes according to the aerial photography. I had
to make a judgement call, sometimes quite arbitrarily, as to whether
a particular bocage hex should be classified as light or heavy. In
general, where three or more individual hedgerow-bordered fields
exist in a single hex, or where two or more oppose a north-south
axis of advance (i.e., an east-west orientation of hedgerows), I have
classified them as heavy bocage. Such hexes offer the defenders
multiple lines of hedgerows behind which to fall back, making a
series of “mini-retreats” possible within a single hex and within the
course of a 90 minute game turn. In the game this is abstracted by
preventing ZOC from extending into them, and by their increased
defensive bonus compared to light bocage.
8 5.1.3 Woods. There are fewer wooded areas in the vicinity of our
map area today than in 1944. Some woods, including a sizeable
section of Tessel Woods itself, have been clear cut for more farming
space. Have a quick look at Google Earth and you’ll see what I mean.
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
9 5.1.4 Village. Since lone farms, manors, and chateaus are also
classified as village, “settled” might have been a more apt name for
this terrain type. Village derives its defensive benefit not only from
the buildings themselves but from the numerous hedge-lined fields,
orchards, and stone walls usually found in very close proximity to
them. For notes on Strongpoints, see footnote #55.
10 5.1.5 Waterways. As of late 2010, I’d been unable to find any
reliable data on the depth and width of the rivers in the region circa
late June ‘44. Furthermore, I knew that the Germans had intentionally flooded some regions at the time of this operation, making
things difficult from a research standpoint. Enter Vincent Lefavrais.
Vincent took a field trip to the battlefield, walking it extensively and
taking lots of photos and notes which proved incredibly useful. For
those who are interested, I have presented his findings as an article
that can be downloaded from the GMT website. The article contains
more than 80 photos and map images, making it a great starting point
for players who wish to better visualize the terrain over which these
battles were fought. Among the images is a key that Vincent created on an early playtest map to indicate his location and direction
of facing for each of the photos. To a game designer, this kind of
information is invaluable. You simply can’t get this level of detail
from any number of books, maps, or websites.
In general, most of the waterways represented in the game are not
particularly wide, but they cut across the countryside with rather
steep, deep banks, making crossing difficult for vehicles. As a result,
vehicles in the game need to cross at bridges, putting a premium on
the control of bridge hexes. The non-Seulles waterways were little
more than small streams which normally might have been crossable
by tracked vehicles. However, as Georges Bernage says about the
Salbey in La bataille de l’Odon (Heimdal Publishing, 2008): “…
usually a starved rivulet but the profuse rains had caused it to swell
and the whole surrounding sector had become swampy.”
Vincent’s photos were taken on a day following some sizable rainfall.
This gave us a broad idea of the actual conditions at the time since
Operations Dauntless and Epsom were launched under heavy rain.
If anything, the historical conditions must have been even more
muddy and soggy than the ones Vincent experienced. He wrote,
“given the fact that I almost got bogged down on a couple of occasions after parking my car on the roadside, I shudder to think how
it must have been 70 years ago in a 30-ton Sherman under heavy
rain...” Waterways in this area have ever-present vegetation such as
trees, brushes, shrubs, and thorns growing along their banks and,
for this reason, block LOS in the game. The banks were often quite
steep—a sudden drop of half a meter or more—with water depth
ranging from about half a meter to a meter. Width of the waterways
was in the ballpark of two meters. The Seulles was much wider,
ranging from about five to eight meters, with one-meter-high banks
and a depth of more than a meter with strong currents. Since the
war, the topography has changed slightly, notably concerning the
hedgerows, a lot of which were torn down to increase the size of
the farming plots. What could not be judged from Vincent’s photos
is the extent of the flooding caused by the Germans in 1944. The
photo recon images we worked with to create the map suggest that
no areas were entirely inundated. Still, my supposition is that lowelevation areas near the many waterways, as well as most roads,
might have been affected by the water level, especially after the rain
started up again on June 26, making them soggy and less than ideal
for vehicular movement. Only better and raised roads would have
3
been unaffected. The rules for weather, roads, supply, and (Optional
Rule) Tigers in the Mud all combine to reflect this.
After some discussion and consideration, I opted to make waterways
impact leg units minimally. The delay on leg movement (+1 MP)
amounts to a mere fraction of a 90-minute game turn and is due
mainly to the prominence of brambles along their shores as opposed
to the depth of water or strength of current. My guess is that the
Royal Engineers (abstracted in the game) could make most of these
narrow streams easily fordable for a company-sized leg unit, given
about twenty minutes to do their job. Smaller waterways might be
crossable even without log bridges and the like if the men were
willing to get wet up to the knees or waist. Where the streams are
less than two meters wide, the men might simply jump over them;
the prominence of thorns and vegetation would again be the bigger
impediment. I feel the +1 MP requirement is reasonable, and it is
both simple and easy to remember.
11 5.1.6 Slopes. Elevation is not absolute in this game. The slope
hexsides are not contour lines but rather specific changes in elevation
which are significant enough to block LOS. The hills in this region
are not very dramatic and not really hills in the way Americans
understand the word. There are certainly a few notable spots—the
Rauray spur and the hilltop wood near Tessel among them—which
command a nice view of the surrounding countryside. A good
example for those who own the Saunders book Operation Epsom
can be seen in the photo on page 30-31 which shows the view from
Rauray. It’s evident that it’s not so much elevation that’s important,
but line of sight. In the game, hilltop locations are often objectives.
VP rewards aside, the open nature of the nearby terrain, such as the
open fields to the north and east of Rauray, should make it obvious
to the players why they would want to hold these objectives. These
hilltops offer nice Reaction Fire opportunities.
12 5.2 Roads. The road network generally favors the Germans be-
cause it runs counter to the British axis of advance. It also allows the
Germans to shuffle units east or west across the front line to fill gaps.
Numerous small sunken roads exist in nearly all bocage hexes, which
is why the MP cost for bocage is not as high as it might otherwise
be. Although vehicle units are not always assumed to be tackling
the hedgerows, in many cases the roads were mined or otherwise
trapped (by hidden AT guns, for example), so the most direct route
was not always used. The movement cost for village and bocage
is a sort of average between these minor dirt roads and alternative
routes over or through the hedgerows.
13 5.3.1 Temporary Reveal Upon Firing. Players may wonder why
it is that a Concealed unit which Returns Fire is only revealed across
its three frontal hexsides. I can hear you crying, “This makes it too
hard to get a flank shot!” Consider the following graphic (overleaf)
of a situation involving two tank troops in a heavy bocage hex.
A platoon of German tanks (G) are concealed in a bocage hex with
respect to British tanks (B). As the German tanks emerge from behind
the hedgerow to fire, as two of them are doing in the graphic, they
become revealed with respect to Return Fire only across their three
frontal hexsides. The graphic should hopefully make it obvious as to
why. Next, consider the hex scale and the fact that units in adjacent
hexes are always revealed. The rule doesn’t seem so strict anymore.
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
4
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
than four units per hex—especially since the transport half-tracks
don’t count towards this limit.
8.2-8.3 Combat Modifiers
15 #2. Red-boxed CS Unit Attacking into Close Terrain. Most
AFVs suffer this penalty, which represents the inherent difficulty
in using vehicles and vehicle-mounted weapons in close terrain.
16 #5. Yellow-boxed CS AFV Unit. These AFVs are equipped with
flame-throwers or 290mm mortars. These weapons generally have a
limited range of 50 yards or less, making them useless in Combats
but highly effective in Assaults. See also footnote 20.
17 #12. Orange-boxed CS Unit. These units are either AFVs with
short barrelled guns firing high explosive (HE) shells or IGs firing
high caliber shells—weapon types that are very useful against soft
targets.
18 #14. German Combined Arms Bonus. Players may wonder why
14 6.0 Stacking. Stacking is limited to two British companies per
hex to simulate the way the British infantry companies were fielded
historically. These units required a front of about 250 yards per
company in order to operate according to doctrine. There is no such
restriction for German companies. Theoretically, the German player
may stack four companies per hex, though the +4 DRM to enemy
Ranged Attacks would make this rather foolish.
Elimination of overstacked units sounds harsh but it almost never
occurs in practice. The fact that ZOC does not extend into close terrain makes it difficult to surround a unit and cause additional step
reductions during a Retreat. Units will typically have a retreat path
unless completely surrounded by the enemy. Furthermore, 8.5.2.4
Retreats and Overstacking allows units to continue their Retreat to
avoid elimination due to overstacking. We never had to do this in our
playtests because the hexes behind the front line typically contain
only a handful of mortar or transport units. This leaves only one
situation where elimination due to overstacking will occur: voluntary
overstacking. Don’t do it, or you lose your units.
The stacking limit of four units per hex (plus markers and independent transports) is intended to keep things reasonable from a physical
handling perspective and is not necessarily a realistic upper limit of
the number of units that might function together within the same 425
yard hex. However, it conveniently forces the British player to use
historical frontages for his infantry companies. Between the stacking limit of two British infantry companies per hex and the Assault
rule which mandates the first two attacker losses be taken as step
reduction in an Assault, a savvy British player will handle his units
in a manner very similar to the way they were historically deployed,
with two companies up and two companies in reserve (but over the
course of a 90-minute turn, the two reserve companies will usually
be thrown into the fight as well due to the heavy nature of the fighting in this game). What we are likely to see is two separate waves
of British attacks per infantry battalion with each wave consisting of
two stacks of two infantry companies, usually supported by tanks,
MGs, or the Carrier Platoon.
The stacking limit works well from the German perspective as well.
The Germans are spread thin, so there is rarely a need to stack more
the British do not receive a similar combined arms bonus. British
coordination between infantry and armor was less than stellar during
this campaign. By most accounts, the 8th Armoured Brigade fared
better in this regard than most armored formations in Normandy.
19 #16. British Coordination Penalty. This modifier forces a small
Command & Control consideration on the player, even if Optional
Rule 21.5 OSMs is not in use. It discourages the building of “rainbow stacks,”—the term we used in playtesting for unrealistically
mixing and matching units of differing brigades in order to achieve
maximum stacking efficiency. Note that the brigades in question are
color-coded by greens, blues, and warm colors for ease in identifying
them for this purpose.
20 #18. Yellow-boxed CS Unit. This bonus applies to units armed
with flame-throwers (Crocodiles, Flammpanzerwagen, and pioneer
infantry) or 290mm Petard spigot mortars (AVRE)—short-ranged
weapons designed to destroy buildings or oust the enemy from
fortifications.
21 8.7.1 Multi-hex Advances. British leg units may not perform
multi-hex advances due to a combination of German snipers, sparse
but fanatical resistance, and an overall approach by the British which
emphasized caution and casualty conservation.
22 9.0 Assaults. Assaults within the context of this game are not
prepared assaults but mobile attacks. If the lack of defensive support
seems odd, consider that units which move adjacent to the enemy
often take FF as they move. Units which started their Action Phase
adjacent were already eligible to be targeted by Ranged Attacks and
Combats during their opponent’s Combat Phase. Also consider that
non-supporting Ranged Attacks may be conducted prior to conducting an Assault during the Action Phase in this game (unlike in Red
Winter) and this lack of support becomes mostly semantic. I felt
that the British and Germans by June of ‘44 should have greater
flexibility regarding coordination of barrages and Assaults than the
Soviets and Finns in 1939.
23 10.0 Ranged Attacks. The RAT has been calibrated to light bo-
cage, just as the Red Winter RAT was calibrated to forest in winter.
Three exceptions allowing Ranged Attacks into adjacent hexes
may at first seem tricky to remember. New players are encouraged
to use this handy rule of thumb: If the target of the Ranged Attack
isn’t in a field hex, two of the three cases can be immediately ruled
out; both FF and Adjacent Defensive Support must be into field.
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
The remaining case is a Return Fire Ranged Attack, which requires
one of the two units involved (firing unit or target) to be a vehicle.
Usually, it’s a situation where a tank or Carrier Platoon is returning
fire on an AT Gun.
Ranged Attack Modifiers (on the PAC):
#7-8. Direct fire at a range of 3 or more hexes. A -1 DRM applies
to direct fire at a range of 3 hexes, and the firing unit’s RAS value
is halved at ranges beyond that. Apart from the obvious reason that
a target becomes harder to hit as it becomes further away, these
penalties exist because AFVs derive most of their anti-personnel
value (RAS) from their MGs, which have a limited range of 2-3
hexes. Beyond this, only their main gun is in range. Units with an
orange circle beside their RAS value have main guns capable of
firing sufficiently high caliber and/or low velocity High Explosive
(HE) shells so as to not suffer this penalty.
#11. Buttoned. Even while small arms fire cannot destroy AFVs, it
can still be helpful because it causes the AFV to “button up,” with
the crew closing the turret hatch and seeking shelter inside the tank
rather than spotting from the open hatch. Buttoned units have reduced
visibility and therefore a reduced ability to successfully employ their
anti-personnel weapons. This is reflected by a Suppressed marker
in the AFV’s hex causing both a negative DRM on the RAT and a
negative modifier for Tactical Advantage.
24 10.4.1 Suppression. The cumulative “Suppressed” results
simulate varying degrees of disorganization enemy units suffer
from incoming fire. These are conditions from which they will
quickly recover unless the situation is quickly exploited via good
old fashioned combat.
It helps to think of Suppression as the suppression of a unit’s combat potential rather than a literal “pinning down” of the unit over
the duration of a 90 minute turn. Perhaps the suppressed unit has
indeed gone to ground, but only for a portion of the turn, leaving
it less time to employ effective tactics. Players shouldn’t take the
term “Suppressed” too literally since it refers to a temporary state
and Suppressed units can still Retreat or Advance After Combat.
Since a “Suppressed” result against an enemy hex that is not supporting a Combat prevents units in that hex from supporting future
Combats in the same phase, players should leave these units marked
“Suppressed” for the remainder of the phase. Note that in most cases,
the unit will not be in a position to support a future Combat, so no
marker is necessary. During the Action Phase, when it’s important
to prevent enemy units from conducting FF, the markers will be
more useful.
25 10.5 Spotters. Self-spotting mortars receive only a +1 DRM as
compared to +2 for other weapons. This is because the mortars’ RAS
ratings are already inflated to account for their greater flexibility.
The +2 for other weapon types (which are limited to IGs and 88s)
imitates the +2 for Soviet IGs used in Red Winter and encourages
their use in a self-spotting manner.
26 10.6.3 LOS and Elevation. Slopes and elevation are abstracted
in this game. Players shouldn’t take the slope locations too literally
since their placement is based on LOS considerations rather than
steepness or elevation. While upslope generally means at higher
elevation, the slope hexsides in no way indicate absolute elevation.
They are not contour lines.
5
The undulating terrain, bocage, and tree-lined streams severely
limit LOS in many parts of the battlefield. Many key objectives are
on high ground and provide nice, clear views of the surroundings.
We studied several contour maps and refined the current slope locations again and again over about four years to arrive at those you
see on the map. This required overlaying semi-transparent layers
in Photoshop and comparing some WW2-era contour maps of the
area, a modern day satellite map with 5m contours, and the game
map itself. In general, places where the rise over run equals .05 or
greater qualify for slope hexsides. For example, the approach to
Tessel Woods from the south has roughly a 19 yard rise over the
distance of a 425 yard hex, for a slope of .044. This is quite steep for
this battlefield where most hills are of the gently rolling type. Many
waterways also qualified for slope hexsides as they cut valleys into
the surrounding land. The contours of the various elevation maps
that we used didn’t always precisely agree, so what you see on the
final game map is, in many cases, an amalgam of the sources. The
3D battlefield map created by Gina Willis (described in more detail
later in these notes) proved invaluable in determining where LOS
should or should not exist between two given map hexes.
As a final note on the topic: I hate LOS rules and feel that many
otherwise excellent game systems are marred by vague, inadequate,
or overly complicated LOS rules. I’ve attempted to keep the rules as
simple and precise as possible, given the importance of LOS in this
battle. Inevitably, gray areas arise where multiple elevation levels and
dead zones are involved. When in doubt, reread the rules and refer
to the illustrated examples to see if your situation is covered. If that
fails, have a peek at the included LOS Determination flowchart. If
still in doubt, feel free to email me with your specific situation and
I’ll see if I can be of assistance.
27 10.7 Friction Fire. While FF is normally used by the non-phasing
player against an enemy unit that is actively moving during its Action Phase or Advancing After Combat during its Combat Phase, it
can also be used by either player against a retreating enemy unit.
It may help Red Winter players to think of field hexes in this game
as the equivalent of frozen lake in Red Winter. FF is only allowed
against enemies in field hexes.
I read one criticism of Red Winter stating that FF is exactly the same
thing as opportunity fire in other games and asking why it isn’t just
called opportunity fire. In my mind, they aren’t the same thing. Opportunity fire is typically handled as a normal Ranged Attack that
uses the same routine as other Ranged Attacks. It just happens to
take place against a moving unit. In this game system, FF is different
from a normal Ranged Attack. Rather than resulting in a Suppressed
result (or a Suppressed plus a step reduction at very high modified
results), it results in an interesting choice for the receiving player:
halt the move in the current hex or take the number of step reductions shown and continue moving. By calling it something other
than opportunity fire, I was trying to highlight the fact that it isn’t
simply handled as a ranged attack against a moving unit. I chose
the name Friction Fire because I felt that would serve as a good
mnemonic (friction inhibits movement). Originally, the effect of
FF was to “drain” MPs from the moving stack, but this created too
much tracking and was cumbersome in play.
New players will find a comparison of FF and ARC in 23.0 Tips
and Strategies.
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
6
28
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
11.2 AT Fire DRMs (on the PAC):
2. Range (in hexes) to target. As described in detail in the Game
Elements section (27.0), this DRM accounts for the greater difficulty
in hitting a target as range increases as well as a drop in penetration
capability by roughly 1 cm per 425 yards for most of the main gun
types represented in the game.
3. Flanking Fire. Most AFVs had thicker armor in the front than
to the sides and rear, and the +3 DRM accounts for an average
distribution of armor. Some AFVs (the Panther, for example) had
an even greater disparity, with very thick and highly sloped frontal
armor but only a fraction as much armor on the sides. Flanking fire
against these AFVs receives a more favorable DRM (in the case of
the Panther, a +5).
Thinly armored vehicles such as half-tracks grant only a +1 DRM.
Players may find it curious that they generate any kind of DRM at
all, given that the difference in armor thickness between front and
sides of these AFVs isn’t pronounced enough to warrant a DRM
against the AT shells of most tanks’ main guns. I rationalized that
the flanking fire DRM should simulate a larger target profile and the
element of surprise, apart from just armor thickness.
4. Terrain. There is a lessened penalty for Return Fire vs. units in
these terrain types because the vehicle that originally fired had to
emerge from cover and reveal its position in order to fire. The benefit
of the terrain is mitigated, but the vehicle’s position is still more
favorable than a field due to partial cover and the close proximity
of full cover.
6. Target’s Amor > Firing Unit’s AT Rating. This modifier is necessary because the bell curve alone cannot account for the difficulty
in achieving a meaningful hit against an AFV with armor thicker
than a round’s maximum AP capacity.
7. Firing from Hex with one or more Suppressed Markers. The
AFV has buttoned its turret hatch or the crew has otherwise taken
cover due to incoming fire, making it more difficult for them to
spot the target.
29 11.2.1.1 ARC Fire along Hex Spines. Since Return Fire against a
newly revealed target must be through a frontal hexside, these rules
effectively mean that a unit in close terrain cannot be an eligible
target for the Flanking Fire except in two situations: Assaults and
adjacent enemies.
30 11.3.2 Zero-Range (AT Fire) Units. The AT ratings of these units
are based on a combination of training, experience and weapon quality (accuracy, armor penetration, and whether the weapon is singleshot or can be reloaded). British infantry are typically armed with
the reloadable, spring-launched PIAT, while most German infantry
are equipped with the single-shot but more powerful Panzerfaust or
Panzerschreck. Nearly all leg units are also equipped with grenades.
31 11.4 Tactical Advantage. These rules were originally optional
and called the Ambush rules. By the time I arrived at the final version, I discovered that they streamlined game play considerably, so
I made them mandatory.
Tactical Advantage uses a chit draw mechanic which introduces a
high degree of friction and uncertainty into Assaults, making them
more interesting and realistic in my opinion. While these rules might
at first appear to complicate game play, they in fact speed things up
by limiting the number of units which can perform AT Fire during a
given Assault, as well as the number of modifiers that apply. It was
lead playtester Gina Willis who first suggested the idea of making
Assaults less predictable by somehow introducing randomization of
the DRMs that could apply. Lead playtester Eric Edwards came up
with the idea of using a chit draw mechanic to determine how many
AT attacks should be allowed in a given Assault, and the order in
which they should be resolved. Previously, I had been doing all of
the above using three tables, each with their own list of modifiers.
I was initially rather proud of these tables, but, when I taught Eric
how to use them, I realized how ludicrous it was all beginning to
sound. (“Okay, you roll on this table and use these DRMs to determine which units get to roll on the AT Fire Table and in what order,
and this third table determines which DRMs will apply to the roll
on the second table…”) The game was getting too unwieldy and too
complicated. Migrating the information from these tables over to a
simple chit draw was a huge step in the right direction, but it still took
months of trial and error. We tested many variations before honing
in on the combination of factors that felt “just right.”
It was moderately late in the testing that I came up with
the idea of making the penetration factor (Armor minus
AT) a chit-drawn DRM so that it would not always
factor into a given Assault. Formerly, infantry AT
weapons such as PIATs and Panzerfäuste always succeeded in
eliminating thin-skinned vehicles such as armored cars and halftracks; there was no point in even rolling the AT Fire dice. This felt
very disappointing to me. Surely armor thickness and weapon
penetration stats weren’t everything in these situations. What about
the many other relevant variables such as morale, terrain, the element
of surprise, and enemy fire? That’s when it occurred to me that the
penetration factor should be included as a modifier chit. It’s on three
of the thirteen chits, actually, so it will factor into the AT Fire roll
quite often, but its inclusion is no longer a given.
As I continued to playtest and refine the two new sets of chits, I felt
a giant weight lifted from my shoulders. The Assault system was
now much faster and cleaner, and the chit draw interjected the sort
of chaos and unpredictability that Gina had desired. It was no longer
enough to merely crunch numbers and set up for a perfect-odds
attack. There was now a very real chance that things could go horribly wrong. For example, your opponent might use AT Fire twice,
eliminating your AFVs before they ever granted you a bonus or got
off a shot. After two further years of testing and fine tuning the chits,
I felt I had a subsystem that produced the right sorts of outcomes
while remaining true to the spirit of the game series.
Players may at first perceive the Tactical Advantage procedure as
a lot of sound and fury signifying very little. I assure you that it
is not. As players become more familiar with the game, they will
quickly come to realize the importance of AFV kills in Assaults.
Each Assault in this game is its own little microcosm of the battle,
often with combined arms forces facing off amongst the maze of
hedgerows. Choosing your assaulting stack carefully so that it is
well-rounded and appropriate for the target hex is important, and
the order of allowed AT Fire attacks is everything. Of course, a little
luck during the Modifier chit draw never hurts. Occasionally, your
draw will be so lucky (or unlucky) that rolling the dice isn’t even
necessary. I let that slide as being in the spirit of the unpredictability
inherent in this type of conflict. This is controlled chaos, after all,
and even your best laid plans can occasionally go awry, just as you
can occasionally pull an unexpected victory from the jaws of defeat.
Players may at first perceive the +1 modifier for assaulting from
any non-field hex into a field hex to be too small (i.e., not punishing
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
enough for the infantry defending in the field) given the openness of
farm fields and the extreme vulnerability of infantry in the open. The
reasoning for the modifier becomes apparent when one recalls that
the Tactical Advantage procedure is concerned mainly with infantry
units’ ability to fire on tanks, and the field crops were thigh-high to
waist-high this time of year, offering excellent hiding places for the
lone infantryman wielding a PIAT or Panzerfaust.
32 11.4.2 Modifier Chits. The players may notice that while zero-
range AT attacks normally apply to infantry units armed with PIATs,
Panzerfäuste, and the like, there are a couple of AFV types that also
qualify—namely, British AVRE and German Flammpanzerwagen. If
it at first seems odd that these AFVs are handled as infantry, consider
for a moment how they are fielded when pressed into an AT role.
They can’t simply engage enemy armor at close range; they have
to engage at really close range! To do this effectively, these AFVs
need to remain hidden and then fire from ambush positions, much
like infantry units. By allowing them to behave in this manner I
avoided the need for special rules for handling them in Assaults.
The rationale behind a few of these chits is worth mentioning.
Target’s Combat Strength. Drawing this chit infers
that the target vehicle is in a position to use its antipersonnel MGs against the unit using AT Fire against
it.
Target is open-topped. Unlike other AFVs, these units
are vulnerable to small arms fire, and especially to
grenades.
Target’s CS is in orange/yellow box. Drawing this
chit infers that the target vehicle is in a position to fire
its high caliber shells or flame-throwers against the
unit performing the AT Fire against it.
Lack of Modifiers for Strongpoints and Dug-In Hexes. Note
that there is no Modifier chit for Dug-In or Strongpoint hexes, nor
are these improvements reflected in the Tactical Advantage modifiers. Defending vehicles are not considered to be benefiting from
these improvements, and defending infantry occupying them would
typically need to leave them in order to ambush tanks with PIATs,
Panzerfäuste, and similar infantry-AT weapons. One could argue
that the occupation of a static defense position in no way equates
with having a “tactical advantage” in terms of maneuvering into
ambush positions from which to fire these types of weapons. A static
position is, by definition, static and can be avoided. The effect of
the static position comes into play later, during the actual resolution
of the Assault.
33 11.5 ARC. The ARC is covered in detail in the more general notes
section, 27.0 Game Elements.
34 11.5.2.3 Reaction Move. The rule states that the Reaction Move
need not be away from the enemy which performed the AT Fire. Indeed, in some cases it may make sense to move towards the offender.
35 12.1 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs). Players may wonder
why AFVs are “special units” when even a quick glance at the counter sheets reveals that over half the units in the game are AFVs—and
many of the remaining leg units are treated as AFVs on their attached
transport sides. Keep in mind that this game system originated with
Red Winter, which is basically an infantry-only game. Also consider
that a number of special rules apply to AFVs. Section 12.0 should
7
more accurately be called “Units for Which Special Rules Apply,”
but that’s a mouthful.
36 12.1.1 AFVs and Losses. These rules present a key difference
from Red Winter, where AFVs suffered losses normally in Assaults
and could even take voluntary step reductions to satisfy losses. This
is because Operation Dauntless uses the Tactical Advantage routine,
absent from the former game, to resolve zero-range AT attacks.
AFVs’ ability to ignore losses in Combats and Assaults has some
important ramifications. Players cannot successfully capture a hex
containing one or more AFV units by merely performing a Combat,
even if that hex is held by a lone half-track unit. This may seem
“gamey” until one considers that nearly every unit in the game has
an AT rating and therefore has an adequate opportunity to destroy
such units. Assaults by units without AT capability will be equally
useless against defending hexes containing one or more AFVs. In
both cases, the AFVs will simply ignore any losses, while the attackers run the risk of step reductions as a result of the CRT.
All this may at first seem odd because it is in fact quite different
than most games. However, the player should consider the entire
turn sequence rather than focusing on the instant of the Combat
or Assault. In order to capture a hex, the player will first need to
eliminate (or cause the voluntary withdrawal of) any AFVs in the
hex by using AT Fire during the Action Phase. Failing that, he can
make further AT Fire attacks during the Combat Phase, before
declaring the actual Combat. If all that fails and the defending hex
still contains AFVs, he’ll need to hold off and assault the hex and/
or hit it with more AT Fire during the friendly Action Phase of the
next game turn. The “big picture” emerges and we see that AFVs
cannot hold hexes indefinitely—they can merely delay the advance
by a turn, and usually at a great risk to their own safety.
Don’t forget that Suppressed markers in the target hex yield a bonus
to the Tactical Advantage chit draw. Hitting the target AFVs with
Ranged Attacks—even if it can’t destroy them outright—can be
helpful and oft overlooked strategy.
37 12.1.2 AFVs and Overruns. AFVs which overrun cannot per-
form a multi-hex Advance After Combat; they must expend MPs to
enter each hex beyond the original vacated defending hex. This is a
difference from Red Winter, where the tanks’ MAs were calibrated
to account for the effects of winter weather on the poor roads. In
that game, armor could perform multi-hex advances for free, then
continue to overrun with any remaining MA. Playtesting showed
the need for this change. Without it, the high MAs of the British and
German AFVs combined with the extensive road network to allow
stacks of rampaging AFVs to achieve far too much in a 90 minute
game turn. They could chase retreated units clear across the map
while hitting other weak units along the way.
38 12.2 AFVs with Special Attributes.
AVRE. The Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers (AVRE) are the
vehicular heroes of this game for the British—possibly even more
so than the panzer-killing Fireflies. The British player will need to
commit them early and often if he is to make progress in the Campaign Game. Their bunker-busting 290mm Petard spigot mortars
are formidable weapons, but due to their very limited range they
are only useful in Assaults. The AVRE are the only British tanks
in the game with armor heavy enough to stand up to fire from the
German tanks and AT guns. While not suited for an anti-tank role
themselves due to their extremely limited AT Range and miserable
FC, their Armor rating makes them ideal for supporting British
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
8
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
infantry against German Strongpoints. It is often possible to get a
combined stack of British infantry and AVRE into Assault range
of the German Panthers or Tigers so that the infantry can take out
the German tanks with their PIAT. At times, this is the only viable
option. The Shermans, with only half as much armor as the AVRE,
are often vulnerable in this role, especially when up against Panthers
or Tigers. See also 28.2.2 British Weapon Notes.
Sherman Crabs. Apart from being fitted with the mine-clearing flail,
these tanks are equipped with the standard 75mm gun. Therefore,
their AT, CS, and RAS ratings look much like other Shermans. See
also 28.2.2 British Weapon Notes.
Crocodiles. These Churchill flame-thrower tanks excel against
Strongpoints and Dug-In hexes. As explained in detail in the British Weapon Notes section (28.2.2), Crocodiles were rare and were
committed very sparingly. Not featuring them in the game would
have been wrong, but featuring too many, or allowing all but infrequent use, would also be wrong. I have chosen to leave them out of
scenarios with no German Strongpoints, while leaving it up to the
British player whether or not to commit them in the other scenarios.
Note that the AVRE have two steps (vs. only one for Crocodiles),
a better Armor rating, and still provide a column shift in Assaults,
so they will be the better choice in most game situations. The exception is use against Strongpoints, where the Crocodiles excel.
The Crocodile troops’ relatively high price (2 points per unit—the
same as a two-step AVRE) is intentional and intended to reflect the
historical problems associated with these units; it ensures that they
will not be committed too frequently in the game.
Flammpanzerwagen. These are portrayed as type SdKfz 251/16
flame-thrower half-tracks. The dual flame-throwers have very short
range and are useful only in Assaults, but in Assaults they are deadly.
See also 28.3.2 German Weapon Notes.
of barrages. There are too many guns and it would require far too
much wristage! To simulate the effects of the creeping barrages,
special rules are included in the scenarios to which they apply. On
June 16 (the attack on Cristot) and June 25 (the attack on Fontenay),
the effects of the massive opening barrage are abstracted into the
Special Rules for the first game turn. On June 26, there was little
artillery support in the Dauntless sector due to the newly launched
(and larger) Epsom offensive, just off map to the east.
41 12.3.2 German Artillery. While the game portrays all German
non-mortar and non-IG artillery units as operating from off map, in
reality some of them did operate somewhere within the area of the
game map. The off-map system is a quick and simple way to reflect
the effects of their availability, as well as ammo shortages, without
resorting to markers, extra die rolling, or bookkeeping. Historical
sources are silent or unclear about the precise locations of some of
these units during the battle. Additionally, playtesting showed the
units had little to no chance of becoming involved in direct fire or
Assault situations. Migrating these units off map allowed us to cut
down on counter clutter and, more importantly, streamline the game
by removing a host of former rules. These included rules governing minimum ranges (for the Werfers which could only hit hexes 3
or more hexes away from their map location), special rules for SP
artillery (since these units could move and fire in the same turn, as
opposed to towed artillery which could do one or the other, and had
to be tracked as such), rules which allowed the Werfers to “shoot
and scoot” (effectively a special use-it-or-lose-it movement phase),
and more. The off map migration also freed up about four spaces on
the countersheet which were formerly occupied by ammo markers
for tracking 105mm, 152mm, and rocket ammo. I have Gina Willis
to thank for these changes. It was her constructive criticism that
showed me the need to simplify and streamline what had become a
rather cumbersome process.
Regarding the two ranges of values on the flip-sides of the German
artillery units: British air superiority made the movement of supplies
to the front very difficult for the Germans. Ammo was becoming
scarce as well as being diverted to resist the British Epsom offensive
that kicked off on June 26. From that date onwards, it becomes more
difficult for the German player to commit his increasingly scarce
artillery resources to the battles being gamed. The British player
suffers a similar fate on June 26 when several useful Asset chits
are removed from his cup, representing assets diverted to support
Epsom.
42 12.3.3 German Self-Propelled Rocket Artillery. These units
39 12.3 Artillery. The British can fire their artillery each and every
turn rather than rolling for its return. They enjoyed a surplus of
shells for their artillery, unlike the Germans who faced severe supply difficulties.
40 12.3.1 British Artillery. The British kicked off their attacks on the
German-held villages with enormous rolling barrages by hundreds
of guns. This sometimes included naval gun fire from off-shore
Royal Navy ships. The infantry followed closely behind the moving
“wall” of fire. In the game, no dice are rolled to handle these types
never qualify for FF or ARC because they are only placed for the
purpose of Support. Similarly, they never qualify for Adjacent Defensive Support because they can only be placed 2 or more hexes from
all enemies. The rule that they cannot make non-supporting Ranged
Attacks is not meant to infer that these weapons weren’t capable
of doing so, but rather a restriction on the types of situations where
German command was willing to commit such a valuable resource.
I felt they should not be usable “off the cuff” or in situations where
they’d have little chance of an effect (FF, ARC, and non-supporting
fire). Instead, they are limited in use to situations where their fire
actually supports a Combat. The other reason I felt they shouldn’t
be usable “off the cuff” is that aiming these weapons was nearly
impossible. They were used for saturation fire against a large target
area such as a village. See also 28.3.2 German Weapons.
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
43 12.5.1 Mortars and Infantry Guns in Combat. The German
self-propelled mortar half-tracks (SdKfz 251/2 and 250/7) were
designed such that the mortars could still fire while loaded on the
half-track. In the game, they have attached transports and can fire
even when flipped to their loaded sides.
44 12.6.1 British Carrier Platoons and Scout Platoons. Players
may find it odd that these units do not have a red boxed CS value
like other armored units. This was intentional. The red box represents
the inherent difficulties of AFVs in maneuvering into good firing
positions in close terrain. However, the Carrier Platoons and Scout
Platoons can dismount from their carriers and embed themselves
in the close terrain, even taking the carrier-mounted Bren guns
with them.
Carrier Platoons originally had only one step, but playtesting revealed that the British player was too reluctant to use them in their
historical role. They were simply too vulnerable. The solution was
to grant them another step, but mitigate this somewhat by making it
harder for them to recover and more costly for them to take replacements. After these changes, they really came into their own. While
they are the only two-step platoon-sized infantry unit in the game,
they are also better trained and much larger than other platoons (at
63 men vs. only 37 in a standard British infantry platoon); both
helped justify the additional step.
The bullet list of special rules for these units (12.6.1, PAC) isn’t as
bad as it looks once you realize that each rule basically just states
whether the unit is treated as infantry or armor in a specific game
situation. These rules made it possible to avoid separate carrier
transport counters for many units, shaving a total of seventeen
counters from the mix.
Carrier Platoons receive a negative DRM on the Recovery Table
because they are smaller than company-sized infantry units; a step
reduction therefore represents a greater percentage reduction in manpower. This means that reduced Carrier Platoons will take longer to
recover and return to the action, on average, than infantry companies.
Players may find it odd that the Carrier Platoons and Scout Platoons
have a marginally higher CS than the standard infantry companies. A
Carrier Platoon has 12-13 Bren LMGs vs. only 9 in an infantry company. I believe that the higher CS is accurate—especially when you
figure in the cover provided by the carriers themselves. A member of
Consimworld asked me whether a British Scout Platoon really put
out that much firepower in combat, and, doctrinally, if it would have
been used in a manner that allowed that firepower to be “noticed” on
the battlefield. I believe so. However, what the marginal CS superiority doesn’t reveal is that the single-step Scout Platoon has almost no
staying power under fire. If it takes but a single step reduction, it is
eliminated. That means the British player won’t be committing it to
many offensive actions, except perhaps where carefully calculated
(against a weaker enemy recon force, perhaps, or in support of a
friendly infantry attack from LMG range). The infantry company,
on the other hand, can take and hold a hex because it has two steps,
and, when it loses a step, it can recover by spending a turn to roll
1d6 in an attempt to flip back to its full-strength side. This makes
the infantry company much stronger than the Scout Platoon in the
long run. Also note that the infantry company is immune to AT fire,
unlike both the Carrier Platoon and Scout Platoon which are highly
vulnerable to AT weapons. Hits from AT fire against these units are
tracked as reductions to the Transport Pool and generate VPs for
the German player. Additionally, each such hit has a 2 in 6 (33%)
9
chance of inflicting a step reduction on the infantry unit itself. So,
while capable of laying down some good firepower, these units are
more vulnerable than they first appear.
I believe the game system encourages the British player to use both
Carrier Platoons and Scout Platoons in roles consistent with their
historical and intended uses. The Carrier Platoons will mainly support the infantry or grab objectives and hold on to them for a turn
until the infantry arrive or the 6-pdrs roll up to deploy. The more
fragile Scout Platoons will mainly be used for spotting, although
they will occasionally be committed to support a combat action.
Notes pertaining to the historical use and makeup of the Carrier
Platoon and Scout Platoon can be found in the British Unit Notes
(28.2.1). Notes on the Universal Carrier can be found in the British
Weapon Notes (28.2.2).
45 12.7 Flak. While “flak” is technically a German term, it applies
to all anti-aircraft units in this game. Flak units do not shoot down
air assets per se—the scale does not allow for that—but, rather, they
increase the likelihood of an airstrike’s failure. This encourages
players to keep their flak units close to their other units.
Players will note that the flak units have good RAS and FC ratings.
As these units were built to target aircraft, they have good targeting
systems and a very high rate of fire. I toned down their FC ratings
slightly from what they might have been based on the statistics
alone, lest these units be used in an unhistorical manner as light
AFV hunters. If further rationale is needed to justify this reduction,
consider the “fear factor” involved when flak crews are ordered to
engage enemy AFVs.
46 12.8 British Assets. British naval guns were originally included
as an Asset. Our research suggested that they should not be “on call”
like the divisional artillery and their effects would be better handled
abstractly in those scenarios that begin in the wake of such barrages.
47 12.8.2 Aircraft. Air attacks do not play a particularly large part
in the game. They are included for added realism and fun. The
British artillery plays a much larger role than aircraft. This is due to
the scale—we’re looking at a handful of days and a rather focused
portion of the Normandy front. That said, a well-implemented air
strike can occasionally be extremely helpful and satisfying!
Aircraft cannot be committed on late afternoon or dusk turns. Low
sun angles at this time of day made picking out ground targets
extremely difficult. Shadows became long and overlapping. The
pilots also needed time to return to base while some daylight yet
remained. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the Germans believed
that the British air attacks dwindled in intensity from about 1700
onwards, and the Germans felt secure enough to begin moving at
around this time.
48 12.8.2.1 Fighter-Bombers. These aircraft are mostly Hawker
Typhoons and Supermarine Spitfires of 83rd Air Group based in
Normandy. They attack with a combination of rockets and strafing.
49 12.8.2.2 Bombers. These are mostly Mosquitos—excellent all-
weather aircraft that proved incredibly useful during the Normandy
campaign, despite the fact that they were made of wood and therefore
highly vulnerable to flak. The type of bombing represented here
should not be confused with tactical bombing. It is not as accurate
and this explains the distance requirement and the fact that a hex
but not a particular unit may be targeted. High altitude bombers are
not part of this game. The Mosquito bombers cannot target hexes
which are adjacent to British units. While our research suggests that
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
10
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
the actual danger zone is only about 200 yards, we felt there was no
way the ground troops would have trusted the RAF to that extent.
According to one source, at 700 feet you have a 1% chance of being
hit by a lethal fragment. One of the real dangers is fragments that
go steeply up, and come down a long way away. Since they come
down at a sharp angle, many types of cover are not helpful, and being prone can present a larger target. Apparently, one intervening
hex is a reasonable estimate for a safe distance, but this assumes
a forward air controller, some sort of landmark, and an attack run
parallel to the front line. Two intervening hexes is probably more
realistic. By allowing Mosquito bombers to target enemy hexes two
hexes away from British units but by making British units at this
range vulnerable to possible friendly fire (if using that optional rule),
the British player is encouraged to maintain a safe distance of three
hexes. He may reduce this to two hexes, but in doing so he runs the
risk of subjecting his units to stray bomb fragments.
50 12.8.2.3 Tactical Recon. These Assets represent reconnaissance
aircraft—mostly Auster Mk V’s and Spitfires. Utilizing them to
their full potential requires some planning on the part of the British
player, who should not underestimate their usefulness.
51 12.9 Crusader Tractors. These are the only AFVs with an Armor
rating greater than 1 that track losses via the Transport Pool. See
28.2.1 for more notes on these units.
52 13.1 Reinforcements. These rules highlight the idea that the
battle is not being fought in a vacuum. Troops can be pulled from
the flanks, off-map, and committed to hotspots as needed, but at the
price of weakening the line elsewhere. The VPs earned for unspent
Reinforcement Points at the end of some scenarios emphasize this
idea and give the players an incentive to not over-commit units.
Players must decide which units are needed, and when and where
to commit them. The starting allotments and accrual rates of Reinforcement Points were carefully selected so that players can afford
the units that were committed historically at roughly their historical
times of commitment. Yet the system allows some variability in
how a player spends his resources. For example, if more tanks are
needed but infantry are plentiful, a player can opt to spend his points
on tanks rather than commit more infantry, even if this is at odds
with what occurred historically. This offers a type of flexibility and
realism not found in games with scripted unit entries.
53 13.2 Replacements. Replacements for weapons and AFVs rep-
resent the recovery and repair of pre-existing weapons or vehicles,
including AFVs in short term repair status which have been returned
to their former units. To a more limited extent, they also represent
the scrounging of weapons and vehicles from rear and reserve units
and HQ. German ammo increases (if using Optional Rule 19.14)
represent the effect of supply vehicles which succeed in reaching
the front, typically under the cover of darkness.
The number of destroyed AFVs which return to the field over the
course of a three-day battle is probably slim to none, and I’ve
attempted to craft the replacements rules accordingly, or at least
balance reality with game needs. It’s quite easy to rationalize that
a proportion of tank step losses are actually thrown tracks, shellshocked crews bailing out from tanks with minor damage, and the
like, making these tanks eligible to come back on the next day as
replacements. Incidentally, the Zetterling book indicates that three
Panzer IVs were returned to the field following short-term repair
on the a.m. of June 26. In game terms, this would equate to roughly
two steps. After careful consideration, I decided to use the current
random mechanic for Replacements, rather than going with a set
number of steps like in Red Winter. This decision was made for a
handful of reasons. There are problems associated with set rates. For
one, they assume that the game designer and research team know
what the return rates actually were, and, in most cases, we didn’t.
Historical replacement rates are also dependent on what happened
historically—the number of weapons or vehicles of a given type
that were knocked out and recovered—yet the game could swing
in a wildly different direction with respect to type-specific losses.
Finally, when the players know ahead of time how many steps they’ll
be receiving for each unit type, they are tempted to adjust their play
styles according. For example, the German player might send his
Panzer IV platoons on high-risk missions just prior to the night turn
to ensure that the two soon-to-be-gained steps won’t go to waste. I
wanted to avoid such gamey behavior, while attempting to match
the relative return rates as closely as possible. I also wanted to keep
both players guessing, as I believe this increases the tension in the
night turns and reduces the appeal of “high-risk dusk missions.”
54 13.3 Recovery. Because the Recovery DRMs are cumulative, a
unit that is OOS cannot succeed in recovering unless it also benefits from one or more positive DRMs. Since German units always
receive a -1 DRM due to supply problems, a successful German
recovery attempt will require a minimum of two conditions which
yield positive DRMs.
The +1 DRM for night turns reflects the longer duration of these
turns, which generally have less combat action and offer more time
for units to rest.
55 14.0 Digging In and Strongpoints. Digging In represents minor
improvements to a hex’s defensive potential and includes scouting
for the most defensible positions, defining kill zones, digging slit
trenches and foxholes, and possibly piling small obstacles such
as sandbags. Digging In is not to be confused with Strongpoints,
which are more permanent and beneficial but cannot be placed once
the game begins (with the exception of the June 26/27 night turn).
Strongpoints represent walled farms and chateaus or simply stout
houses that have been reinforced.
56 15.3 Supply Sources. Players may wonder why Les Nouillons
(1422) is the only supply hex on the map which uses a tertiary road.
This hex was the most direct route to our map area for 12SS units held
in reserve in Missy, a few hexes directly south of 1422. It wouldn’t
have made sense for these units to use the (off-map) road network
to enter the area depicted on the map via Belle Jambe (0923) or the
railroad (1123); this would have taken them too long.
57 18.5 The Campaign Game: Special Rule #1 Heavy Smoke and
Fog. The 2R column shift to British Assaults on turn 1 is due to the
abstracted effects of the opening barrage by 250 artillery and naval
guns.The Germans’ inability to move simulates shell-shock, severed
communications, and general confusion arising from the massive
British barrage. The British movement restrictions simulate both the
thick fog and the need to advance in an orderly manner behind the
creeping barrage. While some German units begin further south, outside the bombardment area, these units can’t move anyway because
they begin the game inactive. Along with the German off-map units,
they are waiting to receive orders once the severity of the situation
has been assessed and communications have been restored.
58 18.5 The Campaign Game: Special Rule #4 Panzer With-
drawal. The German player has a tough choice to make in deciding
whether to withdraw reduced on-map companies or inactive, full
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
strength off-map companies. The latter yields the best short-term
gain, but the former grants more total panzer steps over the long
haul. It is up to the German player to balance his immediate need
for armor with the long-term need for reinforcements.
The choice to remove Panzer IVs or Panthers also isn’t as obvious
as it might at first seem. The Panzer IVs are clearly inferior, but
they’re twice as likely to receive Replacement steps.
Until shortly before publication, we played the game with the
withdrawal requirement as four companies, and with four or more
remaining steps necessary to qualify. While the withdrawal of four
companies seemed to be consistent with the historical withdrawal,
it doesn’t address the fact that gamers usually take greater risks than
their historical counterparts and typically lose more units in a shorter
time span. Adjusting both numbers (withdrawn companies and steps
to qualify) from four to three helped address what I felt was a slight
pro-British bias on the second day of the battle, becoming a more
pronounced bias on the third day. The supposition was that by keeping a few more panzers on the map and/or available for purchase,
the Germans might have a bit more staying power late in the game.
When a new book (Cazenave’s Panzerdivision Hitlerjugend. Vol. 2,
SS-Panzer-Regiment 12, Normandie 1944) was published in June
of 2015, we realized that the 7th Company of Panzer IVs was not at
any point present at these battles, and so the withdrawal requirement
was lowered yet again. By staging the withdrawal across three game
turns over two days, we were able to increase the total number of
withdrawal companies back to three while making these withdrawals
roughly coincide with their historical counterparts. I believe that the
final state of this rule is both the best balanced and most accurate.
The game doesn’t specifically address the fact that on the night of
June 26/27, one Panzer IV company was withdrawn, and then later
returned. However, there was a bit of a lull in the fighting during
this time which the game may or may not reproduce, depending on
the number and condition of the British on-map infantry battalions. I
didn’t want to force this kind of late-game withdrawal and return on
the players because I felt that such an event should be reactive and
based at least partly on on-map events. For example, if the British
attacks had increased in ferocity late on June 26, the Germans might
well have kept the withdrawn company in the vicinity of TesselBretteville/ Rauray in order to counter the attacks.
59 18.5 The Campaign Game: Special Rule #5 Deactivation of
British Formations. Withdrawn formations would realistically be
recovering in villages near the north edge of the map, such as StPierre, Le Haut d’Audrieu, and Cristot. Placing them on the Turn
Track, instead, reduces counter clutter. More importantly, it prevents
gamey “hunting missions” by the German player with the goal of
collapsing (per Special Rule #6) already-battered infantry battalions.
The average result of the dice (1d10+1d6+10) will be 19 turns, or
roughly a day and a half, which happens to be the historical timespan for most British infantry battalions (from the time they were
withdrawn until the time they were recommitted to the line). For
example, the war diary of the 70th Infantry Brigade mentions that
the 1st Tyneside Scots relieved the Lincolns on June 25 (in Bas de
Fontenay, we guess). The Lincolns were back in the line on the
morning of June 27, when they progressed southwards between
Tessel Woods and Rauray to clear the La Grande Ferme area along
the Bordel. That means the time of their “deactivation” amounts to
roughly a day and a half. The Hallams were also back on June 27
before dawn, establishing positions at the southern end of Tessel
11
Woods; this also amounts to a day and a half. The 11RSF, having
suffered 201 casualties on June 25, was withdrawn from the front
lines and did not return to action until June 28, meaning they were
off the line for at least two days. So, while the rule originally dictated
placement of the withdrawn units on the Turn Track 13 turns (24
hours) in the future, the history made a good case for increasing this
to an average of 36 hours as well as introducing some variability
via the dice.
60 18.5 The Campaign Game: Victory Conditions. Front Line
VPs. The historical frontline at the evening of June 27 was not a
straight, easily defined hex row, as explained in the 18.5 Historical
Notes. In general, the British advance hadn’t penetrated as far south
as hex row 18, but we decided to use 18 as our measuring point in order to account for hex 1318 of Rauray, which was British-controlled.
61 19.1 Fire Control. These rules started off as mandatory rules,
and I hope that most players will try them out once familiar with the
basics of the game. These rules reflect the quality vs. quantity aspect
of the historical armor engagement. As any treadhead knows, not
all tank crews and weapons systems are created equal. Armor and
penetration are not everything—you first have to hit your target. In
general, the German AFVs have an edge here. Players using these
rules will quickly come to realize that some units are much better
(or worse) than their ratings might otherwise suggest.
Sherman tanks are considered the standard, and the FC rules have
been calibrated accordingly. The Shermans of the SRY have FC
ratings that are one point higher than the other tank regiments. This
is intentional. The Sherwood Rangers comprised veteran tankers,
unlike the other two British tank regiments appearing in the game.
Most armored cars, half-tracks, assault guns, and turretless tank
destroyers are classified as FC Class “Poor” and have negative ratings. Most British tanks and German armored cars are classified as
“Standard” and have no FC stat (an assumed rating of zero). Panzer
IV Hs, Panthers, Fireflies, and Achilles are classified as “Good” and
have positive ratings, while the superior German Tigers have a +5.
The game’s original FC system classified all units as one of five
classes: Superior, Good, Standard, Below Average, and Poor. Playtesting revealed that this didn’t allow enough fidelity. We tried many
methods before settling on the final one.
Note that weapons with a high rate of fire might have FC ratings
which are better than players might otherwise expect. For example,
the German recon half-tracks, with their 20mm guns, are FC class
Standard rather than Poor. However, for many of these weapon types,
I have also weighed in a certain “fear factor” because armored cars,
half-tracks, or flak units ordered to fire on enemy AFVs may be able
to do so at a high rate of fire, almost ensuring a hit, but they will also
engage the enemy with great reluctance. For example, the stats alone
for a recon car might suggest that it should have a FC rating of +2,
while the penalty for using this unit in high-stakes situations (the
unit is intended for recon!) is a -2. The final, printed FC rating is 0.
62 19.2 Luftwaffe Nuisance Raids. While the Luftwaffe had been
mostly grounded by this point, the Germans did still conduct nighttime bombing raids on a semi-regular basis, mainly to deprive the
British troops of much-needed sleep. While these raids certainly
occurred further north, near the beaches, we found no evidence that
they were conducted near Fontenay during the time period covered
by the game. I included them just for fun.
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
12
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
Note that the resolution of the raid takes place during the German
Reset Phase. Since Suppressed markers go away at the end of the
phase in which they are placed, any result other than a step reduction can be ignored. This means that the best target will be a British
hex containing two infantry companies and no close terrain. After
DRMs, a step reduction will occur on a modified 9 or higher, making
reduced units prime targets.
63 19.5 British Tank OSMs. The British had a sharp distinction
between “Independent” and “Divisional” tank brigades, and also
between “under command of” as opposed to “assigned to.” We
don’t have to worry about the former in the game since divisional
tank brigade squadrons only went with divisional battalions. Put
very simply, when a tank squadron was assigned to a battalion it
was in all respects under the orders of the battalion commander, and
therefore needs no OSM of its own. The exception is that the major
commanding could appeal to his colonel if the tanks were being
mishandled (irrelevant to the game) or (which does matter) that the
tank regiment commander was either by order or by choice taking
back command. In game terms, this might mean massing all the
tanks of a regiment for a purpose the player thinks best—a sort of
“mini-Goodwood.” What this all boils down to is that we were able
to justify getting rid of five British tank OSMs and converting the
remaining three into regimental OSMs—one for each tank regiment.
The rules state that when a tank squadron is not using the OSM of
its regiment, it is governed by the OSM of an infantry battalion.
This shows the no-compromise nature of British practice—either
the tanks fought detached to battalions or they fought as a regiment.
64 19.7 British Sabot Ammo. June of ‘44 marked the arrival of the
new British 57mm ATDS (anti-tank discarding sabot) ammo at the
front. This ammo type greatly improved the penetration capability
of the 6-pounder guns, giving them a reasonable chance against the
heavily armored Panthers and Tigers. However, the new ammo was
not yet perfected and its accuracy dropped off drastically after 500
yards. At the time of this operation, it was still not widely available.
65 19.8 Massed Artillery vs. Armored Spearheads. The inability of
off-map artillery to perform ARC under the standard rules is mainly
for simplicity. Additionally, since indirect fire has its RAS halved,
I felt these types of “hip shoot” barrages would be fairly inaccurate
and better used elsewhere. But certainly there is some justification in
allowing such fire if both players are willing to tackle the additional
rules. Both sides had excellent coordination with their artillery (the
British had AGRA) and there’s no real difference between on-map
artillery, such as the German IGs, and off-map artillery that was
historically assigned to directly support on-map units (the British
25-pdr batteries being a prime example since these could be reassigned at a moment’s notice).
anyway, the German player becomes capable of dealing some real
damage to the British. This nicely mirrors the historical actions of
these fanatical teenagers. The reward for success is great—the choice
to do a step reduction to any attacking unit of the German player’s
choice, including armor! This rule should create some tough and
interesting decisions for the German player.
67 19.10 Plunging Fire vs. Vehicles. These attacks consist of falling
shells or bombs which are more likely to flip over a vehicle than
destroy it by piercing its armor. The DRM for Armor increments is
a crude way of factoring in a vehicle’s weight. Very heavy vehicles
like Tigers will be difficult to “flip” (-4 DRM). Note that a separate
roll is resolved against every AFV unit in the target hex. This is different from both AT Fire and normal Ranged Attacks. Also note that
the -1 DRM for FF/ARC effectively cancels the +1 DRM for field.
Since a maximum of one step reduction from Plunging Fire can be
inflicted per attack, it is usually in the firing player’s best interest to
start by rolling against the most desirable target in the hex.
68 19.11 Counter-Battery Fire. Players may wonder why the Ger-
man Nebelwerfer rocket artillery units are immune to counter-battery
fire. The rockets left obvious smoke trails which greatly aided British forward observers in pinpointing the launchers’ positions, and
standard practice for the Germans was to “shoot and scoot” with
their Werfers, mobilizing quickly and efficiently after firing. I opted
to abstract this practice by simply prohibiting this type of counterbattery mission. The relatively high number of turns required for
Werfers to return to play after firing further reinforces the notion
that they are in transit for some time after firing.
69 19.17 Tigers in the Mud. The name of the rule is a nod to the
Otto Carius book of the same name. “Tigers, Mud, and Bridges”
just didn’t have the same ring.
70 19.18 Increased Stacking Limits. While the increase is realistic
in the sense that sixteen platoon-sized units should be able to physically fit into a hex 425 yards across, it makes it theoretically possible
to field units in a manner inconsistent with their historical use. Of
course, a bit of concentrated fire from the opposing player will
quickly reveal the problem with this approach. As players increase
stacking beyond four units per hex, the game also gets more difficult to play from a physical standpoint since the physical stacking
of counters becomes necessary.
66 19.9 12SS Fanatical Defense. This rule changed many times
over the years. I rather like how it turned out. The final version is
simple, elegant, fun, and an all-or-nothing gamble. There is more
depth lurking beneath the surface of this simple rule than may be immediately apparent. The requirements encourage the German player
to spread his 12SS infantry units for coverage rather than stacking
them, while also discouraging stacking with units of Panzer Lehr
and 21st Panzer Divisions. The steep penalty for failure (all German
units eliminated) means that a savvy German player will only mount
fanatical defences with lone reduced or single-step units which are
overwhelmed and unlikely to meet their retreat requirement. When
used in situations where the 12SS infantry is about to be eliminated
Officers of the 21st Panzer Division inspect a map.
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
27.0 Game Elements
Overview
The idea of doing a game that focused purely on the British effort in
Normandy was intriguing to me on many levels. I think Mike Windsor, an American Consimworld user, put it best when he posted on
the game’s forum: “Unfortunately, the British story is not well told
over here (if at all), and most of what we do ‘know’ comes from
American movies.” I find this very true. Yet it was our British allies
who bore the enormous and unenviable responsibility of tying down
the best-equipped of the German panzer divisions, indirectly aiding
other Allied divisions in breaking out of the beachheads. A game
analyzing the organization and contributions of a British infantry
division in Normandy will hopefully help to address the imbalance
in the current crop of Normandy games, while offering players some
insight into the nature of the sacrifice and perseverance of the British
troops against staunch resistance.
I’d been gaming and reading about Normandy for two decades but,
like Mike, I knew little about the British involvement until I started to
follow up the various Gold/Juno/Sword books with ones that focused
on the inland battles. I was attracted to the situation near Caen because
it has not been extensively gamed, and it offered a mixture of infantry
line battles and sweeping armored counterattacks. The importance of
combined arms tactics and specialized units were emphasized time
and again as the British 49th Infantry Division, untried before landing
in France, threw itself headlong into the breach between two panzer
divisions. There were also some massive tank battles on this part of
the front. These battles, along with the July battles for Hill 110 and
the even larger Operation Goodwood, may be as close as we get to a
“Kursk in Normandy.” Overall, it makes for good wargaming material,
and it’s very different from the American experience in Normandy.
The British at the onset of Operation Dauntless have the advantage in
quantity, as opposed to the Germans who have a clear edge in quality.
The British artillery dominates the battlefield, but a quick look at the
terrain reveals many conveniently-spaced walled farms and chateaus
which heavily favor the defender. On the surface, when comparing a
British infantry battalion to a German Panzergrenadier battalion, the
odds appear to be stacked rather heavily in favor of the Germans—not
just because of the German units’ stats but also due to their wealth
of supporting units (Stummels, armored transport half-tracks and the
like). However there are ten such British battalions (nine infantry and
one elite rifle battalion) to only two German battalions (three including the German armored recon battalion, plus elements of two other
Panzergrenadier battalions). The Germans suffer from supply shortages
due to total Allied air superiority and they get fewer replacements. In
fact, they have to withdraw units to deal with the British Epsom offensive on day two of the battle. Meanwhile, the Brits enjoy a steady
stream of supplies, a more lenient recovery game mechanic, a large
number of towed 17-pounder anti-tank guns to keep the Germans’
superior armor at bay, and the newly arrived sabot ammo for their
smaller but more numerous towed 6-pounder AT guns. This is going
to be one fierce fight...
Genesis
My interest in Operations Martlet (a.k.a. Dauntless) and Epsom began
when I impulsively picked up the book Operation Epsom by Lloyd
Clark, which was sitting alone on the top shelf of a local secondhand
bookstore. This very affordable little book is more of a tour guide
13
than a detailed account of the battles, but it includes some nice maps
and a general OB. It served to pique my interest in these fascinating
and rarely-gamed battles, and I quickly followed up with other books,
including Patrick Delaforce’s The Polar Bears and K. Meyer’s Grenadiers. A vivid picture of this battle began to emerge. I was still working
on Red Winter at the time and a few quick calculations demonstrated
that the Dauntless battles could be gamed using the same unit, time, and
hex scales as Red Winter—and all on a single map. With the exception
of the game Panzergrenadier: Beyond Normandy (Avalanche Press),
which focuses exclusively on the Scottish Corridor near Cheux, and a
handful of web-published miniatures scenarios for Battlefront: WWII,
I knew of no wargames on this topic. Certainly there were none that
focused on the Polar Bears Division at Fontenay and Rauray. That
made the idea of this game all the more appealing.
I initially thought that designing and developing this game would be
a simple matter of translating a new OB to the existing Red Winter
rules. That game was rapidly approaching a finished state at the time I
began working out the particulars of Operation Dauntless. I reasoned
that the core rules could stay the same, so creating a new game for the
system would be as easy as identifying which aspects differed and inventing new rules or subsystems to handle those aspects. I was wrong.
As it turned out, nearly everything differed, and Operation Dauntless
was more difficult and time consuming to develop than Red Winter
by about a factor of ten. Many of the new mechanics and subsystems
gave me fits and took years of playtests and revisions. Several were
thrown out and started from scratch multiple times. Among the worst
offenders were the ARC, Anti-Tank Fire, Concealment, Elevation,
and LOS. Simply put, this game is much more ambitious than Red
Winter. Had I known when I began how difficult the hurdles would
be, I probably would have canned the project and opted to work on
something simpler instead. But now that it’s nearly behind me, I’m
really glad that I stuck with it and persevered. I feel the reward was
worth all the fuss, as this is now a refined and robust system that can
be applied to any WW2- or Korean-era battle. There are rules or at
least guidelines for handling all the complexities associated with this
era of warfare: combined arms, minefields, air support, flak, fanatical
defense, strongpoints, infantry AT weaponry, ambushes, the increased
intensity and compressed time scale of armor vs. armor interactions as
compared to the slower, more methodical infantry battles, and a wide
variety of specialized unit types. All these aspects of WW2-era warfare
and their associated rules have their genesis in Operation Dauntless
and can now be used more-or-less intact for future games in this series.
Comparisons with Red Winter
Compared with the former game of this series, Operation Dauntless has
a richer spectrum of tactical possibilities and considerations. It is the
more complex game, but this has more to do with the thought processes
involved in playing the game well than with the modest increase in
rules length and complexity. Players will find this game to be more
puzzle-like than Red Winter. By that, I mean players are often required
to use their units in a particular order or in a cooperative manner to
succeed. I personally think Operation Dauntless is the better game,
but I suspect that a certain percentage of gamers, wanting another
Red Winter, won’t think so. I hope they’ll take the time to delve into
this game’s new subsystems and give me the chance to prove them
wrong. This game is less free-wheeling and more comprehensive, and
it has a more methodical pace. But meeting each of your successive
goals in Operation Dauntless feels more rewarding, in my opinion.
Take flanking maneuvers, for example. You won’t see the same kind
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
14
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
of wild and crazy maneuvers here that you saw in Red Winter. There
are more units crammed into a smaller piece of real estate, and the
weather, lighting, and reconnaissance conditions make those massive
“Winter War-style” flank marches impossible to pull off. Maneuver is
more restrained here. When your flanking attempts do succeed, even
though they may only represent a few hexes gained in map terms, you’ll
feel a certain satisfaction—much more so than in Red Winter—in part
because you’ll receive a very tangible reward. Pocketing even a small
number of units in this game (especially Germans) can have a major
impact on the remainder of the game. Successfully pulling off this
kind of coordinated action means you’ve successfully orchestrated a
multi-phase, multi-mechanic, multi-turn plan. You can step back and
view the new situation on the battlefield and appreciate exactly how
and why it developed.
Those wishing a more comprehensive comparison of differences
between Operation Dauntless and Red Winter will find one in section
22.0 of the Play Book.
Portions of the remaining notes in this section were lifted from the
Red Winter designer’s notes. I apologize for the redundancy. I figure
that fewer than half of all Operation Dauntless players have played
the former game, so a few words about the game system itself are
probably in order.
Design Goals
As a successor to Red Winter, the goals here were similar to that
game’s:
• Highlight the similarities and differences between the forces
being gamed—in this case, the British infantry battalion and the
German mechanized panzergrenadier battalion in June of ’44.
• The system should be generally applicable to other WWII era
battles at a similar scale.
• Gameplay should be fast paced and interactive.
About that final bullet point: The overall pace here is slower than that
in Red Winter because there is more going on each turn. However, the
players certainly interact much more in this game. The ARC, Friction
Fire, and the new rules for Tactical Advantage in Assaults all make
for some great interactions that keep both players engaged throughout
their opponent’s turns, moreso than in the former game.
When I set out to design Red Winter, I wanted a game system that was
fairly simple on the surface but gave rise to a greater depth of possible
strategies and tactics than what was immediately apparent—“simple
but not simplistic.” An example of the type of mechanic I was going
for can be seen in the game’s unit Recovery system, whereby reduced
infantry units may attempt to recover to full strength during their
Action Phase in lieu of other actions. This requires rolling a “6”or
higher on a 1d6. Units gain a bonus to the die roll for maintaining
their distance from enemy units. This provides a simple yet realistic
incentive for players to withdraw their reduced units to the rear and
move forward fresh troops.
Combats
The Combat Results Table is calibrated such that light bocage is the
norm. It is shifted two columns towards more lethal (a 2:1 attack in
Operation Dauntless has the same range of outcomes as a 4:1 attack
in Red Winter). This is due to both a difference in terrain and conditions and in the quality of the combatants. The addition of 3:2 and 2:3
columns allows for greater fidelity. I felt these new columns were necessary to highlight situations where one side had a marked advantage
in strength, but not enough so to achieve 2:1 odds. The forces here are
more evenly matched in terms of combat strength than they were in
the Russo-Finnish Winter War, and small differences in strength are
more common and more relevant. After playtesting the game both
with and without the 3:2 and 2:3 columns, we discovered that they
helped achieve the right outcomes and were worth the weight of their
inclusion, even if they occasionally required the use of a calculator.
Players will note that the odds are capped at 5:1 in this game, whereas
they are capped at 6:1 in Red Winter and even higher in many other
games. This is intentional. Apart from giving the German underdog a
bit more of the required staying power, I felt that this cap was reasonable given the nature of the dense bocage, wherein bringing greater
numbers to bear on the enemy didn’t necessarily translate into a victory.
We briefly tried playtesting the game with 4:1 as the maximum odds
column, but found it to be a step too far; it was frequently frustrating
for both players.
Each LMG accounts for roughly 1/3 of a CS point. I’m of the opinion
that most of a unit’s offensive firepower comes from its LMGs, not
its rifles. Having 72 bolt-action rifles (in the case of a British infantry
company) certainly helps, but we must also consider that all 72 rifles
aren’t firing across a single hexside of the 425 yard hex when the unit
is conducting a Combat or Assault. Those rifles are what gives the
unit much of its defensive staying power—in game terms, the ability
to hold a hex.
Ranged Attacks
Ranged Attacks are normally used to support Combats in this game,
which is how I felt it should be. They can also inflict step reductions
on their targets, but they are most effective when used as Support.
The “+1 per infantry company in the target hex” is a simple DRM
which conveniently discourages wanton stacking of units. Pile too
many companies in the same hex and your opponent’s artillery will
pound you to dust!
Intuitively, it seemed to me that at the company scale, most fire at
ranges of two or more hexes would be more likely to pin or suppress
units than flat out destroy them. When creating Red Winter, I thought
about the ways that fire affected units in tactical games—suppression,
demoralization, etc.—and I also thought about the markers involved
in denoting these temporary, recoverable states. If I used the flip sides
of the unit counters to represent such a state, then I couldn’t feature
step reductions without the use of additional unit counters, markers, or
off-map record keeping. I was certain that I wanted step reductions to
be a part of the game, so I went about scratching my head and trying
to come up with a way to represent a “worsened” state for units under
fire, but without the extra clutter.
The solution to this dilemma was solved by choosing the appropriate
scale—in this case, the time scale. Given 90 minutes per game turn,
most units would return to normal fairly quickly (within one turn)
after the offending ranged fired ceased. Thus I hit on a solution—a
“use it or lose it” benefit from ranged fire. This benefit would need to
be exploited via Assault or normal, adjacent-hex combat, or it would
be lost at the end of the phase.
The Suppressed markers, which were not terribly important in Red
Winter except to serve as a reminder of the net number of column
shifts affecting the Combat, really come into their own in Operation
Dauntless. Now you’ll be trying to suppress enemy units as you move
and attack, as this prevents them from firing on you.
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
15
The RAT results include step reductions on very high modified rolls.
Units can be destroyed by a Ranged Attack alone, but it’s not easy
to achieve this result. In general, you’ll still want to follow up your
Ranged Attacks with Assaults or Combats. Units moving across the
open fields are the main exception. Fields are basically the equivalent
of frozen lakes in Red Winter, even if the penalties associated with the
fields aren’t quite as severe. You’ll face an overwhelming temptation to
fire on units crossing fields whenever you can see them—but beware!
In this game, you’ll reveal your position whenever you fire from cover.
This means that when your MG platoon opens up on those infantry
companies crossing the field, the MGs might in turn come under fire
themselves from enemy MGs or mortars. This makes for some tough
decisions regarding many of the actions that transpire each game
turn—even during your opponent’s turn!
Attacks is allowed during an Assault. Consider a situation where a
unit starts its Action Phase several hexes away from the enemy hex it
wishes to assault. As it moves toward the hex, it may be fired upon.
Now consider a situation where it starts its Action Phase adjacent to
the hex it wishes to assault. The defenders can’t use support, but the
fact that the attacker started adjacent means that the defending side
already had an opportunity to make Ranged Attacks and/or combats
during its own Action Phase and Combat Phase. When viewed as an
amalgam of two player turns, the true sequence of simulated events
emerges. In situations where the terrain limits this type of fire due to
the moving/assaulting unit’s concealment, it is the defenders’ CS that
affects the outcome.
The RAS ratings of artillery and mortars have been increased somewhat over their equivalents in Red Winter. This was to account for
the greater coordination and accuracy displayed by both British and
Germans in Normandy as compared to the Soviets in the Winter War.
I wanted reduced infantry units in this game system to have the ability
to recover to full efficiency, but I didn’t want it to be too easy for them
to do so. Moreover, I wanted the mechanic to be something simple and
intuitive—that is, simple rules concealing a greater complexity—the
foundation of this game system’s design philosophy. The current unit
recovery system is the product of this mantra, finely tuned to provide
both depth and ease of play. The “roll a 6 to recover” mechanic may
seem overly simple at first, but the subtle implications will quickly
surface as a game unwinds.
Lack of Combined Fire
Some players will wonder why they’re not allowed to combine their
Ranged Attacks into a single die roll. After all, this would require
fewer total die rolls. The answer, in brief: I always felt the combined
fire approach was unrealistic. If your company is taking cover in a
trench, does it really matter if one MG section or ten is firing at you?
Well, yes, but to a much smaller extent than if there was a single
mortar platoon dropping shells straight down on your heads. Any
individual MG section should have a very slim chance of affecting
a company-sized unit in this situation. Allowing players to combine
their low-odds Ranged Attacks into one “super-attack” means that
enough low-odds participants will eventually guarantee a favorable
result. I felt it shouldn’t. I couldn’t justify simplifying the game via
a combined fire rule; the additional wristage of multiple rolls was
necessary to ensure the right sort of outcomes at this scale.
Assaults
Assaults, primarily important for only the Finns in Red Winter, have
really grown up in Operation Dauntless. Not only do we have an all
new subsystem for handling AT Fire in Assaults, but both sides are
able to assault—and frequently need to do so. Both the British and the
Germans displayed a greater degree of control and coordination than
the participants in the Winter War, and the weather also allowed for
a greater versatility in mobile assaults. For these reasons, I reduced
the requirement to conduct an Assault from +2 MPs to +1 MP and
allowed both sides to conduct Ranged Attacks during their Action
Phase. In this way, enemy hexes can be Suppressed before they are
assaulted. Players should note that while Ranged Attacks still cannot
technically support Assaults, they can do so in a roundabout manner.
Since units can now make Ranged Attacks in lieu of other actions
during the Action Phase, players are able to place Suppressed markers
in defending hexes which they wish to assault during the same phase;
the markers won’t go away until the end of the phase. This effect was
not achievable in Red Winter.
Following the release of Red Winter, I was asked many times what
Assaults are supposed to represent within this game system. They
are hasty attacks aimed at forcing the defender out of his hex rather
than prepared assaults. If this were a Napoleonic or ancients game,
you might think of them as a “charge” or “shock combat,” respectively. Players may wonder why no defensive support from Ranged
Recovery
The skeptics will surely ask several obvious questions. Can units keep
on doing this indefinitely? What is a step reduction supposed to represent, anyway—a physical loss of manpower, or merely a recoverable
morale state? And how can I ever destroy my enemy if he can simply
recover over and over again?
First, units that attempt Recovery can’t take any other action during
their Action Phase. Furthermore, units gain a +1 DRM to their Recovery roll if they are 4 or more hexes distant from all enemies, and
additional positive DRMs for being in a village hex and for being out
of the enemy’s LOS. The above provide a realistic incentive to pull
battle-worn units from the front lines while continuously rotating
in fresh units. It also means that Recovery, in game terms, isn’t as
simplistic as it initially sounds based on a reading of the rules. There
is more going on beneath the surface than meets the eye. You have
to figure that when you try to recover a reduced unit, you’re wasting
a turn to pull it back to a safe distance, then spending one or more
turns making Recovery rolls, then yet another turn to move back into
the action. So, on average, you’ll need at least 3-4 game turns to get a
reduced unit back to full strength. During these 3-4 turns, the enemy
isn’t simply ignoring your other units. The battle has continued, and
there are likely to be more reduced units now than when you started
the whole process. The net result of all this, in case it isn’t obvious,
is that you can’t simply recover your units each and every time they
are reduced, or you’ll lose the game. The number of units which actually do recover is, I think, reasonable and believable. Also note that
you can’t rotate in fresh troops to fill the gaps if you haven’t saved
any fresh troops for that purpose. So the simple “roll a modified 6 or
higher” mechanic has yet another important implication on gameplay:
It encourages players to keep reserves.
What is Recovery supposed to be simulating—a recoverable morale
state, or fresh replacement troops? The answer, in simplest terms, is
“both—but mainly the former.” I don’t feel the end result is any less
realistic than that achieved by other, more complex games. I think the
abstract approach makes sense given the unit and time scales.
What’s to prevent a unit from recovering over and over? Well, nothing.
However (and here we go with the “hidden layers” again), having a
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
16
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
reasonable chance of success—especially for the German player who
receives a -1 DRM—requires pulling back to a safe distance from enemy troops, and preferably into the safety of villages or strongpoints.
This can take quite a few turns of doing nothing else with the unit.
Complexity
As previously mentioned, the added complexity of this game as compared with Red Winter has more to do with the types of tactics and
planning required to play the game well and less to do with increased
complexity of the rules themselves. While the rules are certainly a step
up in complexity, it is not a large step. Much of the increase in the
physical length of the rule book comes from the inherent difficulty in
describing certain concepts including the ARC, which is rather simple
in practice and could be demonstrated to a new player in less than
five minutes. Yet writing out all the particulars of the ARC requires a
fairly large footprint on paper. The length of the printed rules suggests
something that is more complicated than it actually is. The optional
OSM rules add a new dimension to gameplay but, just like most of
the mandatory rules that cause this game to be more complex than its
predecessor, are fairly light and simple to understand and implement.
It’s the manner in which they impact gameplay, forcing the players
to refine their thought processes and strategies, that adds much of this
perceived complexity.
In the end, I think the added complexity is well worth it. I suspect that
those players that invest the time to thoroughly learn the system and
its nuances will think so too. I believe this game captures the feel of
the hedgerow fighting that characterized these battles. Concealment is
key, highlighting the difficulty inherent in making forward progress for
the British, as well as granting not undue importance to high ground
and reconnaissance. Combats (two way firefights at a range of 1 hex,
or 425 yards) often cannot accomplish much given the dense terrain
and presence of AFVs (which are immune to rifle/MG fire). Assaults
(very close-ranged attacks) are the order of the day. Each Assault is
its own microcosm of the battle, full of tension and unpredictability
as each side attempts to knock out the enemy’s armor with PIATs
and Panzerfäuste. The outcomes are believable when viewed both
in terms of the individual unit conflicts, and over the course of the
multi-day battle.
I’ve attempted to keep the individual systems almost as simple as they
were in Red Winter. I feel that any further simplification would have
been counterproductive, as it would have done a disservice to the game
as a simulation of Normandy hedgerow fighting.
Balance
Which side has the overall advantage, in game terms? It’s hard to say.
The British, with their overwhelming artillery, air, and tank support,
clearly have the ability to either push back or destroy the Germans.
The Germans cannot hope for a win in the strategic sense; over the
long term, they’ll need to perform a well-executed fighting retreat or
they will die. But the Germans have “teeth” and they can cause a high
number of British casualties as the game progresses. The Brits adhered
to Monty’s creed of “casualty conservation”, taking their time in order
to lay down massive barrages before attacking German-held villages
and strongpoints. The victory conditions do not give the British player
the luxury of sacrificing units willy-nilly. If the German player can
inflict enough casualties and/or buy enough time, he will win the game.
I’ve attempted to craft the victory conditions such that the game is
as evenly matched as possible. Given that there are many possible
avenues to victory and that differing player styles will have an even
larger impact on balance here than in Red Winter, I did not spend
quite as much time finely balancing the scenarios this time around.
There are simply too many things to try in each scenario. But I feel
that all scenarios—especially the Campaign Game, which we spent
the most time on—should be roughly balanced between two players
of equal skill.
Armor Reaction Cycle (ARC)
The ARC probably represents the single most important evolution
between this game and Red Winter. In a sense, it is the fundamental
subsystem around which the rest of the game revolves. And it took
me a long, long time (and many revisions) to develop it. Since armor
is only a piece of the puzzle in Operation Dauntless, I tried to keep
the routine simple and fast moving, with a lot of abstraction, yet
achieving realistic results. That said, it will require a bit of an “open
mind” by players accustomed to more traditional “igo-ugo” or strictly
sequenced approaches.
Unlimited fire by and against vehicles may sound a bit fishy to the new
player at first, but it actually plays out very well. When you consider
the 90 minute game turns and the fact that two tank companies can
thoroughly decimate each other in mere minutes, you’ll realize that
the outcome of such a fight is less a matter of endless shooting and
more a matter of how far the losing player wants to push his luck
before breaking off the engagement. That’s where the Reaction Move
option comes in handy. Without it, the ARC rules wouldn’t work very
well. Due to the interplay of the three options (Return Fire, Reaction
Move, Pass) the ARC feels realistic to me. And it produces some
tough decisions! You’ll find yourself considering the odds each and
every time you have the option to return fire and continue the cycle,
knowing full well that if you fire instead of pass, your opponent can
then do the same, possibly at better odds.
If both players are willing, then yes, the cycle can continue until
one side or the other is completely knocked out of the fight. Yes, it’s
different from most wargames, but hopefully in a good way. In my
playtest games, I noticed that the ARC rarely goes for more than one
or two cycles because it usually becomes quite obvious which player
has the upper hand. The losing player normally opts to Pass and end
the cycle when the odds become stacked against him, or else he will
Reaction Move and scoot into the bocage, breaking off the engagement
and preserving his valuable armor.
Note that “ARC” is a bit of a misnomer since all vehicle units may
participate—armored or otherwise. “Vehicle Reaction Cycle (VRC)”
is more correct but wasn’t as catchy. I also felt that “ARC” worked
well because the word itself is a nice mnemonic that conjures imagery
of shells being lobbed back and forth.
Anti-Tank (AT) System
The AT ratings of AFVs were calculated using the most standard ammo
types for these vehicles at the time of these battles. Interestingly, AT
and Armor ratings represent the actual average armor penetration
and armor thickness, respectively, in centimeters. Thus, a Sherman
tank with an AT rating of 10 and an Armor rating of 7 can penetrate
(roughly) a maximum of 100mm of armor and has an average armor
thickness of 70mm. As I see it, this is a strength of this particular game
system and calibration: We use numbers that are meaningful as well as
relative. Average armor thickness has been calculated using a simple
algorithm which gives somewhat greater weight to frontal armor thickness than side thickness, and somewhat greater weight to turret than
hull. This is an abstract approach which generates believable results for
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
platoon-sized armored units. To determine a vehicle’s precise Armor
rating, I assumed that roughly 2/3 of shots strike a vehicle’s front as
opposed to its side, and 2/3 strike the turret as opposed to the hull.
Keeping in mind the scale of the game—tank duels embedded within
90 minute turns, and each attack representing multiple shells—I feel
this is reasonable.
The overall armor penetration capabilities of the AFVs, adjusted for
range to target, are astonishingly accurate considering the simplicity
of the system. For example, consider that the maximum penetration
of a Panzer IV H’s 75mm KwK40/L48 main gun should be roughly
140mm at 50 yards (Assault range in Operation Dauntless), 129mm
at 500 yards, (1.18 hexes in Operation Dauntless) 117mm at 1000
yards (2.35 hexes), 104mm at 1500 yards (3.53 hexes), 92mm at 2000
yards (4.71 hexes), and 79mm at 2500 yards (5.88 hexes). In game
terms, this should translate roughly into an AT rating of 14 at range 0,
13 at 1, 12 at 2, 11 at 3, 10 at 4, 9 at 5, and 8 at 6. Thanks to the base
rating of 14 and the -1 per hex range DRM, it does. If you hunt down
the data and do the math, you’ll find that the same can be said for the
75mm M3 gun of the Sherman II and Sherman III, the 17-pdr gun of
the Firefly and Achilles, the KwK42/L70 of the Panther, the 88mm
KwK36/L56 of the Tiger, and the 75mm KwK L/24 of the Stummel.
In fact, the actual penetrations of most guns represented in the game
fall off by about 1 cm every 400-450 yards—yet another advantage
of using a 425 yard hex scale. It’s all an abstraction—and rightfully
so, I think, given the scale—but one that holds up remarkably well in
that it produces believable results with a minimum of rules real estate.
All of this added detail and realism would have been for naught if it
flew in the face of the system’s design goals of speed and elegance.
But in this case, it didn’t, as the -1 per hex DRM is not only accurate
but very easy to remember; you simply count the number of hexes
to your target.
When searching online and printed sources for armor penetration at
a given range, I came to the following conclusion: When they say
“maximum,” they really mean it. Maximum penetration for a given
weapon typically meant “in the absolute, best case scenario, using
a special ammunition type and a perfect 90 degree angle of attack.”
Tanks are rarely afforded a perfect 90 degree angle of attack, and
special ammo types were not widely available during the week of
Dauntless/Epsom. For these reasons, some of the game units’ AT Fire
ratings (for example, the 6-pdrs’ rating of 11) may be lower than some
players might expect.
Players may wonder how it is possible that in this game system you
can destroy something with armor thicker than the maximum penetration capability of the gun. Firstly, it is worth pointing out that while
technically possible, this type of step reduction will very rarely occur
due to a combination of the -2 DRM for Armor greater than AT rating, the negative penetration factor with which you begin (AT minus
Armor), and the need to roll a modified 14 or higher to achieve a step
reduction. Generally speaking, the chance of success with this type of
shot is 3% or less (a required 19 or 20 on 2d10). Next consider that a
step reduction to an AFV does not always represent a “brew up.” It can
also represent a wide variety of non-lethal results such as a disabling
track hit, the loss of a main gun, or simply enough hits that the crew
inside becomes shell-shocked or injured, bailing out of the vehicle or
breaking formation. Keep in mind that this system does not require
separate rolls for hitting and penetration. Therefore there is more to the
equation than simply AT and Armor ratings. Factors including range to
target, fire control, visibility, buttoned/unbuttoned status, and terrain
are all factored into a single die roll. Penetration is only the starting
17
point, with everything else handled as a + or - DRM. It’s very much an
abstraction, but hopefully one that produces reasonable results given
the scale. Add in the Optional Rules for Fire Control and the results
become more accurate still.
Players seeking exacting detail may take issue with the +8 upper cap
on the Penetration DRM as this cap suggests that, beyond a point,
increased armor penetration is no longer relevant. In some cases,
this is true in the “real world”; a high velocity AT shell frequently
passes right through the body of a thinly-armored vehicle. But my real
justification for the cap is that the AT Fire system of this game was
never intended to simulate the effect of individual shells on a shotby-shot basis. Rather, it was created as an abstraction that represents
an amalgam of both accuracy (hitting the target) and penetration. I
find that the +8 cap works very well, even if it becomes the norm in
many situations: Panthers firing on Shermans, Shermans firing on
half-tracks, Fireflies firing on Panthers. It means that range and terrain
effectively become the determining factors in achieving a kill once
the AT to Armor comparison becomes sufficiently high. We played
the game without the cap in the early years, and found the AFVs of
both sides too vulnerable. The current cap of +8 is, in my opinion, the
correct limiting value for a 2d10 bell curve system. Anything higher
would break the calibration of the curve and therefore require one or
more additional dice (which would then require the player to do more
math in his head to resolve each AT Fire roll).
More on Armor Ratings
For the Armor ratings themselves, I used as my starting point the SPWaW data base (from Steel Panthers: World at War, a WW2 combat
simulation computer game from Matrix Games).The ratings therein
account for not only thickness by location but also slope (inclination
angle) and variability in thickness and slope across that location—especially in the front turret, which factors into the Armor ratings the
most heavily. For example, a tank with a gun mantlet generally has
much thicker armor in that location. Because the mantlet accounts for a
known percentage of the area of the front turret, a sort of average front
turret thickness can be derived. The ratings also attempt to compensate
abstractly for different types of armor (e.g., cold-rolled, case-hardened,
etc.) since these differing types of steel have known properties. The
SPWaW ratings were merely a starting point, and I compared them
to numerous other sources including several books, online sources
such as wwiitanks.co.uk, and even the ASL (Advanced Squad Leader
boardgame by Multi-Man Publishing) vehicle stats for armor and slope.
Where discrepancies existed, I attempted to determine why. In some
cases, I was forced to arrive at a sort of compromise between sources.
I also actively engaged a half dozen or so researchers and playtesters
in proofing the AT and Armor ratings of the AFVs in the game.
Players may find that certain Armor ratings are higher than they
might expect based on other games they have played—for example,
the Churchill AVRE has a higher Armor rating than the Tiger. This is
usually because the “inflated” ratings attempt to account abstractly for
the types of factors mentioned above. Similarly, players may find that
some Armor ratings are lower than expected, e.g., the Armor rating of
a Jagdpanther is only marginally higher than a Tiger’s. This is usually
due to the relative thickness of an AFV’s side armor (as is the case
with the Jagdpanther, which had only 45mm in the side) or lack of
slope (which certainly does not apply to the Jagdpanther). Due to the
way the Armor rating is calculated, thin side armor and/or unsloped
armor can really drag a unit’s Armor rating down. While I believe the
Armor ratings are accurate—broadly speaking and in an abstract sense
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
18
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
to fit the game’s scale—players are welcome to adjust them as they
see fit. The +8 cap on the Penetration DRM means there is no danger
of “breaking” the calibration curve by doing so. The possible effect
on game balance is another matter entirely.
Map
At first glance, the map terrain might appear to change abruptly in order
to conform to the hex grid. But a closer look reveals that the houses,
orchards, and hedgerows flow rather freely across the hex grid; it’s
the classification of cover as light, medium, or heavy that conforms to
the hex grid, as denoted by three shades of green. When viewed from
a distance, these three shades might be misinterpreted as elevation or
terrain type. I realize that this might be hard for folks to wrap their
heads around at first (i.e., the fact that the color represents a broad
classification affecting defense and movement rather than elevation or
a specific terrain type). While this approach to the map is admittedly
unusual, I felt it was the best way to portray the needed information
in a highly functional manner. The underlying terrain classification
needed to be visible even when there were four counters side-by-side
in a hex. After printing up some playtest versions, I realized that, if
the hexes were large enough and I used color-coding, the color could
be seen rather easily in the excess space around the counters. Doing it
this way meant there was no need to pick up the counters to see what
was underneath—even when the hex was fully stacked.
It’s worth noting that the three-tier green gradient should be color-blind
friendly, along with the rest of the map and the counters as a whole. I
have my friend Maymi, who was Lead Proofer on this game, to thank
for helping me work out the details on this.
For creating this map we had access to extensive Crown Copyright
aerial reconnaissance photography from the Scottish Archives. This
allowed Mark Mahaffey to create a map of unprecedented detail. I
think it is one of the finest wargame maps ever produced. The Red
Winter map set a high mark for this series in terms of both accuracy
and graphical appeal, but with the Operation Dauntless map, I feel
we’ve blown it out of the water. The detail in the reconnaissance photos
was truly amazing. We could see individual houses, barns, haystacks,
bomb craters, and, in some cases, even German tanks. I used this data
to determine how to classify each hex in terms of terrain, and Mark
used it to place the roads and waterways as well as to make the general
shape of the terrain forms as accurate as possible. All of this took an
insane amount of time (think: years) to complete, refine, and proof,
but I think it was worthwhile.
In the early stages of map development, I printed and assembled an
oversized (roughly 5 feet on end) poster version of the map based on a
combination of the recon photography, modern day satellite data (to fill
in a few small gaps in the recon sweeps), and Mark’s playtest graphics. What a sight to behold! The detail and coverage was impressive.
This map filled up a good portion of the wall of my kitchen, much to
the annoyance of my family. I also printed up a second, smaller copy
that was restricted to the game’s play area. This one I framed behind
glass so that I could mark it up with sharpies. Ultra-fine points in a
half dozen colors proved invaluable for classifying terrain and denoting unit positions. When I needed to make a change—or when my
wife wanted her picture frame back—I just hit it with some rubbing
alcohol on a cotton swab and all of the writing magically disappeared.
Playtest Versions. Eventually I migrated my markup to the computer
where I color-coded the hexes to make the terrain classification more
apparent. For example, yellow for field, light green for light bocage,
and so forth. This was accomplished in Photoshop by setting the fill
function to 15% opacity and filling the hex borders themselves, right
over top of the photo imagery and as a separate layer. It worked very
well for early playtesting of the units’ interactions with the terrain.
Next, we moved to solid-filled hexes whereby each hex was a single
color representing a particular terrain type. Both Mark Mahaffey and
I created our own early versions of the playtest map using solid, colorcoded hexes. They weren’t pretty, but they were highly functional.
While on the topic of the map, special mention should be made of the
lovely playtest maps by Antonio Pinar and Michael Evans. Antonio
was active every step of the way throughout the game’s development
and testing, keeping the playtest map updated as needed. And there
were a lot of revisions! An even earlier version of the map by Michael Evans also exists. While little of the terrain classification from
Michael’s version made it into the final map, his map was incredibly
useful during the earliest trials of the game system. It was also incredibly helpful in promoting and marketing the game at the time of its
initial placement on the P500 list.
3D Map. Late in the process of refining the map, lead playtester Gina
Willis created a 3D map of the battlefield that proved invaluable.
Screenshots from this lovely and detailed map can be viewed at the
Operation Dauntless forums on Consimworld and Boardgamegeek.
This map was used to get the placement of certain terrain features “spot
on”—especially as they related to LOS. Using her map as a guide, Gina
was able to answer dozens of my questions regarding LOS between
particular game hexes. She even drew up some diagrams whereby she
marked up the playtest map with lines between hexes, with a red portion of the line indicating blocked LOS and a white portion indicating
unobstructed LOS. This type of study was especially important in the
region of the hill near Tessel Woods. Originally, due to my placement
of terrain and slope hexsides, German units defending in this region
could easily see British units advancing near the Bordel to the north.
In reality, the height of the hilltop (which really wasn’t much of a hill
to begin with) combined with the trees lining the waterways to block
LOS in an 800 yard dead zone beyond each waterway. Historical accounts bear this out. As the result of Gina’s 3D map and LOS study,
many slope hexsides were relocated and the rules for LOS and blocking
terrain were modified. 2D contour images generated by Gina’s 3D map
saved us again just before the map went to the printers, during our last
minute discussions about Point 110 (see below).
Gina’s 3D map was created in Battlefront’s map editor for their turnbased computer tactical game Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy.
It allows Operation Dauntless players to stage tactical situations from
the boardgame in Combat Mission to see how they play out in 3D, and
vice-versa. Players can download that map from Battlefront’s website
repository: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_re
mository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=2646
Map Area. The area of coverage of the final map varies considerably
from early versions. Originally, the map covered the area from Le Haut
d’Audrieu and Cristot in the north (this hasn’t changed), to Monts,
Noyers, and Missy in the south, extending west to Tilly-sur-Seulles
and beyond, and east to Le Haut du Bosq and the outskirts of Cheux.
Even as late as October 2013, we were continuing to remove map real
estate in the interest of enlarging hexes and condensing the map to
the relevant areas. To this end, we shaved several columns west of the
Seulles (which weren’t really used except as a zone for Panzer Lehr
units to retreat and recover within), several columns off the west edge
(the Cheux boundary / minefield region), and 3-4 rows off the south
edge, so that Noyers and Missy are now just off-map. The final change
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
bugged me at first until I realized that it would allow the German player
to remove a large number of inactive “reserve” units from the map
until needed, decluttering the play area considerably. The final southern
map limit of Belle Jambe represents, I think, a good compromise. The
German player should still have enough space in the south to retreat
his reduced units from the front lines, recover them safely, and get
back in the action, but without an excess of wasted space down there.
Line of Sight (LOS)
I’ve tried to keep LOS as simple as possible. Terrain either blocks
LOS or it doesn’t. In Red Winter, all terrain types other than frozen
lake blocked LOS. In Operation Dauntless, replace “frozen lake” with
“field” and you’re almost there. In this game, you also have concealment and elevation. But like the LOS rules themselves, the rules for
these have been kept as simple as possible. Units in non-field terrain
are Concealed; they cannot be fired upon until they fire themselves,
unless the spotting enemy unit is adjacent to them. Once a Concealed
unit fires, it is considered spotted for the purpose of an immediate
reaction (Return Fire, or—when not qualifying for ARC—simply
the next action), meaning that it can be targeted by Ranged Attacks.
No markers are necessary because the spotted unit automatically becomes concealed again, “melting” back into the bocage or woods. It
all works well in play, keeping the game moving along quickly. I’ve
tried to find the best compromise of simplicity, speed, and realism—a
goal of the series.
The LOS rules gave me fits for about four years as I tried out one
method after another to find one that was sufficiently simple yet
realistic. Unlike in most games, there are no dead zones created by
elevation. I’ve always disliked those kinds of LOS rules (“okay, so if
we’re 3 hexes away from this lower elevation hex, that creates a 3 hex
deadzone beyond. But… oh, wait, there’s one hex in the middle of the
deadzone which is a different elevation, creating its own deadzone.”)
Only waterway hexsides create a deadzone in Operation Daunltess
(due to tall and lush vegetation), and only in the hex immediately
beyond the waterway.
I’m extremely pleased with how the final LOS rules turned out. Once
players are familiar with the rules, I think they’ll find it quick and easy
to calculate LOS between any two given hexes. But this simplicity
was only possible because of the very gradual nature of slopes in this
region of Normandy; it wouldn’t have worked anywhere with severe
hills. The other beauty of the LOS system is that the slope hexsides
have been placed not to indicate military crests, but where they will
create exactly the correct LOS effect between two given hexes. We
checked this on a hex-by-hex basis in the Bordel region, as well as
near Cristot, using the 3D topo map.
Point 110. Following discussions of the map and LOS, it is impossible to not mention Point 110. This location (map hex 1419), which
is also commonly known as Hill 110 or Ring Contour 110, is a victory
objective in the game. It was the location of ferocious fighting during
the II SS Panzerkorps’ counterattack toward the base of Operation
Epsom’s “Scottish Corridor” salient, which takes place after the events
of this game. The counterattack was aimed at Cheux, which is off-map
by about four hexes from where the roads exit the map at 1613 and
1615, via the Rauray spur (the objective of Dauntless). The position,
though hardly discernible when there in person, is simply the highpoint from which one would expect to have the best lines of sight to
Epsom’s lines of communications. Given its elevation and location
with respect to the bocage to the east, we felt that it didn’t warrant
having a special game effect.
19
I had a bit of a panic just before the map went to the printers when map
proofer Nadir Elfarra rightly pointed out that we had incorrectly placed
Point 110 in hex 1617 when, in reality, it was closer to 1419. This led
to a late revision of this region and the associated LOS considerations.
Since I wanted to leave the door open to a possible expansion map
and game covering the late June and July fighting for Rauray, as well
as a full-sized sister game covering the Scottish corridor salient of
Operation Epsom, it was important to me that Point 110 have open
LOS to any linkable map to the east. But if we moved Point 110 to its
historical position at 1419, it would become hemmed in by bocage
to the east, and the game’s LOS rules wouldn’t allow units at 1419 to
see over the non-adjacent bocage to the new map beyond. This meant
that in game terms, Point 110 would be of limited value.
The opinion of map proofer Nadir Elfarra concerning Point 110—and
I must say that after studying the contour maps I agree with him—is
that the Germans believed that Point 110 would be a high-point that
would grant important LOS across the lines of Epsom’s attack, which
centered on Cheux. In reality, because of the slight nature of the rise and
the very common tree-lined hedges and bocage, it didn’t dominate the
areas north of Cheux as anticipated. Rauray itself was in some ways a
better position for this, and this is reflected in accounts of the Epsom
forces taking fire from Rauray during their advance on the opening day
of that attack. Nadir felt it would be more important to the Germans
to ensure dominating lines of sight from Rauray than 110. Where 110
became important was that it dominated the road II SS Panzerkorps
was taking to Cheux, hence the intense battle for it, and for Rauray.
Ultimately, I went back to the images generated by Gina’s 3D contour
map project to study the Rauray spur and LOS. As it turned out, the
fields just east of the village (roughly 1517 and 1617) offer the best
LOS to the fields to the northeast, while the high point of the actual
spur is roughly hex 1419. I therefore opted to relocate the label “Point
110” to hex 1419 and add slope hexsides to that hex in order to grant it
the proper LOS effects, should an expansion map ever be added to the
eastern map edge. Point 110 can now see down an open “channel” of
field hexes, directly into the outskirts of Cheux, four hexes to the east
(and off-map). Hexes 1516, 1517, 1616, and 1617 then become the
historical British positions “at Rauray” with the best LOS to the field
approaches to Cheux to the northeast, just as I feel they should be. The
actual objective (and label) of Point 110 are now spot-on.
Thoughts on Command & Control (C&C)
Some players have asked me why you’d want to leave out the OSMs
since this would amount to playing a “fantasy battle.” For one thing,
leaving out the OSMs for your first couple of sessions helps with the
learning curve. Also, a detailed simulation of C&C isn’t everyone’s
cup of tea. Food for thought: Red Winter didn’t have any strict rules
for C&C / formational integrity per se other than the optional rules
for Soviet Coordination, and yet my experiences show that the vast
majority of players still group their units together and operate within
fairly historical parameters. I think this is due to a variety of factors,
including simplicity. It helps players visualize their units on the
battlefield when they are grouped by color code (battalion / regiment).
There’s also the fact that these units tend to start together or enter the
map together, so they tend to start off as a group and then move and
attack as a group. Then there are the limitations of the terrain on this
movement which tend to keep them together. There are other bits of
chrome which encourage units to stay together, such as the requirement for a spotter to be of the same regiment, and the Finnish field
kitchen which only benefits JR16 units. I’ve read a criticism of RW for
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
20
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
not having explicit C&C rules. I think this is partly valid, but it also
depends on your mindset as well as an understanding of that battle. My
mindset was to stick to the Dunnigan mantra of focusing on simulating
one thing. In this case, the focus was highlighting the similarities and
differences of the Finnish and Soviet regiments. I also wanted to keep
the game simple, balanced, and competitive for tournament style play.
Turning to Normandy, it would at first seem ludicrous to grant the
combatants the same flexibility shown in Red Winter, until players
realize that the battlefield itself is much more restrictive here. You
won’t see as many wild maneuvers, and units don’t tend to separate
as often. This is due to the much narrower front and the nature of the
terrain itself. There are also a larger number of enemy units to halt
your advance with their fire or ZOC. To some extent, your units are
forced to stay together, advance together, and retreat together. Apart
from the OSM rules, a handful of rules for formational integrity have
found their way into the game. For example, each German division
has its own sector as defined by the Divisional Boundary, and the
German player suffers a VP penalty for fielding stacks on the wrong
side of this boundary. Furthermore, 12SS units only receive their
bonuses (+1/-1 during Tactical Advantage, plus an Optional Rule for
12SS Fanatical Defense) when stacked only with 12SS units. British
units suffer an unfavorable column shift for conducting an Assault
with units of differing brigades. So while there are no rules which
absolutely force players to keep units of a particular formation together,
the players won’t do particularly well in the game if they operate them
otherwise—especially on the offensive.
Scope and Future Normandy Games
Following the release of Red Winter, I noticed that the vast majority
of folks were playing scenarios that begin on the first day of the battle.
I think historical gamers have an interest in seeing the how and why
a particular battle developed the way it did, starting with the earliest
stages. With this in mind, I adjusted the scenario roster to showcase a
wide variety of scenarios from the first day of the Dauntless battles.
We have scenarios of every length and size, with fog, without fog, or
with both fog and fog-free turns, covering the Panzer Lehr front, the
12SS front, or both fronts, and spanning all of June 25, only the morning, or only the afternoon. Hopefully everyone will find something
to suit their tastes.
The portions of the scenario names in quotations (“Nightmarish
Crossroads,” “The Groaning Woods,” “The Simmering Cauldron,”
etc.) were lifted from various books about the conflict, and in most
cases are from quotes by the combatants themselves. The majority
were found in Patrick Delaforce’s The Polar Bears.
Omitted Scenarios: June 17-27. Due to constraints of time and space,
several scenarios that were originally slated for inclusion had to be
left out. These included the KOYLI’s attack on the small woods and
orchards west of Les Hauts Vents on June 17, the final stand of the
6th Dukes on June 27, the capture of Rauray on June 27, a Third Day
(June 27) standalone scenario, and a completely hypothetical scenario
based on an old scenario for G.E.V. (a sci-fi wargame by Steve Jackson
Games)—to be included just for fun. The last scenario would have
required twelve additional U.S. Hellcat tank destroyer counters to fill in
as the G.E.V.’s, and a quick glance at the state of the final countersheets
should make it obvious why we had to leave this one out. As of the
time of this writing, I have a total of about eight ideas for additional
scenarios. If there is interest, I would be happy to make some or all
of them available post-publication, possibly through a combination of
online articles and C3i add-ons, or as a game expansion.
Breaking the Panzers. I had originally planned to take the scope of
the game beyond June 27. Doing so would have required even more
countersheets, as II SS Panzerkorps arrived in this area by June 27
and was in action by June 28. A game expansion covering the late
June and July battles for Hill 110 (hex 1419 on the current map),
tentatively called “Breaking the Panzers,” may be in order. Such an
expansion would probably require an overlapping map add-on to expand the area around Hill 110 to the south and east, as well as one or
two countersheets of new (mainly German) units, and would present
a game situation ripe with many scenarios.
Sequel Normandy Games. I currently have two related, stand-alone
Normandy games in consideration. The first is an Operation Epsom
game covering the Scottish Corridor salient, and, in particular, the
battle for Cheux. This would likely be a one- or two-mapper (as a
four-mapper covering the entire operation would be too much of
a good thing, in my opinion!) and it would be 100% linkable with
Operation Dauntless. I thought long and hard about this sequel game
while working on Dauntless, and many of the current rules and map
choices reflect my effort to make the games linkable. For example,
the current rules for Operation Epsom (a June 26 special event that
impacts the Operation Dauntless Campaign Game) include the withdrawal of a number of panzer companies to meet the new threat to
the east. These rules were designed to go away entirely when playing
both games simultaneously, leaving the German player responsible for
these kinds of command decisions, i.e., when and where to send his
panzers. There were also considerations when working on the current
game map involving units near the Rauray spur/Point 110 spotting in
the direction of Cheux and the open field approaches to the north. We
worked out those issues in the final days before the map went to the
printers so that it will be all ready to link up with a possible Operation
Epsom map if/when the time comes.
The second game in consideration is a smaller, introductory game
on the battle for Carpiquet Airfield, done as a single- or half-mapper.
The number of units and map coverage required are a good fit for a
smaller game using this system. I’m envisioning a handful of scenarios
with relatively short play times, ideal for newcomers. Additionally, I
thought it would be nice to recognize the contributions and sacrifices
of our Canadian allies.
Personal Note and Conclusion
Operation Dauntless has been a labor of love. I’ve worked on it for
eight years, and the time spent has been exhilarating, rewarding, and
occasionally frustrating. It is, beyond a doubt, the largest endeavor I
have ever undertaken and seen through to completion. Hopefully my
care and enthusiasm for this project are evident in the final product,
and players will appreciate and enjoy what they now hold in their
hands. I sincerely hope that new players will take the time to move
beyond the tutorials and delve into the game’s systems, discovering
some of the nuances, and ultimately reaching a point where they feel
comfortable trying the Campaign Game. That’s the real meat and
potatoes of the game.
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
~ Mark Mokszycki (designer)
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
28.0 Units and Weapons
This section covers design notes and historical notes pertaining
to the unit types that fought in these battles, and the weapons and
vehicles employed. Notes pertaining to specific unit formations can
be found in 29.0 OB Notes.
28.1 General Notes Pertaining to Units and Weapons
of Both Sides
German Manpower and Supply Shortages. These deficiencies
really hit home for the German player because the game simulates
them at several levels: a negative DRM to German Recovery rolls,
a scarcity of Replacements, AP ammo shortages, limited artillery
availability (again due to ammo shortages), and the lower values on
reduced sides of infantry counters. All this may seem like overkill
to the German player, but I feel it is an accurate representation of
the problems faced by these German divisions. The British player
will come to appreciate the importance of every one of these design
decisions, and he’ll need to exploit them for a shot at victory. Even
with all of these penalties, the Germans are tough defenders!
German Loss Rates and Reinforcements. While great care has
been taken to give units quite a bit of staying power at this scale,
here, as in virtually all wargames, units do tend to “die off” faster
than their historical counterparts. I attribute this to players taking
far more (and greater) risks when pushing around bits of cardboard
than they’d be willing to take in real life. However, this phenomenon
is somewhat mitigated here because players can always purchase
more units, or even (possibly) reconstitute lost units during the night
turns. In the case of the British, formations can be deactivated and
fresh ones committed. One might rationalize that the net effect of
all of the above is very similar to having a historical unit appear on
the map, fight a bit, relocate to a spot off-map, return on-map later,
withdraw again, etc., as many of the German units that fought in
these battles were known to do. For example, let’s say that a panzer
platoon of 6/Pz12 is destroyed in the game. That doesn’t necessarily
mean that all five tanks of the platoon were brewed up. Maybe the
platoon got beat up and shell-shocked a bit, lost one or two or possibly even three of its tanks, and then withdrew to a location off-map
or near the south or east map edge. In real-world terms, these tanks
are now in reserve or (to use the more proactive, German term) in
an “ambush position.” In game terms, they are placed in the Dead
Pool box Eligible for Reconstitution. Later, they can be reconstituted
(re-committed, in real-world terms) and re-enter the fray. Similarly,
a different platoon from the same company might be purchased
and activated (picked up from the German Reinforcement card and
placed at a 12SS supply hex) for the exact same game effect. It’s all
an abstraction, of course, but I do think it lends some credibility to my
claim (to the lead researchers) that rules for the micro-management
of particular German platoons or companies coming and going to/
from the map over the course of the three-day battle really weren’t
needed (and, in fact, would have complicated things too much). A
more rigid approach to withdrawing or activating German units also
would have effectively ignored the current game situation in favor of
known historical developments at given times. I’ve never liked the
rigid approach to reinforcements and/or recovery in wargaming as
I believe it is unrealistic (too predictable, and frequently leading to
“end-of-the-world” tactics) as well as doing a disservice to wargames
as a tool for discovering “what if.” The reconstitution, withdrawal,
and re-appearance of specific units should relate specifically to the
21
situation as it develops in-game—not to the historical situation.
Exceptions for major events (Operation Epsom, for example) must
obviously be made.
Comparison of British and German Infantry Companies. The
first obvious difference between the infantry companies of the two
sides is mobility. The German panzergrenadier companies have
half-tracks available to shuttle them practically anywhere on the
battlefield in a single game turn unless limited by carefully placed
British units (and the 6-pounders are especially useful in this regard).
The British infantry, on the other hand, have to “foot it” to the battle.
Their efforts are supported by a large compliment of armored carriers, useful for hauling supplies, ammo, and heavy weapons. These
carriers allow the British to fire their MGs and light mortars from the
cover of lightly armored vehicles, while also providing advancing
infantry with cover from small arms fire. Other effects of the carriers
are simulated in a variety of ways—some rather abstract—and include relatively lenient supply and recovery for the British, increased
mobility for heavy weapons, and increased mobile firepower (via
each infantry battalion’s Carrier Platoon). Carriers are discussed in
more detail in 28.2.1 and 28.2.2.
The German Panzergrenadier infantry companies have much
higher CS and RAS values than their British counterparts. This is
due mainly to two factors. The German battalions comprise three
companies as opposed to four companies for the British, so there are
fewer men per British company. This gives the British companies
more coverage, but they pack less punch per company.
The infantry companies of both sides represent rifle- and LMGarmed troops. The Germans have far more LMGs per company (18
vs. 9). Each LMG accounts for roughly 1/3 point of CS, and every
~60-150 rifle-armed troops account for roughly 1 point of CS. In
this game system, an infantry unit derives the majority of its CS and
RAS from its compliment of LMGs. I believe this is accurate; the
rifles account mainly for a unit’s ZOC, staying power (reduction in
CS from full- to reduced-strength sides), and ability to defend a hex,
while the LMGs account for most of its firepower in a direct and
prolonged conflict situation like a Combat or Assault.
Players will note that the German infantry units suffer a greater
reduction in CS and RAS from full to reduced strength than their
British counterparts. This simulates mainly a manpower shortage, as
compared to the British. The 12th SS Panzer Division, for example,
had been fighting on the front lines since June 7 without receiving
significant replacements, and by June 24 it had already lost 2550
men—the equivalent of two entire Panzergrenadier battalions!
The greater German reduction in CS and RAS also simulates the
tenuous German supply situation. Keep in mind that a turn is 90
minutes of combat—much longer than what you’d see in a squad
or platoon-level game—and the ability to replenish lost weapons
and spent ammo within this time frame is crucial for recovering
units. In Red Winter it was standard to represent a reduced infantry company by halving its CS, rounded up (from 5 to 3 for both
Soviets and Finns) and I believe this worked well to represent the
state of available supplies and manpower. In Operation Dauntless,
the German infantry have their CS halved, rounded down (from
7 to 3) to reflect the aforementioned manpower and supply shortages. This reduction isn’t as severe as it might otherwise be due to
the Germans’ propensity for manning their LMGs to the last man.
Consider also that when step reductions occur to infantry units in
the game, there may be actual weapons such as LMGs lost. These
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
22
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
weapons are difficult for the Germans to replace at this stage of the
war due to Allied air superiority.
Recon. Although Operation Dauntless is primarily a company-level
game, I ultimately went with platoon-sized AFV, pioneer, and recon
units. This gives added flexibility to these unit types. In the case of
recon infantry, it allows them to spread out and cover more ground,
but with reduced staying power. This encourages a more historical
use of the recon units—tasking them with real reconnaissance rather
than using them as a company-sized fighting force. It also allowed
me to rationalize giving them marginally higher Movement Allowances than their more cumbersome, company-level equivalents. For
example, the German recon infantry platoons’ high mobility allows
them to rush to an area of the battlefield and temporarily stall the
British advance for a turn, and/or to act as spotters to call down
mortar and rocket fire on the advancing Brits. Their weak CS means
they don’t have much staying power in combat, so they’re best used
to “spot and scoot,” retreating upon contact with the enemy.
Close Support Vehicles. Most of the anti-personnel attack value
of an AFV is in its compliment of machineguns, not the main gun,
and these have a shorter range than the main gun. This is not so for
a handful of vehicles and weapons that excel in the close support
role. These units gain a favorable column shift in Combats and/or
are an exception to the > 2 hex Ranged Attack penalty, as denoted
by orange-boxed CS and/or orange circle Ranged Attack Strength.
These AFV types are discussed elsewhere in more detail.
Movement Allowances (MA) of Vehicles. Are the MAs of vehicle
units accurate and realistic? Yes and no. Relatively speaking, they
are accurate. That is, if tank model A has a maximum road speed
exactly twice that of tank model B, its MA will be exactly double.
However, maximum road speed in yards per 90 minutes does not
translate directly into a given number of 425 yard hexes per game
turn. Otherwise, a vehicle with a top speed of, say, 35 mph could
move 217 hexes per turn (1 mile = 1760 yards; 35 mph= 92,400
yards per 90 minutes)! The MAs do not allow for this type of “megamove,” even given road movement and Extended Movement. This
kind of move might remotely be possible in an operational level
game where movement is taking place on excellent roads and well
behind the frontlines. But even then, it isn’t allowing for time spent
for rest, refueling, refitting, orders, etc. In Operation Dauntless,
a vehicle unit’s MA assumes that it is exercising some degree of
caution while moving, rather than merely moving at its maximum
obtainable speed for the duration of the 90 minute game turn. This
MA is therefore based on a speed which is only about 1/6 – 1/7 of
its theoretical top speed. This is an abstraction, but one I felt was
realistic given the scale of the game, the condition of the roads, and
the proximity of units to the front line.
Ranged Attack Strength (RAS) Values of Artillery Units. In
general, the self-propelled versions of weapons have their RAS
values increased by +1 compared to the towed versions, reflecting
their enhanced flexibility (for example, less time spent relocating
in order to avoid counter-battery fire). The British off-map batteries
have their RAS values artificially inflated by about +1 as compared
to the German equivalents. This represents the generous ammo
supplies of the Royal Artillery which allowed for sustained fire. In
the case of the medium and heavy guns (Assets), the grouping of
units under a brigade level centralized AGRA (Army Group Royal
Artillery) command led to greater efficiency and performance.
“Super-Powered” AFVs. It may at first seem unrealistic or even
over-the-top that certain AFVs can provide such a major swing in the
outcome of a Combat or Assault. Take as a prime example the little
single-step Flammpanzerwagen (SdKfz 251/16) unit. It represents
only two half-tracks with dual mounted flame-throwers + MGs. Its
CS is tripled in an Assault. Additionally, it may qualify to provide
the German player with a column shift for each of the following:
Combined Arms Bonus, Armor Bonus, Yellow-boxed CS unit in an
Assault, Yellow-boxed CS unit assaulting a Strongpoint or Dug-In
hex. The final case is on a per unit basis, so two Flammpanzerwagen
units stacked in the assaulting hex can, in addition to having their
total CS of 2 tripled to 6, provide a whopping five column shifts—all
for just four half-tracks! But before you cry foul, consider the following: These half-tracks are only this useful in one very specific situation. They are nearly useless in any situation other than an Assault,
and when assaulting a hex without a Dug-In marker or Strongpoint,
they grant fewer column shifts. If there are any enemy infantry or
AFVs in the target hex, the thin-skinned half-tracks will likely be
brewed up before they ever have the opportunity to provide a single
column shift. The true picture begins to emerge: These extremely
vulnerable vehicles are really only useful in Assaults against enemy
Strongpoints or Dug-In hexes that contain no AT-capable defenders.
They would be the perfect choice, for example, against an enemy
MG unit holed up in a Strongpoint hex—exactly as it should be—but
they are so vulnerable as to be nearly useless in most other situations.
The same could be said for other AFV types that provide multiple
column shifts. Before you judge them overpowered, consider their
versatility and vulnerability in various situations. I’ll leave it to the
players to discover the best use for each vehicle type, but I’ll leave
you with this hint: It typically agrees very closely with that vehicle’s
historically intended purpose.
Infantry AT Ratings. Players may wonder why the German panzergrenadier infantry companies have AT ratings which are far superior
to their British counterparts (15-18 for Germans vs. 13 for most
British). This is in part due to the differences in range and penetration capability between the German Panzerfaust or Panzerschreck
and the British PIAT, but also due to the number of AT weapons per
unit, as well as training and morale. 12SS infantry units in particular
were encouraged to engage enemy tanks with their hand-held AT
weapons. The young members of this division had been indoctrinated
to fight tanks on sight, grabbing that Panzerfaust or grenade and
disabling the enemy tank as a matter of pride. When working out
the details of how the two German divisions should differ in terms
of the infantry AT routine, I was reminded of a scene from the movie
The Ogre starring John Malkovich. The scene takes place in a Hitler
Youth training camp where a mock tank assault by infantry is being
staged for instructional purposes. A charismatic officer is coaching
the lads, “A tank is deaf and half-blind. You can hear it, but it can’t
hear you. […] Also, it has big blind spots here and here, and it’s
almost totally blind when you’re right up close to it. So, don’t be
afraid of tanks! Just the opposite. Go right up to them, because that’s
when they are the least dangerous.” While the Panzer Lehr Division
may lack some of this fanaticism, it more than makes up for it by
its generous, experimentally high allotment of Panzerschreck—12
per company! The Panzer Lehr infantry’s higher AT rating reflects
this numeric superiority, while the 12SS infantry’s smaller reduction
in AT rating on its reduced side (a mere -1, vs. -2 or -3 for units of
other divisions), as well as the favorable -1 modifier it receives when
defending in the Tactical Advantage procedure, reflect the division’s
strong indoctrination.
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
23
Step Reductions to Vehicle Units. Each step reduction to a vehicle
unit represents roughly 1-2 vehicles rendered ineffective (but not
necessarily “brewed up”). I used 1.5 vehicles as the basis of many
calculations. This applies to both platoon-sized units and Transport
Pool losses. For independent transport half-track units, each step
reduction represents more like 4-6 vehicles rendered ineffective.
supporting tank squadron comprising five (including the HQ troop)
Sherman tank troops each (1 troop = 4 tanks). Each also has available
its own Royal Artillery assets: an off-map Gunner Battery (eight
25-pounder field guns) of a RA Field Regiment, and an Anti-Tank
Battery (two troops of four each 17-pounder AT guns with attached
Crusader Tractor transports).
Transports. Someone once said that a wargame is only as good as
its supply rules. While that isn’t terribly relevant at the company
level, I might suggest that a platoon/company-level game featuring divisions in Normandy in 1944 is only as good as its transport
rules. The transport rules allow for both independent and attached
transports, and many units can exist in two states: loaded/towed or
deployed. All the transports available to both sides allow the actual
supply rules to be rather simplified and supply itself rarely becomes
an issue (although this becomes a bit worse on Mud turns). The British carriers are the unsung heroes of these battles. The game models
them in several ways, from Transport Pools to attached transports
to Carrier Platoons and even breakdown units.
British infantry battalions normally attacked with two companies in
front and a third in immediate reserve. Depending on frontage and
situation the fourth company was either used to cover the rest of the
battalion frontage, to exploit or ready to perform a further attack, or
(as when facing the Germans one had to be aware of) ready to shift
to face a counterattack. Of course it might equally well be seized
by the brigade commander as his reserve!
Tanks on Night Turns. Refuelling and rearming of the tanks took
place at night, and tanks have their CS halved at this time. I like
to keep things simple and in the hands of the players, so there are
no rules explicitly stating that the British player must withdraw his
tanks at night. Hopefully the game mechanics will encourage this
sort of behavior without the need for special rules. Lenient movement and ZOC rules on night turns will make it relatively easy for
small, motivated German units to infiltrate the British lines and
wreak havoc on British carriers and the like.
British Infantry Company. This is the most common British counter in the game. At 127 officers and men, it is smaller than a German
company, but a British battalion had four, not three, companies.
Theoretically, each infantry company is armed with 72 bolt-action
rifles, 12 Sten SMGs (9+3 for officers), 9 Bren LMGs, and 6 2”
mortars. Unofficially, the company might have 10 or even more
LMGs; the battalion had over 60 so there was a tendency to strip
rear area units of theirs. Each company also included an assumed
assault section (abstracted in the game as part of the same infantry
company counter) which were frequently employed against occupied houses or positions. Each of the infantry company’s nine rifle
sections carried a Bren LMG, a Sten SMG, and 8 rifles—though in
reality the vast numbers of Stens present in a British infantry division meant that many managed to fall into the hands of the infantry
and replaced rifles. The only other weapons in the company were a
tenth Bren and a PIAT (think: a bazooka with a bigger charge, but
shorter range; see below) with company HQ and a 2” mortar with
each platoon. This little mortar was exceedingly useful, not for the
negligible damage it could inflict but because it fired a highly effective smoke round.
The British also, learning from bitter experience in World War One,
almost always held a strong cadre “out of battle.” Many seconds in
command—from section up to company—were ordered to remain in
the rear. This deliberate protection of leaders meant that a shattered
formation could more easily be reformed.
The historical frontage for an infantry company in Normandy was
not typically less than 250 yards (in game terms, two companies
per hex). See also section 26.0, footnote 14, pertaining to stacking,
for more on this topic.
28.2 British Units and Weapons
28.2.1 British Units
British Infantry Brigades. Each brigade comprises three battalions,
and the three British brigades appearing in this game comprise the
49th (West Riding) Infantry Division, a.k.a. “The Polar Bears.”
The brigades are color-coded by greens, blues, and warm tones
(yellow, orange, red) for easy identification and setup. The colorcoding is especially helpful if playing with the optional rules for
Operational Sectors (OSMs; 19.5) which restrict the battalions’
areas of operation.
British Infantry Battalion. Each battalion comprises eight unit
counters: four identical infantry companies, an attached (but not
organic) MMG platoon, a 3” mortar platoon (six 3” mortars with
attached carriers), a 6-pounder AT platoon (six 6-pounders with
attached Loyd Carriers), and a Carrier Platoon (thirteen carriers);
each of these is described separately below. Each battalion has one
Sappers and Assault Sections. Rather than clutter the game with
additional counters for each infantry company, we decided to abstract
these units by incorporating their mine-clearing ability into the infantry companies. They are assumed to be present any time full-strength
British infantry companies conduct an Assault or clear mines.
Anti-Tank Batteries. Each infantry division had a towed anti-tank
gun regiment equipped with two very different weapons. The older
6-pounder gun had been rejuvenated by the issue of discarding sabot
ammunition (see Optional Rule 19.7) that was capable of penetrating even Tiger tanks at close range. However, this ammo was much
more common with the guns manned by the Royal Artillery than the
identical ones in the infantry battalions, and most infantry 6-pounders did not have many (if any) sabot shots at this date. Even without
sabot ammunition, the low profile and relative ease of movement of
the gun made it effective at close quarters. Although HE shells were
available for these guns, AT crews were not trained for long-distance
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
24
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
“area” shooting; that came much later when all AT gunners were
retrained to take part in the “Pepperpot” group blanket bombardments. For this reason, the RAS Range of the 6-pdr units is set to
the same value as the AT Range.
The primary anti-tank weapon was the towed 17-pounder which
matched the German 75mm with standard ammunition and even the
dreaded 88mm when firing the reasonably common sabot (APDS)
round. Unfortunately, the 17-pounder, like all heavy AT guns, was
a monstrous pig when it came to moving and deploying—so heavy
that the British used old Crusader tanks with their turrets removed
as towing vehicles. The most effective of all British anti-tank batteries, however, were those of the Corps Anti-Tank Regiments, by
now largely equipped with the “Achilles” 17-pounder conversion of
the US M10 tank destroyer. The guns were standard but the mounts
incorporated better sights than the towed weapons. They were
primarily deployed in support of tank brigades—commonly those
equipped with Churchill tanks that lacked 17-pounder variants. But,
as not many tank brigades had arrived in Normandy at this date, a
battery was spared to help the 8th Armoured Brigade.
Mortar Platoon. The mortar platoon consisted of six “tubes” and
was considered the single most powerful element of the infantry
battalion. The mortars were generally paired into three sections,
each with an ammo truck which also carried a PIAT. Each mortar
was transported by a Univ. Carrier, but the vehicle did not normally
serve as a firing platform for the mortar, which had to dismount and
assemble. It could be fired from the carrier in an emergency, but this
tended to wreck the suspension and was strongly discouraged; in the
game, they have to be dismounted to fire. The caliber of the mortars
was 81.5mm, but they were called “3-inch mortars” by the British
Army. The Mortar Platoon, Carrier Platoon, and Anti-Tank Platoon
together formed the battalion’s Support Company.
Carrier Platoon. This rather unique unit was used like lightlyarmored cavalry rather than as a transport unit. It could mobilize
quickly to take a position and hold it until the infantry companies
arrived, or support the leg infantry in the attack. The Carrier Platoon
was also used to transport casualties, bring up ammunition towing
carts, and for other assorted tasks, but these functions are not directly
represented in the game.
The carriers were in four sections of three each and were sometimes
fielded as two half-platoons of two sections (six carriers) each—one
on each flank of the advancing leg infantry. Each section had a PIAT
and a 2” mortar which could be fired in or out of the carrier. Each
carrier mounted a Bren LMG and had a four man crew of an NCO,
two riflemen, and a driver-mechanic. With 13 LMGs (vs. 9 in a
regular infantry company), they had more light support weapons
than an entire infantry company, but their lower manpower was
insufficient for them to hold ground indefinitely. Their high speed
and compliment of LMGs made them capable of bringing a great
deal of firepower to a particular location on short notice. Their thin
armor helped protect the infantry from small arms fire (expressed
in the game as a -1 DRM from Ranged Attacks) but they are highly
vulnerable to AT Fire. They are rather unique units which, properly
used, are of great benefit to the British player. The infantry could
fight with their complement of LMGs mounted on the carriers or
dismounted on bipods. Typically the platoon fought with the troops
dismounted, advancing beside the carriers and using them as cover.
Game play notes pertaining to the Carrier Platoon can be found in
the 12.6.1 footnoted entry of section (26.0 #44).
British Artillery. Normally, any British division in the attack (assuming the other divisions nearby were not attacking) had access to
its own three artillery regiments, the flanking 25-pdr regiment of the
closest neighboring division, and at least half of its corps artillery—
perhaps three medium regiments and a heavy regiment—but much
of the latter was used in counter-battery work. That would leave the
norm of at least one medium battery—probably both batteries of one
regiment available, since they would have sent their forward observers to the attacking brigade. So a normal “stonk” or Uncle Target
would be 6+ 25-pdr gunner batteries plus two medium batteries.
Much more were ready but that is all that would be expected to be
landing within 15 minutes tops of an emergency fire call. A caveat:
Because of the “Great Storm,” unloading of support assets was well
behind (Monty wanted infantry—the 15th in particular—over guns)
so the corps artillery might well have been weaker than otherwise
expected—especially during the June 16-18 scenarios.
“Gunner” was a nickname for the Royal Artillery. What is being
represented by a Gunner Battery counter is the distant, attached
field artillery battery. The gunnery major commanding that battery
lived with the infantry battalion commander to ensure immediate
support. Unlike the US case, where artillery commanders lived
with the guns, it meant there was no delay caused by questioning
the need for support.
Sherman Tank Troop (75mm). The British tank troops were organized into one of three configurations: four Sherman III (HQ troops
only), four Sherman II DD (duplex-drive) “swimming” tanks, and
the common “3 + 1” configuration of three Sherman III plus one
VC Firefly, which had been adopted by all regiments appearing
in this game by the time of these battles. The game uses the term
“Firefly-enhanced” to describe these troops. While the 75mm gun
of the Sherman II and III did an admirable job of infantry support
and was sufficient against medium tanks like the Panzer IV, it lacked
the punch to take on the heavier Panthers and Tigers. That task fell
to the Fireflies.
Firefly-enhanced Tank Troop. As previously mentioned, many
of the British tank troops include one of the superior Firefly tanks
per three standard Shermans. Note that the Fireflies (which are not
amphibious and cannot be made so) are never used to enhance Sherman DD troops; they appear only with Sherman III troops.
The introduction of the 17-pdr Firefly caused all sorts of contortions
to the organization of British Sherman tank units. As usual, military
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
inertia and the power of the quartermaster took hold, the issue being
that this was a new tank with new engines—all Fireflies had the
Chrysler multi-bank, while many “standard” Sherman tanks had
the Continental, or even a diesel, engine—and, of course ammunition. The natural result was to allocate all twelve Fireflies to one
squadron and train its fitters and ordnance men to service its tanks.
This worked well initially, especially for the units that had their
Sherman II tanks converted to DD form for amphibious landing,
for the additional weight and changed configuration of the Firefly
meant that it was not suitable for the DD process. Many of the DD
regiments retained this organization for some time, especially as
their DD squadrons were diverted to other duties after landing in
later waves. It was also not unknown for the other regiments to also
retain separate Firefly squadrons at first—some unkind souls suggesting that this was because they were appropriated by the senior
squadron commander who insisted they be used in the reserve role.
But a couple of days’ action with panzers showed that any squadron
that lacked the 17-pounder was in deep, deep trouble, so they were
allocated to the three “fighting squadrons” on the basis of one per
troop (“platoon” to Americans). One trivial reason for the delay was
that this meant four troops of four, not five of three tanks—meaning
one junior officer in each squadron lost his position! Initially, the
formidable Firefly was often seized upon by the troop officer as his
“mount,” a habit that quickly vanished as the German custom of
targeting tanks with long, nasty guns became apparent. Within a few
weeks of the Normandy landing, the four tank troop was the norm,
with the Firefly commanded by the troop sergeant, and normally
placed third in the column.
Note that, although the Firefly became much more common later in
the war, it was never universal simply because the 17-pdr was inferior
to the 75mm as an anti-infantry or soft-target weapon. In Northwest
Europe, the regiments in the game that were still active (by then the
24th Dragoons had been abolished) had two Firefly and two 75mm
Sherman tanks in each troop, while one in Italy would have had a
troop with one Firefly, one 75mm, and one 76mm Sherman.
Fireflies: The Trials and Tribulations of Playtesting. Over the
years, I probably tried half a dozen different ways to portray the
Fireflies. These ranged from separate Firefly counters, to “Firefly
destroyed” markers, to two sets of counters for each troop (with and
without Fireflies), to averaging the stats for three standard Shermans
to one Firefly. None were ideal. They created superfluous counter
clutter or bookkeeping, or made the game too complex, or gave a
less-than-historical feel to the use and portrayal of these tanks. The
solution to the Firefly dilemma—treating these troops as Fireflies on
their full strength sides and as standard Shermans with 75mm guns
on their reduced sides—was a compromise and an abstraction, but
it works very well. No additional counters, markers, or undesirable
“stats averaging” were necessary to implement it. As I played around
with more and more armor vs. armor engagements, this method really grew on me. Now I quite like it.
In game terms, the Firefly-enhanced units are powerful but fragile.
While on their full-strength sides, the British player gains the full
benefit of the Firefly component of a troop, with an excellent AT rating of 18. On their reduced sides, this rating drops to a 10 and they are
effectively treated as standard Sherman III troops. This means that,
when a Firefly-enhanced troop reveals its position by firing, it might
suffer a step reduction due to Return Fire, which effectively eliminates the Firefly component of this Sherman counter. In playtesting,
we jokingly referred to this act as “de-Fireflying” the troop. The Brits
25
claimed that the Germans preferentially targeted their Fireflies over
standard Shermans, and, even while Zetterling argues that the loss
figures do not support this claim, it certainly makes sense from the
German perspective. Not only were the Fireflies lethal to Panthers
and Tigers, but they were highly recognizable due to their long 17pdr guns. It might also be argued that the Fireflies put themselves
in harm’s way more often than the standard Shermans—especially
when going up against Panthers or Tigers—and were therefore more
likely to be the target of return fire.
Players will note that the MA of these units increases slightly on their
reduced sides. Playtesters were quick to point this out as a mistake,
but it is intentional. The higher MA is based on the Sherman III
tanks of the troop, no longer slowed down by the heavier Fireflies.
Scout Platoon. Apart from their added reconnaissance role, these
behaved similarly to the Carrier Platoons of the infantry battalions.
By the time of these battles, the 49th Battalion of the Recon Corps
had reinvented itself as a cavalry unit; it was now called the 49th
Regiment Reconnaissance Corps, and its scout units should more
properly be called “troops.” I decided to let them stand as scout
“platoons” in the game because this nomenclature made it easier
for players to understand that they are treated as infantry (and because British tank platoons are called “troops”). It is also in better
agreement with the NATO symbol on their counters which indicates
they are platoon-sized. The British scout platoons of 49th Regiment
Reconnaissance Corps used the same type of equipment as those in
the 12KRRC in terms of LMGs and Scout Carriers (one of many
variants of the Universal Carrier) but were also accompanied by
Humber armored cars.
Motor Battalion. These were rare creatures in British service with
just one in each armoured division and one in the very few armoured
brigade groups. They were also considered elite—at least by the
famous Rifle Brigade and King’s Royal Rifle Corps battalions that
alone were chosen to form them. A battalion could expect to fight
either as a complete unit, or as separate rifle companies, each supporting one of the three armoured units in their brigade. Therefore
they had three companies, not the normal four, fighting units in
Lend-Lease half-tracks and each with a pair of 3-inch mortars. The
support company had an anti-tank platoon (only four 6-pounder
guns, vs. six in a regular infantry battalion, since it was assumed
the tanks would provide support as well) and a Vickers MMG platoon. The motor rifle section had two fewer soldiers than those in
a standard battalion.
28.2.2 British Weapons
PIAT. The Projector Infantry Anti-Tank (PIAT) was the British
platoon anti-tank weapon, serving the same function as the US
bazooka and German Panzerfaust but very different in form and
function. Because the ammunition was propelled by a giant spring
rather than a rocket, it had less range and its slower speed made it
less accurate. But against that were two advantages: Since there was
no massive back-blast it could be fired from a room or from cover
and because there was no flash it was more difficult for the enemy
to spot the firing position. And, unlike the German Panzerfaust, the
PIAT was not disposable.
Vickers MMG. This was a World War One weapon that had been
much updated since. Unlike most machine-guns in Normandy it
was both belt-fed and water-cooled and so was capable of almost
endless covering fire. New ammunition allowed it to fire indirect at
up to 4,700 yards though this, intended to blanket key points with a
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
26
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
continuous rain of fire, was not being used at this stage of the war.
Its obvious weak point was its weight. As a result, when in defense,
each platoon would man four guns, but if they were ordered to advance on foot two guns would usually be left behind. However, in
Normandy movement was usually by carrier. The Vickers MMGs
could fire while mounted on the carrier, albeit at reduced accuracy
due to an increase in vibration. In game terms, this translates to both
shorter range and lack of a black-boxed CS when mounted.
with two 20-strong squadrons of DD tanks, including the 4th/7th
Dragoon Guards and the Nottinghamshire Yeomanry (Sherwood
Rangers, or “SRY”) portrayed in the game. Their tanks were Sherman II DD (M4A1 version) but the DD equipment could be applied
to all versions. For example, the 13th/18th Hussars (later to join the
8th Brigade) used Sherman V DD (M4A4 version) tanks. None of
these were 17-pdr Firefly versions, as the longer gun meant that the
screens could not be erected. To make the DD waterproof it was
necessary to plug and grease-block every single open point on the
hull, turret, and gun, of which there were hundreds—an exceedingly
tiresome task much loathed by the crews. On landing, a single button
detonated charges that blew away screen and protection allowing
the tank to go straight into action. Some were still fighting in the 8th
Brigade, complete with their tiny propellers, when the war ended.
The DD tanks cannot “swim” within the context of this game; the
waterways portrayed on our map are too narrow and shallow, and
their banks too steep.
The counters depict these tanks with
their floatation devices lowered,
while in reality, the devices had
probably been removed entirely by
June 25—or at least photos of 8th
Armoured Brigade tanks from this
time period suggest as much. I opted
to leave the counter art as-is, as I
believe the lowered floatation devices add a bit of flavor and help the
DD’s stand out amongst the Sherman
III’s and VC Fireflies.
4.2” Heavy Mortar. Each support battalion had 16 of these, usually assigned with one platoon of four mortars supporting each
brigade with a fourth held in reserve. Its advantage was that its
round contained much more explosive than that did a similar artillery round, its disadvantage that (like all contemporary mortars) it
was less accurate.
Sherman III Tank. The HQ troop of each squadron was comprised
entirely of these tanks while the Firefly-enhanced troops had three
Sherman III’s to one VC Firefly in each troop. In game terms, the
Sherman III has similar armament (75mm gun) and armor to the
DD tanks, but slightly better speed.
Sherman VC Firefly. The formidable Sherman Firefly tank was
essentially a U.S.-made Sherman armed with a British 17-pounder
gun which was capable of penetrating very thick armor—even that
of the German Panthers and Tigers. The problem, for the British, was
that there never seemed to be enough Fireflies to go around. Making
matters worse, their long guns stuck out like sore thumbs, enticing
the Germans to target them preferentially over the Shermans of the
squadron—or so some British units would claim.
Sherman II DD Tank. Also called “swimming” Shermans or
“Donald Duck” tanks, the “DD” stands for “Duplex Drive”—the
ability to power forward on land and sea. They are the most numerous tanks in the game, outnumbering even the German Panzer IVs
by roughly 3-to-1.
Amphibious tanks were the brainchild of Nicholas Straussler who
combined two innovations—propellers at the rear driven by the tank
engine, and folding waterproof canvas that, when erected, formed
a flotation screen that increased freeboard and protected against
waves. The devices were initially applied to the Valentine tank but
it was soon realized that the greater height of the Sherman made it
more suitable. A rush program was introduced and by Normandy
(in addition to several US tank battalions) five Commonwealth tank
regiments were equipped with Sherman DD tanks, each operating
Achilles. The British M10 Achilles tank destroyer was basically
a US M10 “Wolverine” with a 17-pounder AT gun. The gun was
equipped with better sights than the 17-pdr on the Firefly. There is
some disagreement as to how these vehicles were actually named,
with some sources stating that the entire M10 program was codenamed “Achilles.” In the field, both British and U.S. vehicles were
probably simply referred to as M10s. In game terms as well as in the
historical battles, they are most effective when used on the defense
rather than the offensive because their thin armor makes them very
vulnerable to AT Fire.
Centaur. The Centaur IV amphibious close support tanks of the
Royal Marines Armoured Support Group (RMASG) are armed
with 95mm howitzers. These tanks are members of the Cromwell
tank family. They have inferior engines and were used for training
and by the Marines. The RMASG was disbanded two weeks after
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
D-Day, on June 20, so the Centaur troops appear in the game only
in the Cristot scenario (18.1). Note the Centaurs’ weak AT rating,
heavy armor, and orange-box CS value.
27
variants of the Sexton, only the Sexton II was based on a Canadianbuilt Grizzly (M4A1 Sherman) hull, so the vehicles in our OB are
Sexton II’s. These SP guns had a maximum gun elevation of 35
degrees, yielding a maximum range of 11,000 yards (about 25-26
map hexes). They are lightly armored, with about 68mm of armor
in the front hull. First built in 1943, the Sextons were available in
the field from June ‘44 onward. From ‘43 to ‘45, Montreal Locomotive Works manufactured 2,150 of them. These were used by both
Canadian and British forces. During the D-day landings, the Sextons
fired from their landing craft as they came ashore, but this fire was
near impossible to direct and had a very limited effect.
Theoretically, one Sexton battery was on-call for each tank regiment
of 8th Armoured Brigade (24L, SRY, RDG—thus the color-coding
of their ID boxes) but in reality they operated with the same flexibility as the Infantry Battalions’ 25-pdr Gunner Batteries, able to
offer support wherever and whenever needed.
Universal Carrier. Small, lightly armored carriers were a mainstay
of the British Army, and served in a wide variety of roles. Most
were the Universal Carrier but often referred to as “Bren Carriers”
since almost all mounted a Bren LMG. Variants included the scout
carrier, MMG carrier, and mortar carrier; the mortar carriers for the
4.2” mortars towed ammo trailers.
Carriers are represented in the game in three ways:
1.Attached transports. These are for loading mortars and MGs,
and represented as the flip-side of the transported units.
2.Carrier Platoons and Scout Platoons. These are potent combat
units armed with an abundance of LMGs and PIATs. They
function as an odd amalgam of leg infantry and AFVs.
3.Transport Pool. Losses to units with attached carrier transport
are tracked using the British Transport Pool because British
combat units operated with lots of “spare” carriers that were
assigned to rear echelon functions.
Crocodile. The flammable petrol gel for the flame-thrower is pulled
in a trailer behind the tank, sparing the Crocodile a fiery death if the
trailer takes a hit. Their armor is quite heavy, offering them a degree
of protection against enemy infantry in Assaults. Crocodiles were
rare beasts and even when the Normandy campaign ended there
were still only about 35 present. As the game starts there were some
150 AVRE but only a single squadron with about 16 Crocodiles in
Normandy. These were untried weapons this early in the Normandy
campaign notably having pressure problems with their fuel trailers.
Once troops got used to them, they were deadly and the infantry
demanded them, but their rarity meant that they would only be
assigned as a single three-tank troop. Incidentally, it was not the
pressure problem but the absolute secrecy on the trailers and the
system that seems to be the reason they were committed so rarely.
Any officer or NCO who lost one was facing a court martial—no
matter the excuse! So it seems that for the first month or so, their
use was timid. Furthermore, at this early date, after a single series
of passes that used up the nitrogen, it would still take a day or so to
check and recharge the system.
Sextons. From the British Army website: “147 (Essex Yeomanry)
Regiment was converted to 25 pounder guns and landed on D-Day
to fight through Germany.” The Essex Yeomanry website agrees:
“The 147th fought as a self-propelled artillery unit using 25-pounder
field guns mounted on Sherman tank chassis.” While there are three
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
28
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
Missing Stuarts. A number of Stuart light tanks also existed in
the historical OB. By this stage, almost all Stuarts had their turrets removed, which greatly improved their recon function (better
visibility and lower profile), but reduced their game combat value
to virtually zero. We opted to leave them out to avoid unnecessary
counter clutter.
This closeup of the AVRE’s 290mm Petard spigot mortar also
shows (at right) the mortar shell, which was nicknamed the
“Flying Dustbin.”
AVRE. The AVRE (Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers) featured in
the game belong to 82nd Assault Squadron, 6th Assault Regiment,
1st Assault Brigade, 79th Armoured Division “Funnies.” Like the
Crocodiles, they are treated as reinforcements that can be activated
as needed by the British player. AVRE were rather more common
in Normandy than Crocodiles, with well over 100 ready for action.
They are quite possibly the most important supporting units in
the game for the British player. Each of the four AVRE counters
represents six Churchill AVRE tanks. Their 290mm Petard spigot
mortars are powerful weapons of limited range, useful for destroying
buildings and cracking concrete bunkers (but there were none of the
latter in the region of our game map, fortunately for the Brits). The
Germans greatly feared these tanks and had orders to destroy them
on sight. But the mortars are only part of what made the AVRE so
feared. They could also carry demolition charges, clear mines, and
fill ditches and craters or cross AT obstacles by means of a fascine
(log bundle). The AVRE proved incredibly valuable in capturing
Fontenay-le-Pesnel, firing their mortars and Besa MGs in support of
the infantry. Near the end of June, AVRE supported the 56th Infantry
Brigade at Tilly-sur-Seulles against an armored counterattack by
the Panzer Lehr Division. It was here that the Germans managed to
capture their first intact AVRE, much to the outrage of its commander.
Crusader Tractor. These are defrocked (turretless) Crusader tanks
used as heavy towing vehicles for the British 17-pdr AT guns. I was
initially advised by the research team that the 17-pdrs should be
immobile in the game. However, I felt that over the course of the
three-day campaign game, they would be of practically no value
if this were the case. The final rules require these guns to spend a
minimum of three turns—but usually more—to relocate to a useful
position and deploy. I believe this time span is pretty accurate. It
allows the guns to keep up with the British push (with difficulty)
while still severely limiting their usefulness in offensive situations.
Set up in prime defensive positions such as hills overlooking open
fields, they will discourage the German player from running amok
behind the British lines. Knowing how and when to relocate the AT
line is a topic discussed in 23.0 Tips & Strategies.
Crusader III AA Mk III. For the British, mid to late June brought
the dawning realization that the Luftwaffe had been grounded.
The Crusader anti-aircraft tanks were still on the OB of armored
regiments at the end of June but most units were disbanding them
because no Luftwaffe was around. However, some—almost exclusively the old cavalry regiments—did retain a few, often attaching
one to each scout troop assigned for recon.
Missing AA Tanks. Apart from those represented in the game, numerous other British AA units existed in the historical British OB.
For example, we originally included a counter for a lone Crusader SP
40mm troop (representing four vehicles) from the LAA Regiment of
the 49th Infantry Division. We felt that if we included these AA units,
the British player would use them against German ground units in
a rather unhistorical manner, skewing the game balance since these
units have high RAS values and are very effective in the ground
support role. We determined that these AA tanks were not used in
the anti-infantry role in Normandy, being used only later in such a
role, so we decided they were irrelevant to the game.
28.3 German Units and Weapons
28.3.1 German Units
Panzergrenadier Infantry Company. Players may wonder why a
British infantry company drops from 4 to a 3 when reduced, while
a German infantry company drops from 7 to 3. This was one of several ways I attempted to simulate the Germans’ powerful but fragile
nature. (The British called them a “strong crust.”) Most importantly,
it was the method that worked out the best in play. It encouraged the
right kind of behavior from the German player, and the game played
more smoothly and historically, with a nice ebb and flow. The German divisions portrayed in this game had impressive firepower but
they had already suffered heavy losses and did not have enough men
to cover the front in depth. They were horribly overstretched. There
are various ways this situation might be simulated. For starters, one
might go with a larger number of relatively weaker, platoon-sized
units, or else a smaller number of more powerful units. In this case,
I opted for a compromise, with platoon-sized pioneer and recon
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
infantry units, but company-sized leg infantry and Panzergrenadier
infantry units. It was all about finding the correct balance between
coverage (German-occupied hexes plus ZOCs) and Combat Strength.
The CS drop from 7 on the full-strength side to 3 on the reduced side
doesn’t tell the whole story (as usual). Let’s consider the ramifications of how this reduction interacts with the other game mechanics.
For starters, losses from Combats and Assaults need not be taken
as step reductions by the defender. They can be taken as Retreats. It
usually makes sense for the German player to conserve his manpower
by dropping back a hex or two rather than taking step reductions. By
tailoring the German units’ CS ratings so that it drops from 7 to 3,
the German player has an incentive to behave in a historical manner,
falling back rather than absorbing punishing losses to manpower.
If you need a direct rationale for the reduction, consider it due to
a combination of manpower and supply difficulties, plus relatively
higher losses to the weapon crews. Also consider that reduced twostep infantry units can recover in this game system. They can fall
back from the front line, spend a turn or two making Recovery rolls to
return to their full-strength sides, and then move back into the fight.
Since units must begin the Action Phase stacked in order to perform
an Assault as a stack (and they’ll certainly want to use combined
arms in Assaults), an interesting and tried-and-true tactic emerges
from the interaction of the three mechanics (Retreat, Recovery, and
stacking/Assaults): The retreated Germans will fall back and form
up “assault stacks” of multiple units in a hex—usually a reduced
infantry unit or two and/or some platoon-sized infantry units, to
which they’ll add some panzers and SP guns—before returning to
the battle as an independent, combined-arms stack that is capable of
performing localized counterattacks and tidying up small gaps in the
German line. (“assault stacks” are described in more detail in 23.0.)
What all this means: Without additional rules overhead, the stats drop
(from 7 to 3) and the interaction of the aforementioned mechanics
will give a savvy German player incentive to behave in a historical
manner by forming offensive stacks (Kampfgruppen) with which
to accomplish his offensive goals. It’s common in this game to see
these types of Kampfgruppen form and disband one or more times
a day, as required to preserve the German front line. They usually
form around one or more reduced infantry units that have fallen back
from the battle and into a reserve/recovery position.
29
guns than tanks. This coincides with their historical use and the
problems faced by the German commanders at these battles. Kurt
Meyer wrote in his biography, “We started to treat our tanks with
kid gloves. We had received no replacement tanks up to that point
and our strength melted away daily. The constant use of piecemeal
tactics enraged me. Where [sic] had happened to the days of the big
armor offensives?” The tank platoons will usually embed themselves
in close terrain, then take a single shot against a target of opportunity
before melting back into the bocage, or relocate when the enemy
moves adjacent. As the price of the tanks drops, the German player
will be able to field more of them for a time. When the number of
German tanks is at its peak—usually from late on June 25 through
the first half of June 26—the German player will be able to form
Kampfgruppen (usually 1-2 stacks of 3-4 AFV units each) that can
prove incredibly effective at plugging gaps, tidying the frontlines, or
throwing back overextended British units. The first time the British
player comes to experience this kind of armored counterattack, he
will gain a new respect for the weapons and flexibility available to
the German player.
Use of German Half-Tracks on Defense. I’ve always been bothered
by game systems that allow the defender to squander his valuable
transport units in an unrealistic manner as “speed bumps” against the
offense. Worse yet are systems that grant transport half-tracks sufficient firepower to make them effective as infantry-killing machines.
I wanted to avoid these issues with this game. On the other hand, I
didn’t want to add any special rules which specifically forbade the
German player from using his half-tracks defensively. The solution
to this dilemma came from making these units sufficiently vulnerable
to infantry AT fire during the resolution of the Tactical Advantage
procedure. The German player is welcome to use his half-tracks to
defend hexes. Given their MGs, large unit size (which translates into
a high RAS), and light armor (which allows them to ignore losses
from Combats and Ranged Attacks), they can be quite lethal when
used in a FF role against advancing infantry. But the German player
will marvel only briefly at their lethality, for their usefulness will
be short-lived. Using them in this manner will almost certainly see
them destroyed on the following turn, if not later in the same turn.
I think the German player will find that the use of transports in a
defensive manner is not a wise tactic. It usually amounts to handing
VPs for enemy AFV losses to the opponent. That said, their occasional use to bolster defense in an unusually desperate situation
may be warranted. If you stack them with enough infantry to obtain
an edge in Tactical Advantage, they might even survive. See also
23.0 for tips on setup and use of transport half-tracks and Stummels.
28.3.2 German Weapons
Use of German Tanks. The German player will find that his tanks
cannot be massed and used effectively for much of the game. They
will instead be parceled out here and there along the front, forced
to fight defensively. In this respect, they function more like AT
Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck. The Panzerfaust (“tank fist”;
plural: Panzerfäuste) was a recoilless anti-tank weapon that could
be shoulder-launched by a single man. It consisted of a 149mm high
explosive warhead that could penetrate a maximum of 200mm of
armor and a range that varied by version (30m for the Panzerfaust
30). It was a single-shot weapon with a disposable launch tube. By
comparison, the Panzerschreck (“tank fright”) was an 88mm reusable anti-tank rocket launcher that was produced in smaller numbers
but had a much longer effective range (150m) and a projectile that
traveled at over twice the speed. The official name of the Panzerschreck was “Raketenpanzerbüchse” which is typically abbreviated
as RPzB in the status reports, but the troops commonly called them
“Ofenrohr” (“Stove Pipe”) because of the large amount of smoke
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
30
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
they generated when fired. It’s worth noting that the Panzerfaust,
with its shorter range, actually achieved more kills in Normandy
than the Panzerschreck, relatively speaking. This may be due to
the fact that the latter weapon, with its longer range, was regularly
fired from a greater distance and therefore more often missed the
target. The Panzerfaust supply seems to have been insufficient in
Normandy (much like every other weapon, ammo, and spare part
for the Germans), and some sources suggest that SS divisions in
Normandy might not have received any Panzerfäuste until July(!),
though anecdotal evidence indicates that at least some were present
in June. Panzer Lehr had experimentally high numbers of Panzerschreck in its panzergrenadier companies: 12 per company. In other
panzer divisions, a number of three per company was more standard,
although it isn’t certain when they were first delivered. Sometimes
the weapons were concentrated in the Battalion Heavy Company,
but in action would be parceled out in teams. Normal quantities
of Panzerfäuste from the second half 1944 onward would be two,
sometimes three, per rifle squad. Generally, in early 1944, infantry
divisions had priority for deliveries of both weapon types, as their
Grenadiers had fewer AT weapons to go around than their panzer
division comrades.
The AT ratings of the German recon infantry and pioneer platoons
were deflated somewhat to account not only for a smaller total number of infantry AT weapons, but due to the fact that these units were
typically limited to Panzerfäuste, which were primarily defensive
weapons, as opposed to the longer-ranged Panzerschreck wielded
by the Panzergrenadier infantry companies. This amounted to about
a -3 to the rating. However, the rating was then increased somewhat
in the case of the pioneers to allow for specialty weapons including
anti-tank magnetic mines and satchel charges.
Panzer IV. The majority of the German tanks faced by the British
during the battles portrayed here are Panzer IV types, although the
heavier Panthers come in a very close second. While it did not have
quite the punch or popularity of the Panther, the Panzer IV H medium
tank was the workhorse of the German Army in June 1944. This was
also true for the Waffen SS units, which typically had marginally
more Panzer IV tanks than Panthers. Rather than portray all Panzer
IV counters as IV H models we opted to simply refer to them as
“Pz IV” because the more recent “J” model had entered service at
this time. Compared to its British Sherman counterpart, the Panzer
IV H has better range, better firepower, better optics, and slightly
less armor (though when we examine the penetration factor of AT
rating minus Armor, we see that the German tanks still have the
edge in penetration, amounting to a +6 DRM vs. +4). However,
the Germans are not able to field as many tanks as the British, and
in many cases the German tanks cannot be operated as an armored
spearhead, instead being parceled out across the front for use in a
static defense role. At times they must even be used to fill gaps in
the frontline, as if AT guns, with little or no infantry support. It all
becomes much worse for the Germans on June 26, when Operation
Epsom kicks off and they must withdraw the majority of their tanks
to cope with the new threat.
StuG III. It is worth noting that the other most common type of
German AFV in Normandy in June ‘44 was the StuG III. However,
the 12th SS did not have any StuG IIIs. While the nearby Panzer
Lehr Division did have StuGs, we found no evidence that they
operated in these battles.
Tiger. This was the most dreaded of all German tanks in the Normandy theater, and with good reason. Its 88mm gun was more than
sufficient to knock out even the most heavily armored Allied tanks
while its heavy armor made it practically invulnerable to the standard Sherman’s 75mm guns at all but the closest ranges. The Tiger’s
superior range and optics gave it the ability to fire and strike distant,
moving targets with great accuracy. It is fortunate for the Allies that
the Germans had so few Tigers to go around.
Players may wonder why the Tigers don’t have red-boxed CS values
like other tanks, and why they have an orange-circle RAS value.
Both are due to the 88mm gun which could fire high explosive (HE)
shells that were more effective against infantry and structures than
the HE shells of other tanks. The players will also note that these
units cost 3 Reinforcement Points for each single-step section, vs.
only 2 for the Jagdpanther sections. The reason: The Tigers can
prowl anywhere on the map without incurring VP penalties. They
also have much a better Fire Control rating. In game terms, the
Jagdpanther’s superior AT rating and AT Range are rarely relevant
given the confining nature of the terrain and the range of armor
thicknesses of the British tanks.
Panther vs. Tiger debate. While the Tiger demanded and continues
to get the most attention, it was the more numerous and more mobile
Panther that really deserves the designation of “top tank” for the
Germans. It is nearly impossible to discuss the Panther without a
comparison to the Tiger—plus treadheads tend to love this sort of
discussion—so I will do so now.
The Panther’s AT rating is slightly superior to the Tiger’s, as I believe
it should be, but this is misleading. The Tiger’s superior FC rating
means that in many situations, it is the better weapon—especially
at extreme ranges. It can also lob shells further as denoted by its
greater AT Range. Furthermore, the Tiger’s CS is not halved like
the Panther’s when attacking into close terrain, and the Tiger has an
orange-circle RAS, meaning that its Ranged Attack does not taper
off over distance like the Panther’s. This is because a significant
percentage of the Tiger’s RAS rating is due to its 88mm HE shells.
The Panther’s Ranged Attack tapers off because a higher percentage of its RAS is based on its MGs, which have a relatively limited
range, and its HE shells are not as effective as the Tiger’s.
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
The relative armor quality of Tigers vs. Panthers has been a source
of great debate in books and online forums. The Panther’s armor is
more sloped, but it is much thinner on the vehicle’s sides. For this
game I determined Armor ratings by assuming that roughly 1/3 of
shots strike a vehicle’s side as opposed to its front, and 1/3 strike
the hull as opposed to the turret. Using this basic algorithm, the
Panther’s thin side armor really drags down its rating relative to the
Tiger. A further DRM for flank attacks vs. Panthers was necessary
to achieve the right sort of outcome in flanking situations since the
difference between front and side armor is so pronounced in the
Panther—more so than in other tank types, which average about a
30mm difference in armor thickness from front to side/rear (thus
the standard +3 DRM). Part of what made the Tiger so formidable
was its heavy side armor. A Sherman’s 75mm gun could penetrate
that of the Panther even when firing at it from an oblique angle, but
(except at the highly unlikely point-blank range) could not penetrate
the Tiger’s side armor, even when firing at the most optimum 90
degree angle. When comparing armor of the Panther and Tiger, we
must also consider the Tiger’s very heavily armored gun mantlet.
In game terms, the Tiger comes out ahead purely in terms of Armor.
But when players consider the relative Movement Allowances of the
vehicles (the Panther is considerably faster), as well as the Optional
Rule for Tigers in the Mud (which also prohibit them from using
many bridges), an undesirable side-effect of the Tiger’s heavier
armor becomes apparent.
Much of the above would seem to indicate that the Tiger is the
superior tank, and in many ways it was. But consider that only a
small number of Tigers are available in the game, each a single-step
unit representing only two tanks (vs. four for the two-step Panthers).
Now factor in the Tiger’s lower speed, inability to use many bridges,
and difficulty maneuvering in mud, and you’ll find that it is really the more numerous Panthers—still far superior to the Panzer
IVs—which are likely to accomplish more for the German player.
Stummel. While the German tanks are likely to get the most attention, their participation in a given action in this game is not a given.
On the other hand, the numerous and hard-working SdKfz 251/9
“Stummel” (“Stump”) self-propelled guns which support each Panzergrenadier infantry company are more likely to have the greater
31
long-term impact on the fighting. Stummels are half-tracks fitted
with short-barreled 75mm guns, granting them an “Orange-boxed
CS Bonus” which makes them very useful against enemy infantry.
Consider that by stacking them with German infantry, the German
player gains a column shift for combined arms as well as a column
shift for an Orange-boxed CS unit. And if the opposing British stack
contains no armor, the German player will gain a third column shift!
Do not underestimate these little units. As the German player, protect
them by keeping them behind the frontline hexes until needed. Use
them on the offensive when you have the Tactical Advantage (i.e.,
when your total infantry steps outnumber your opponent’s) in order
to keep these thin-skinned AFVs safe from the numerous enemy
PIAT. See 23.0 for tips on the setup and use of Stummels.
Flammpanzerwagen. Six of these vehicles were attached to the
26th Regiment HQ, but our researchers felt that they were probably
parceled out as three sections of two vehicles each, to support the
panzergrenadier companies when called for. While the Gliederung
shows only the total number of flame-throwers in the division and
does not distinguish between SdKfz 251/16 and hand-held flamethrowers carried in SdKfz 251/1, the German High Command vehicle
delivery reports, as well as photos, show that these were indeed the
SdKfz 251/16. However, in game terms, these two unit types would
be statistically identical at this scale.
Jagdpanther. See 29.2 OB Notes: 654th Heavy Tank Destroyer
Battalion.
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
32
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
‘88. The Germans used their 88mm flak guns mainly for ground action in these battles. They are quite effective when used in the role
of artillery against enemy infantry, and they also make superior AT
guns—though historically they were rarely squandered in the latter role due to their vulnerability, especially when the cheaper and
more numerous 75mm PaK40 AT guns were sufficiently effective
at knocking out the enemy Shermans. Note that the counter shows a
SdKfz 10 as the towing vehicle, but this should, in fact, be a SdKfz 7.
SP Mortars. Two types of SP mortar half-tracks exist in the German
OB: the larger SdKfz 251/2 in the panzergrenadier battalions, and
the smaller SdKfz 250/7 in the recon units. Both use 81mm mortars
which can be fired from loaded or dismounted positions. The vehicle
types are similar in game terms, but the recon models are a bit faster.
Schwimmwagen. These are unarmored, wheeled, amphibious vehicles used by the German recon infantry platoons of 15/26 Company.
They cannot “swim” in this game due to the steep banks and dense
vegetation of the shallow, narrow waterways depicted on the map.
Trucks. The 12SS Transport Pool marker shows an Opel Blitz, but
the truck type used by the Germans in fact varied greatly, especially
for the 12th SS which had a large contingent of former Italian vehicles such as FIATs. The archetypical trucks for the Panzergrenadier
(motorized) units would have been the Steyr 1500A 2-ton truck for
the heavy weapons and the Opel Blitz 3-ton for the men. The real
situation in 1944 saw all sorts of trucks from German and foreign
production. Special thanks go out to A. Verspeeten for his help with
this topic.
Half-Tracks. Many German half-track units are what you might call
“37mm-enhanced,” much in the way that British Sherman troops can
be Firefly-enhanced. These units derive their AT rating from one to
three SdKfz 251/10 (or SdKfz 250/10 in the case of recon units) in
addition to the standard transport half-tracks. Two-step half-track
units lose all AT capability once reduced.
By this stage of the war, most SdKfz 251/1 transport half-tracks
would be Ausf. D. The counter images actually show a mix of Ausf.
C and D features.
SP Rockets. These two German units represent “Wurfrahmen ‘40”
self-propelled rocket half-track units. We know that Panzer Lehr
had some of these, but we’re not sure how many or how they were
attached to the division. They were tracked as ammunition rather
than AFVs, which created a brick wall with respect to research.
They are not specifically mentioned in any of our sources, and the
two units provided are a best guess. The total number of available
vehicles and their effect on the battle were probably minimal. I’ve
included them mainly for fun.
German Panzer HQ Units. We opted to leave out the HQ panzers,
assuming that they are “rolled” into other units plus factor into the
Recovery mechanic. The Regimental HQ units are also left out, as
well as the HQ platoon of each battalion, except in the case of the
Flakpanzer unit of each HQ platoon and the regimental HQ.
Pioneers. Unlike their British engineer counterparts, the German
panzer pioneers were elite assault infantry, i.e., combat engineers
equipped with close range weapons including satchel charges. The
pioneer units have organic SdKfz 251/7 engineering half-tracks.
These were sometimes armed with 28mm schwere (heavy) Panzerbüchse, but we found no evidence, photographic or otherwise,
that the units appearing in this game used this unusual weapon.
Furthermore, this weapons’ shells used tungsten in their composition, which was an increasingly rare alloy at this time of the war,
normally kept for better uses. Mere days before the countersheets
went to the printers, we decided to delete these weapons from the
transport sides of the pioneer counters. Some of the German pioneer
units had no Panzerschreck—only Panzerfaust 30 and Panzerfaust
“klein,” which were primarily defensive weapons. These single-shot
weapons had a range even shorter than that of the PIAT. The Germans
had not received their Panzerfaust 60s yet in June ‘44.
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
29.0 OB Notes
This section covers design notes and historical notes pertaining to
the units which fought in these battles.
OB Research. This is one of those areas where Operation Dauntless
was ten times more difficult and time consuming than Red Winter.
By early 2009 I had a workable OB for the game with which I was
fairly happy. Shortly before adding the game to the GMT P500 list
I told Andy Lewis at GMT that I estimated the game was 80% done.
At the time I believed that to be true, and in a sense it was. The game
I was making at that time was 80% complete. However, what you
have before you now is an entirely different game. While many of
the game’s subsystems were substituted or refined following its
inclusion on the P500, the single biggest change was the OB. Many
excellent researchers became involved with the game at this point,
most notably Vincent Lefavrais, A. Verspeeten, and David Hughes,
all of whom had much to say about the OB. In brief, many aspects
of my early OB were completely wrong, being based on theoretical
formations that were quite different from those actually deployed, or
on erroneous data, or on my own gross misunderstandings. Sorting
out the OB and making it as accurate as possible proved a much bigger undertaking than anything I’d ever imagined. Our OB discussions
have continued right up to now—just days before the printers. Over
the years, we have surely exchanged thousands of emails regarding
the units involved in these battles. Without the knowledge, patience,
and persistence, of the lead researchers, you would now have before
you a very different—and far inferior—simulation.
The German OB is based mainly on the June 1st Ist-Gliederung
(“as-is status report,” also commonly called the “Kriegsgliederung”)
which is from the Bundesarchiv and shows the actual strength of
the division at this date. It should be considered the definitive OB.
As such, it forms the foundation of the 12th SS OB for the game.
This was supplemented by books, first-hand accounts, and primary
sources too numerous to name here (see 33.0 Selected Sources). Our
researchers were quick to point out differences between what was
actually taking place in the field, and what was reported on paper.
For example, dividing the panzers to form an additional company,
and having fewer tanks per platoon. (Both topics are covered later
in these notes.) Note also that the Germans suffered many losses
between June 1 and 25. They supposedly received no materials or
men as replacements. Accounts differ on this point, but it’s at least
safe to assume that they received very little. It’s worth noting that
we had the exact source numbers of available Panzer IVs and Panthers for the start of Operation Dauntless. The infantry and other
equipment were more nebulous and based in part on division-level
casualty figures from the time up until the start of Dauntless/Epsom.
29.1 British OB Notes
49th (West Riding) Infantry Division (a.k.a. The Polar Bears).
The 49th gets its official title from the West Riding—one of the three
chunks of the large county of Yorkshire from which some of its units
came. Its unofficial title, the “Polar Bears,” came about because the
division, still only partly trained, was assigned to northern duties,
part to Norway and then the entire division to Iceland. It remained
there until relieved by the U.S. Marines.
Back in Britain, this northern exposure led to the division being
nominated for mountain training in Scotland—not that this did any
good, as in 1943 it was selected as one of the three assault divisions
33
to land in Normandy. However, in 1944 the ever-emphatic General
Montgomery was newly appointed to command the invasion and
decided otherwise, insisting that a Regular division—the 3rd—be
used instead. There were two factors at work here: The 49th was
what was called a First Line Territorial division meaning that it was
made up from the best trained of the Territorial (comparable to U.S.
National Guard) battalions of its region, but not regular; the second
that the 3rd was Montgomery’s old command in the 1940 campaign.
Just after the period covered by the game, one battalion, the 6th
Duke of Wellington’s Regiment was removed due to excessive
losses—380 men in 14 days. It was replaced by a regular battalion,
the 1st Leicestershire Regiment. (A scenario titled “The End of the
6th Dukes—Stopping the Juvigny-Fontenay Gap” was removed due
to space constraints in the Scenario Book but will likely be made
available post-publication at some point.) In August, as casualties
mounted, the entire 70th Infantry Brigade was removed and replaced
by the 56th Infantry Brigade.
Despite these losses, the 49th continued to fight, at Le Havre, Nijmegen and the Reichswald, ending the war with the advance into
Holland where it liberated Amsterdam and Utrecht. In all it had
taken almost 11,000 casualties, 1,642 of them killed.
2nd Battalion, The Princess Louise’s Kensington Regiment
(a.k.a. Kensington’s or Kensington’s MG). This is a divisional
machine-gun battalion with three companies of Vickers MMG (all
assigned by platoon to infantry battalions) and one company of 4.2”
heavy mortars (all assigned by platoon to the infantry brigades). In
game terms, the MG platoons are color-coded on their counters and
organized in the OB to correspond to the infantry brigades/battalions
to which they are assigned, while the heavy mortar platoons are not.
Elements, 49th Regiment Reconnaissance Corps. One of the three
recon squadrons was assigned directly to the attack—the one shown
in the game. Both of the other two squadrons were also involved
but on the flanks, yet were also adding to the recon capability of
the division in the area of the battle. The choice we faced was to
either show the entire regiment (which would require many more
counters) but with strict rules on usage, or add partial elements of
the other two squadrons—the mobile elements—into the single
squadron shown in the game. We opted to represent this disparate
mass of unit types as two discrete types, lumping like with like and
ending up with separate counters for cars and carriers. Hence, in the
game, the extra armored car equates to one recon section, and an
additional carrier in each carrier section equates to one additional
carrier section. Not having those additions would have made both
unit types too weak to operate by themselves. We made no attempt
to increase the AT sections since the other squadrons would need
to keep all of their own.
8th Armoured Brigade. The 8th Armoured Brigade was a rare
type of formation. Most tank-equipped brigades had three tank
units, equipped with either Sherman tanks for armoured brigades or
Churchill tanks for tank brigades. But the 8th was different; as well
as its three Sherman regiments it had a motor battalion (half-track
equipped infantry) and a complete regiment of self-propelled Sexton
25-pdr guns. Only one other brigade—the 4th—was organized in the
same way and both brigades were, in effect, miniature armoured divisions. It makes sense to consider both as armoured brigade groups.
The 8th first saw action in late 1942 in Tunisia and fought until the
end of the North African Campaign, then returning to the UK. Each
of its three tank regiments had a different origin. The 4th/7th Royal
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
34
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
Dragoon Guards was a regular unit (the “4th/7th” refers to an earlier
merger of the 4th Royal Irish and 7th Princess Royal’s heavy cavalry
units), the 24th Lancers one of three wartime formed “cavalry”
regiments (the other two served in India), and the Nottinghamshire
Yeomanry a territorial (in US terms, a National Guard) cavalry unit.
It had previously had an insulting experience for a cavalry unit, being
ordered to dismount in 1940 and serve as coast artillery gunners in
Crete and Tobruk. But since Yeomanry cavalry officers tended to be
rich and influential (its subtitle was the Sherwood Rangers) it was
quickly remounted—if on tanks.
The Normandy Campaign was costly for the 8th which lost 124 of
its 190 tanks in the first 25 days. By July, losses were so great that
its junior regiment, the 24th Lancers, had to be disbanded, replaced
by the regular 13th/18th Hussars. In the advance after crossing the
Seine, the 8th really shone, sharing with the equally adventurous 4th
Armoured Brigade the assumed title of “Montgomery’s Greyhounds”
based on their ability to achieve sustained attacks using their integral
infantry and artillery.
This division was the last of the SS panzer divisions, created by the
Fuhrer’s order on February 13, 1943. Initially a panzergrenadier
division, on October 30, 1943, it was reorganized to a panzer division. The division was named Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) for the
composition of the troops—the majority of its members (soldiers as
well as non-commissioned officers) were recruited from the Hitler
Youth organization of the Nazi party and born in the first half of
1926. The officers, however, mostly originated from the 1st SS
Panzer Division “Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler” with an additional
fair number coming from the Heer (army), and were veterans with
extensive Eastern Front combat experience. The division comprised
one panzer regiment, two panzergrenadier regiments, one artillery
regiment, and one armored recon battalion. The panzergrenadier
regiments included the motorized (truck-born) 25th Regiment and
mechanized (half-track-born) 26th Regiment, but only one of the
26th’s three panzergrenadier battalions was truly mechanized. The
division saw its first combat deployment in Normandy, going into
action the day after D-Day (June 7, 1944) against the Canadian
3rd Infantry Division, preventing a Canadian advance to Caen and
Carpiquet by the North Nova Scotia Highlanders and Sherbrooke
Fusiliers, and destroying 28 Canadian tanks. On June 7, 43 Canadian
POWs were executed by members of the 12th SS, earning them the
hatred of the Allies.
The 12th SS continued to fight in the Caen sector throughout
June, repulsing Canadian and British attacks. On June 25, it was
deployed in the Fontenay sector, with the 3rd Battalion of the 26th
Panzergrenadier Regiment deployed in the town proper, with one
panzer company (the 8th) deployed south of the town, in supporting
positions, and with the divisional pioneer unit deployed in the open
fields just to the east.
26th Panzergrenadier Regiment.
III. (mechanized) Battalion (9/26, 10/26, 11/26, 12/26). This battalion had about 56 total SdKfz 251/1 transport half-tracks.
12th schwere (heavy) Company (12/26). Oddly, the heavy weapons company did not have any mortars, SP or otherwise. The six
“Stummel” SP guns of the company were fielded as one platoon per
doctrine (as described in “Merkblatt 47a/33”) and therefore appear
in the game as one double-sided unit.
14th SS Flak Kompanie (14/26). We know the exact number and
equipment type (12 towed 20mm flak) from our sources. We also
know that some of the German AA units in the area were under
orders to prepare for ground action, per Meyer.
29.2 German OB Notes
12th SS “Hitlerjugend” (“Hitler Youth”) Panzer Division
“The SS showed that they believed that thus far, everybody had been
fighting like milkmaids.” - Lt. Rudolph Schaaf
At the time of Operation Dauntless the 12th SS Panzer Division was
one of the best equipped on the western front in terms of weapons,
manpower, and tanks. What they lacked in experience they made
up for in sheer tenacity. The division was made up entirely of seventeen and eighteen year old boys, apart from officers and senior
non-commissioned officers, earning them the nickname “the Baby
Milk Division.” They received no tobacco or alcohol rations, getting
candy and chocolate instead. But they quickly proved themselves
in combat time and again as small pockets of resistance managed
to stall superior British numbers.
15th SS Recon Company—Volkswagen (15/26). The Gliederung
does not show this company at all, but we can assume it existed from
H. Meyer’s book, which even lists its leaders’ names. The book states
that the Recce Coy of the 25th Panzergrenadier Rgt was equipped
with amphibious Volkswagen Schwimmwagen cars, and then states
that the 26th Rgt. had the same organization as the 25th. The KStN
(Kriegsstärkenachweisung) for a Panzer-Aufklärungskompanie
(Volkswagen) shows, apart from the Kübelwagen (or Schwimmwagen), five Motorcycles, two 81mm Mortars, four HMGs, 18 LMGs,
seven Trucks, and 228 total men (including officers). In game terms,
the 18 LMGs give the company a total CS of roughly 6-7. I opted
to portray the company as three platoons to give them greater flexibility. The 4th platoon was the heavy weapons—MGs and mortars.
Special thanks go to A. Verspeeten and Vincent Lefavrais for their
kind assistance in researching this topic and generating a “best guess”
OB for this “missing” company.
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
16th SS Pioneer Company (16/26). The Gliederung shows two
HMGs and 18 LMGs. It also shows six flame-throwers, which are
presumably the infantry weapon type. The regimental pioneers of
26th Regiment are not to be confused with the divisional pioneers.
There has been some popular confusion regarding the latter unit,
with some claiming that they were not present in Normandy, or else
did not exist. This is not so. The 12th SS did in fact have its Pioneer
Battalion with it in Normandy, but it was destroyed on June 26 while
defending Cheux and does not exist after that. On that evening, the
12th SS divisional report states, “the Pioneer Battalion should be
considered as annihilated.” Note that this battalion does not appear
in this game, as it was located too far east.
12th SS Divisions-Begleit-Kompanie (Division Escort Company). This unit was in action with the Panzer Lehr Division in
their efforts against the British 50th Infantry Division, off-map to
the west, during the battles portrayed in this game. The function of
this company was to escort the divisional staff, but it was also used
as a last reserve and assault company for plugging holes in the line.
It was carried on trucks.
35
guns in this company (11 of 25 vehicles) to have a full complement
of SdKfz 250/9s.
3rd & 4th (Recon) Companies (3/Auf, 4/Auf). The Gliederung
lists 56 MGs and this total includes the MGs mounted on the various half-tracks, so this leaves roughly 20 MGs to account for. This
probably means six per infantry platoon, which leaves only two—
probably protection for the mortars. The Gliederung shows 32 and
37 SdKfz 250/1 transport half-tracks in the 3rd and 4th Companies,
respectively.
Players will note that these units lack a red-box CS value on their
loaded sides. This was intentional. Each platoon includes a SdKfz
250/8 with short-barreled 75mm gun for infantry support. I rationalized that one such vehicle would not be enough to justify an
orange-boxed CS (like a Stummel section) but would be sufficient
to help these units avoid a red-box CS penalty when attacking into
close terrain. The inclusion of these vehicles is also reflected in the
relatively higher RAS ratings of the recon infantry platoons.
12SS Panzer Regiment.
This battalion was the 12th SS’s only infantry reserve and began
the battle near Bretteville and Missy. It had suffered almost 50%
manpower casualties by the time of Operation Dauntless.
Each Panzer IV tank unit represents a platoon of roughly five tanks
(12th SS) as compared to an understrength platoon of two to three
tanks in Panzer Lehr. To reflect this difference in numbers, only the
12th SS panzer platoons are two-step units. The marginally higher
CS, RAS, and Fire Control ratings of the 12SS platoons account for
the additional vehicles.
1st (Armored Car) Company (1/Auf). The Gliederung shows five
SdKfz 232 (8-wheeled, 20mm gun) and six SdKfz 223 (4-wheeled,
radio + MG). More cars were en route to the front, but due to delays they did not arrive until July. The report linked to the June 1st
Gliederung shows that 27 “half-tracks and armored cars” are in
“short-term (i.e. 3 week maximum) repairs” at this date.
When we examined the panzer strength of the 12th SS, we discovered
that it was at its best on June 25. The full-strength stats of all German tanks were calculated based around the idea that they should
be determined by the average number of vehicles per platoon on the
morning of June 25. This explains why all 12th SS tank units begin
the Campaign Game at full-strength, despite the previous fighting.
2nd (“Armored Car”) Company (2/Auf). The Meldung (Strength
Report) of June 1st says that the unit was still short by twelve SdKfz
222 and six SdKfz 233. The June 1st Gliederung is very hard to
follow at this point but it seems likely that the “cars” are actually
recon half-tracks—probably SdKfz 250/9 armed with 20mm guns.
We know from the Gliederung that 11 of the 25 “armored cars”
had 20mm guns, and all 25 had MGs. The numbers could indicate
two platoons of 5-6 SdKfz 250/9 each. However, it also shows 25
“light armored cars” and six “light artillery spotter vehicles” (possibly the SdKfz 250/12 range spotting half-tracks) and 25 MG. This
last point is confusing since the vehicles with 20mm autocannon
should also have MGs (the 250/9 was also equipped with either
a single MG34 or MG42, for example). Since there are 25 “light
armored cars” and 25 MGs, this leads us to believe that the MGs
on the 20mm-armed vehicles were ignored or overlooked because
they were not the primary weapon, and the cited 25 MGs are the
armament of the light armored cars, which are either SdKfz 250/1 or
SdKfz 251/1 standard APCs, or early, obsolete, proper armored cars,
which technically should not still be in service in June ‘44. On the
other hand, even uniforms in the 12th SS weren’t always standard
issue, many men wearing Italian leftovers with an alternative camo
scheme! Improvisations to deal with shortages of materials in some
areas were rather common in 1944, also in the Waffen-SS.
I. Battalion (Panthers) (1/Pz12, 2/Pz12, 4/Pz12). This battalion
was an operational reserve kept near Noyers. The 1st, 2nd, and 4th
Companies were present during these battles. The 3rd Company
(commanded by Rudolf von Ribbentrop, the son of the German
Foreign Minister) had suffered heavy losses in a short timespan at
the beginning of the invasion. On June 14, it was ordered to cede its
eight remaining operational tanks to the HQ, 1st and 4th Companies,
and its surviving crews were sent to Le Neubourg (40 km south of
Rouen) to fill up the ranks of a new company.
12th SS Armored Recon Battalion (PanzerAufklärungsabteilung).
The unit counters represent a mixture of SdKfz 250/9 (with 20mm
gun + MG) and SdKfz 250/5 radio vehicles. Some of the SdKfz
250/9 vehicles are probably actually SdKfz 250/1, since this type
was substituted, and since we know that there are not enough 20mm
Panthers on June 26. Our rationale for inactive Panther platoons and
step reductions to Panthers for the June 26 scenarios is as follows.
The Germans had been attacking for a couple of turns prior to the
beginning of these scenarios (which begin at 0700) and our sources
mentioned that one of the Panther companies started the attack with
two platoons, keeping the third in reserve. We felt it was likely that
the other companies did the same. The Panthers had already been
committed during the afternoon of the day before, and they had
been fighting for some time since dawn on June 26. The number
of available 12th SS Panthers on June 26 was down from 44 to 37,
so we felt that the equivalent of seven Panthers should be removed
from the game. Historically, 4th Company lost three Panthers (totally
knocked out) on June 25/26, while 2nd Company lost only two. The
other two missing Panthers must have been only damaged and sent
to the workshop. Based on these data and suppositions, we opted
to remove a total of three Panther steps before the start of the June
26 scenarios. We decided on two steps from 4/Pz12 and 1 step from
2/Pz12 because these two companies historically took the leading
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
36
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
part in the June 25 counterattack, whereas 1/Pz12 was committed
in more of a supporting role.
in H. Meyer’s book from a platoon leader of 5th Company on June
27, near Cheux, who says “I announced Bando’s death to [...] the two
other platoon leaders…” which strongly infers only three platoons
per company at this time, or at least within 5th Company.
From the summer of ‘44 onward (if not sooner), the 4th platoons
of 5th through 8th Companies had been concentrated into the unauthorized “9. Kompanie” for greater tactical flexibility. From the
summer of ‘44 onward, TOE panzer strength dropped from 22 to
17 to even 14 in some cases. On the eve of Operation Epsom (June
26), 12th SS Panzer Regiment had a total of about 58 Mk IVs and 44
Panthers. Obviously, they had even more than this prior to Operation
Dauntless since the Brits knocked out several on June 25, according
to reliable accounts from both sides.
Panzer IV tanks of the 12th SS Panzer Division in January, 1944.
II. Battalion (Panzers) (5/Pz12, 6/Pz12, 8/Pz12). This battalion
comprised roughly 60-65 Panzer IVs, as a best case scenario, at the
end of June ‘44. Dividing this between five companies with three
platoons each, we get about four tanks on average per platoon.
Early versions of the game counters had their stats based on the
assumption that there were four companies total (see below) with
three platoons per company and an average of about 4.5 tanks per
platoon. The counter stats needed to be recalculated—with CS, RAS,
and FC all decreased proportionally—in light of rather compelling
evidence that there were actually five companies operating at the
time of Operation Dauntless.
In June of 2015, a new French book by Stephan Cazenave, based
on primary sources including the war diaries of the 12th SS-PanzerRegiment and its two battalions, as well as veterans’ accounts, made
it clear that, contrary to what H. Meyer’s 12th SS history recounted
in vague details, the 7th Company did not take part in any of the
Cristot, Boislonde, or Dauntless fighting. Like the 3rd Company
(Panthers), it suffered heavy losses in the early days of the campaign,
losing a great number of tanks and all its officers by June 9. On June
13, the survivors that had not been transferred to other companies as
replacements were sent to the Rouen area under SS-Obersturmführer
Albert Gasch to fill in their ranks; the new company wouldn’t reach
the front until July. Some last minute adjustments to unit stats and
scenarios were thus made necessary just before the game went to
print, as this change meant that the remaining panzer platoons of II.
Battalion should represent five tanks per counter, not four.
The 9th Company of panzers was not included in the OB because it
was west of Carpiquet Airfield, well off-map to the east. Therefore
it is not be available to the German player in the game, even as a
Reinforcement.
The various researchers and contributors on feldgrau.net have suggested that there may have been four platoons per company with
fewer tanks per platoon. I believe this conclusion was mainly based
on the numeric vehicle ID’s found on the tanks themselves, as visible in photographs. These ID’s can be confusing, in part because
the Germans intended them to be so. For example, in a photo of a
Panzer IV with painted ID number “837,” the ID indicates that the
panzer belongs to 8th Company, third platoon, and it is (interestingly)
vehicle number three. Max Wünsche, Panzer-Regiment commander,
ordered his tanks be numbered starting from five rather than one in
order to “mask” the platoon leader’s vehicle. We found an account
According to Niklas Zetterling in his book Normandy 1944, “On
June 1st, the 12SSPD had 91 combat ready Panzer IVs, with 7 in
short-term repair. By June 16th this had dropped to 52, then 26 on
June 17th, 45 on June 18th. The number then increased to 59 on
June 20th, 55 on June 23rd, and 58 on June 24th.” Presumably this
increase was due to tanks previously listed as being in short-term
repair being reintegrated into their units; the regiment enjoyed no
proper tank reinforcements during these battles. At the kick-off of
Operation Epsom (June 26) the number of Panzer IVs was back up
to 60, but then dropped to only 32 (with 22 in short-term repair) by
the next day! It remained at 32 on July 2.
A knocked out tank of 8th Company is being towed by a British
Cromwell recovery vehicle.
8th (Panzer) Company (8/Pz12). Players will note that this company is the only panzer company that starts the game on-map. It
had only nine available tanks on June 19. To remove this company
from the worst of the continuous British artillery pounding, it was
withdrawn on June 20 to the former II. Battalion HQ, 2.5 km south
of Fontenay (it was too vulnerable in the town itself). However, the
war diary of II./SS-Pz.Rgt. 12 shows that the panzer battalion saw
no combat action during the June 20-25 period, so the company
must have received some tanks back from the workshops by the
kick-off of Dauntless. The company’s first move was to send four
panzers to Fontenay to bolster the grenadiers fighting there in the
early morning hours of June 25. The whole company then supported
the fighting withdrawal of III./26 Panzergrenadier Battalion later that
day. Players will note that the 8th Company is likely to see a lot of
action in the game, as it did historically.
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
A Wirbelwind field conversion of II. Battalion. This quadruple
20mm AA gun mounted on a Panzer IV chassis was developed
by Karl-Wilhelm Krause for this battalion
of the 12th SS Panzer Regiment.
II./Pz12 HQ Flak Section (HQ/II/Pz12). The Wirbelwind unit is
comprised of field conversions, not production line vehicles. These
had no turret armor, so the overall Armor rating was reduced to
reflect this, and a special graphic (of which we are quite proud!)
was created by Charlie Kibler. There were no true Wirbelwinds in
Normandy at this point.
12th SS Panzer Artillery Regiment.
The Gliederung gives us a complete picture of the number of
artillery in this regiment, but the number of artillery which were
actually supporting the on-map 12th SS units is only a fraction
of this total. By carefully comparing the Gliederung to accounts
from primary sources, we were able to take an educated guess as
to how many units from this regiment should appear in the game,
and at what times on what dates. The OB in the Reynolds book
shows three batteries of SP artillery and two of towed, while Kurt
Meyer states just the opposite (two and three). Hubert Meyer says
that four six-gun batteries (one self-propelled 105mm Wespe, one
self-propelled 150mm Hummel, and two towed 105mm) from two
artillery battalions were located near Cheux, 500 meters southwest
of the church. The I. (self-propelled) Battalion also comprised a 1st
battery consisting of six Wespe SP guns, but per Meyer’s account,
this battery was located elsewhere and thus it does not appear in the
game. The II. (towed) Battalion consisted of three batteries of six
each 105mm light field howitzers, towed by tractors. Kurt Meyer
mentions that II. Battalion was located to the east near Cheux, then
when Epsom was launched it pulled back to the Salbey sector (just
southeast of Cheux), and on June 27th, it supported the fighting at
Rauray but then ran out of ammo. III. Battalion (150mm howitzers
and 105mm field guns) was not in support of the Dauntless sector,
and does not appear in the game.
37
12th SS Projector (Rocket) Battalion. A handful of British accounts
specifically mention coming under fire from “Moaning Minnies”
or some other reference to German rocket artillery on June 25-26
during Operation Dauntless. H. Meyer mentions that the first battery (only) of the 12th SS Projector Battalion arrived on the front
on June 12th and was attached to one battalion (Abteilung) of the
Werfer-Regiment 83 (comprising, along with the Werfer-Rgt 84,
the Werfer-Brigade 7) which supported the 25th Panzergrenadier
Regiment north and northeast of Caen. Werfer-Rgt 83 later operated
against Operation Epsom. According to Zetterling, “it was not until
the beginning of July the entire battalion had arrived.” However,
we weren’t entirely sure this ruled out the possibility that additional
(but not all) batteries arrived after June 12 but before early July.
1st Platoon, 12th SS Pioneer Battalion (1/Pi12). The lack of attached transport for this unit is intentional. These latecomers to the
battle arrived on foot as reinforcements at the Ferme St-Nicolas
during the June 25/26 night. Their company, as well as the rest of
the pioneer battalion, was posted on the frontlines just off-map to
the east, where they would be annihilated on the following day,
during the Epsom offensive.
Panzer Lehr Division
It’s worth noting that the Panzer Lehr OB, more so than the 12th SS
OB, contains several units that did not take part in the June 25-27
fighting but might have done so had the British pressed harder on
this front. Historically, the British left the Panzer Lehr pretty much
undisturbed on June 26-27 rather than shuffling units to this front
to take advantage of a weaker resistance there. Even the earliest
playtests of the Campaign Game revealed a conundrum: The British
player, having a much clearer understanding of the forces opposing
him on both fronts, was likely to put more pressure on the weaker
Panzer Lehr front than his historical counterpart (see Historical
Notes for 18.14 for more details). This presented an interesting
design challenge: maintaining game balance and historical realism
without somehow tying the hands of the British player. One way of
handling this was to allow for a greater variety of Panzer Lehr units
as reinforcements—units that were situated just off-map or in reserve
during the dates gamed. These units—namely, the Jagdpanthers of
2/654 and a number of the understrength Panzer IV platoons of 7/
Pz130 and 8/Pz130—did not participate in the fighting on these dates
and in the area of our map, but were available. If the British player
presses the attack in the Panzer Lehr sector the German player can
commit these units just as his historical counterpart likely would
have done.
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
38
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
able Jagdpanthers available. On June 29, the company passed under
control of XLVII Panzerkorps, without having been engaged. Had
they started moving to their staging area earlier, instead of waiting
for stragglers and getting a new camouflage finish, the Jagdpanthers
might have been in a position to intervene against the British as early
as the afternoon of June 25, if the German command had recognized
a need to do so. Making them available on the battlefield helps
address a balancing issue in favor of the British, since the British
player knows the strength and makeup of the Panzer Lehr line, and
he knows that it is the “weak link” in the German defenses.
9th Flak Company (9/901). This company was the 901’s regimental
AA company. It comprised three sections: one with two SdKfz 7/1
(Flakvierling quad 20mm mounted on a SdKfz 7 half-track), and
two with four each SdKfz 10/4 or 10/5 (20mm Flak 30 or Flak 38
on SdKfz 10 half-tracks); given the division’s creation date, it was
probably equipped with the latter, but the counter art depicts the
former. Since more than half of the 901st Regiment is fighting in
the game area, we felt there was a strong probability that some or
even most of this company was engaged on-map. I added them to
the counter mix as much for fun as to bolster Lehr’s AA defense
and ground attack, choosing to portray two of the three sections.
992nd Heavy Artillery Battalion. These 152mm guns are captured
Soviet weapons, considered to be superior to the standard German
150mm howitzers.
Jagdpanthers of the Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 654.
654th Heavy Tank Destroyer Battalion (2/654). At the time of
D-Day, the schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 654 was based at the
tank training facility in Mailly-le-Camp, about 100 km east of
Paris. On June 12, OB West recommended a company with the only
eight available Jagdpanthers to be sent to StuG-Brigade 902 in the
Valognes area, south of Cherbourg. But this recommendation was
overcome by events and, while in Argentan on June 19, the company
was attached to the Panzer Lehr Division by order of the 7th Army.
Generalleutnant Bayerlein authorized two days of maintenance for
the company to catch their breath; but it was four days before it
moved to Falaise (a 22-km trip) on the evening of June 23, then to
Bonnemaison southeast of Villers-Bocage (35 km) during the night
of June 24/25, and finally to Épinay-sur-Odon (10 km) on the evening
of June 25, with only two Jagdpanthers reaching the area. A third
arrived on the morning of June 26, and June 27 saw five service-
Our researchers felt that a possible June 25-26 entry for the Jagdpanthers could be justified in any of several ways. For example,
OB West might have made the recommendation sooner, or even
commanded rather than recommended the transfer, possibly even
earmarking the unit for priority. Similarly, the unit might have been
sent to Panzer Lehr from the get-go—quite justifiable considering
the length of the Lehr’s front lines and its heavy infantry losses in
the early June fighting. Purists are welcome to delay the Jagdpanthers’ entry until June 27; their commitment requires a voluntary
expenditure of Reinforcement Points, after all.
The Jagdpanther (“hunting panther”) was a new AFV model with
a number of teething problems, and prone to breakdowns, as the
historical march illustrated. We felt that making all eight vehicles
available for the game was too much of a stretch. This is also reflected in the staggering of their availability over the course of the
game. Historically, these powerful tank destroyers were used in the
field in the same manner as the Tigers: as “fire brigades” reacting to
enemy armored thrusts where they most threatened the thin German
lines, so we felt that two-vehicle units were the best way to depict
them. Their long 88s (8.8cm KwK 43 L/71) were superior to the
Tiger’s short 88 (KwK 36 L/56) with a higher initial velocity of
1,100m/s. Additionally, the crew of the 654th were veterans from
Russia; this helped with regards to the units’ FC ratings by partially
counterbalancing the Jagdpanther’s lack of a turret.
Pumas. The SdKfz 234/2 Puma entered production in late ‘43. Only
101 of these heavy armored cars were produced, and our research
could account for the delivery of all but six of these. Panzer Lehr
Division received 20 of them, six of which are represented in the
game. There are at least four pieces of circumstantial evidence that
the 12th SS eventually received Pumas, including a July photo, a
November OB showing four Pumas in the HQ Company of the
Panzer-Aufklärungsabteilung, and a painting of the 12th SS with a
Puma, but the division had no Pumas in June of ‘44.
21st Panzer Division
The lower CS ratings of the 21PD infantry companies are attributed
to two factors. Per Heimdal 21PD history, the two companies fighting
with Panzer Lehr were weakened by the previous weeks of fighting
and were understrength. The infantry component of 12th SS, Panzer
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
39
Lehr, and 21PD Panzergrenadier Companies all had 18 LMGs per
company. But the Panzer Lehr companies, as well as the III./26
companies, being equipped with half-tracks, had about two dozen
more mounted on their vehicles (unlike the truck-borne companies
of 21PD) and routinely dismantled some of them to bolster the
Panzergrenadiers on the frontlines.
French Half-Tracks (HT/1/192). This independent transport unit
is comprised of captured and modified French Unic P107 half-track
tractors. The Germans armored some of these to serve as infantry
carriers, giving them the “leichte SPW U304 (f)” designation (leichte
= light); a number were equipped with 37mm PaK 36 AT guns, to
serve as platoon leader vehicles, and were simply named “SPW
U304 (f) mit 3.7cm PaK 36.” Thus, HT/1/192 was equipped with
both SPW U304 (f) and SPW U304 (f) with 37mm PaK 36. The
picture on the counter mistakenly shows a different captured French
half-track model, the SPW S307 (f), as our “best guess” at the time
the counters were created had led us to believe that this was most
likely the model used. By the time we had the new information,
it was too late to change the artwork. The two models look quite
similar at the size they are portrayed on the counter, so I’m not too
worried about it.
101st SS Heavy Panzer Battalion.
The presence of Tigers at these battles is clearly documented, but
the number of them engaged has been the subject of much debate.
We know from German sources and British photographic evidence
that a handful were at the battles, but the exact number that actually
saw combat was probably minimal, seeing as no Tiger managed to
reach the 12th SS counterattack start line in time at dawn on June 26,
as ordered, as well as how the battalion’s westernmost company at
the time, the 3./101, was ordered to the Grainville area by mid-day
on June 26 to oppose the Scottish thrust toward the Odon.
The British certainly claimed to have fought a large number of
these monsters, but gamers should keep in mind that these battles
took place soon after the infamous Villers-Bocage incident, where
a dozen Tigers, among them Michael Wittmann’s, stopped cold the
progress of the 22nd Armoured Brigade in a battle whose beginning
has often been likened to a “turkey shoot.” It is likely that the Tiger’s
reputation had spread out of control at this point, causing the Panzer
IV, with its blocky silhouette, to be mistaken for the feared Tiger.
Existing pictures reveal that each company had at least one Tiger
operating in the Dauntless sector during the dates gamed: Tiger 334
(3rd Company) was disabled in Rauray; Tiger 114 (1st Company)
was captured, in working order, by the British; and another Tiger,
without visible turret numbers but whose battalion emblem’s location on the front hull is characteristic of the 2nd Company, was also
knocked out in the Rauray spur area. We reasoned that four to six
Tigers was a reasonable number to include in the game, as much
for fun and variety as anything else, and so included a total of three
sections (of two Tigers each) in the game but left it up to the German
player as to how many should be committed and when.
Luftwaffe Units
(2/Flak12). The lone on-map 88mm flak unit comprises four 88mm
guns and three 20mm guns. Originally we rated it the same as the
20mm flak units, on the assumption that the bigger guns would have
been too unwieldy to effectively engage low-flying Allied fighterbombers. However, while researching the German use of 88mm
guns as artillery support, we found the following: “The close-range
fire of heavy AA batteries (i.e., the rapid fire of several groups, with
fuses set for this purpose, as a rule to 700 meters) against low-flying
aircraft attacking these batteries also proved successful. Aircraft
were even shot down, which was hardly to be expected from this
type of firing.” We deemed this grounds for a one point increase to
the flak rating of this unit.
30.0 Historical Notes
Operation Dauntless was an ambitious British offensive that was
both a failure and a success. It failed to meet its 24-hour timeline
for capturing the high ground near Rauray prior to the kick-off of
the larger Operation Epsom, over open ground just to the east, but
it succeeded in tying down a number of powerful German panzer
divisions.
Two and a half weeks after D-Day (June 6, 1944), the British VIII
Corps was in a position to outflank Caen—nicknamed the “anvil of
victory”—via an offensive into the Odon Valley west of the city. The
capture of Caen would allow a unified Allied front to protect the flank
of the US First Army and form a jumping-off point for the capture
of Falaise. The British 3rd Infantry Division had driven on Caen on
June 6 but was halted by the 21st Panzer Division. The next day, a
pincer attack on the city was attempted (Operation Perch) but was
halted by the 21st Panzer and Panzer Lehr Divisions. A fresh advance
east of Caen by the 3rd Canadian Division on June 11 was met and
checked by the recently arrived 12th SS Panzer Division. The British
7th Armoured Division exploited a gap and captured Villers-Bocage
but was forced to withdraw after a costly counterattack. VIII Corps
next planned to outflank Caen from the east (Operation Dreadnought)
but violent storms in the English Channel delayed the Allied effort by postponing three British divisional disembarkations; that
offensive was cancelled. The storms also grounded Allied aircraft
and allowed two more German divisions to reach Normandy, while
the 21st Panzer and Panzer Lehr Divisions fortified their defensive
positions via trenches and minefields.
Operation Epsom, an offensive across the open ground west of
Caen and into the wooded Odon River Valley, was scheduled for
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
40
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
June 26. But for Epsom to succeed, XXX Corps needed to capture
the Rauray spur on the day prior. This spur consisted of the high
ground to the west of Operation Epsom and offered the Germans a
commanding view of the wide-open Epsom battlefield. If the spur
remained in German hands on June 26, hellish fire from German
artillery, mortars, and 88mm guns could be directed upon the advancing troops of VIII Corps.
The 49th (West Riding) Infantry Division, also known as “the Polar
Bears,” had the unenviable goal of capturing the Rauray spur in just
over 24 hours. This three-phase offensive (the phases of which were
code-named “Barracuda,” “Walrus,” and “Albacore”) was named
“Operation Dauntless” at the time of the battles but it has become
more commonly known as “Operation Martlet” by most historians
since. Both Martlet and Epsom were named after English horse
racing tracks—the idea being to choose code names that gave the
Germans as little clue as possible as to the nature of the operations
in the event that British plans were intercepted.
The Polar Bears’ attack at dawn on June 25 was supported by the
Sherman tanks of the 8th Armoured Brigade as well as the “funnies” (specialized tanks) of the 79th Armoured Division, the 49th’s
own divisional artillery, an additional field artillery regiment, a
battery of M10 Achilles tank destroyers, and five VIII Corps field
artillery regiments. The attack began across open ground with two
infantry brigades up front and one in reserve, and was directed into
the breach between two German Panzer Divisions. On the west,
opposite the Hallamshire and Lincolnshire Battalions of the British
146th Brigade, the Panzer Lehr Division held the far bank of the
Bordel River—actually just a small stream but swollen from the
storm. Panzer Lehr controlled the area around Juvigny-sur-Seulles,
the hilltop wood near Tessel, and Bas de Fontenay (lower Fontenay).
On the east, opposite the Royal Scots Fusiliers Battalion of the 147th
Infantry Brigade, the 3rd Battalion of the 12th SS Panzer Division
had taken up positions in Fontenay-le-Pesnel and the open fields to
the east. Both German divisions were well-equipped and formidable
adversaries but they had suffered heavy losses since the D-Day
invasion and were now tired.
For notes pertaining to the individual phases of Operation Dauntless as well as the preliminary battles for Cristot and Le Parc de
Boislonde (June 16-20), see the Historical Notes for the individual
scenarios in sections 18.1-18.16 of the Scenario Book.
The Polar Bears were met with staunch resistance and did not capture
the Rauray spur on June 25. In fact, it took four days of heavy fighting before it was finally wrestled from the Germans. (Incidentally,
many text books refer to June 25 (only) as “Operation Martlet” and
to subsequent days as “Epsom actions in the Martlet sector.”) Both
operations—Dauntless and Epsom—failed to achieve their goals
but succeeded in diverting the German panzer strength from the
Allied beachheads further west. Dauntless diverted the main panzer
strength of the 12th SS and allowed Operation Epsom to attain its
first day objectives.
The Polar Bears would hold their line around Rauray throughout
the remainder of June and most of July, successfully defending
against multiple German counterattacks by the newly arrived II.
SS-Panzer-Korps.
31.0 Mapmaker’s Notes
The mapmaking process for Operation Dauntless is noteworthy in
two areas.
First, the large hexscale has allowed us to implement detailed
contours in addition to the slope hexsides used for the game itself.
Observant players will note the entire hexgrid is slightly displaced
over the map—this displacement follows the gentle contours of the
area’s elevation; you will see it particularly in valleys, such as the
river cut around Hex 0215.
Second, the available source material for the area is exceptional.
Thanks to aerial reconnaissance flights the week before the battle,
we have stunning photographic imagery of the entire field, down to
individual trees. The map could easily have been made with perfect
detail, but ultimately of course the needs of the game must take
precedence. I have, however, maintained exact detail in the “lesser”
map elements; this being the precise location of the fields and their
planted/fallow status, the orchards (where they intersect precisely
with the game’s heavy bocage hexes), and the hedgerows (where
they intersect with any bocage hex). The “greater” elements on the
map (woods, rivers, bridges, buildings, and roads) are shown at a
much-exaggerated scale for clarity of gameplay.
Whilst Mark Mokszycki and I did much of the initial map work,
and I of course created the final map, I would be remiss not to give
special thanks to Vincent Lefavrais and Antonio Pinar Peña. Vincent
guided Mark and I through precise terrain details, and even went so
far as to visit the battlefield and provide reports. Antonio’s work in
maintaining a gameplay map throughout playtesting gave invaluable
help through the middle of the process. We’re all quite proud of this
map, and hope it’s a pleasure to play on...
Until next time,
Mark Mahaffey
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
41
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
32.0 Order of Battle
218th Anti-Tank Battery, RA
When listing the number of weapons per unit, the format “9+3” is
sometimes used, where the “+3” refers to those weapons carried
by the officers.
• 218 AT Anti-Tank Troop (as above)
32.1 British OB
Compared to the Germans, the British forces stuck more closely to
their theoretical OB and were therefore a bit easier to research. One
of the bigger challenges was keeping track of which tank squadrons
and MG companies were assigned to which infantry battalions, and
which supporting units were on-call, for the various phases of the
operation. The SMG model is not shown for infantry units; by this
time most were Stens but some still carried Thompsons or even
Lanchesters. British Assets are not included in this OB.
49 (West Riding) Infantry Division,
a.k.a. “The Polar Bears”
• 218 AT Anti-Tank Troop (4 x 17-pounder AT gun with attached
Crusader Tractor towing vehicles)
147th Infantry Brigade (Brigadier E. R. Mahoney;
Brigadier H. Woods after July 4)
11th Battalion, The Royal Scots Fusiliers (RSF)
(RSF; as Linc above)
6th Battalion, The Duke of Wellington’s Regiment (6th Dukes)
(6DWR; as Linc above)
7th Battalion, The Duke of Wellington’s Regiment (7th Dukes)
(7DWR; as Linc above)
th
(Major General E. H. “Bubbles” Barker)
Associated Units
‘B’ Company, 2nd Battalion, Kensington’s
• B/Ken Machine Gun Platoon (4 x Vickers MMG with attached
Universal Carriers; attached to RSF)
146 Infantry Brigade (Brigadier J. F. Walker)
th
4th Battalion, The Lincolnshire Regiment (Lincolns)
• A/Linc Infantry Company (5 officers, 122 men, theoretically
armed with 72 x bolt-action rifle, ~20 x SMG, 9+1 x Bren
LMG, 6 x 2” mortar, 3 x PIAT)
• B/Ken Machine Gun Platoon (as above; attached to 6DWR)
• B/Ken Machine Gun Platoon (as above; attached to 7DWR)
143rd Field Regiment, RA
• B/Linc Infantry Company (as above)
• 143FR Gunner Battery, assigned to RSF (8 x 25-pounder field
gun)
• C/Linc Infantry Company (as above)
• 143FR Gunner Battery, assigned to 6DWR (as above)
• D/Linc Infantry Company (as above)
• 143FR Gunner Battery, assigned to 7DWR (as above)
• Mtr/Linc Mortar Platoon (6 x 3” Mortar with attached Mortar
Carriers)
219th Anti-Tank Battery, RA
• AT/Linc Anti-Tank Platoon (6 x 6-pounder AT gun with
attached towing Loyd Carriers)
• CP/Linc Carrier Platoon (63 men armed with 13 x Bren LMG,
3 x PIAT, with 13 Bren Carriers)
• 219 AT Anti-Tank Troop (4 x 17-pounder AT gun with attached
Crusader tractors)
• 219 AT Anti-Tank Troop (as above)
70th Infantry Brigade
4th Battalion, The King’s Own Yorkshire Light Infantry
(KOYLI)
(Brigadier E. C. Cookir-Collis)
(KOYLI; as Linc above)
(TS; as Linc above)
Hallamshire Battalion, the York and Lancaster Regiment
(Hallams)
(Hal; as Linc above)
1st Battalion, The Tyneside Scottish (Tyne Scots)
10th Battalion, The Durham Light Infantry (10th DLI)
(10DLI; as Linc above)
11th Battalion, The Durham Light Infantry (11th DLI)
Associated Units
(11DLI; as Linc above)
‘A’ Company, 2nd Battalion, The Princess Louise’s
Kensington Machine Gun Regiment (Kensington’s)
Associated Units
• A/Ken Machine Gun Platoon (4 x Vickers MMG with attached
Universal Carriers; attached to Linc)
• A/Ken Machine Gun Platoon (as above; attached to KOYLI)
‘C’ Company, 2 Battalion, Kensington’s
nd
• C/Ken Machine Gun Platoon (4 x Vickers MMG with attached
Universal Carriers; attached to TS)
• A/Ken Machine Gun Platoon (as above; attached to Hal)
• C/Ken Machine Gun Platoon (as above; attached to 10DLI)
69 Field Regiment, Royal Artillery (RA)
• C/Ken Machine Gun Platoon (as above; attached to 11DLI)
th
• 69FR Gunner Battery, assigned to Linc (8 x 25-pounder field
gun)
217th Anti-Tank Battery, RA
• 69FR Gunner Battery, assigned to KOYLI (as above)
• 217 AT Anti-Tank Troop (4 x 17-pounder AT gun with attached
Crusader tractors)
• 69FR Gunner Battery, assigned to Hal (as above)
• 217 AT Anti-Tank Troop (as above)
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
42
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
185th Field Regiment, RA
Elements, 4th/7th Royal Dragoon Guards Tanks (RDG)
• 185FR Gunner Battery, assigned to TS (8 x 25-pounder field
gun)
‘B’ Squadron (Duplex-Drive)
• 185FR Gunner Battery, assigned to 10DLI (as above)
• B/RDG HQ Troop (4 x Sherman III)
• B/RDG DD Troop (4 x Sherman II DD)
• 185FR Gunner Battery, 11DLI (as above)
• B/RDG DD Troop (as above)
Divisional Troops, 49 Division
• B/RDG DD Troop (as above)
Elements, 49th Regiment Reconnaissance
Corps (Rec)
‘C’ Squadron (Duplex-Drive)
th
Note: This squadron is shown with some assets transferred from the
other squadrons that operated on the flanks of the division.
3rd Troop (Armored Cars)
• AC/Rec Armored Car Troop (4 x Humber armored car)
• B/RDG DD Troop (as above)
(C/RDG; as B/RDG above)
AA/RDG Self-propelled Anti-Aircraft Troop (6 x Crusader III AA
Mk III)
Nottinghamshire “Sherwood Rangers” Yeomanry
Tanks (SRY)
4th, 5th, and 6th Troops (Scout Carriers)
• S/Rec Scout Platoon (21 men armed with 9 x Bren LMG, 9
x SMG, 1 x PIAT, 3 x 2” mortar, with 7 scout carriers and 2
Humber III light reconnaissance cars; integral armored cars
have been separated out)
• S/Rec Scout Platoon (as above)
‘A’ Squadron (Firefly-enhanced)
• A/SRY HQ Troop (4 x Sherman III)
• A/SRY Firefly-enhanced Troop (1 x VC Firefly and 3 x
Sherman III)
• A/SRY Firefly-enhanced Troop (as above)
• S/Rec Scout Platoon (as above)
• A/SRY Firefly-enhanced Troop (as above)
7th Troop (Anti-Tank)
• AT/Rec Anti-Tank Platoon (6 x 6-pounder AT gun with attached
Loyd Carriers)
• AT/Rec Anti-Tank Platoon (as above)
• A/SRY Firefly-enhanced Troop (as above)
‘B’ Squadron (Duplex-Drive)
• B/SRY HQ Troop (4 x Sherman III)
• B/SRY DD Troop (4 x Sherman II DD)
49th Division Associated Units
‘D’ Company, The Kensington Machine Gun Regiment
• D/Ken Mortar Platoon (4 x 4.2” heavy mortar with 8 x attached
Mortar Carriers + 8 x Ammo Carriers)
• B/SRY DD Troop (as above)
• B/SRY DD Troop (as above)
• B/SRY DD Troop (as above)
• D/Ken Mortar Platoon (as above)
‘C’ Squadron (Duplex-Drive)
• D/Ken Mortar Platoon (as above)
(C/SRY; as B/SRY above)
• D/Ken Mortar Platoon (as above)
AA/SRY Self-propelled Anti-Aircraft Troop (6 x Crusader III AA
Mk III)
8th Armoured Brigade
12th King’s Royal Rifle Corps (KRRC)
(Brigadier Bernard Cracroft)
Note: The scout platoons, having different equipment, are shown
separately from their infantry companies.
24 Lancers Tanks (24L)
th
‘A’ Squadron (Firefly-enhanced)
• A/24L HQ Troop (4 x Sherman III)
• A/24L Firefly-enhanced Troop (1 x VC Firefly and 3 x Sherman
III)
• A/24L Firefly-enhanced Troop (as above)
• A/KRRC Rifle Company (minus the scout platoon; 7 officers,
168 men with 102 rifles, ~21 x SMG, 12 x Bren LMG, 6 x
PIAT, 6 x 2” mortar)
• B/KRRC Rifle Company (as above)
• C/KRRC Rifle Company (as above)
• HT/KRRC (12-14 x M3 and/or M5 Half-Track, plus possibly
one scout car for the second-in-command)
• A/24L Firefly-enhanced Troop (as above)
• A/24L Firefly-enhanced Troop (as above)
• HT/KRRC (as above)
‘B’ Squadron (Firefly-enhanced)
• HT/KRRC (as above)
(B/24L; as ‘A’ Squadron, above)
• MG/KRRC Machine Gun Platoon (4 x Vickers MMG, with 8 x
carrier transport, 1 x PIAT)
‘C’ Squadron (Firefly-enhanced)
• MG/KRRC (as above)
(C/24L; as ‘A’ Squadron, above)
AA/24L Self-propelled Anti-Aircraft Troop (6 x Crusader III AA
Mk III)
• AT/KRRC Anti-Tank Troop (4 x 6-pdr AT gun with attached
Loyd Carriers)
• AT/KRRC (as above)
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
43
• AT/KRRC (as above)
220th Anti-Tank Battery, RA
• S/KRRC Scout Platoon (38 men with 12 x Bren LMG, ~11 x
SMG, 3 x PIAT, 3 x 2” mortar, with 11 scout carriers and one
scout car).
• 220 AT Anti-Tank Troop (4 x 17-pounder AT guns with
attached Crusader tractors)
• S/KRRC Scout Platoon (as above)
• 220 AT Anti-Tank Troop (4 x 6-pdr AT guns with attached Loyd
Carriers)
• K/KRRC Scout Platoon (as above)
• 220 AT Anti-Tank Troop (as above)
• Mtr/KRRC Mortar Platoon (6 x 3” Mortar with attached Mortar
Carriers—actually converted mortar sections)
(Not shown: Assets, Royal Artillery and Royal Air Force)
Note: These were three company-level mortar sections, but in the
game they are fielded as a composite unit for simplicity, effectiveness, and reduction of counter clutter.
32.2 German OB
147th Field Regiment, RA (Essex Yeomanry)
• 147FR SP Battery (8 x Sexton II SP 25-pounder gun)
• 147FR SP Battery (as above)
• 147FR SP Battery (as above)
Other Supporting Elements
79 Armoured Division “Funnies”
th
(Major-General Sir Percy Hobart)
6th Assault Regiment, 1st Assault Brigade
Elements, 82nd Assault Squadron
• 82/RE AVRE Troop (6 x Churchill AVRE with 290mm Petard
spigot mortar + MG)
• 82/RE (as above)
• 82/RE (as above)
• 82/RE (as above)
30th Armoured Brigade
Elements, 22nd Dragoons
Elements, 12th SS Panzer Division
“Hitlerjugend”
• B/22D Sherman Crab Troop (5 x Sherman V Crab)
• B/22D (as above)
(Standartenführer Kurt “Panzermeyer” Meyer)
31 Tank Brigade
st
Elements, 26th SS Panzergrenadier Regiment
Elements, Royal Armoured Corps
• 141 RAC Crocodile Troop (3 x Churchill Crocodile flamethrower tank)
• 141 RAC Crocodile Troop (as above)
Royal Marines
Elements, Royal Marines Armoured Support Group
• RMASG Centaur CS Tank Troop (4 x Centaur IV amphibious
close support tank)
• RMASG (as above)
Elements, HQ Company
• FL/26 Panzerflamm Section (2 x SdKfz 251/16
“Flammpanzerwagen” half-track with dual flame-thrower +
MG)
• FL/26 Panzerflamm Section (as above)
• FL/26 Panzerflamm Section (as above)
• AT/26 Towed Anti-Tank Platoon (3 x 75mm Pak 40 AT gun,
with organic SdKfz 251/1 towing half-tracks with MG)
(Sturmbannführer Erich Olboeter)
Royal Artillery
146th Anti-Tank Battery (Self-Propelled)
• 146 AT SP Anti-Tank Troop (4 x M10 Achilles SP 17-pounder
tank destroyer)
• 146 AT SP Anti-Tank Troop (as above)
(Standartenführer Wilhelm Mohnke)
IIIrd Battalion (armored)
• RMASG (as above)
• 146 AT SP Anti-Tank Troop (as above)
The reader should be aware that the manpower figures listed in the
following OB are for full-strength formations. By June 25, depleted
by the previous weeks of fighting, the 12th SS Panzergrenadier
companies were down 1/4 to 1/3 from initial strength, and the
Panzer-Aufklärungsabteilung had suffered nearly 50% casualties.
The figures for the infantry companies were calculated by totaling
the personnel and weapons of the infantry platoons, AT half-squad,
and HQ squad, excluding the weapons mounted on vehicles, since
these are specifically mentioned with the vehicles. Auxiliary units
such as supply, maintenance, and train were ignored. Infantry MGs
and LMGs were a mixture of MG34s and MG 42s; the model is
not specified in the Gliederung, but there were probably many
more of the newer MG42 as Panzer Lehr and 12th SS were two of
the best-equipped German divisions on the western front. Infantry
units were equipped with variable quantities of Panzerfäuste and/
or Panzerschreck. For record-keeping purposes, the Panzerschreck
was considered a weapon and the Panzerfaust an expendable ammo
type (like its predecessor, the magnetic hollow-charge AT mine),
yet the reporting of both types wasn’t always consistent. Vehicle
units—and panzer platoons in particular—are listed at their actual
strength in number of vehicles, in so far as we could determine, at
the start of June 25.
9th (Panzergrenadier) Company
(Obersturmführer Bruno Zantop, KIA June 17;
Untersturmführer Gerhard Sentke)
• 9/26 Panzergrenadier Infantry Company (139 combat troops
armed with rifles, SMGs and 19 x LMG)
• MG/9/26 Machine Gun Platoon (4 x MG42 HMG; actually two
sections of 2 x HMG each)
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
44
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
• HT/9/26 Half-tracks (15 x SdKfz 251/1 half-track transport
with MG, 3 x SdKfz 251/10 half-track with 37mm gun + MG)
• SP/9/26 Self-Propelled Gun Section (2 x SdKfz 251/9
“Stummel” (“Stump”) half-track with short-barreled 75mm gun
+ MG)
10 (Panzergrenadier) Company (Untersturmführer Helmut
Mader, WIA June 18; Obersturmführer Wolfgang Hopf, KIA
June 25; Untersturmführer Jürgen Gädertz, WIA June 25;
Oberscharführer Gerhard Fritzsche)
th
• 15/26 Recon Infantry Platoon (as above)
• MG/15/26 Machine Gun Platoon (4 x MG42 HMG, with
organic Schwimmwagen amphibious car transports; actually
two sections of 2 x HMG each)
• Mtr/15/26 Mortar Section (2 x 81mm GrW 34 mortar, with
organic truck transports)
16th (Pioneer) Company
(Obersturmführer Herbert Trompke, MIA June 18)
(10/26; as 9/26 above)
• 16/26 Pioneer Platoon (56 combat troops armed with rifles and
3 x LMG, with organic truck transports)
11th (Panzergrenadier) Company (Untersturmführer
Karlfried Burkhardt, WIA June 19; Obersturmführer Willi
Latter, WIA June 26; Obersturmführer Peter Holl)
• 16/26 Pioneer Platoon (as above)
(11/26; as 9/26 above)
• 16/26 Pioneer Platoon (as above)
• MG/16/26 Machine Gun Section (2 x MG42 HMG with
organic truck transports)
12th (Panzergrenadier Heavy Weapons) Company
(Hauptsturmführer Josef Riede; Untersturmführer Manfred
Buse, KIA June 27; Oberscharführer Joachim Wimmer)
• Mtr/16/26 Mortar Section (2 x 81mm GrW 34 mortar with
organic truck transports)
• Pi/12/26 Pioneer Platoon (53 combat troops armed with rifles,
SMGs and 7 x LMG, with 6 x organic SdKfz 251/7 engineer
half-track transports with MG)
(Obersturmbannführer Max Wünsche)
• AT/12/26 Towed Anti-Tank Platoon (3 x 75mm Pak 40 AT gun,
with organic SdKfz 251/1 towing half-tracks with MG)
Elements, 12th SS Panzer Regiment
Elements, HQ Company (Hauptsturmführer Georg Isecke)
• HQ/Pz12 Flakpanzer Platoon (6 x Flakpanzer 38(t) anti-aircraft
vehicles with 20mm Flak 38 gun)
• IG/12/26 Towed Infantry Gun Section (2 x 75mm leIG 18 IG,
with organic SdKfz 251/1 towing half-tracks with MG)
Elements, Ist Battalion (Sturmbannführer Arnold Jürgensen)
Elements, HQ Company (Untersturmführer Heinz Schröder)
• SP/12/26 Self-Propelled Gun Platoon (6 x SdKfz 251/9
“Stummel” half-track with short-barreled 75mm gun + MG)
• HQ/I/Pz12 Flakpanzer Platoon (6 x Flakpanzer 38(t) antiaircraft vehicles with 20mm Flak 38 gun)
Composite unit:
• Mtr/III/26 self-propelled mortars (6 x 81mm GrW 34 mortars,
with 6 x organic SdKfz 251/2 half-track mortar carrier with
MG—2 each from 9th, 10th, and 11th Companies)
1st Company (Hauptsturmführer Kurt-Anton Berlin)
Note: These were three company-level sections, but in the game they
are fielded as a single battalion-level unit, for simplicity, effectiveness, and reduction of counter clutter.
• 1/Pz12 Panther Platoon (as above)
• 1/Pz12 Panther Platoon (as above)
2nd Company (Obersturmführer Helmut Gaede)
• 2/Pz12 Panther Platoon (about 4 Panther Ausf. A or G)
• 2/Pz12 Panther Platoon (as above)
Regimental Companies
• 2/Pz12 Panther Platoon (as above)
13th (Heavy Infantry Gun) Company
(Obersturmführer Polanski)
4th Company (Leutnant Erich Pohl)
• 13/26 Towed Infantry Gun Platoon (3 x 150mm sIG 33 heavy
IG, with organic SdKfz 10 half-track prime movers, and 3-4
supporting LMGs)
• 13/26 Towed Infantry Gun Platoon (as above)
14th (Flak) Company (Hauptsturmführer Martin Stolze)
• 14/26 Towed Flak Platoon (4 x 20mm Flak 38 anti-aircraft
gun, with organic Steyr 1500A towing light trucks and 1-2
supporting LMGs)
• 14/26 Towed Flak Platoon (as above)
• 14/26 Towed Flak Platoon (as above)
15th (Recon) Company (Oberleutnant Bayer)
• 15/26 Recon Infantry Platoon (46 combat troops armed
with rifles and 6 x LMG, with 12 x organic Schwimmwagen
amphibious car transport)
• 15/26 Recon Infantry Platoon (as above)
• 1/Pz12 Panther Platoon (about 4 Panther Ausf. A or G)
• 4/Pz12 Panther Platoon (about 4 Panther Ausf. A or G)
• 4/Pz12 Panther Platoon (as above)
• 4/Pz12 Panther Platoon (as above)
Elements, IInd Battalion
(Sturmbannführer Karl-Heinz Prinz)
Elements, HQ Company
(Hauptsturmführer Josef Pezdeuscheg)
• HQ/II/Pz12 Flakpanzer Platoon (3 x Wirbelwind (“Whirlwind”)
field conversion anti-aircraft vehicles with quadruple 20mm
Flakvierling 38 gun)
5th Company (Obersturmführer Helmut Bando, KIA June 27;
Untersturmführer Karl-Heinz Porsch)
• 5/Pz12 Panzer Platoon (about 5 Panzer IV, mostly Ausf. H)
• 5/Pz12 Panzer Platoon (as above)
• 5/Pz12 Panzer Platoon (as above)
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
6th Company (Hauptsturmführer Ludwig Ruckdeschel, WIA
June 26; Untersturmführer Helmut Buchwald)
• 6/Pz12 Panzer Platoon (about 5 Panzer IV, mostly Ausf. H)
• 6/Pz12 Panzer Platoon (as above)
• 6/Pz12 Panzer Platoon (as above)
8th Company (Obersturmführer Hans Siegel, WIA June 27;
Obersturmführer Herbert Höfler)
• 8/Pz12 Panzer Platoon (about 5 Panzer IV, mostly Ausf. H)
• 8/Pz12 Panzer Platoon (as above)
• 8/Pz12 Panzer Platoon (as above)
45
3rd (Recon) Company (Obersturmführer Gunther Keue)
• 3/Auf Recon Infantry Platoon (41 combat troops armed with
rifles, SMGs and 6 x LMG, with 7 x organic SdKfz 250/1
half-track transports with MG, 1 x SdKfz 250/8 half-track with
short-barreled 75mm gun + MG)
• 3/Auf Recon Infantry Platoon (as above)
• 3/Auf Recon Infantry Platoon (as above)
• MG/3/Auf Machine Gun Platoon (4 x MG42 HMG, with
organic SdKfz 250/1 half-track transports with MG; actually
two sections of 2 x HMG each)
4th (Recon) Company (Obersturmführer Heinz Beiersdorf)
• 4/Auf Recon Infantry Platoon (as 3/Auf above)
Elements, 12th SS Armored Artillery Regiment
(Obersturmbannführer Fritz Schröder)
Elements, Ist Battalion (self-propelled)
(Sturmbannführer Erich Urbanitz)
• 4/Auf Recon Infantry Platoon (as above)
• 2/Art12 Self-Propelled Artillery Battery (6 x Wespe (“Wasp”)
artillery vehicle with 105mm leFH 18 howitzer)
5th (Recon Heavy Weapons) Company
(Hauptsturmführer Gerd Freiherr von Reitzenstein)
• 4/Auf Recon Infantry Platoon (as above)
Note: This company did not have its complement of HMGs.
• 3/Art12 Self-Propelled Artillery Battery (6 x Hummel
(“Bumble Bee”) artillery vehicle with 150mm sFH 18
howitzer)
• Pi/5/Auf pioneer Platoon (53 combat troops armed with rifles,
SMGs and 7 x LMG, with 6 x organic SdKfz 251/7 engineer
half-track transport with MG)
IInd Battalion (towed)
(Hauptsturmführer Alfred Schöps, promoted to Sturmbannführer
June 21, KIA June 26; Obersturmführer Harald Etterich)
• 4/Art12 Towed Artillery Battery (6 x 105mm leFH 18 howitzer,
with SdKfz 11 half-track prime movers, and 4 x supporting
LMG)
• 5/Art12 Towed Artillery Battery (as above)
• AT/5/Auf Towed Anti-Tank Platoon (3 x 75mm Pak 40 AT gun,
with organic SdKfz 251/1 towing half-tracks with MG)
• IG/5/Auf Towed Infantry Gun section (2 x 75mm leIG 18 infantry
gun, with organic SdKfz 251/1 towing half-tracks with MG)
• SP/5/Auf Self-Propelled Gun Platoon (6 x SdKfz 251/9
“Stummel” half-track with short-barreled 75mm gun + MG)
Composite unit:
• 6/Art12 Towed Artillery Battery (as above)
• Mtr/3+4/Auf self-propelled mortars (4 x 81mm GrW 34 mortar,
with 4 x organic SdKfz 251/2 half-track mortar carrier with
MG—2 each from 3rd and 4th Companies)
Elements, 12th SS Divisional Units
12th SS Armored Reconnaissance Battalion
Note: The mortars have been rolled into one unit for convenience.
(Sturmbannführer Gerhard “Gerd” Bremer)
Elements, 12th SS Armored Pioneer Battalion
1st (Armored Car) Company
(Untersturmführer Karl-Heinz Gauch, acting)
• 1/Auf Armored Cars (6 x armored car; actually two patrols of 3
cars each)
Note: These are a mixture of 8-wheeled SdKfz 232s with 20mm gun
+ MG and SdKfz 223 radio vehicles with MG. Their portrayal as
SdKfz 223 on the reduced sides is intentional.
• 1/Auf Armored Cars (as above)
2 (Armored Car) Company (Obersturmführer Walter
Hauck)
nd
(Sturmbannführer Siegfried Müller)
Elements, 1st Company (Untersturmführer Bruno Asmus)
• 1/Pi12 Pioneer Platoon (53 combat troops armed with rifles,
SMGs and 6 x LMG)
Elements, 12th SS Projector (Rocket) Battalion
(Hauptsturmführer Willy Müller)
• 1/Werf12 Towed Rocket Artillery Battery (6 x 150mm
Nebelwerfer 41 rocket launcher, with SdKfz 10 half-track
prime-movers, and 7 x supporting LMG)
• 2/Auf “Armored Cars” (6 x recon half-tracks; actually two
patrols of 3 half-tracks each)
Elements, 12th SS Flak Artillery Battalion
(Sturmbannführer Rudolph Fend)
Note: These are a mixture of SdKfz 250/9s with 20mm gun + MG,
SdKfz 250/1s with MG, and 250/5 radio vehicles.
• 1/Flak12 Towed Flak Battery (4 x 88mm Flak 36 anti-aircraft
gun, with organic SdKfz 7 half-track prime movers + 2 x 20mm
Flak 38 anti-aircraft gun, with organic SdKfz 10 half-track
prime movers, and 2 x supporting LMG)
• 2/Auf “Armored Cars” (as above)
• 2/Auf “Armored Cars” (as above)
• 2/Auf “Armored Cars” (as above)
• 2/Flak12 Towed Flak Battery (as above)
Note: This battery, unlike the other two, is an on-map unit available
to purchase as a Reinforcement.
• 3/Flak12 Towed Flak Battery (as above)
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
46
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
Regimental Companies
Elements, Panzer Lehr Division
9th (Heavy Infantry Gun) Company (Hauptmann Hennecke)
(Generalleutnant Fritz Bayerlein)
Elements, 901st Panzergrenadier Lehr Regiment
(Oberst Georg Scholze)
• 9/901 Self-Propelled Infantry Gun Section (2 x “Grille”
(“Cricket’) artillery vehicle with 150mm sIG 33 heavy IG)
• 9/901 Self-Propelled Infantry Gun Section (as above)
• 9/901 Self-Propelled Infantry Gun Section (as above)
I Battalion (armored)
st
(Major Konrad Uthe, KIA June 25; Hauptmann Karl Philipps)
1st (Panzergrenadier) Company (Leutnant Hillermann)
• 1/901 Panzergrenadier Infantry Company (139 combat troops
armed with rifles, SMGs, 19 x LMG, and ~12 Panzerschreck)
10th (Pioneer) Company (Hauptmann Klein)
• 10/901 Pioneer Platoon (53 combat troops armed with rifles,
SMGs and 6 x LMG, with 6 x organic SdKfz 251/7 engineer
half-track transports with MG)
• 10/901 Pioneer Platoon (as above)
Note: The Pz. Lehr infantry were equipped with experimentally high
numbers of Panzerschreck.
• 10/901 Pioneer Platoon (as above)
• MG/1/901 Machine Gun Platoon (4 x MG42 HMG; actually
two sections of 2 x HMG each)
• MG/10/901 Machine Gun Section (2 x MG42 HMG, with 1 x
organic SdKfz 251/1 half-track transport with MG)
• HT/1/901 Half-tracks (15 x SdKfz 251/1 half-track transports
with MG, 3 x SdKfz 251/10 half-track with 37mm gun + MG)
• Mtr/10/901 Self-Propelled Mortar Section (2 x 81mm GrW 34
mortar, with 2 x organic SdKfz 251/2 half-track mortar carrier
with MG)
• SP/1/901 Self-Propelled Gun Section (2 x SdKfz 251/9
“Stummel” half-track with short-barreled 75mm gun + MG)
2nd (Panzergrenadier) Company (Oberleutnant Mersiowski)
(2/901; as 1/901 above)
3rd (Panzergrenadier) Company (Hauptmann Salzmann)
Elements, 11th (Flak) Company (Oberleutnant Rheinländer)
• 11/901 Self-Propelled Flak Section (3 x SdKfz 10/4 or SdKfz
10/5 anti-aircraft halftrack with 20mm Flak 30 or Flak 38 gun,
respectively)
• 11/901 Self-Propelled Flak Section (as above)
(3/901; as 1/901 above)
Note: The presence of these units at the battle is a best guess.
4th (Panzergrenadier Heavy Weapons) Company
(Oberleutnant Gehrke)
Elements, 130th Panzer Lehr Regiment
• Pi/4/901 Pioneer Platoon (53 combat troops armed with rifles,
SMGs and 7 x LMG, with 6 x organic SdKfz 251/7 engineer
half-track transports with MG)
(Oberst Rudolf Gerhardt)
Elements, IInd Battalion (Hauptmann Helmut Ritgen)
7th Company (Hauptmann Föllmer)
• IG/4/901 Towed Infantry Gun section (2 x 75mm leIG 18 IG,
with organic SdKfz 251/1 towing half-tracks with MG)
• 7/Pz130 Panzer Platoon, understrength (about 2-3 Panzer IV,
mostly Ausf. H)
• SP/4/901 Self-Propelled Gun Platoon (6 x SdKfz 251/9
“Stummel” half-track with short-barreled 75mm gun + MG)
• 7/Pz130 Panzer Platoon, understrength (as above)
Composite unit:
• Mtr/I/901 self-propelled mortars (6 x 81mm GrW 34 mortar,
with 6 x organic SdKfz 251/2 half-track mortar carrier with
MG—2 each from 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Companies)
• 7/Pz130 Panzer Platoon, understrength (as above)
Note: The mortars have been rolled into one unit for convenience.
• 7/Pz130 Panzer Platoon, understrength (as above)
8th Company (Leutnant Peter)
• 8/Pz130 Panzer Platoon, understrength (about 2-3 Panzer IV,
mostly Ausf. H)
• 8/Pz130 Panzer Platoon, understrength (as above)
Elements, IInd Battalion (armored) (Major Schöne)
• 8/Pz130 Panzer Platoon, understrength (as above)
5th (Panzergrenadier) Company (Hauptmann Karl Philipps,
promoted to I./901 commander June 25)
• 8/Pz130 Panzer Platoon, understrength (as above)
• 5/901 Panzergrenadier infantry company (139 combat troops
armed with rifles, SMGs and 19 x LMG)
• MG/5/901 Machine Gun Platoon (4 x MG42 HMG; actually
two sections of 2 x HMG each)
• HT/5/901 Half-tracks (15 x SdKfz 251/1 half-track transport
with MG, 3 x SdKfz 251/10 half-track with 37mm gun + MG)
• SP/5/901 Self-Propelled Gun section (2 x SdKfz 251/9
“Stummel” half-track with short-barreled 75mm gun + MG)
• Mtr/5/901 Self-Propelled Mortar Section (2 x 81mm GrW 34
mortar, with 2 x organic SdKfz 251/2 half-track mortar carriers
with MG)
Elements, 130th Armored Artillery Regiment
(Major Zeissler)
Ist Battalion (self-propelled) (Oberleutnant Kurtze)
• 1/Art130 Self-Propelled Artillery Battery (6 x Wespe (“Wasp”)
artillery vehicle with 105mm leFH 18 howitzer)
• 2/Art130 Self-Propelled Artillery Battery (as above)
• 3/Art130 Self-Propelled Artillery Battery (6 x Hummel
(“Bumble Bee”) artillery vehicle with 150mm sFH 18
howitzer)
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
992nd Heavy Artillery Battalion (towed)
(commander unknown)
• 1/992 Towed Artillery Battery (4 x 152mm KH 433/1(r)
howitzer-gun, with SdKfz 8 half-track prime movers, and 5
supporting LMGs)
47
• 2/654 Tank Destroyer Section (as above)
Note: This company was attached to Lehr at the time of Operation
Dauntless.
Elements, 21st Panzer Division
• 2/992 Towed Artillery Battery (as above)
(Generalmajor Edgar Feuchtinger)
• 3/992 Towed Artillery Battery (as above)
Note: This Army-level unit had been attached to the Artillery Regiment since June 11, in order to increase its firepower.
Elements, Lehr Divisional Units
Elements, 130th Armored Reconnaissance Lehr Battalion
(Major Gerd von Born-Fallois)
Elements, 1st (Armored Car) Company
(Oberleutnant Gollwitzer)
Elements, 192nd Panzergrenadier Regiment
(Oberst Josef Rauch)
Elements, Ist Battalion (armored) (Hauptmann Werner Rätzer)
1st (Panzergrenadier) Company (Oberleutnant Braun)
• 1/192 Panzergrenadier Infantry Company (139 combat troops
armed with rifles, SMGs and 19 x LMG)
• MG/1/192 Machine Gun Platoon (4 x MG42 HMG; actually
two sections of 2 x HMG each)
• 1/Auf Heavy Armored Car Patrol (2 x SdKfz 234/2 “Puma”)
• 1/Auf Heavy Armored Car Patrol (as above)
• HT/1/192 Half-tracks (15 x captured French SPW U304 (f)
half-track transport with MG, 3 x captured French SPW U304
(f) half-track with 37mm gun + MG)
Elements, 2nd (Armored Car) Company
(Oberleutnant Weinstein)
Elements, IInd Battalion (motorized) (Hauptmann Rusche)
6th (Panzergrenadier) Company (Oberleutnant Kuhbier)
• 2/Auf Light “Armored Cars” (6 x recon half-track; actually two
patrols of 3 half-tracks each)
Note: These are a mixture of SdKfz 250/9s with 20mm gun + MG,
SdKfz 250/1s with MG, and 250/5 radio vehicles.
• 6/192 Panzergrenadier Infantry Company (153 combat troops
armed with rifles, SMGs and 17 x LMG)
• 2/Auf Light “Armored Cars” (as above)
• Tr/6/192 Trucks (about 12 x captured French Renault AGR or
similar truck transport)
• 1/Auf Heavy Armored Car Patrol (as above)
Elements, 130th Armored Pioneer Battalion
(Major Walter Brandt)
1st Company (Oberleutnant Kolbussa)
• 1/Pi130 Pioneer Platoon (53 combat troops armed with rifles,
SMGs and 6 x LMG, with 6 x organic SdKfz 251/7 engineer
half-track transport with MG)
• 1/Pi130 pioneer Platoon (as above)
• MG/6/192 Machine Gun Platoon (4 x MG42 HMG; actually
two sections of 2 x HMG each)
Composite unit:
• Mtr/1+6/192 Self-Propelled Mortars (4 x 81mm GrW 34
mortar, with 4 x organic captured French SPW U304 (f)
half-track mortar carrier with MG—2 each from 1st and 6th
Company)
Note: The mortars have been rolled into one unit for convenience.
• 1/Pi130 pioneer Platoon (as above)
Elements, 101st SS Heavy Panzer Battalion
(Obersturmbannführer Heinz von Westernhagen)
2 Company (Hauptmann Aibenbach)
nd
Elements, 1st Company (Hauptsturmführer Rolf Möbius)
(2/Pi130; as 1/Pi130 above)
Composite unit:
• Mtr/1+2/Pi130 Self-Propelled Mortars (4 x 81mm GrW 34
mortar, with 4 x organic SdKfz 251/2 half-track mortar carriers
with MG—2 each from 1st and 2nd Companies)
Note: The mortars have been rolled into one unit for convenience.
• 1/101 Tiger Tank Section (2 x Tiger I Ausf. E)
Elements, 2nd Company (Obersturmführer Michael
Wittmann, promoted to Hauptsturmführer June 21)
• 2/101 Tiger Tank Section (as 1/101 above)
Elements, 3rd Company (Untersturmführer Thomas Amselgruber)
Miscellaneous Lehr Units
• 3/101 Tiger Tank Section (as 1/101 above)
• SP Rockets (about 2-6 x Wurfrahmen 40 6-barreled rocket
launcher mounted on SdKfz 251 half-tracks, armed with 36
rounds of 280mm HE rockets)
Luftwaffe Units
• SP Rockets (as above)
Elements, 654th Heavy Tank Destroyer Battalion
Elements, 4th Flak Assault Regiment (Oberst Herbert Röhler)
• I(53)/Flak4 Towed Flak Battalion (18 x 88mm Flak 36 antiaircraft gun + about two dozen 20mm and 37mm anti-aircraft
guns, all with half-track prime movers)
(Hauptmann Karl-Heinz Noak)
• I(141)/Flak4 Towed Flak Battalion (as above)
Elements, 2 Company (Hauptmann Friedrich Lüders)
Misc. Luftwaffe
• 2/654 Tank Destroyer Section (2 x Jagdpanther)
• Luftwaffe Nuisance Raid (Optional Unit; about 4-8 x Junkers
Ju 88 bomber)
nd
• 2/654 Tank Destroyer Section (as above)
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
48
Operation Dauntless Reference Book
33.0 Selected Sources &
Recommended Reading
The following list is by no means comprehensive. It offers a good
starting point for gamers interested in the units, weapons, and battles
portrayed in this game. Be aware that some of the books are in French
or German. Note that this list does not include online sources, of
which there were dozens.
Badsey, Stephen. Normandy 1944: Allied Landings and Breakout.
Oxford (UK): Osprey, 1990.
Baverstock, Kevin. Breaking the Panzers: : The Bloody Battle for
Rauray, Normandy, 1 July 1944. Stroud (UK): Sutton, 2002.
Benamou, Jean-Pierre. Bataille de Caen, 6 juin au 15 août 1944.
Bayeux (France): Heimdal, 1988.
Bernage, Georges. La bataille de l’Odon. Bayeux (France): Heimdal, 2009.
Bernage, Georges. The Panzers and the Battle of Normandy: June
5th – July 20th, 1944. Bayeux (France): Heimdal, 2000.
Brayley, Martin. The British Army 1939-45. Vol. 1, North-West
Europe. Oxford (UK): Osprey, 2001.
Butler, Rupert. SS-Hitlerjugend—The History of the Twelfth SS
Division 1943-45. Stroud (UK): Spellmount, 2003.
Cazenave, Stephan. Panzerdivision Hitlerjugend. Vol. 2, SS-PanzerRegiment 12, Normandie 1944. Maranes Éd., 2014.
Clark, Lloyd. Operation Epsom. Stroud (UK): Sutton, 2001.
Compagnon, Jean. The Normandy Landings. Rennes (France):
Ouest-France, 1994.
Daglish, Ian. Operation Epsom: Over the Battlefield. Barnsley (UK):
Pen & Sword Military, 2007.
Delaforce, Patrick. The Polar Bears- Monty’s Left Flank- From
Normandy to the Relief of Holland with the 49th Division. Stroud
(UK): Sutton, 1995.
Doherty, Richard. The British Reconnaissance Corps in World War
II. Oxford (UK): Osprey, 2007.
Dugdale, Jeff, Michael Wood. SS Panzer Formations April – September 1944: Normandy: Their Detailed and Precise Strengths. Parts
1A and 1B. Westoning (UK): Military Press, 2007.
Fletcher, David. Sherman Firefly. Oxford (UK): Osprey, 2008.
Fletcher, David. Swimming Shermans—Sherman DD amphibious
tank of World War II. Oxford (UK): Osprey, 2008.
Ford, Ken. Caen 1944: Montgomery’s Breakout Attempt. Oxford
(UK): Osprey, 2004.
Fortin, Ludovic. Les chars britanniques en Normandie. Paris
(France): Histoire & Collection, 2005.
Gliederung, 12. SS-Panzer-Division, dated June 1, 1944
Gliederung, 21. Panzer-Division, dated June 1, 1944
Gliederung, Panzer-Lehr-Division, dated June 1, 1944
Hart, Stephan A. Sherman Firefly vs. Tiger—Normandy 1944. Oxford
(UK): Osprey, 2007.
Hart, Stephen Ashley. Colossal Cracks—Montgomery’s 21st Army
Group in Northwest Europe, 1944-45. Mechanicsburg (Pa.): Stackpole, 2007.
Henry, Chris. British Anti-tank Artillery 1939-45. Oxford (UK):
Osprey, 2004.
Hills, Stuart. By Tank Into Normandy: A Memoir of the Campaign
in North-West Europe from D-Day to VE Day. London (UK): Cassell, 2002.
Jacquet, Stéphane. La bataille de Tilly-sur-Seulles, 1944. Bayeux
(France): Heimdal, 2009.
Jentz, Tom, Hilary Doyle. Flammpanzer: German Flamethrowers
1941-45. Oxford (UK): Osprey, 1995.
Keegan, John. Six Armies in Normandy. London (UK): Penguin
Books, 1994.
Maule, Henry. Caen: The Brutal Battle and Breakout from Normandy. Newton Abbot (UK): David & Charles, 1988.
McKee, Alexander. Caen: Anvil of Victory. New York (NY): Dorset
Press, 2001.
Meyer, Hubert (former chief of staff of the 12th SS). The 12th SS:
The History of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division. Vol. One. Winnipeg
(Canada): J.J. Fedorowicz, 1994.
Meyer, Kurt (commander of the 12th SS Panzer Division). Grenadiers: The Story of Waffen SS General Kurt “Panzer” Meyer. Winnipeg (Canada): J.J. Fedorowicz, 2001.
Münch, Karlheinz. The Combat History of schwere PanzerjägerAbteilung 654: in Action in the East and West with the Ferdinand
and the Jagdpanther. Winnipeg (Canada): J.J. Fedorowicz, 2002.
Perrigault, Jean-Claude. 21. Panzer-Division. Bayeux (France):
Heimdal, 2003.
Perrigault, Jean-Claude. La Panzer-Lehr-Division. Bayeux (France):
Heimdal, 1995.
Perrett, Bryan, Bruce Culver, Jim Laurier. German Armoured Cars
and Reconnaissance Half-Tracks 1939-45. Oxford (UK): Osprey,
1999.
Reynolds, Michael. Steel Inferno: 1st SS Panzer Corps in Normandy.
New York (NY): Dell, 1998.
Saunders, Tim. Hill 112: Battles of the Odon. Barnsley (UK), Leo
Cooper: 2001.
Saunders, Tim. Operation Epsom: VIII British Corps v 1st SS Panzerkorps. Barnsley (UK), Leo Cooper: 2003.
Spayd, P.A., Gary Wilkins. Bayerlein: After Action Reports of the
Panzer Lehr Division Commander from D-day to the Ruhr. Atglen
(Pa.), Schiffer: 2007.
Wood, James A. Army of the West: The Weekly Reports of German
Army Group B from Normandy to the West Wall. Mechanicsburg
(Pa.): Stackpole, 2007.
Zetterling, Niklas. Normandy 1944: German Military Organization, Combat Power and Organizational Effectiveness. Winnipeg
(Canada): J.J. Fedorowicz, 2000.
More than perhaps any other single source, extensive use was made
of the June 1st 1944 Ist-Gliederung (“as-is” status report). This,
along with the Dugdale & Wood books and the Zetterling book, allowed us to arrive at a very precise German OB, in most cases right
down to the number of weapons and vehicles. Special thanks go to
Vincent Lefavrais and A. Verspeeten for their kind assistance in what
turned out to be a rather monumental endeavor lasting several years.
© 2015 GMT Games, LLC
GMT Games, LLC
P.O. Box 1308, Hanford, CA 93232-1308