CMRT - BETA AAR - Soviet Side

[Andrew H.]

I wanted to take a minute to highlight the Rifle Platoon. This formation contains a lot of bodies (34) and a lot of firepower.. they will be great in the woods where the German long range firepower will be negated. Also these squads can split (all squads can now split), however the split teams will come at a high cost to morale if they are separated from the Squad leader team.

That looks like a really capable platoon - for some reason, I had it in my mind that a soviet rifle squad only had 9 men. And didn't have four SMGs!

[akd]

That looks like a really capable platoon - for some reason, I had it in my mind that a soviet rifle squad only had 9 men. And didn't have four SMGs!

There are two rifle platoon orgs in the game:

43 (standard org through the end of the war in Europe)

Platoon HQ (4 men, including Platoon Leader and Assistant Leader)

2x Rifle Squads (9 men, 2x LMGs)

2x Rifle Squads (9 men, 1x LMG)

Sniper Team (2 men)

44 (a reduced TO&E authorized to address manpower shortages, especially NCOs, but not necessarily used in all divisions)

Plt leader + 1st Rifle Squad (12 men, 1x LMG)

2x Rifle Squads (11 men, 1x LMG)

Sniper Team (2 men)

In reality, the typical platoon was mostly likely a reduced version of one of the above. Proportions of SMGs increased steadily through the end of the war. Note that distribution of SMGs in rifle platoons is somewhat randomized, as you can see in Bil's screens (2-4 SMGs in various squads).

[kensal]

But that (my bold bit of your quote above) is not what the manual says ... as Jim said in his post, the manual says that the green light against 1st Platoon when the SQUAD is the selected unit means that the 1st Platoon (not the Squad) is in contact with ITS HQ: the contact status of the squad itself with 1st Platoon is indicated by the presence or absence of the contact method icons (eye, voice, etc) in the Squad's panel?

Confuses me too, in that what seems to be happening (e.g. with keeping mortar teams in contact) does not always seem to follow what the manual says ...

The other issue that is confusing about this is that on the basis set out in the manual, the icon next to the battalion hq does not indicate 5 Coy's status vis a vis Battalion but rather Battalion's status vis a vis brigade / regt. But aren't Battalion HQs the highest level of command in the game? Or is there an off-map higher level of command which a battalion can be in or out of command with depending on whether it still has its radio man?

[Bil Hardenberger]

Okay no images this turn report.. still moving up, no action. Going to take a few turns to really get rolling.

[Callidus87]

Bill give us some Pictures of your Toys ;-)

We want to see them Rolling before the germans blow them up...ohem....

[Bil Hardenberger]

This is all you get for now

[Callidus87]

One Soldire to his comrades: "Hey guys let us all sit on this shiney big target and drive through a battlefield without anything protecting us, and ...oh ...perfect it has fuel tanks on his back, perfect seats."

Russians...

[BletchleyGeek]

This is all you get for now

I guess Elvis isn't defending forward. Separating those tanks from the infantry can be an interesting tactical problem to solve.

How prone is infantry to dismount from the tank? I mean, jumping off a moving tank probably means you sprain an ankle more often than not, so I'd expect them to hold to its back while the tank speed is "too high".

[Macisle]

Nice! More pics like these, please, Bil!

I really am excited about this game family. I've spent recent months experimenting with trying to play Iron Front Liberation 1944 like a 1st person/3rd person CM hybrid. Attempting to do so has given me even greater appreciation for the magic that is CM's TacAI, along with its vehicle pathfinding.

Having access to an East Front battlefield under the "Gold Standard" of CM is really going to be great--along with showing me where Iron Front gets it wrong on things like armor penetration, etc.

It's kind of a shame, IFL can be amazing for some things, but the high command feature doesn't even come close to what CM can do (not that I'd expect it to, mind. Would just LIKE to have both CM 3rd person and 1st person in one package! I know--apples and oranges and such--but hey--sometimes you gotta' try to get the square peg to fit the round hole, right? ...right?).

[John Kettler]

Bil,

Am late to the party, but have deliberately chosen to stop here long enough to present some thoughts on your force mix. I may be preaching to the choir here when it comes to you, but if so, then presume what follows is for the general audience.

Building Formations and how attachments are done

Classically, and this was true right through the Cold War, the Company is the smallest standard maneuver unit. As such, it forms the core for other attachments. Companies don't swap out platoons, the way the U.S. does these days, to create a tiny combined arms unit. Rather, you have a given type of Company, to which other smaller units are attached. And that's not usual, either. Try Regiment or higher. Squads fight as units, not fire teams. The most extraordinary WW II Russian attachment I've seen (at article referenced below) was the attachment of an Engineer Squad to each Tank Platoon of a Mobile Group, so as to maintain momentum despite terrain obstacles, such as rocks and swampy areas.

Cold War practice might have a Tank Company, with a Motor Rifle Platoon attached, or vice versa. Since the Russians are highly conservative when it comes to land warfare military practices (see WW II gun lines in Georgian War), doing something similar seems reasonable.

Fire Support

Now, let's look at fire support. Here's an actual fire support breakdown for the Pechenga-Kirkenes Operation. This is taken from The Soviet Offensive in the Arctic: The Pechenga (Petsamo)-Kirkenes Operation 1944 - Part 1 of 2

by Kai & Iryna Isaksen; it's at MilitaryHistoryOnline. Forum Rules prohibit a link, but the well-done piece is trivial to find.

The Regiment CO has his organic artillery, and the Division CO his own, separate, artillery park. Based on reading Penalty Strike, I believe a Battalion CO has an 82mm mortar battery, but am not sure. In any event, what follows is most illuminating.

FAIR USE

"Artillery support

Meretskov had learnt the value of artillery support during offensive operations and ordered his chief of artillery to plan a two-hour and thirty-five minute artillery preparation, fired by mortars and artillery numbering more than 150 guns per kilometre of front on the main axis.

Their primary mission was to knock out the enemy's artillery and then to support the breakthrough, the crossing of the Titovka River, and the infantry's attack into the intermediate German positions.

Lt. Gen. Mikulskij, the 99th Rifle Corps commander, ordered his artillery to

• silence enemy indirect-fire assets,

• suppress or destroy enemy troops and weapons systems,

• create openings in enemy obstacles large enough for two to three companies to attack through,

• support the crossing of the Titovka River,

• deny the enemy the opportunity to counterattack or withdraw."

IOW, following extensive recon via air and Spetsnaz, POW interrogation, crater analysis and sound location, not to mention radio DFing, most of the Rifle Corps (breakthrough unit, as opposed to exploration unit) guns are being devoted to clobbering the German artillery sites, frequently an iterative process, to make sure they stay down once hit. Don't know how that aspect got worked into the fire plan. Maybe hit the targets, then shift most of the artillery to the rest of the fire plan, keeping some in dedicated CB?

"Each rifle regiment had:

• 12-18 82mm mortars

• 4-6 120mm mortars

• 3-4 76.2 mm guns

Each rifle division also had an artillery regiment equipped with:

• A mix of 28-32 76.2 mm and 122mm howitzers

• Up to 50 82mm mortars

• Up to 16 120mm mortars

At least eight mortar and fifteen artillery regiments had been sourced from the 7th and 32nd Armies to support the offensive of the 14th Army. This even included one regiment equipped with captured German 150mm guns.

In addition, further artillery capacity was added to the 14th Army by the attachment of three regiments and two brigades of multiple rocket launchers (MRL) with Katyusha rockets, also called “Stalin organs”.

All in all the 14th Army could rely of the fire power of over 2,100 guns and mortars, as well as 120 MRL systems.

The long range artillery was to suppress enemy artillery, his reserves, and his command and control nodes. MRLs were targeted on the two German strong points believed to be the strongest—one 24-system regiment on each.

The corps artillery group consisted of up to two regiments of long-range artillery (150-mm or 152-mm) and a regiment of MRLs (twenty-four systems). This group was to execute counter battery fire in the breakthrough sector.

The division artillery group varied in size depending on the division's mission.

Regimental artillery groups also varied in size and were a combination of mortar and field artillery units.

Counter battery fires were planned on the basis of "instrumental reconnaissance" conducted during the preparatory period. Forty-three Soviet batteries were targeted on the twenty-one German batteries that were plotted in this manner, a ratio of 2 to 1.

A counter battery mission would typically be 3 to 5minutes of fire, achieving a density of 25 to 30 rounds per hectare (an area 100 square metres) or 2,500 to 3,000 rounds per square kilometer."

The article goes into similar detail regarding other aspects of the operation as well. While tanks aren't normally used in the breakthrough, one Rifle Corps (2 x Rifle Division) CO elected to use his tanks in Direct Support of his infantry. In another case, a weak Guards Tank Brigade (37 T-34) and a weak Tank Regiment (18 T-34) are backed by two full strength Guards Heavy SP Artillery Regiments (17 ISU-152 each)!

What's yours is yours--until I decide otherwise! (general statement)

Units could be and were ruthlessly denuded, as far down as an Antitank Battery being pulled from the "owning" formation, but even as high as several Armies removed at Front level, and sent elsewhere when conditions at the main point warranted it. Also, you could well find very weak formations, talking Rifle Regiments mustering only 200-300 men as a result of sustained combat. In order to retain some sort of tactical cohesion, whole formations were scrapped to create a single one. You might, say, find a fought out Rifle Division with but one Rifle Regiment remaining. I know of a case in which two Rifle Divisions were so wrecked they were disbanded outright, and the survivors were sent to replenish other, still fightable, Rifle Divisions and to help form new ones.

Where's the FO?

And where the unit CO is, at the COP (Command Observation Point), or in an AFV in an armored unit, there will be the FO as well. You won't find him gadding about the battlefield. Should additional fire support be provided the Division from Army or Front, it won't arrive in penny packets. A whole Artillery Regiment will arrive in a Division sector, and it won't be parceled out any smaller than a Battalion. That Artillery Battalion will have 1 FO, so there'll be no dedicated battery situations, and absolutely no RHA style firing by half troops (4 x 25 pr). Neither comms nor equipment and training will support it.

At the level you're playing, the only responsive tube fires you'll have are those at your echelon and below. There's no ability to whistle up higher echelon fires on demand from any FO. Accessing more powerful fire support would come via the physical movement of the higher level CO into your area, bringing with him his organic fire support, maybe with reinforcements. Again, it's all or nothing. Which brings us to…

Direct Fire. Even during the Cold War, Direct Fire was rated, round for round, 10 x more effective than Indirect Fire. Therefore, Direct Fire is your closest friend. For your purposes, unless you've got high ground overlooking the objective on which to site towed guns, you really need tanks or SU-76Ms. I wouldn't expect a more potent SU than those at this level of play. From what I can tell, you're not attacking a true prepared defense. Then, as mentioned below, things might be different. ISU-152s might be shooting in an infantry attack with tank support. Turning now to air support…

By Western standards, Russian air support procedures were crude, inflexible and very high up the food chain. Again, no penny packets when provided. I don't understand why, by Op Bagration, Il-2s would be rare, considering early versions were in combat at the Battle of Moscow. Maybe it represents overall scarcity, as seen by local COs? I don't know what's available for types, but for ground attack, the types I'd find most appropriate are the Il-2, P-39 and P-63. This is because they were favored for the role, hit harder and the crews were specifically trained for ground attack. Pe-2s are dive bombers, but all the footage I've seen of them involved level bombing such as the B-25s, B-26s and A-20s did. The LaGGs, MiGs and Yaks could also be used for ground attack, but this wasn't their thing, and they were far less resistant to ground fire. In any event, whatever air support you buy should involve at least a pair. The Russians didn't fly solo missions as a rule.

The referenced article lists CAS as a specific task, and there are two types listed, the Il-2 and the Pe-2 dive bomber. As you can see, though, their CAS is unlike ours in most respects. Other bomber types, in CM terms, are part of prep fire.

FAIR USE

"Army Air Force assets

Air assets were to play an important part in Meretskov’s plan for the offensive.

His plan specified three standard missions to be used during the offensive:

• Close Air Support (CAS)

o Assisting Soviet artillery during preparatory fire missions to break through German defences

o Disrupting enemy command and control

o Suppressing artillery and mortar batteries

o Accompany tanks and infantry during the battle and support their attacks"

After putting all this info together, I still have no idea what you bought, but I thought it helpful to show how the Russians addressed their combat organizations and assignments of combat tasks. One area where I think some BFC level brains are needed is the issue of handling recon for an Attack scenario. No commander in his right mind would go right in without at least some clue as to what awaited him.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Baneman]

This is all you get for now

Great pic Bil !

The T34/85 profile is pretty iconic ( well, maybe only to Eastern Front aficionados ) and you got it perfectly.

[John Kettler]

SpeakEasy,

You might wish to rethink your position. A Tiger tank was very nearly rendered extinct by an SU-122 firing HE.

http://english.battlefield.ru/su-122.html

Both the ISU-122 and the ISU-152 carried AP.

http://english.battlefield.ru/jsu-122-jsu-152.html

The same holds true for the SU-76M, SU-85 and SU-100.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Macisle]

...The T34/85 profile is pretty iconic ( well, maybe only to Eastern Front aficionados ) and you got it perfectly.

Combat capabilities aside, I've always preferred the look of the T34/76 myself, though. And, I MUCH prefer the look of the Tiger to the King Tiger--which I've never cared for visually.

[herr_oberst]

Great pic Bil !

The T34/85 profile is pretty iconic ( well, maybe only to Eastern Front aficionados ) and you got it perfectly.

Truth. That long barrel kind of says it all, all we're missing is some adhoc paint job markings.

[John Kettler]

76mm,

Obviously, I'm not Bil, but, having just checked at Valera Potapov Land (what a great place!), I can assure you it doesn't.

http://english.battlefield.ru/85mm-s-31-tank-gun.html

What may surprise you, though. Is that there's shrapnel shell available for the SU-122. Theoretically. The SU-122 gun is the same as the M-30 howitzer, and there are two models of shrapnel shell for the latter. Obviously, this is intended to protect a battery against infantry attack when all else has failed. No idea whether any such ammo was carried on the SU-122.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_howitzer_M1938_(M-30)

Regards,

John Kettler

[Bil Hardenberger]

First a little tank porn:

At the end of turn 2 my lead team has reached the stream, which they will cross next turn. Note that I am sending two teams over to explore KT1.

I thought I would also share with you my intial recon plan. I am thinking that Elvis will expect me to move through the heart of the woods in KT3 and possibly KT2 and will have them defended with something, so I am initially going to bypass the center of at least KT3 and recon with a squad in each direction along the fringe... hopefully this will turn up some sound contacts and I can get a picture of what is in the interior as well as uncover any surprises he has covering the Axis Red route on the edge of the woods.

[Dadekster]

I said it once already...but man that is a beautiful map. Have you split any of your squads up to use as scouts or do you plan to?

[Michael Emrys]

Absolutely...

Chain of command is, and should be, key ( as an aside; loss of morale being the only penalty at present. IMO should have more stringent consequences like very limited orders menu, at the least).

So understanding it is important. Currently the manual seems to be at odds with what is actually happening and it confuses me no end.

Perhaps the new manual will correct or explain the situation more clearly.

Yeah, this has always bugged me since the release of BfN. Since nobody else ever seemed to mention it, I thought it was just me. Most of the time I have just ignored it, but the problem will probably assume greater proportions in RT.

Michael

[Macisle]

Lovin' the "tank porn," Bil.

The models sure are built well in this issue. Keep those hot shots comin'!

Infantry closeups would be much-appreciated, too. Perhaps some in standard color?

[76mm]

People keep referring to the manual--are they beta testers, or is it already availabe for download somewhere?!

[BletchleyGeek]

People keep referring to the manual--are they beta testers, or is it already availabe for download somewhere?!

They're referring to the CMBN/CMBN 2.0 manual. Which is, you know THE manual

[Bil Hardenberger]

Have you split any of your squads up to use as scouts or do you plan to?

Yep, the lead two squads that are performing recon are both split. The lead team from each are moving towards KT1 with the rest of the squad in overwatch.

[HistoryLover]

Bil,

as a player who always tries to keep up C2 I'm wondering if the recon squads are forward units of the designated company to the area, or do they belong to the same platoon which is scattered across the map?

[Bil Hardenberger]

HL, they are part of my forward company. I don't have any formation scattered across the map.

[Chops]

Bil,

Have you noticed any morale hit to the split squads yet? If so, please let us know.