"Normal" level of casualties

[Alexey K]

I'am still new to this game, get my training via QBs.

 

Now I'am trying to solve little problem. I have a tree line with 2 enemy plattons covered in it. 3xBradley, 3xStrykers + appropriate infantry. It is semisurronded by my mechanized infantry company (9xBMP-2M, Infantry, ATGM squads in MT-LBs). Artillery support included. 

 

I've tried this engagement for a couple of times. No matter how I try, I still lose al least 2 BMPs while I deal with enemy armour and then several (~10-15) soldiers while cleaning up forest of infantry. 

 

So, my question is: what level of casualties you would consider "normal" (or acceptable) in this scenario?

 

And, btw, how to reduce chances of enemy vehiles firind back accurate shots? 

 

Bradleys seem to aim quickier and more accurate that my BMPs. Once I move in my BMPs they kill them quickly because of numerical superiority, but those bastards still manage to punch holes in my vehicles.

 

P.S. Maybe bring more forces? I have another company sitting idle nearby.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Alexey K

[womble]

Difficult to say, exactly, from what you describe. Bringing more forces isn't going to make your first shot go off sooner than the Brads' so they'll still cause casualties, though as a percentage they'll be less... Smoke isn't going to help any, since the Brads will see your AFVs straight through it.

You could try using your arty in precision strikes to take out the M2s before you even show a BMP out of defilade.

Clearing any quantity of woodland is going to be costly. Saturation fires from your supporting AFVs might work, but Javelin can put a major crimp in a BMP's day if the US are close enough to the edge to fire out. However, remember that your area targets at the very furthest extent into the wood you can get a valid cursor will fling many of their rounds much deeper into the woods, causing suppression and casualties beyond what you can see. Same applies to infantry fires. Use the "lead broom" first if you're trying to minimise casualties. There's been a lot of discussion about fighting in dense forests on here.

[Alexey K]

Well, finally managed to do it. Sheer luck, I suppose. Called in artillery barrage and carefully moved in by armour. Bradleys got caught in crossfire.

I've only lost weapons on one of my MT-LBs. Still have to clear forest from remaining infantry.

 

I think I have to get rid of my perfectionism

[antaress73]

alexey, that's very good performance. When playing against the US as the Russians, you need to be very careful and use good tactics. Its an unforgiving opponent. 

[agusto]

Yeah, the americans are hard to kill in CMBS. You need a signifficant local numerical superiority to compensate the superior US equipment and training. Dont try to attack on a large front but instead focus your firepower on small pieces and chew them up one by one.

[Apocal]

And, btw, how to reduce chances of enemy vehiles firind back accurate shots? 

 

Bradleys seem to aim quickier and more accurate that my BMPs. Once I move in my BMPs they kill them quickly because of numerical superiority, but those bastards still manage to punch holes in my vehicles.

 

Odds are they are benefiting not just from being stationary, but also have dismounted infantry eyes aiding in their spotting. Try using mortars -- or any responsive tube, really -- to work the area over before you advance and see how that works out.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

You really have to accept that in CMBS it's two forces that are pretty good at killing at going at it.  You're not going to get too many 73 Eastings Battles (especially on the offensive.  Defensive for US is pretty cheaterworthy though), nor will it be a victory parade through Kiev.

 

If you're just gauging it for your own benefit, ask yourself what your unit would be capable of after the operation, or if the amount of stuff you destroyed would be noteworthy.  Lose half a US tank company to kill 1.5 BTGs?  Good job.  Lose half a tank company to knock out one tank company?  Eeeeh.  

[Alexey K]

alexey, that's very good performance. When playing against the US as the Russians, you need to be very careful and use good tactics. Its an unforgiving opponent. 

Unfortunately, I've achieved this by relentless save/load retries.  

So, it doesn't count. 

 

P.S. Reading USMC tactical book (a reference I've receviced in my first topic) gave me some insights how to do things better

Unfortunately, Russian tactical books are seem to be classified.

[Alexey K]

Odds are they are benefiting not just from being stationary, but also have dismounted infantry eyes aiding in their spotting. Try using mortars -- or any responsive tube, really -- to work the area over before you advance and see how that works out.

I've pounded them with off-map howitzers.

 

Also Bradleys "laser chicken" helped me a lot.

I've lased them with my foot ATGM teams.

They popped smokes everywhere around them thus blocking their own view.

Meanwhile, I've managed to get to my position safely.

[antaress73]

Defensive for US is easier because of three things:

1-Presently, the ERA bug affects the Russians much more, you wont kill T-90AMs 100% of the time at 3000 meters with Relikt working. M829A4 reduces the effectiveness of relikt yes, at closer range it can defeat it but at 2500-3000 meters, not likely especially with the T-90am armor. Fovanov's numbers are for an old plain vanilla T-90.. Which is a beefed up T-72. When it's fixed, it will make Russian tanks more resilient. The Ukranians will like it even less.

2- You rarely get 3-1 attacker to defender ratios in scenarios, which is a minimum for the russians to achieve for any chance of success because of slightly inferior equipment spotting (sensors) and proficiency. Also lack of lot's of indirect fire and air support for main efforts.

3- if playing against the Russian A.I attacker, it doesnt offer much of a challenge or none at all when it plays anyone, even with triggers and A.I plans. Unless the defending force in the scenario fights against heavy odds.

Edited February 10, 2015 by antaress73

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Depends what you call a normal level of casualties. Some games you might do really well and suffer a handful of casualties. Or maybe even noneat all. Sometimes you may end up with a nasty slugfest and dozens of dead and wounded,

 

In the Gauntlets Crossed scenario I gamed a couple of days ago I lost 10 dead and 15 wounded, winning a Total Victory. The Russian defence was almost wiped out having about 6 men left on their feet and able to fight - and a couple of them were cut off and likely would have surrendered shortly. While US casualties were within acceptable limits I felt I could have done better having lost men because of careless or overly aggressive tactics.

[Alexey K]

Well, I've to reference models of "normality"

First : casualties in particular engagement are "normal" if they leave enought forces intact to finish mission.

Second: using some standards, like "when assaulting town 2-to-1 casualties of attacker are acceptable"

[c3k]

Lots of smoke, lots of suppression, lots of overwatch. Only move in with a small tentacle.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Well, I've to reference models of "normality"

First : casualties in particular engagement are "normal" if they leave enought forces intact to finish mission.

Second: using some standards, like "when assaulting town 2-to-1 casualties of attacker are acceptable"

 

Depends what the scenario desgner considered acceptable. While in the scenario I qouted the casualties I took were considered perfectly acceptable in terms of the mission I felt that some of them were unneccessary. My tactics were very aggressive which was good in that I won decisively but they might actually have been overly aggressive and maybe a little careless in that I got more people killed than maybe I needed to. I am probably being overly self critical here but self criticism can be a good way to learn from your mistakes..

 

On other occasions I have "won" a scenario  by obtaining an enemy surrender but lost the game because I took to many casualties. I regard thhis as being a phyrric victory in real world terms.

Edited February 11, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Of course, if I were to play against a real military professional I would in all probabiliy be soundly thrashed. Kind of like a decent chess club player going up against a Grand Master

[Alexey K]

Of course, if I were to play against a real military professional I would in all probabiliy be soundly thrashed. Kind of like a decent chess club player going up against a Grand Master

 

Hm. That would be quite interesting to see, how real world commanding officer would play this game

And what he would say about it.

 

I've heard some feedback from real world pilots about flight simulators (like IL-2 or DCS), but still no feedback from real world commanders about tactical games

[Sandokan]

Well, about this Armor Magazine, the official magazine of the US Army's Armor Branch, has featured an in-depth article about the use of Combat Mission Shock Force as a tactical training tool. Here:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=31&Itemid=80

Moreover there are several forumites with previous experience as officers in the army, or still on active duty. Panzerleader, just to say one.

[Stagler]

Use Russias advantage. Lots and lots of cheap, very good artillery.

 

2S19M2 - get four/five batteries of three guns and keep up the suppression fires throughout your reconnaisance and maneouver stages of the battle. Use pre-planned fires. Plot them before the game begins with intervals of several minutes before they arrive in keeping with your scheme of maneouever.

 

See a ridge where you would put some javelin teams? Give it a batteries worth of 152mm AP airburst preplanned to arrive after the first 5 minutes of the game.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Hm. That would be quite interesting to see, how real world commanding officer would play this game

And what he would say about it.

 

I've heard some feedback from real world pilots about flight simulators (like IL-2 or DCS), but still no feedback from real world commanders about tactical games

 

I suspect we might have one or two. Sure, they would probably say that the game is not 100% realistic. But then it can't be. t best it would amount to a playable simulation of reality. But yes, it would be fascinating to watch an experienced soldier, particularly one with command experience at comny/combat team level play and talk us through what he is doing. We would all very likely learn a few things.

Edited February 11, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05

[Alexey K]

I suspect we might have one or two. Sure, they would probably say that the game is not 100% realistic. But then it can't be. t best it would amount to a playable simulation of reality. But yes, it would be fascinating to watch an experienced soldier, particularly one with command experience at comny/combat team level play and talk us through what he is doing. We would all very likely learn a few things.

 

Particulary it would be interesting to compare game style of player with real military education vs experienced player who has developed skills via gaming only.

[Glubokii Boy]

Particulary it would be interesting to compare game style of player with real military education vs experienced player who has developed skills via gaming only.

 

I think you can find that right here...

 

Look at the "CM Black Sea - Beta battle reports"  sticky thread at the top of the main BLACK SEA forum page...

 

Here Bil Hardenberger met pnzrldr in a game and they made AARs from both sides.

 

 

Quote from Bil..."This battle will be fought against probably the most experienced and knowledgeable opponent I have ever faced. Pnzrldr is a serving US Army LTC (Armor) and this makes him a formidable opponent."

[Chazz]

This might be a bit cheesy, but if playing against AI it pays dividends to scan the map for alternate or back route entry into the objective. In quick battle they are usually pretty bad in protecting their flanks/rears. So what I do is carefully box them in with most of my forces (as they are usually defending a forest or a village) and then send one or two tanks via a back route or 90 degree flank if possible. That way I was able to achieve wonders with one T72 sneaking in a shooting Abrams and Bradleys up the tail pipe. In one case I sustained zero casualties against defending US armor.

 

Needless to say that probably wont work as well against a competent opponent. Still, scanning and exploiting the map to the max is a good skill to develop and I am still learning how to do that well. 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

This might be a bit cheesy, but if playing against AI it pays dividends to scan the map for alternate or back route entry into the objective. In quick battle they are usually pretty bad in protecting their flanks/rears. So what I do is carefully box them in with most of my forces (as they are usually defending a forest or a village) and then send one or two tanks via a back route or 90 degree flank if possible. That way I was able to achieve wonders with one T72 sneaking in a shooting Abrams and Bradleys up the tail pipe. In one case I sustained zero casualties against defending US armor.

 

Needless to say that probably wont work as well against a competent opponent. Still, scanning and exploiting the map to the max is a good skill to develop and I am still learning how to do that well. 

 

I suspect it pays to manouvre anyway. That is what I did in the Gauntlets Crossed svenrio with the reinforcing rifle platoon. Meanwhile the fist platon established a base of fire in the buildings opposite he apartment blocks. The manouverring rifle team moved down the right flank using the trees.Upon running into opposition at the housing estae he platoon employed Fire and Movement to occupy the area and subsequentl laid down an intensive cross fire in support of 1st platoon. When the engineers arrived a breach team from 1st platoon blasted through the high wall. The engineers and a squad of 1st platoon now stormed the first apartment building using close assault and demolition chargwes to "mousehole the walls. Having established a position on the top floor the remaining twov apartment blocks were cleared from the top down. The Russians attemted a final stand from a single sorey building but were rapidly overcome by intensive infantry fire power..

 

Most of my casualties were suffered by 2nd platoon during the fight for the housing estate where my tactics may have been slightly hasty and over agressive and it is my handling of that phase of the battle that I felt was badly flawed, dashing ouu along the streets befre adequately identifying Russian positions and suppressing them

[Apocal]

I've heard some feedback from real world pilots about flight simulators (like IL-2 or DCS), but still no feedback from real world commanders about tactical games

 

Off the top of my head, panzersaurkrautwerfer, pnzrldr, StrykerPL and I think two others have actual command (or close to command) experience, regularly play CMx2 and post on this forum.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Apocal

[Bil Hardenberger]

Off the top of my head, panzersaurkrautwerfer, pnzrldr, StrykerPL and I think two others have actual command (or close to command) experience, regularly play CMx2 and post on this forum.

 

pnzrldr, ScoutPL, Imperial Grunt, and Mark Gibson are all officers in either the US or Australian Armies (Mark Gibson), IG is a Marine Colonel.. so yeah, plenty of guys with real world experience playing this game.

 

There are several others, combatintman, BadgerDog, myself., etc. also have military experience, though I personally never had the "pleasure" of serving in a war zone.. closest I got was as a potential speed bump on the DMZ in South Korea during the first Gulf War.