Saturday, November 6, 2010

Second Battle in Lebanon

Thursday night Mark and I played a great game for Lebanon 1982 using Charlie Don’t Surf. Yes Charlie Don’t Surf is a Vietnam system but many of the weapons are the same (or similar) and the terrain is similar. Yes triple canopy jungle and multi-storied urban building do have a lot in common.

Hidden blinds are similar in both environments as well as the concealment of the local troops. Fire-teams and squads have tremendous firepower as shown in the CDS combat table. While the smaller teams may have fewer dice than in IABSM or TWT the firepower easily makes up for this.

Things that needed to be added were additional weapon systems and changes to existing tanks. We also worked on revised rules for reactive armor and discussed rules on smoke and smoke dischargers. I will offer these to on this blog when we are done as well as the TooFatLardies Yahoo group.

One of the strengths of CDS is the victory conditions [although I do like the press rules as well J]. In our game both sides were able to claim victory.

It was a great table. Mark outdid himself. El Ishiya grew recently. Mark added buildings to the point we need another table. It does not help that I recently bought four additional buildings from Fieldworks.

The sides were a force of PLO troops in the town against a reinforced platoon of Israeli Magach 6 with an attached squad of infantry. Orders were simple. The IDF was to advance through the town. The PLO, well the PLO acting like the PLO.

The advance went well. There was little resistance and the main crossroads were secured efficiently if not quickly. And than a command  M113 approached the armor column with a change of orders. A pilot was down on the far side of the town and the column was to check two areas. Unfortunately the two areas were on separate corners of the table and the IDF had only three tanks and a M113 to search the two wooded areas.  

Shortly the lead Magach was hit by multiple RPGs from a multi storied building. The first one destroyed the tank and the other hits only added to the explosion. The entire crew was lost.  The infantry were called in to clear out the building were the PLO was set up. After several close assaults over multiple turns the building was cleared. The IDF lost one soldier to the loss of the entire PLO unit.

The IDF went on to search the two areas were the pilot was thought to be and found the downed airman as the Syrians came on the board.

I give both sides a victory. The IDF did save the pilot, but lost a tank and crew. I look at it as a minor victory. The PLO received a significant victory for destroying the Magach.

In the future I will want to have press figures on the board to record the actions of the IDF.

Our next game is tonight so I look forward to using the revised fire rules for reactive armor. As the IDF will have a M-109 in this game they may use different tactics in clearing buildings.

I will post pictures as soon as I get them.


  1. I think the IDF really need more infantry. A tank is never more vulnerable at any time than in urban terrain. You'll need plenty of infantry to clear buildings before the tanks can move up safely.

    Looking forward to your next report.

  2. Unfortunately for the Israeli's they don't really have the infantry and consequently didn't put an emphasis on their use. Tanks always lead the way, often unsupported, the infantry were for mopping up.

    Big wins for armor in '67 and '73 really helped create this bias. But I think it would have been there regardless out of necessity.

  3. Ah! I hadn't considered that. It all makes sense now.

  4. One of the more interesting aspects of the Lebanon conflict is to have the tanks lead followed by the infantry, often reservists. The reservists often getting into trouble and the call would go out to the paras.

    Often a village was attacked using a company of tanks only. It was the fact that the militias and PLO were very unorganized that save the tankers.