In recent months more and more attention has been paid to wargaming in 1/300 scale particularly in the Napoleonic and World War Two/Modern periods. Manufacturers, authors and reviewers claim that the great battles of history such as Waterloo, Gettysburg or Alamein can now be fought using the new models and rules because of the greater area of ground that can be represented on an average wargame table. In this article, which I shall confine to the World War Two period, the only one in which I have any wargaming experience in this scale I will try to show some of the situations for which Micro tanks are best suited. Wargames Research Group, Skytrex and Leicester Models have produced rules for 1/300 scale tank battles and Donald Featherstone and Bruce Quarrie have written books, with extensive rules on the Desert and Russian campaigns respectively. All these rules state in their titles that they are concerned with "TANK" Battles e.g. "Armour/Infantry" 1925-1950. The first factor, therefore in considering these rules, is that they are best suited to games where armour dominates. This seems quite reasonable, the model tanks in 1/300 scale are usually well detailed individually but one can relish fighting a battle in which large numbers of 5mm high infantry have to be moved around, and to stand up, individually. There are also difficulties relating to ground scale which I shall go in later. Most rules do not give any specific figure scale but W.R.G. base their rules on a 1:11 basis as does Donald Featherstone in his book on the Desert campaign. Most World War II period rules seem to reckon on no more than a 1:4 basis to bring out the tactical intricacies of modern warfare. As far as I know nobody has come up with rules to cover, say, a 1:20 figure scale. This would enable much larger actions to be fought out but the small unit (platoon) fighting would disappear and factors such as supply would play a much more significant role. Morale rules would have to be altered and factors such as replacements, repairs and breakdowns brought in. It is certainly not just a question of tab the W.R.G. rules and saying that 1 model tank represents 20 instead of 1 as before and leaving moral and firepower tables as they stand. To fit in with figure scales of about 1:1 many rules have ground scales of 1mm to 1 yard, 1 inch to 50 yards or 1 inch to 100 yards. Each scale provides for realistic terrain and the players choice can be determined by the size of his table. A player with a table 8 feet by 4 feet might use the 1 inch = 1 yard scale (2400 by 1200 yards) or 1 inch to 50 yards (2400 by 4800 yards). I have only a small 30" by 40" board, so I use the 1" to 100 yard scale (3000 x 4000 yards). These are quite large areas which might be occupied by units of battalion or brigade strength. Thus the current state of 1/300 scale modern wargames seems to have decided on a figure scale of about 1 to 1 but ground scales which enable battalion or brigade actions to be fought out. They also assume that battles will be dominated by armour. Unfortunately these ground and figure scales will not mesh together very easily. A battle set in Normandy on a table say 2000 by 1500 yards would have to have a brigade and supporting weapons to defend a front of 1500 yards if the wargamer was not to left wondering why the Allies took so long to break through the German defences in 1944. How is it possible to represent the 3,000 men and hundreds of vehicles and guns of the brigade on a 1:1 basis. Even in Russia where fronts were more thinly held assaulting divisions would have troops closely married to almost "European" levels of density to achieve local superiority while the rest of the front would make only diversionary attacks. The obvious answer would be to have a different figure scale of say 1:20 but not only are there no rules for this type of game but the small unit tactics which are the fascination of Modern wargaming would be submerged in the manoeuvering of larger units. It seems to me that one of the answers is to forget the ambitions of refighting Kursk and Alamo and stick to battles on a small unit level. Situations have to be found where armour is important I not omnipotent - straightforward tank battles where infantry and artillery have no role are usually very boring. At the same time we want a large area of ground for the units to have plenty of room manoeuvre and situations where there are no strong defences requiring days or hours to break. The best situations for these requirements are meeting engagements, raids, reconnaissances in force ratings than massive set-piece assaults, which should be dominiated by infantry anyway. Most tank battles were fought behind the front line of infantry divisions. One side or another would break through with his armour and would be met behind the front with counterattacking armoured units or anti-tank gun screens fighting a delaying action. Thus the stage is set for an encounter battle between armoured forces for control of a crossroads, bridge or some other piece of vital terrain. Units can come in at different times and places and there is scope for paratroops and air, strikes. The possibilities are endless and while tanks will be important, infantry and artillery should also have a significant role. Another type of situation is the reconnaissance mission. This is slightly different from the meeting engagement in that the defender will probably be relatively static though he might have a larger force than the attacker. For example one player might have to test the defences of a number of bridges which the other player was covering with a thinly stretched force. This force might be hidden until attacking units spotted it or they fired. The attacker would have to find a way through or round the defences to reach a bridge and the defender would try to stop him but reveal as few of his units as possible. This reconnaissance situation can be built up as far as a full scale assault, if desired. Instead of trying to recreate an entire armoured division the units in these situations should not really be above battalion size, assuming a 1:1 figure scale. To make them much larger will make the game very long. Both sides used combined arms battle-groups, particularly later in the war, Typical units in the British Army might be the Irish Guards battle group of 1944-5. This had three company/squadron battle groups each with a tank squadron, an infantry company, 2 3" mortars, 2 6pdr anti-tank guns, an artillery observer and engineer detachments. Reserve groups contained H.Q. and service units, pioneers and 17 pounder anti-tank guns. The Germans used battle groups from 1940 onwards. For the Battle of Kasserine Pass in February 1943 Rommel's units were split into five battle groups as follows: 10 Panzer Division: Group Reimann 1 battalion Panzergrenadiers, 1 company Tiger Tanks, 1 company anti-tank guns, 1 battery assault guns, engineer and flak detachments. Group Gerhardt 1 Panzer battalion, 1 Panzergrenadier battalion, 1 anti-tank company, artillery and engineer detachments. Group Lang 1 Reece battalion, 1 Panzer battalion, 1 Engineer battalion, 1 anti-tank company, 1 flak detachment. The 21st Panzer division was split into two groups such as these. Try using units like these scaled down to 1:1 with companies and platoons instead of battalions. Additional types of units can be slotted in quite easily. Questions Finally I would like to pose a few questions about World War II wargames, for which some people may have found answers. Basically it is quite easy to reflect equipment difficulties in units so that Italians may be at a great disadvantage with obsolete tanks. To a certain extent poor leadership can be introduced by giving one side inadequate or non-existent radio communication so that they have to rely on motorcyclists and runners. But how does one reflect poor training? The Americans, French, and British were often poorly trained at the beginning of the war but often had adequate equipment and good communications. How can the disastrous American command failures of Kasserine Pass be introduced and how can the small German units in the East beat off Russian units, more numerous and as well equipped but less well trained? In W.R.G. rules can this just be done by deducting morale points or should there be something more positive? This problem is easily solved in board games but I would be interested to see what World War II Miniatures players think of it. Back to Table of Contents -- Wargamer's Newsletter # 168 To Wargamer's Newsletter List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1976 by Donald Featherstone. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com