George MC
-
Posts
7,413 -
Joined
-
Days Won
43
Posts posted by George MC
-
-
3 hours ago, PEB14 said:
@George MC The post title was nearly a direct call at you, George...
In fact I'm right now fighting my way through your SPW and Tank lessons scenarios, trying to learn how to best use these damn PzGr squads.... Blood and tears and even more blood...
You mean that you also recommend to scout using a full PzGr 4-men PzGr team, supported by the other team and the SPW itself? (I know the vid, I've watched all your vids carefully!
)
I think I miss your point. During WW2 the smallest tactical unit both in CW, US and German armies were squads, not platoons. (What you refer to is more in line with the Soviet doctrine.) So squads shall be able to manoeuver (fire/support) on their own. By mid 1944, the German units are even more flexible from that point of view, as all teams are equipped with their own LMG and may thus assume alternatively the fire support role.
IMHO the issue is that, in CM, the scout team count as a whole team, while in RL it probably didn't (the two-teams structure of the PzGr squad was probably retained, 3-men LMG teams each, while the scouts were away).
Well, I'm talking about offensive use of the PzGr, not defensive. So precisely the way they're supposed to be used.
Thought my ears were burning!
So there are some hard wired CM game engine limitations- I highlight some of these in the designer and briefing notes.
Re ‘scouting’ well as others had said there is a big depends. A platoon might be tasked to recce - could be a tactical recce or a combat recce. Within the framework of the platoon the PLT CO will also decide how best to conduct the mission.
In CM terms there are lots of options. In RL sending one vehicle off on its own would be frowned upon. As if the vehicle breaks down you lose it. So principle was always two vehicles. These in turn would have two squads. The manual shows the squad and the team operating in concert even on a recce. But the squad leader may choose to scout using a small element going just ahead within sight and sound of the squad; the squad in turn would most likely be over watched by the second unit - again depending on the situation they may or may not dismount. Having em out the vehicle = more MGs as base of fire 3 vs 1.
So what size of element scouts does depend on RL and in CM. There’s no exact answer and in game as in RL it would be more a judgement call based on various factors within the context of the situation. Ie it depends.
-
Hope he arrived?
-
I think previous posts have covered your query in detail. This vid I made gives an overview of how the Germans viewed the SPW and panzer grenadiers being used.
though doctrine evolved through the war it’s worth noting that dismounting from the track was seen as either situation dependent eg close terrain, and that fighting from the track itself was preferred. The later does not work so well in CM and arguably in RL (I’ve read complaints from panzer commanders of grenadiers being reluctant to dismount and do their job!).
Their tactical flexibility given by the vehicles was their key strength. Also assuming operating as part of battalion a pzgr SPW company had some serious mobile firepower in its heavy weapons platoon which served as the base of fire for any attack.
Though for obvs reasons by late war with fuel etc at a premium and allies and Soviets having operational upper hand on both fronts the opportunities to exercise this tactical flexibility were very local and tactical in nature.
-
10 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:
If tis nae Scottish, tis crrrrrrrrrrrap!
We’d probably say ‘sh*te’ or pish
but the sentiment is correct
’wha’s like us? Thaurs damn few a’n they’re a’ deid!’
-
On 4/12/2024 at 10:52 AM, Warts 'n' all said:
That was brilliant. It's a shame that "Chewin' the fat" isn't on the BBC iPlayer. It's also a shame that BFC didn't get someone from north of the border to do the voices for 15th Inf Div.
I voiced for CMSF - even did sweary stuff!
-
22 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
There should be in the manual a guide from Battle Front how the game should be played.
Is there a ‘correct’ way?
Like as long as players enjoy the game does it matter how they play it?
Anyway given a hyper dynamic environment like a digital battlefield the process of fighting a battle it’s less about a correct way based on a set of rules, more principles and imagination and creativity surely?
-
On 2/19/2024 at 2:57 PM, Anthony P. said:
I've touched on the Soviet open/closed hatch fighting in another thread here, but in summary:
As has been pointed out, Soviet doctrine (don't know about modern Russian) was "fight closed up". However, the WW2 experience was that a lot of tankers realised that that just didn't work very well in practice, and stopped doing it as they got experienced. That's been a recurring theme I've seen in several Red Army tank crew autobiographies. TC arrives at his unit, fights buttoned up, is told by his crew "you'll die just as dead if a Panzer/PaK you didn't spot destroys the tank as you'll be by small arms fire", heeds said advice or doesn't and realises that yes, he's not seeing much at all.
Typically all AFVs in CM have inferior spotting with their crew turned in until thermal sights become a thing. In the WW2 titles I keep tanks unbuttoned until within roughly within 300m of enemy dismounts or built up areas. A tank with a dead TC is handicapped, but a couple of terrified survivors with a burning, exploding tank are substantially more so.
Exactly!
I'd for the early T-34s with a crew of four and the tank commander doubling up as gunner, being unbuttoned gave no real advantage.
With the advent of the T-34/85 and a five-man crew, the commander no longer doubled as gunner and could spend his time fully occupied with fighting the tank. At the very least quickly unbuttoning to take a look about was more feasible. As one veteran noted –“I always kept my hatch open, because those who kept it closed burned. They had no time to bail out.” So it would be easy enough to pop the hatch to have a quick look around. As you say - thsoe who had survived long enough would know what to do to increase both their chances of living and being more combat effective.
-
24 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:
Yeah, come on George. Give us something like this....
Nae a west coaster - wee bit more like this:
-
1 hour ago, Vacillator said:
Very nice George, it could only be bettered with a personal narration
.
Ye’ve no heard me spake! I did one video where I spoke and seemingly my accent aka brogue was too strong!
-
This is ‘PART 4: Techniques – methods of undertaking movement tasks by tanks in combat’ of the
shortlonger than originally planned series giving an overview of the tactical fundamentals and principles behind WWII German tactical drills and combat formations commonly used in 1944 using examples from Combat Mission Red Thunder to illustrate key points.In Part 4 we look at the specific ‘battle drills’ and associated movement techniques used by the German tank platoon to gain superiority in a firefight with enemy forces.
Part 5 will be looking at training programmes etc and jeezo, was that a rabbit hole...
Hopefully this will be of use to both players and thsoe interested in this time period. It was originally intended to complement the tank tactical problem series I created.
As an aside when you start digging into this is becomes even more painfully clear how a dogged emphasis doctrinally and values wise on "unexpected, concentrated and determined attack; aggressive leadership and daring operations." coupled with increasingly minimally trained crews (and training hampered by lack of resources both human and material), and just as importantly, tank and small unit commanders, would only lead to needless losses.
-
36 minutes ago, Dawntaker said:
It definitely could have been a close thing if I had a different plan that was built with the tank's true capabilities in mind. Instead what I was expecting was a use of the tanks on the hill to dominate the surrounding terrain and shoot anything that risked approaching the objectives turned into them getting boxed in on the hill by the T62's unable to do anything and would quickly get destroyed if they tried to get off the hill.
Aye - my original 'mental model' of what I thought would pan out was exactly as you outline - shoot and scoot from the hill.
In turn I thought smoke etc would play a large part in this for the attacker.
The reality after lots of play tests in hotseat mode was very different...
-
1 hour ago, Dawntaker said:
Wasn't my finest performance. My defence plan was entirely ruined to the unexpected poor performance of the T72s. I would take T72s from cold war any day over these pieces of scrap metal.
And typical of me, I messed up the timing of my attack so more troops were killed then needed before the arty could do its work.
Ah see when I created this I'd higher spec T-72s, But they wiped the T-62s so I down graded em. Even then in my playtest it was a close thing.
I am intrigued to see what the AARs say when this phase is done.
-
1 hour ago, Chibot Mk IX said:
due to the shortcoming of the game engine (lack of a message log system) , sending a lone conscript driver is the only way to project a message on the screen.
I can check my save file , but I remember KG Kruger will be at least 30min late than the advised ETA.
Aye what @Chibot Mk IX says
As I said Kruger is a right twat in this campaign...
-
2 hours ago, Hilts said:
Lol, unfortunately he is not. Just one lone conscript driver. What's even more odd is that he can't drive it anywhere as the location is surrounded by impassable terrain, which makes me think something is amiss.
Yeah I might have done that to stop gamey bastiches like me (love a fiery recce!) driving the poor sap forward as disposable reconnaissance...
-
3 hours ago, Hilts said:
Hello @George MC
I'm on mission 5.2a "shnelle Truppen Angriffe!", having pushed on in the last mission, rather than rest up. It says in the briefing/tactical map that KG Kruger is to arrive at ETA 18.30hrs. It's now 18.45hrs and I've just had notification of reinforcements. When I look for them all that's arrived is a lone Kubelwagen in the rectangular bunch of conifers to the rear of point 132.1. I was expecting KG Kruger to come in on the road near point 124.5. Any ideas as to what's going on? Will there still be time for them to arrive or will I have to soldier on without them? The losses in the previous missions have not been too heavy so I don't think that is the problem. I expected more than just one Kubel.....
I use lone units as reinforcements - linked with their arrival via the 'squawk' announcing a unit has arrived will be a radio message. It will give you updates on what is happening.
Unfortunately Kruger is a bit of a twat so more than likely got himself into some bother or just screwed up his column management...
-
Death of a Panther
Minaev's T-34 stalks an unsuspecting Panther that has just shot up his platoon mates.
He spots and fires first, narrowly missing the Panther.
The Panther panics and starts to reverse...
Minaev's gunner adjusts his aim whilst the loader slams another shell into the breech.
Minaev's gunner does not miss the second shot. A flash and the Panther starts to burn...
-
On 3/20/2024 at 11:13 AM, Chibot Mk IX said:
Victory!
spoiler
Spot on! Nice move
And a decent result.
Cheers for the AAR and video.
Much appreciated thanks!
-
Cool! Every day is a school day
Yup modern wheeled vehicles. As I said I hadn’t tested them - as context of my very limited ‘test’ was WWII tanks on a snow covered dirt road.
I take the point re speed on corners for wheeled vehicles. I don’t play CMPE and defo don’t really played wheeled vehicles. So I’ll put my hands up here.
Just to recap the video was for novices to give them a simple way to create a convoy that did not jam up or at least reduced the possibility. I fully appreciate experienced players will fully leverage advantages such as speed on various road types in the game accepting additional complexity.
-
6 hours ago, Erwin said:
Traffic management for speed on a large map becomes important when playing H2H - esp MEETING ENGAGEMENTS when you want to get to a location as fast as possible - and therefore you don't want vehicles to slow down at bends in the road. In those situations am often traveling FAST and using 2 waypoints at every bend that is 60 degrees or more. (Yes, it is a PITA and a clickfest - as is trying to give new covered arcs to tanks at every waypoint. It was easier in CM1 cos CM1 had a "one-click 180 degree arc" feature.)
I can't say I've noticed any difference in speed re vehicles turning corners related to how may movement points you've plotted.
How many movement points you can plot on a bend does really depend on the underlaying action grid. Some corners you can easily places three points - one before the corner, one on the corner and one after the corner. Others less so.
I've not done any serious testing as my impression over the years is the AI tends to smooth the turn out anyways. The key thing being keeping the vehicle on the actual road surface hence being precise where you place the movement point. If its a really tight turn the AI will automatically slow down as it negotiates the corner just as it does on bridges.
Out of curiosity I ran a quick and dirty 'test' and I placed three way points on a 45 deg corner as best I could (see my comment above re action grids and placing movement points) and watched the vehicles ( 2 x T-70 on fast) and I noticed no difference in speeds or pathing with both vehicles negotiating a 45 degree bend. I run it a few times (okay not really a formal test just quick and dirty to double check what I thin happens with what happens). Like lighter wheeled vehicles might negotiate corners better (as tanks have to pivot turn).
If there is any difference and there might be in terms of smoother pathing (maybe...) its really negligible IMO and arguably not worth the additional effort. I mean bends on CM roads come in three flavours - 90 deg, 45 deg and 60 deg. So maybe there is some advantage in 90 degree bends but again the AI will automatically slow down if hurtling along at 'fast' to negotiate the bend.
I've uploaded my wee test file. Just open the scenario (its a save file) and watch the T-70s (both regular) negotiate the 45 deg corner.
Like if you feel it makes a difference, then fair play - marginal gains and all that in competitive play - but for me there is no appreciable advantage as the AI in anycase and regardless of how may movement points placed at the corner will slow down to negotiate the corner, so I'll stick wi ma lazy boy way
-
3 hours ago, AdamPraha said:
Hi.
I wonder if there is some huge graphics mod. That would have completely improved the graphics and made everything prettier.
I have a very nice : Initial 'All in One' modpack. However, I am looking to see if there is any "competition. Or even nicer graphically ?
Nope.
Not an all in one. You can check stuff out at https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/ and see what you prefer though @37mmdid a grand job of curating an all in one that ticks a lot of boxes off the bat.
-
4 hours ago, Artkin said:
I never place waypoints directly on road corners, only before and after them.
IMO the units drive smoother around corners this way, and dont lose as much speed.
For 90 degree bends agreed. For curving corners makes no odds - the TacAI adjusts speed accordingly. If moving a lot of units in a convoy doing this will take forever. My approach enables the player to moves lots of stuff with min. effort. Its also simple (like me!) so IMO works well for thsoe new to CM.
There are LOTS of ways to achieve the desired endstate of a traffic jam free convoy. Usually for a convoy I'm less concerned re speed and more the unit makes it to where I want em to be without creating a clusterfcuk down the road... At heart I'm a lazy bugger
As I tend to play larger actions I tend to less micromanaging and tend to go with stuff that reduces the overall work load and achieves the desired effect.
The great thing is the game accommodates lots of different styles and every player evolves their own style to managing the admin associated with making stuff move and fight from point A to point B.
-
6 minutes ago, Erwin said:
As mentioned earlier, in addition to pauses one can also give each successive vehicle a different movement speed (until the initial waypoint). That will enable a more subtle separation than the 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 45 second pauses that are available. Also, as roads can usually accommodate two vehicles side by side, you can stagger the vehicles along a road, one on each side of the road with maybe a 10 meter separation. This works well when one has a large number of vehicles on the road, not just the 4 in the video.
For sure. There are many ways to skin a cat! The vid is aimed at those new to CM so I went for simple - as the method I tend to use is less prone to clusterfukcs
plus keeps the video short!
-
How To Enjoy Hassle Free Convoying in CM.
https://youtu.be/3Lz97ZDXSWsThe video uses Red Thunder but techniques shown apply equally to all the CM games.
-
This is the Twitch playthrough of the first scenario (Wadi Armour Clash) in the upcoming Slitherine Tourney. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2081184796 Interesting watching how these guys plan what they are doing.
I just HATE playing those PanzerGrenadiers…
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
Also in wider context SPW pzgr unit is s combined arms unit at company level it has mortars, HMGs and mobile 75mm cannons. At battalion level it has more of the same which can be tasked managed to support a unit.
A SPW unit would work in concert with attached, be attached to, AFVs.
An armoured SPW unit was a pretty valuable asset. They were kept for appropriate tasks where their mobility, firepower and armour could best be used.
So using em well would mean deploying them to a mission where some info re enemy was most likely known about. The unit commander would then do their own tactical recce prior to their mission - check routes etc
once committed they’d do combat recce but again likely point unit commander dismounting and peeking over next rise to see what exactly was ahead.
All done with some sort of overwatch as platoon/company and battalion level.