Panzer Grenadier Battles on April 27th:
Arctic Front Deluxe #40 - Children's Crusade Broken Axis #14 - Târgu Frumos: The Second Battle Scenario 3: Sledge Hammer of the Proletariat
Army Group South Ukraine #6 - Consternation Road to Berlin #73 - She-Wolves of the SS
PG-HQ Library - Modern War Hall > Scenarios > SwIs019
Errors? Omissions? Report them!
Breakout at Gifgafa
Sword of Israel #19
(Defender) State of Israel vs Arab Republic of Egypt (Attacker)
Formations Involved
Display
Balance:


Overall balance chart for SwIs019
Total
Side 1 0
Draw 0
Side 2 1
Overall Rating, 1 vote
5
4
3
2
1
4
Scenario Rank: --- of 913
Parent Game Sword of Israel
Historicity Historical
Date 1967-06-08
Start Time 03:15
Turn Count 12
Visibility Night
Counters 83
Net Morale 1
Net Initiative 1
Maps 1: 64
Layout Dimensions 43 x 28 cm
17 x 11 in
Play Bounty 164
AAR Bounty 171
Total Plays 1
Total AARs 1
Battle Types
Delaying Action
Exit the Battle Area
Inflict Enemy Casualties
Conditions
Off-board Artillery
Randomly-drawn Aircraft
Reinforcements
Smoke
Illumination
Scenario Requirements & Playability
Sword of Israel Base Game
Introduction

In the wee hours of the 8th of June, the Egyptians assembled a large force to break out from the camp and through the Israeli roadblock to the west. They had to get across the Suez Canal. Egyptian T-55 tanks had infrared sights as well which would give them an edge, as would the fact that the AMX-13's 75mm gun had difficulty penetrating the front of a T-55 except at point blank range.
Conclusion

The Egyptian attack enjoyed initial success as the Israelis lost their mortars and significant ammunition in a series of catastrophic explosions. However, the Israelis rallied, firing self-propelled divisional artillery into the attack and hitting the flank with a company of Super Shermans. In addition, the Egyptians did not fully leverage their night sights while the Israelis used illumination rounds from mortars and artillery to good effect. The low pass of a flight of Vautour bombers completely unnerved the Egyptians who retreated and eventually snuck past the Israeli blocking position under cover of darkness. The Israelis enjoyed a hollow victory.
Display Relevant AFV Rules
AFV Rules Pertaining to this Scenario's Order of Battle
  • Vulnerable to results on the Assault Combat Chart (7.25, 7.63, ACC), and may be attacked by Anti-Tank fire (11.2, DFT). Anti-Tank fire only affects the individual unit fired upon (7.62, 11.0).
  • AFV's are activated by tank leaders (3.2, 3.3, 5.42, 6.8). They may also be activated as part of an initial activating stack, but if activated in this way would need a tank leader in order to carry out combat movement.
  • AFV's do not block Direct Fire (10.1).
  • Full-strength AFV's with "armor efficiency" may make two anti-tank (AT) fire attacks per turn (either in their action segment or during opportunity fire) if they have AT fire values of 0 or more (11.2).
  • Each unit with an AT fire value of 2 or more may fire at targets at a distance of between 100% and 150% of its printed AT range. It does so at half its AT fire value. (11.3)
  • Efficient and non-efficient AFV's may conduct two opportunity fires per turn if using direct fire (7.44, 7.64). Units with both Direct and AT Fire values may use either type of fire in the same turn as their opportunity fire, but not both (7.22, 13.0). Units which can take opportunity fire twice per turn do not have to target the same unit both times (13.0).
  • Demoralized AFV's are not required to flee from units that do not have AT fire values (14.3).
  • Place a Wreck marker when an AFV is eliminated in a bridge or town hex (16.3).
  • AFV's do not benefit from Entrenchments (16.42).
  • AFV's may Dig In (16.2).
  • Open-top AFV's: Immune to M, M1 and M2 results on Direct and Bombardment Fire Tables, but DO take step losses from X and #X results (7.25, 7.41, 7.61, BT, DFT). If a "2X" or "3X" result is rolled, at least one of the step losses must be taken by an open-top AFV if present.
  • Closed-top AFV's: Immune to M, M1 and M2 results on Direct and Bombardment Fire Tables. Do not take step losses from Direct or Bombardment Fire. If X or #X result on Fire Table, make M morale check instead (7.25, 7.41, 7.61, BT, DFT).
  • Closed-top AFV's: Provide the +1 modifier on the Assault Table when combined with infantry. (Modifier only applies to Germans in all scenarios; Soviet Guards in scenarios taking place after 1942; Polish, US and Commonwealth in scenarios taking place after 1943.) (ACC)
  • Tank: all are closed-top and provide the +1 Assault bonus, when applicable
  • Anti-Aircraft Weapon Carrier: apply a -1 modifier to an air attack if within three hexes of the targeted hex (15.14).
  • APC – Armored Personnel Carrier: These are Combat Units, but stack like Transports. They can transport personnel units or towed units. They are not counted as combat units for the +1 stacking modifier on the Direct Fire and Bombardment Tables (4.4). They may be activated by regular leaders and tank leaders (1.2, 3.34, 4.3, 5.43). They do not provide the +1 Assault bonus (ACC).
Display Order of Battle
Arab Republic of Egypt Order of Battle
El Geish el Masry
  • Mechanized
  • Motorized
State of Israel Order of Battle
Army
  • Motorized
Display AARs (1)
1967: Sword of Israel, scenario #19: Breakout at Gifgafa
Author JayTownsend
Method Solo
Victor Arab Republic of Egypt
Play Date 2019-04-07
Language English
Scenario SwIs019

1967: Sword of Israel, scenario #19: Breakout at Gifgafa

Back to 1967, which has a ton of scenarios I still want to play, I picked this one as it was quick play with only 12 turns, one map and a low unit count but an interesting mix of unit types and an interesting situation. There are four total victory levels which are kind of mixed conditions and can be kind of confusing when both sides obtain one type of victory. The Israelis try to stop the Egyptians from exiting units/steps off the west side of the map and eliminated enemy steps as well, while the Egyptians try to exit steps off the west edge and eliminate Israeli units on one the victory levels.

The Israeli AMX-13 & M51 tanks are weakly armored but have a nice punch in their AT fire-power and they have armor efficiency while the Egyptian T55s are a good fighting tank all the way around but have no efficiency. Both sides also have a lite mix of other units. Leaders are key, as they control all the units/counters on the map.

It turned into a 12 turn bloodbath with both sides taking many step losses. The Egyptians achieved a minor victory in two ways, by exiting more than 30 units off the west edge of the map, 31 actually and eliminating well over the eight steps, 27 total. The Israelis eliminated 32 Egyptian steps, way more than the requirement for either victory condition but lost way more than four steps and way more than eight steps, so achieved no victory condition and the Egyptian win a minor victory.

Scenario #19 special rule #3 uses a Vautour but I assumed when the M53 AA-Halftrack was present that it would increase the morale by one modifier if in range of the attacking Vautour. Since that wasn’t addressed in that one odd special rule, it was how I handled it.

It was fun to come back to this game, but I have to keep in mind, that are many subtle rule differences in Modern and Regular Panzer Grenadier, including stacking, Leaders, terrain and combat chart modifiers to name a few. Sometimes when I couldn’t remember something, I reverted back to PG rules.
1 Comment
larry marak
2019-04-07 21:11

If we ever get 5 or six newcsmaller titles the differences between modern and ww2 era PG will become instinctual. Good concise summary.

You must be a registered member and logged-in to post a comment.
PG-HQ Library - Modern War Hall > Scenarios > SwIs019
Errors? Omissions? Report them!
Page generated in 0.298 seconds.