CMRT - BETA AAR - Soviet Side

[Vark]

But if the solution is ahistorical and unrealistic, what then? Playing the Russians will only be frustrating because their legendary 'exploits' cannot be reproduced. Then again perhaps Bil is being punished because he is using them to execute a Western model, that values force preservation over constant momentum and it's attendant effects of rapid dislocation and shock.

[John Kettler]

Bil,

Considering what kind of damage a penetrating hit generally does, I'd say you got an extraordinarily good outcome. (Retires to do research) Aha!

Turns out you were more than fortunate. In looking at the cutaway of the ISU-152--ISU-122 layout identical, no less than three men were on that side of the fighting compartment, starting with the driver, who, to his left, has a big fuel tank (that irregular trapezoid in several of the interior drawings). It appears the projectile came in below the fuel tank, didn't hit the driver or the other two directly or by frag, apparently didn't explode (if it was PzGr 39; no idea what Elvis sent your way) and probably cut the radio's power cable or something. Best guess? It skimmed between the fighting compartment floor and the tops of the torsion bars. Somewhere along the line, it ran out of steam.

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/isu152/1/

To say you were most fortunate is Admiral Beatty at Jutland grade understatement.

Vark,

If you read Kobylyanskiy's excellent From Stalingrad to Pillau, you'll repeatedly find references to something called a drap marsh, which is Russian lingo for a bugout. He served in 76mm regimental artillery (mostly DF shoots from right behind--100 meters--the front line) and repeatedly talks about divisions doing or almost doing the drap marsh--right through the end of end of the war. The Russian units were surprisingly brittle, and German attacks and counterattacks against Rifle troops could readily trigger a drap marsh. He is absolutely clear how vital quickly stopping the unraveling is, else the entire division will take flight.

Regards,

John Kettler

[nathangun]

Bah. If your Sten or PPSh gunners are running out of ammo, they're living too long. They need to close the range.

That's the funniest thing I've read in any of the forums in a while

[Michael Emrys]

There has to be some sort of penalty to disincentivise the player from splitting Russian squads and having them wander the map at will. Soviets weren't set up to subdivide their squads and retain control.

Understood. I wonder what would happen if they had very low Leadership ratings but high Morale. How do you suppose that would play out?

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

But if the solution is ahistorical and unrealistic, what then? Playing the Russians will only be frustrating because their legendary 'exploits' cannot be reproduced. Then again perhaps Bil is being punished because he is using them to execute a Western model, that values force preservation over constant momentum and it's attendant effects of rapid dislocation and shock.

Splitting was, by technical definition, a tricky thing for the Soviets to pull off in real life. They centered their doctrine on concentration and simplicity, which in a way was the opposite of Western doctrine. CM offers the player the ability for Soviet Squads to split up, but requires C2 connections to prevent brittleness.

Which is to say that the more the player sticks to concentrated, in command forces (which is Soviet doctrine) then the less problems one will have. The more the player deviates from Soviet doctrine, and instead tries to disperse or use units too independently, the more problems one will have.

It's an imperfect system, but it's better than what we had before (no splitting) and is far more reasonably flexible than CMx1's old Command Delays system. Therefore, out of the three systems we've tried over the years, this is the one we feel is the best.

Steve

[LukeFF]

Are BFC considering bringing command delays (from CM1) back or is this feature a total 'write off'...?

Could maybe help differentiate the different forces and training levels

LOL, no. Pages and pages have been written discussing why that feature is not coming back.

[Tux]

4th Company Sector

Does this T-34 commander have difficulty spotting to the front while unbuttoned, by any chance?

[BletchleyGeek]

Does this T-34 commander have difficulty spotting to the front while unbuttoned, by any chance?

Looks like that hatch isn't helping

[Cymru]

"Splitting was, by technical definition, a tricky thing for the Soviets to pull off in real life. They centered their doctrine on concentration and simplicity, which in a way was the opposite of Western doctrine."

Would one of the knowledgable forum members comment on the fractal nature of military doctrine? Do most nations tend to use the same overall approach at every level, or there no general pattern?

[Fuser]

Looks like that hatch isn't helping

LOL!:eek:

[Vark]

Wish an AFV crew could split, in real life the commander and possibly the gunner would have dismounted, and crawled forward to the forest edge to scope things out. They would have more than likely spotted the German armour, returned and then planned their attack.

Steve, agree, the Soviet player should not worry too much about the butchers bill, if he is in a priority sector there will be plenty of bodies and AFV's to take over. Bil should only be worried that he is not seen to do his upmost to complete his allotted mission. I wonder if in future LMG teams could be separated as I've seen Russian DP gunners supporting their squad. Breaking modern soldiers down to fire teams, is contrary to most WWII tactics, even the Germans. Still, cannot wait to get my hands on TR and start some serious shock action.

[Wicky]

...Can anyone help me find a diagram of where inside an ISU-122 the radio set is located? All I keep turning up is damned World of Tanks 'references'. I'd just like to compare the damage it suffered to the penetration point on Bil's ISU and also see if it was the radio set that prevented any injury to Bil's driver!

This is where the radio is fitted to the ISU-152 - To the right of the gun where the commander is.

This is the best drawing I have seen so far of the primary late WWII Russian AFV radio transceiver used with the P-113. Although robust for its time, the radio featured delicate tubes and often was of little use during combat. The front of the radio includes the primary frequency tuner in the center of the face and connections for power and antenna to the lower left. At the upper left is the main power switch and at the upper right is the antenna control. The radio was shock mounted on rubber feet to a shelf unit, which was in turn also shock mounted to the vehicle. The radio was painted green and matched other standard military issue items scattered throughout the white interior.

http://panzerfaust.ca/AFV%20interiors/isu152b.html

[YankeeDog]

Breaking modern soldiers down to fire teams, is contrary to most WWII tactics, even the Germans.

Eh? By mid-war, it was standard squad-level doctrine for the U.S., U.K., Germans, and Soviets for the squad to maneuver in two or more teams -- the details vary my nationality, but the generalities are similar: Usually, the rifle team(s) move first while LMG team supports, then LMG team moves up while riflemen support. Standard squad-level fire and maneuver; it's described explicitly in the training manuals of all of the above nationalities.

Splitting teams is also important for representing some platoon-level drill. For example, on the assault, U.S. rifle platoons specifically trained to sometimes split off *all* of the platoon's organic BAR teams, using them as a fire group, while the riflemen of the platoon maneuvered. You can't execute this drill in CM without the Split Team order.

So as long as the teams stay within about one bound of each other, breaking squads down into fire teams is a perfectly legitimate representation of WWII tactics.

Where it gets less realistic is if the teams are widely separated and acting independently. I'd argue that fire teams running around by themselves is a pretty rare thing even for modern forces, but it's even less realistic for WWII forces. This is what's nice about the new split team C2 penalty system -- as long as the split teams are close to the Plt. HQ, they do fine. But if you send a split team (and especially one without a leader) off on a lone wolf mission, you're asking for trouble.

[JasonC]

MikeyD - some penalty for being out of command, check. But the right one would be ceasing responding to orders temporarily, while continuing to fight rather than running. A version of pin that allows firing in place perhaps? It is coordination that should go, not willingness to stand and deliver. Just a thought...

[Tux]

Thanks, Wicky. Sounds like a frontal impact almost anywhere would be enough to knock the radio out!

And yes, Bletchley Geek and Fuser, it's the apparent proximity of the OT-34 TC's nose to his hatch which I was alluding to. Considering that CM models LOS from crewmembers explicitly I wonder whether it might be affecting his in-game performance - perhaps explaining his apparent reluctance to fire, at the moment?

[Vark]

YankeeDog, sorry that was my whole point about the independence afforded the 'fire teams'. The Germans supposedly would make a gun team and a rifle team, not neatly divide a squad in half, similarly the US and UK practiced this method of sub-division, though as you have pointed out they were not autonomous units.

Jason, yes that would be a good compromise, perhaps being unable to change the last orders, which might make the Soviet player reticent to micro-manage his units.

[Bil Hardenberger]

So my right side ISU was not far enough back in the woods.. Elvis's Hetzer still had him in view and puts another hole in its front.. this one, though a partial penetration did more damage.. two casualties, and they bail later in the turn.

Elvis pulled hi Panther out at the beginning of the turn thinking, rightly IMO, that the Hetzers alone can handle these ISU-122s.

In the 4th Company sector a few things occurred...

1) A spotting round fell between KT7 and KT8

2) My OT34 fired (main gun only) at the shack that had contained an enemy team a few turns ago.. he might have moved that team out by now, I don't know...

3) I now have an HQ unit and an enemy team spotted in the barn next to that shack.. this will be the OT34s next target.. though I expect Elvis will evacuate it now that he knows my OT34 has it in range.

This might give me an opportunity to rush across the dead zone between KT7 and the village to get a toe-hold on the objective... and to get some of my units out from under whatever artillery is getting ready to fall on them.

The Panther could be going one of two places.. either to support the Objective Blau defense, or to take on my T-34/85s.. I don't think it would be wise to split his armor so I expect it is going to Blau.

[Battlefront.com]

MikeyD - some penalty for being out of command, check. But the right one would be ceasing responding to orders temporarily, while continuing to fight rather than running. A version of pin that allows firing in place perhaps? It is coordination that should go, not willingness to stand and deliver. Just a thought...

Unfortunately this gets into a huge can of worms from a game mechanics standpoint. The reason being that units in such situations would still have the ability to maneuver tactically. Even if it was just to dodge to the right or left for slightly better cover.

The primary problem is creating autonomous AI behavior that logically (to the extent is realistic) constrains/directs the action of units while still keeping it in the context of the players' specific plans. Or what is commonly referred to as "commander's intent". This means we also have to provide a way for the player to instruct the AI as to what the overall plan is and what the expectations are for a specific component of it. And then it just gets plain complicated

In fact, taking control away from the player is a logical and desirable (from a historical perspective, not necessarily a gameplay perspective) solution to many of CM's conflicts between game and sim. Not just this one. They also run into the same extremely huge technical needs, which is why it's not going to happen.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Unfortunately Bil is getting a reminder of why the Soviets still lost tons and tons and tons of AFVs in the final year of the war. German AFVs weren't pushovers.

Steve

[Skwabie]

Unfortunately Bil is getting a reminder of why the Soviets still lost tons and tons and tons of AFVs in the final year of the war. German AFVs weren't pushovers.

Steve

Thankfully it's just the Hetzer's pea shooter! Actually for the ISU's infantry support role I don't suppose the 2 dead crew members would cause too much trouble?

[Vark]

One would have thought armour in a forest would be harder to spot than armour out in the open. The Soviets lost tons of armour quite simply because they could and they were unwilling and unable to change a winning strategy this late on, however wasteful it was to a Western perspectives.

if this were a realistic AAR and not a showcase for improvements to the admirable games system, Bil would have a battalion of infantry, a platoon of ISU-122's a company of T-34's with company of SMG troops and a significant pre-bombardment of various calibres. The current set up forces Bil to be far more cautious than a Soviet commander, still it's fun to watch.

[ratdeath]

Awesome AAR's from both sides and looking forward to the CMRT release

[John Kettler]

Bil,

Quite a shock to see what just happened to your ISU-122--from a partial penetration, no less! Who got clobbered, and what damage did your ISU take, please? Also, as any number of Russian AFV crew accounts will attest, your crew needs to stay with, not necessarily in, the ISU. HSU Loza talks about how grim it was lying under his burning tank with bullets whizzing all around, fearing all along the tank's going to explode and kill him and his men. He liked the Sherman because it burned when hit, but didn't explode in the same way other tanks did (was in Lend Lease tanks all through the war).

Vark,

U.S. squads habitually operated in fire teams, readily confirmed by War Department training films on YT. U.S. squads started with one BAR, later going to two. By late war, the Marines had three, one for each fire team. As for the Germans...

Here's the highly informative O.S.S training film "The German Squad in Action."

Here is a translated German infantry training manual, issued by the War Department in 1943. Since the MG-34 is the listed LMG, the squad depicted is presumably the early war version. The wealth of detail extends down to how many MP-38/40 magazines the SL carries!

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/wwIIspec/number09.pdf

Regarding the Russians, I've shown, using the Defense Intelligence Agency manual The Soviet Motorized rifle Company (U), that it was doctrine all during the Cold War for the squad to fight as a single formation and not to break into fire teams. There is zero reason to believe otherwise during World War II.

Skwabie,

A short-crewed ISU-122 has four men; normal crew is five. Losing two of the crew is a major problem. Obviously, if the ISU is to fight effectively, there needs to be a driver. There also has to be a gunner, who may also be doing the TC thing. That, at best, leaves two men to do all the work of actually serving the gun. How many times can you pick up a 90 lb shell from a rack at the rear of the compartment, carry it to the gun (we'll assume you start with open breech) and manually ram the shell (no hydraulic rammer)? After that, you have to pull the cartridge (not light) and carry it to the gun, after which you need to get it into the gun, close the heavy breech, prime and fire.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vark]

Interesting, because Battlefronts own 'Soviet Infantry tactics' states that if engaged by previously unsuppressed units the Russian SL should give a fire order to the gun group when at 800m. The riflemen then close and open fire at ranges dependent on their proficiency.

The German tactic and to some extent the later British tactic was the LMG leads and either with or without the SL, shoots the rifle group onto the objective, again both teams have mutually supportive but exclusive tasks. The US BAR and semi-auto rifle muddies the water, but training films suggests it was used also as a base of fire. A modern fire team, as I'm sure you are aware, is a self contained element designed for fire and movement, advancing in tactical pairs it allows far greater flexibility and can, with PIR's, operate a considerable distance away from the SL.

I do seem to remember though, a large number of posts in a CMBB thread about the likelihood that any soldiers stuck to the manual, especially the Germans.

[Battlefront.com]

A field manual on tactics is but a point from which to diverge from. Manuals then get updated to take into consideration "lessons learned" from the deviations.

Steve