The Road Ahead - Operation Bagration

[Michael Emrys]

I look forward to truly massive Soviet artillery bombardments that leave the fascist invaders smashed and disheartened. And yes, it will be falling into their setup zone on the first turn. War is hell.

Michael

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I look forward to truly massive Soviet artillery bombardments that leave the fascist invaders smashed and disheartened. And yes, it will be falling into their setup zone on the first turn. War is hell.

Michael

Unless of course the sneaky Germans employy the Heiinrici metjhod and are not there. We can, if we want, put on large British/US bmbardments in Norndy and Italy. Not as much perhaps as the Red Army might use but certainly significant on a tactical level. Think Monte Cassino, the various Allied offennsives n Normandy etc. The Germans called it Trommelfeur (DrumFire) and with good reason.

[womble]

Artillery units are no more or less operational units than infantry units .

That's not what anyone asserted.

The poster you quoted referred to heavy artillery bombardments as operational affairs. Not just any old artillery. And while your saw about being in the right place at the right time is true, it's also context-dependent. Getting a heavy bombardment in the right place at the right time is an operational consideration. Getting some artillery in the right place at the right time is, more often a tactical consideration. And CM doesn't actually offer any obstacle to operational perfection, except the technical challenge of learning the editor tools.

CM has to ignore the operational aspect or push it into the background, because if you do that right, the actual playing of the CM battle is pointless. How many people would like to play a game where the first 10 minutes is 20 batteries of 150mm turning the map into a moonscape and the last 20 is a battalion of infantry mopping up the shaken and depleted survivors from the target zone? Even from the firing side? Militarily realistic? Yes. Historical? Potentially. Fun factor? 1 or 2 out of 10.

[Michael Emrys]

How many people would like to play a game where the first 10 minutes is 20 batteries of 150mm turning the map into a moonscape and the last 20 is a battalion of infantry mopping up the shaken and depleted survivors from the target zone? Even from the firing side?

[raises hand and jumps up and down excitedly]

Me, sir! Oh please, me me me!

Michael

[Broadsword56]

That's not what anyone asserted.

The poster you quoted referred to heavy artillery bombardments as operational affairs. Not just any old artillery. And while your saw about being in the right place at the right time is true, it's also context-dependent. Getting a heavy bombardment in the right place at the right time is an operational consideration. Getting some artillery in the right place at the right time is, more often a tactical consideration. And CM doesn't actually offer any obstacle to operational perfection, except the technical challenge of learning the editor tools.

CM has to ignore the operational aspect or push it into the background, because if you do that right, the actual playing of the CM battle is pointless. How many people would like to play a game where the first 10 minutes is 20 batteries of 150mm turning the map into a moonscape and the last 20 is a battalion of infantry mopping up the shaken and depleted survivors from the target zone? Even from the firing side? Militarily realistic? Yes. Historical? Potentially. Fun factor? 1 or 2 out of 10.

That's an extreme example.

But in some of the Commonwealth Forces battles in Normandy where the British are attacking, a realistic setup would require you give the British tons of artillery and ammo and set up a rolling barrage that the infantry can follow from a few hundred meters behind.

You might not want a realistic game and that's OK.

But, if you leave this artillery aspect out, the tactics get out of whack too -- because the British infantry with their bolt action rifles and Brens will be that much more vulnerable to German MGs and unable to contend with the superior section level firepower of German infantry.

Even with a bombardment like that, many of the Germans will survive and recover to fight.

But artillery is the best thing the British have going for them (other than the 17 pounder and the Firefly tank, IMHO). I agree that there's no need to replicate the 3-hour prebattle stonking that might have preceded a British setpiece attack. But I think one needs the 25 pounders and Sextons in there supporting the actual attack for the battlefield dynamics to be right.

[Michael Emrys]

But artillery is the best thing the British have going for them...

FWIW I agree. The artillery was over all the most professionally competent arm of the service, and the generals were right to rely on it.

I agree that there's no need to replicate the 3-hour prebattle stonking that might have preceded a British setpiece attack. But I think one needs the 25 pounders and Sextons in there supporting the actual attack for the battlefield dynamics to be right.

Yep.

[womble]

... agree that there's no need to replicate the 3-hour prebattle stonking that might have preceded a British setpiece attack...

Indeed. That Emrys bloke might be right a lot of the time, but there's something wrong in his head

But I think one needs the 25 pounders and Sextons in there supporting the actual attack for the battlefield dynamics to be right.

Well, that's easy to agree with too, since I don't see anyone saying any different. The initial statement, up there to read is that "...HEAVY...bombardments are operational affairs..." (my emphasis).

[Vanir Ausf B]

Even with a bombardment like that, many of the Germans will survive and recover to fight.

It would be interesting to try that in the game to test if that is actually true. I have a hunch that there would be very few Germans left.

[Broadsword56]

It would be interesting to try that in the game to test if that is actually true. I have a hunch that there would be very few Germans left.

We have tested it in a game -- not one of those laboratory-style tests with multiple repetitions, but in a large scenario HTH.

In my operational-tactical Saint-Lo campaign, we had an epic battle called Hamel Vallee. Check the AAR thread and you can read about it.

On the operational level there had been an overnight bombardment of the Germans by US divisional and even corps heavy artillery. That was outside the scope of CMBN. But we set up the morning battle with the Germans having -2 leadership and poor motivation, poor fitness, etc., to simulate the suppressive effects of all that prebattle shelling.

Within the battle, however, the US also had unusually large artillery support because this was going to have to be a frontal assault relying on brute force and firepower. So I set up a British-style fire plan for it. Using 20+ TRPs, I drew long lines across the intended attack axis, at regulation intervals. I set the delays and timings so the barrage would "lift" about 100m or to the next bocage line about every 3 minutes.

It was on an authentic bocage map with loads of infantry cover. Almost all the the Germans were in foxholes.

The barrage started off great. Sburke can tell you better than I can whether the shells really did much damage. I think he just moved his men back from the shelling and then waited it out. German snipers in advanced German outposts started picking off my lead units, sending them to ground. Then some StuGs suddenly appeared and the infantry had to pause while I maneuvered Shermans to try and take care of them.

While all that was going on, the US "lost" the barrage and it lifted ahead. So much of it was wasted or the Germans near it had time to recover and re-man their bocage positions.

Result: a bloodbath for the US side even at 5:1 or 6:1 superiority, and the attack was repulsed. (edit: actually not repulsed, but with a net advance for the day of about three fields -- about what I've read was typical result in the bocage fighting.)

IRL rolling barrages were a lot like this -- awesome firepower, but very hard to get the timing just right. Friendly infantry often lost the barrage by failing to keep up with it or getting suppressed and falling behind schedule.

[MikeyD]

This conversation brings to mind CM:Afghanistan and the Russians absurdly small squads, and they got even smaller over time. It made for some very interesting tactical gameplay. Russian doctrine was for artillery and armor to win the day and the infantry to move forward to claim the objective over the pre-charred corpses of their enemies. Didn't always work out that way.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

The Allies did have a lot of artillery and it was essential to their LW doctrine. Whether one wants to watch a half hour bombardment (a few minutes while your attack force closes can be quite spectacular viewing but we can cover most of a preliminary bombardment by other means.

[c3k]

This conversation brings to mind CM:Afghanistan and the Russians absurdly small squads, and they got even smaller over time. It made for some very interesting tactical gameplay. Russian doctrine was for artillery and armor to win the day and the infantry to move forward to claim the objective over the pre-charred corpses of their enemies. Didn't always work out that way.

CM:A does a great job of highlighting the need for squads to be large enough to take casualties. A fun gem, with a VERY different flavor than CMSF.

[Der Alte Fritz]

Artillery may not be as effective at killing people as you may think.

21st Army Group in Normandy had an Operational Research Section which studied the results of artillery and air attacks.

During Operation Veritable - Canadian Army assault between the Rhine and the Maas in Feb 1945 had one of the largest CW artillery bombardments of the war. The ORS concluded that it actually killed 63 German soldiers for the expenditure of 5,500 tonnes of ammunition but that it neutralised 5 front line battalions and the remainder of the 84.ID and its supporting 2.FJD paratroopers allowing a successful CW attack to gain much ground on the first day through fixed defences of the Seigfried line.

See: http://ww2talk.com/forums/topic/31443-veritable-15th-scottish-division-in-the-reichswald-battle-feb-1945/

[womble]

Siegfried line was pretty heavily fortified, though, wasn't it. Concrete blockhouses and such, the like of which we don't see in CMx2 situations.

[John Kettler]

BFC!

Please, please, please fix the tank/assault gun pivoting issue! Since the CMBO Beta Demo this has been a problem, and it's still a problem.

If you look at Manner Gegen Panzer, you can clearly see how a T-34/76 can execute a nearly 90 degree pivot in around four (4) seconds (13:17-13:21), and that's with only one track going and the other braked!

As we've repeatedly shown, the equivalent German tanks that can neutral steer can have both tracks going opposite directions, so can pivot even faster. This Panther, which is much heavier than the T-34/76, can also pivot at least as far in the same four seconds (:43-:47)

Yet we're still stick with pivoting rates that, frankly, are ridiculously slow and expose tanks generally, and assault guns in particular, to wholly unnecessary flank attack.

A Tiger 1, in dead slow reverse and being babied, for all its weight pivots 90 degrees in ~22 seconds (:53-1:15)

Implementing this long requested fix would greatly heighten realism, improve immersiveness and relieve some wholly justifiable player frustration. If ever there was something that cried out to be fixed, it's this pivoting issue. And when you do (he said optimistically), please make it a patch for all the CMx2 games.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sublime]

I dont know John. I can think of other things that are crying out way more for attention. If anything DOESNT need added power it's tanks. If anything we should be pushing for fausts and zooks/etc to be used in doors, even if as an abstraction/concession due to gun elevation limits.

[Broadsword56]

But John,

The reality of a battlefield is not just the hardware on it, but the human "software" in it.

I can accept tanks in CMx2 pivoting slower than what was rated as technically possible, because for a tank to turn a human commander still has to order it to pivot and a driver has to execute the order. So the slower pivot in the game can be just another one of those unquantifiable soft factors that make war a business of man and not just machine.

If anything, things happen a bit too fast sometimes for my taste in the game -- like the speed of crew bailouts, and the (seems to me) almost instantaneous interval between a tank spotting a target and shooting it. But none of those things are big deals or must-fix items IMHO.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm with Sublime and Broadsword. There is no delay for orders given, the driver having to put the tank in gear, rev the engine up, ect. This is an example of an unrealistic feature that may actually make the game more realistic overall given other limitations. Just think of sneaking a infantry team up to close assault a Stug only so see it whip around 90° in 4 seconds, depress it's gun at an impossible angle and blow them away.

[ASL Veteran]

I can't remember where I read it now, but I read an account by a German assault gun crewman where he indicated that although the German vehicles could use neutral steering they were strongly discouraged from doing so. I think it even says that in their training manuals. The reason being that the suspension elements weren't strong enough to make using neutral steering reliable enough to use without worrying about the vehicle becoming immobilized in the process. So while in theory it would be possible to whip a German AFV around in seconds in practice it probably wasn't used very much except perhaps in situation where the crew felt that the risk of becoming immobilized was outweighed by the need to pivot quickly. Apparently the suspension and steering system was more advanced than the materials or parts design could effectively handle.

[John Kettler]

Sublime,

I've been pushing hard for that fix, too, as you should be perfectly aware already. I see the new game as the perfect place to fix a very old problem, though.

Broadsword,

I grant there's reaction time involved, which is affected by all kinds of things. Tank speed of reaction is ridiculously quick from spotting to shooting unless you're talking about, say, switching near instantly from cannon to coax MG versus an already hit target. That I can buy. What I can't buy is a situation in which a buttoned tank pretty much sees all, instantly, has no limitations on how closely it can employ its weapons so long as they'll bear on the target. There's also that little issue of the TC's being able to see what the gunner can't. There was no commander override switch back then.

Vanir Ausf B,

BTDT. Try assaulting the stubby StuG III in the first BoB. The crew there is telepathic and couldn't possibly detect the move being made against it. From the rear no less.

ASL Veteran,

Point taken, but even if so, then surely they could still pivot with one track braked, as did the T-34?

To a first approximation, I think BFC could do a simple graph paper exercise to determine a blind spot cookie cutter representing main gun coverage assuming max depression. A kind of Cover Arc inside of which the main gun can't be used. The Germans did exactly that for the early T-34/76. I've seen the drawings. Here they are (pp. 15-17). Kurt Fischer is that former Panzerjaeger I mentioned elsewhere.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105589859/1971-AFV-G2-Volume-3-No-4

To be a bit fancier for our purposes, there could also be a reduced depression over the engine deck and some depression limit for bow MGs. Were this to be done, then tank stalking might work as it did historically. In turn, this would make players with tanks think twice about where and when they commit their armor.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

Wrong console game. BIA!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Fenris]

I can't remember where I read it now, but I read an account by a German assault gun crewman where he indicated that although the German vehicles could use neutral steering they were strongly discouraged from doing so. I think it even says that in their training manuals. The reason being that the suspension elements weren't strong enough to make using neutral steering reliable enough to use without worrying about the vehicle becoming immobilized in the process. So while in theory it would be possible to whip a German AFV around in seconds in practice it probably wasn't used very much except perhaps in situation where the crew felt that the risk of becoming immobilized was outweighed by the need to pivot quickly. Apparently the suspension and steering system was more advanced than the materials or parts design could effectively handle.

John Kettler dug up this info and posted in this thread over in the CMBN forum (FWIW)

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=109790

Half of the abandoned Panthers found in Normandy in 1944 showed evidence of breaks in the final drive.

It takes only one weak link to break a chain. The Panther had many fine qualities. But here we find a severe weakness.

In order to prevent these breaks it is recommended that the following points be closely observed: when driving downhill and in reverse as well as on uneven terrain to be particularly careful when shifting to a lower gear. In addition, a Panther should never be towed without uncoupling the final drive previously. Finally, under no circumstances should both steering levers be operated simultaneously * regardless of the situation.

American tankers often observed that the Panther could “neutral steer” – it could pivot in place by moving one track forward, and the other backwards. The Sherman did not have this capability.

But it appears that experience has told the French never to USE this capability. It is an advantage to be able to pivot a tank in combat. But not if the result is an immobilized tank.

Info is from here - http://worldoftanks.com/news/1757-chieftains-hatch-french-panthers/

If this is true and accurate it would seem to back up what ASL Vet is saying.

-F

[dieseltaylor]

I can't remember where I read it now, but I read an account by a German assault gun crewman where he indicated that although the German vehicles could use neutral steering they were strongly discouraged from doing so. I think it even says that in their training manuals. The reason being that the suspension elements weren't strong enough to make using neutral steering reliable enough to use without worrying about the vehicle becoming immobilized in the process. So while in theory it would be possible to whip a German AFV around in seconds in practice it probably wasn't used very much except perhaps in situation where the crew felt that the risk of becoming immobilized was outweighed by the need to pivot quickly. Apparently the suspension and steering system was more advanced than the materials or parts design could effectively handle.

My reading was that pivoting was OK provided you had the right type of ground - that is hard and flat. Possibly hard but slightly muddy even easier. However as a general rule it was quite possible to do damage and therefore I am sure training was designed as far as possible to stop this pivoting becoming a default behaviour. On the battlefield a rut or or ditch etc could ruin your day.

In towns it may have been a necessary part of navigating given the size of vehicle and the narrowness of some roads. Presumably done gently : )

[Battlefront.com]

This is the same thing as exists with today's modern vehicles. Hard, flat surfaces with a well maintained vehicle aren't a problem. But as soon as you deviate from those conditions things start to become problems. Consider that vehicles in the field for any length of time usually have some combination of problems (improper track tension, worn track pins, worn drive cogs, inherent manufacturing defects, etc) and ideal ground is less than likely except in a city. It doesn't take a gypsy woman with a crystal ball to see the future for neutral steering isn't very bright

I've mentioned this many times before in such discussions... I've spoken with vehicle drivers that in peace time had their neutral steering controls wired down so they couldn't be used. When I asked why they said "because they didn't want us spending our valuable training time putting on a thrown track".

Now, I can see how judicious, limited use of neutral steering by an experienced driver would work OK. Combine some neutral steering with normal forward/backwards motion and you can dramatically reduce the chances of throwing a track. Basically if you do it right you can "reset" the track before it jumps. Of course you don't get the full benefits of a true neutral turn, but you can affect a turn better than using forward/back single track lockup technique. Er... if you don't screw it up

Steve

[John Kettler]

BFC/Steve,

Very well explained, but what I'd really like to know is when (he inquired optimistically), please, BFC's going to fix the AFV pivoting issue? Even if you rule out neutral steering, which I certainly wouldn't assert the T-34/76 at the link is doing, it's demonstrably possible to pivot a medium tank in under five seconds, using just track braking on one side. And that's on earth, not cobblestones. Am not sure what technique the Panther used, but it was on a bump on damp earth and did much the same. There's also the vid of the very hefty KV-2 which does a pivot on thick ice as part of a German antitank training film.

Meanwhile, here's a contribution to the Eastern Front war effort.

Russian grenades. (Mines at bottom of linked page)

http://www.lexpev.nl/grenades/sovietbalkan/russia/index.html

Russian manuals

http://www.lexpev.nl/manuals/russia.html

Regards,

John Kettler