Infantry and Armour Tactics Info?

[slippy]

Hi all

Was wondering if anyone has any links for websites, general info, books on the type of historical infantry/Armour/Combined tactics employed by the forces depicted in combat mission please? Actual technical 'by the book' as well as what was really practised in the field would be great. I tend to play the same way whatever nation i am playing as, and probably doing a lot of it wrong. Thought it would be good to try some historical tactics.

 

regards

 

slipper

 

[SimpleSimon]

If field accounts and AARs are what you're looking for I advise lots of caution with them because the sources are often lacking context, or are less than impartial and you may end up with an inaccurate picture of how it all worked. The only book on tactics I would recommend is Rommel's book, Infantry Attacks. Compared to many authors he struck me as very fair and sober in his assessments, and recalled many details of his fights with great lucidity. Generals read his book for a reason. 

If you're new to the game I would suggest starting small and only going big once you've mastered the basics. Start with scenarios on the Platoon or even Squad level, give yourself the responsibility of managing the small before going big. With enough experience you'll see all the similarities and differences between all the sides. Fundamentally you'll learn the two most important elements, the frequently inter-related duo of firepower and numbers, are the surest path to victory and how you apply them is what characterizes the sides. 

[Combatintman]

Here are some pointers:

Historical Doctrine, studies, research papers, military history and heaps more:

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/

Modern US Military Publications (put your mouse over the publications tab to see the full menu):

https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/ATP.aspx

 

 

[Michael Emrys]

http://battledrill.blogspot.com

Probably exactly what you are looking for, Slippy. There also numerous films on YouTube that cover various CM-related subjects with tactical pointers.

Michael

[DMS]

W. Schneider's "Panzer Tactics" is great book. Company formations, attack by bounds, armored infantry tatctics. Probably the best I read.

And... Read manuals!  British one: http://wartimecanada.ca/sites/default/files/documents/Infantry Training Part I- The Infantry Battalion- 1944.pdf

[domfluff]

10 hours ago, slippy said:

I tend to play the same way whatever nation i am playing as, and probably doing a lot of it wrong. 

The core principles are the same for everyone, really, but there's a lot of nuance in the details.

Bil's "Basic Rules for Combat Mission" is a really solid place to start http://battledrill.blogspot.com/2013/08/tactical-skills-001-key-tactical.html

The nuance often comes down to organisational and equipment differences. A simple example:

British rifle platoons consist of an HQ element, three squads and a two inch mortar
German panzergrenadiers consists of HQ and three squads, possibly with transport (but we'll ignore those for this example).

British squads are 9-10 men, built around a single LMG.
Panzergrenadiers are 8 men, with two carried GPMGs.

This means that the British squads split into a base of fire element with the LMG, and a manoeuvre element without. Forward movement is therefore usually alternating - the LMG covers the manoeuvre element to the next piece of terrain, then the rifles stay put whilst the LMG catches up. (bounding overwatch - successive)

The Panzergrenadiers can split into two teams, each with a GPMG. This means that each team can support the other, allowing them to leapfrog past each other, whilst providing mutual support. (bounding overwatch - alternating)

Comparing the platoons as a whole, the 6x MG42 in the german platoon can put out a lot more firepower than the 3x Brens in the British platoon. in a firefight then, the British rely on their light mortars to make up the difference - HE fire for suppression, or especially smoke to isolate elements of the enemy, or cover a break in contact.

[slippy]

Thanks everyone, that's great. i am not completely new to it all, and have my own military experiences from the 80's to call on. As mentioned though i would like to try and play following the doctrine of separate nations at the time of WW2, and not be influenced to much by lessons learned after the event or my own experiences and training, if that makes sense.

So with all the info you have provided above i should be able to make more informed historical decisions. Cheers all.

 

P.s, Osprey has a number of Tactics books covering various areas, anyone read them or recommend any?

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by slippy

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

This means that the British squads split into a base of fire element with the LMG, and a manoeuvre element without. Forward movement is therefore usually alternating - the LMG covers the manoeuvre element to the next piece of terrain, then the rifles stay put whilst the LMG catches up. (bounding overwatch - successive)

The Panzergrenadiers can split into two teams, each with a GPMG. This means that each team can support the other, allowing them to leapfrog past each other, whilst providing mutual support. (bounding overwatch - alternating)

True in theory, but we rarely see these tactics work out in the game, for several reasons. Not to argue against you, but reading your post inspired me to write a couple of reflections about the limits of infantry tactics in Combat Mission:

• First of all, the subleties of infantry tactics tend to fade to the background once there's armour on the field, and generally there's always plenty of tanks and AFVs in CM scenarios. Once you have armour support, I think it mostly becomes a game of using infantry to probe, then blast pockets of resistance with the tanks, then advance and repeat it.
   
• The second reason is that overwatch is arguably less effective in the game as compared to real life. The maneuver element takes a lot of incoming fire before dropping down, and the overwatch element takes a quite long time to spot and engage the enemy. Once it opens up, the overwatch element then stops firing again as soon as it loses sight of the enemy. In real life, (trained) troops would be intelligent enough to keep suppressing the enemy position while the maneuver element either continued on or broke contact.
   
• Thirdly, one MG can only reliably suppress one floor of one building. If the enemy squad is split into two sections and they are in two adjacent small modular buildings, you need two machineguns to target and suppress both, even though from the outside, it just looks like one building.
   
• Also, it takes a lot of fire to suppress anyone, and the effect disappears quite quickly.

[domfluff]

Cheers for the comments, some points:

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

• First of all, the subleties of infantry tactics tend to fade to the background once there's armour on the field, and generally there's always plenty of tanks and AFVs in CM scenarios. Once you have armour support, I think it mostly becomes a game of using infantry to probe, then blast pockets of resistance with the tanks, then advance and repeat it.

You're quite right that AFV's turn the focus of the game around. In a small scenario with a single tank or two, there's definitely a "before" and "after" period when the tanks are killed (or aren't, as the case may be) - in the right situation they're dominant and can wipe out a lot of the subtleties. There are lots of infantry-only scenarios though, so the "Always" is a bit over-stated. Equally, tanks can't be everywhere, so in the right terrain or situation you still need to manage infantry correctly.
 

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

• The second reason is that overwatch is arguably less effective in the game as compared to real life. The maneuver element takes a lot of incoming fire before dropping down, and the overwatch element takes a quite long time to spot and engage the enemy. Once it opens up, the overwatch element then stops firing again as soon as it loses sight of the enemy. In real life, (trained) troops would be intelligent enough to keep suppressing the enemy position while the maneuver element either continued on or broke contact.

I think that's a hard one to judge. If you're expecting incoming fire, then the manoeuvre element should be Hunting (and will drop down on contact). If you're not expecting contact then they should be moving towards  a covered position in the majority of cases - sticking around in the open is always a bad idea. This is why Move reverts to Quick if they come under fire - presumably the location you've old them to move to is better than the one they're currently in. Bil's diagrams on Battledrill make this a little unclear, since the pictures don't show ground cover for clarity, but they do imply it.

The overwatch element can take a long time to spot the enemy (obviously this is variable), but you as the player can (unrealistically!) area-fire from them within seconds of contact being made, even if they haven't picked up a contact marker yet. Estimating this is a good enough way to start the engagement, and the next step is to bring up the platoon weapons and HQ unit and start building up to a proper firefight.

Obviously if you were caught in the open like this then you are starting at a disadvantage. This is why you do things like crawl to make yourself a smaller target when you're cresting a hill - you're giving yourself all of the advantages that you can, but you're still going to be worse off than the chap waiting for you.
 

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

 

• Thirdly, one MG can only reliably suppress one floor of one building. If the enemy squad is split into two sections and they are in two adjacent small modular buildings, you need two machineguns to target and suppress both, even though from the outside, it just looks like one building.
   
• Also, it takes a lot of fire to suppress anyone, and the effect disappears quite quickly.

Buildings can be challenging, yes. HE fire can be important. I'd still target a floor of a building where the enemy is suspected, and shift fires if needed. Isolated buildings are massive targets, so they're usually easy to get multiple units on target. In a more built up scenario? Well, yes, MOUT is a grinding nightmare for everyone.

It does take a lot of fire to suppress a squad fully, but any fire will start to have an effect, which can snowball (less fire back means your delta is greater, and gets greater). This is true in reality as well. You need to pour fire continuously onto a target to carry out a fire&manoeuvre - if the whole platoon was forming a base of fire, then the actual assault element might be as small as a single team. Grenades and SMGs are extremely effective in the right scenario.

* 

CM's simulation of infantry combat is one of it's strongest points. We can definitely argue subjectively about how a lot of the effects are modelled, but I know I'm pretty happy with the package as a whole.

Now, CM does have some things which prevent you from doing things tactically - AFV's are something which tends to wipe out a lot of the subtleties, particularly in close maps. The other thing can be overly-small or overly-open maps, which can both prevent manoeuvre. You can be reduced to only have attrition-based options pretty quickly, with a dodgy choice in forces, maps and others. That's usually down to the scenario design or quick battle choices though.

[Bil Hardenberger]

15 hours ago, slippy said:

Was wondering if anyone has any links for websites, general info, books on the type of historical infantry/Armour/Combined tactics employed by the forces depicted in combat mission please? Actual technical 'by the book' as well as what was really practised in the field would be great. I tend to play the same way whatever nation i am playing as, and probably doing a lot of it wrong. Thought it would be good to try some historical tactics.

Welcome to the club.  You have already been given several excellent options to learn from.  I would argue that most Western armies, and this includes the Germans, used similar infantry tactics in WW2, the US specifically used Fire and Movement,  while the Germans actually used something closer to the modern Squad Attack Drill.  Regardless I would be willing to bet that these text book templates really were bastardized on the spot and many variations were used.  So be creative and use what you already know (from your real world experience) regardless of country you are playing.  

Every nation has idiosyncrasies that you need to adjust for:

• US Squads are large and can split into three teams
  • good for short range action
  • good staying power
• German Squads are small and can only split into two teams
  • great at long range, and deadly at short range if SMG equipped
  • little staying power (casualties degrade combat effectiveness quickly)
• Soviet Squads require care, if used split they must be carefully kept within C2 as they become very brittle
  • good staying power
  • excellent short range fire and good long range
• Etc.

Looking forward to seeing how you make out and if this game "grabs you" like it did some of us.

Bil

[Bil Hardenberger]

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

True in theory, but we rarely see these tactics work out in the game, for several reasons. Not to argue against you, but reading your post inspired me to write a couple of reflections about the limits of infantry tactics in Combat Mission:

• First of all, the subleties of infantry tactics tend to fade to the background once there's armour on the field, and generally there's always plenty of tanks and AFVs in CM scenarios. Once you have armour support, I think it mostly becomes a game of using infantry to probe, then blast pockets of resistance with the tanks, then advance and repeat it.

I think that adding the comment on armor really muddies the discussion... of course the presence of armor complicates everything, however that doesn't really make the text book tactics useless.  I always preach to learn the basics first in isolation, only then can you adjust them to your situation and keep them in your back pocket for when the situation arises to apply them in a text book fashion.  This happens in many games whether tanks are present or not.  

Tactics are nothing but a bunch of tools that you can use or ignore as the situation demands... they are not a set of rules, but should be used as guidelines.  

Quote

• The second reason is that overwatch is arguably less effective in the game as compared to real life. The maneuver element takes a lot of incoming fire before dropping down, and the overwatch element takes a quite long time to spot and engage the enemy. Once it opens up, the overwatch element then stops firing again as soon as it loses sight of the enemy. In real life, (trained) troops would be intelligent enough to keep suppressing the enemy position while the maneuver element either continued on or broke contact.

I'm not sure this is unrealistic... it could take a while even in a real firefight for an overwatching unit to adjust to the sudden chaos and get a handle on where the fire is coming from and the fire's volume.. again this does not mean the basic tactics are ineffective.

Quote

• Thirdly, one MG can only reliably suppress one floor of one building. If the enemy squad is split into two sections and they are in two adjacent small modular buildings, you need two machineguns to target and suppress both, even though from the outside, it just looks like one building.

Seriously, adding these specific situations really don't add much to the conversation... unless the OP asks specifically for how to handle that situation, then it would make sense to me.  Besides if you need to add a second MG to provide effective suppression then of course you should do that, don't really see the problem with that.

Quote

Also, it takes a lot of fire to suppress anyone, and the effect disappears quite quickly.

Well it really depends on the size of the enemy unit and the proximity to the suppressing team/squad, etc.  If you are having trouble with keeping the enemy unit suppressed than chances are that you are not applying enough suppression fire, add another team or a full squad.

There is a lot of misunderstanding on how these tactics are supposed to be used, they are made up of just a few basic elements:

1. SUPPORT ELEMENT - Provides suppression on the enemy position - this element should be as large as is required to actually provide effective suppression - from a single team to multiple squads if that is what is needed
2. MANEUVER ELEMENT - the Support Element is the anvil and this element is the hammer.  The Maneuver Element should ONLY attempt to assault the enemy position when it is effectively suppressed.. the Maneuver Element will probably be smaller than the Support Element but should at least be about the same size as the enemy unit being acted against.

[Erwin]

For WW2 era at least Rommel experimented with ratios of support to maneuver and found that (IIRC) as much as 10 (support) to 1 (assaulting) was most effective.  So, if suppression is powerful enuff one's assault element can be relatively small.  Not sure if that still holds true for modern tactics.

But, one also has to realize that one is "playing the game system" as well.  So, RL tactics may not always be optimal.  Eg:  One cannot shoot through a building with 50 cal and larger like one could in RL.  The first wall stops everything until it collapses.  The enemy behind the first wall can be hurt.  An enemy situated behind a 2nd wall, will not be affected by suppression fire (until the first wall collapses and one can see to shoot at the 2nd wall.

In playing the CM2 games, one usually has to use a mixture of RL and game tactics to be successful.

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

One cannot shoot through a building with 50 cal and larger like one could in RL.  The first wall stops everything until it collapses.  The enemy behind the first wall can be hurt.  An enemy situated behind a 2nd wall, will not be affected by suppression fire (until the first wall collapses and one can see to shoot at the 2nd wall.

I'm not quite sure that's true. It depends on the size and type of building, and also very much on the distance fired, but I think I've seen .50 cal go straight through some buildings at closer ranges. The automobile repairshop building in CMBN comes to mind. 

I don't think small arms can go through the modular buildings though. Solid tank AP shot definitely can, but it seems to have no effect. Never saw it kill anyone in or behind a building.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Bulletpoint

[Erwin]

11 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Solid tank AP shot definitely can, but it seems to have no effect. Never saw it kill anyone in or behind a building.

That is my point.  One has to be aware of this as trying to shoot thru more than one wall to affect enemy hiding in ambush behind a 2nd wall is not an effective tactic in the game as it would be in RL.

[Combatintman]

6 hours ago, Erwin said:

That is my point.  One has to be aware of this as trying to shoot thru more than one wall to affect enemy hiding in ambush behind a 2nd wall is not an effective tactic in the game as it would be in RL.

But if you whack a building with HE, in my experience dismounts behind the building will be suppressed.

[Erwin]

If you destroy the building you mean?  How many times does one have enuff ammo to level many buildings?  And if they are PRESERVE objectives, you could lose the game.

[Combatintman]

21 hours ago, Erwin said:

If you destroy the building you mean?  How many times does one have enuff ammo to level many buildings?  And if they are PRESERVE objectives, you could lose the game.

No - one shot was enough from a 125mm T72 main gun against the front of a building that had a US light cavalry dismount element behind the building to suppress them in a CMBS scenario I'm working on. It did not destroy the building or in fact the wall it struck.

As to the ammunition levels - yes it is an obvious constraint that you have to work around but even a single tank in WW2 titles gives you a sh1t tin of ammunition which is more than enough to target briefly against a number of buildings to achieve this effect. This is less so in modern titles but things like ATGMs and GMGs can be employed.

If buildings are PRESERVE objectives then don't destroy the building - generally knocking a single wall over will still award about 75% of the VPs allocated to that structure, I did a test on it and I think the results lurk in a CMSF thread somewhere. I'd be wary of the tendency to get over excited about not striking PRESERVE objectives in game (RL of course is very different). It is like saying 'I have to kill every single enemy dude because they are a DESTROY objective. In reality you know you only have to drop the hammer on enough of them to rack sufficient points up, so with PRESERVE objectives the converse applies - so long as you don't do a Dresden on them, you will still get some of those points. Your decision is then to do a cost benefit analysis on it to drive your COA.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

7 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

I did a test on it and I think the results lurk in a CMSF thread somewhere.

I believe that may be in either the Mosul thread or maybe @LongLeftFlank's Ramadi thread.....But I could be wrong. 

The precise location of a preserve objective 'Tile' in relationship to the building(s) on that 'Tile' can make a huge difference to the outcome of damage to those structures, as I discovered while testing Mosul stuff.....It's possible to have up to four buildings on a given 'Tile', in which case you need to go pretty mad before you are punished for your sins, however if it's a single building on a single 'Tile' you need to be a lot more careful (it is possible to figure this out from study of the map).

Edited November 28, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Sandokan]

On 11/25/2018 at 11:43 PM, Combatintman said:

Here are some pointers:

Historical Doctrine, studies, research papers, military history and heaps more:

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/

Modern US Military Publications (put your mouse over the publications tab to see the full menu):

https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/ATP.aspx

 

 

I cannot access to the second link. "cert_authority-invalid". Anybody else with the same problem?

[slysniper]

I love it when someone needs to bring in items of what they perceive as short coming in the game when replying to such a thread

• First of all, the subleties of infantry tactics tend to fade to the background once there's armour on the field, and generally there's always plenty of tanks and AFVs in CM scenarios. Once you have armour support, I think it mostly becomes a game of using infantry to probe, then blast pockets of resistance with the tanks, then advance and repeat it.

Play infantry only battles, issue removed - but you are correct, most provided scenarios are focused on armor conflicts or armour supported conflicts.

• The second reason is that overwatch is arguably less effective in the game as compared to real life. The maneuver element takes a lot of incoming fire before dropping down, and the overwatch element takes a quite long time to spot and engage the enemy. Once it opens up, the overwatch element then stops firing again as soon as it loses sight of the enemy. In real life, (trained) troops would be intelligent enough to keep suppressing the enemy position while the maneuver element either continued on or broke contact.

Sounds like a personal problem to me, overwatch needs to just area fire in many situations before hand, don't wait to spot a unit. Maneuver unit taking fire and being pinned, then it was not time to maneuver was it. That is a sign of not providing pinning fire to the enemy units or not selecting a proper route to close on the enemy. Don't blame the game for the issue. You can say you don't agree with the amount of fire to do such a task in the game, but doing the task can be done in the game.
 

• Thirdly, one MG can only reliably suppress one floor of one building. If the enemy squad is split into two sections and they are in two adjacent small modular buildings, you need two machineguns to target and suppress both, even though from the outside, it just looks like one building.

True, it would be nice to see machine guns shift fire with some type of command. So that it covered more area in a one minute time frame. - but I find I get decent results by this method. enemy in multiple stories of bldg. then I target 2nd floor, I get a little pinning action on the 1st and 3rd floor from it., next turn fire on one of those floors if they are managing return fire. Would be nice to see a change in mechanics here in the game

• Also, it takes a lot of fire to suppress anyone, and the effect disappears quite quickly.

Also agree, not so sure about the amount of fire being a issue, but I agree that recovery time is consistently pretty fast, seems unrealistic at times. Especially when comrades have died in a unit.

[Combatintman]

35 minutes ago, Sandokan said:

I cannot access to the second link. "cert_authority-invalid". Anybody else with the same problem?

I don't know what browser your using but this is standard for US military sites. You should have an option to continue to the site with the inevitable not recommended caveat. From there just click on the relevant button to go on to the site.

I use Edge and if I look at the message I get the option to click on 'Details'. Once I click that, it tells me this:

This site is not secure   This might mean that someone’s trying to fool you or steal any info you send to the server. You should close this site immediately.      Go to your Start page Details Your PC doesn’t trust this website’s security certificate. Error Code: DLG_FLAGS_INVALID_CA     Go on to the webpage (Not recommended) I then just click 'Go on to the webpage'. In my experience you'll get this every time you navigate to a different page on the site which is irritating but ultimately workable.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Combatintman

[Sandokan]

Got it, thanks.

[Combatintman]

2 minutes ago, Sandokan said:

Got it, thanks.

No worries.

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, slysniper said:

I love it when someone needs to bring in items of what they perceive as short coming in the game when replying to such a thread

I assume you're being sarcastic here, but at least I'm happy we agree about some of the points I brought up.

The purpose of my post was not to steal the spotlight to make a grumble thread, but to reflect a bit on the topic of using this game to "roleplay" and recreate the infantry tactics of various nations in WW2. I also sometimes try to recreate real tactics, with mixed results.

My point was that there are some reasons why certain tactics work in real life, but not always in the game. The subleties of human psychology and physical reaction times VS uniform spotting probability and spotting cycles for example.

Spotting cycles: Depending on distance, it can take up to seven seconds for the overwatch element to even get a chance to 'roll the dice' to get a chance to spot the enemy. If they fail their check, they can wait for up to another seven seconds. Then when they do spot, they often need to reposition a little, then aim, then fire several bursts for the enemy suppression meter to fill, and then for the enemies to start to get affected by their suppression and stop firing on your exposed team. In total, this process can take a very long time compared to real-life human reaction times.

In contrast, imagine you're in the desert with full view for miles around. There's one building about 100m away. As a human being, you know if there's an enemy nearby, he absolutely has to be in that house, because there's no other place to hide. So you send forward your maneuver element while the overwatch element obviously watches the house. The moment an enemy pops up in a window, it takes a fraction of a second to fire accurately on him.

However, in the game, the spotting chance against the desert building in that situation is exactly the same as for a house in the woods where there could also be an enemy behind every tree.

Of course, the desert example is extreme, because you rarely have that kind of overview of the landscape. But it also goes in less clear situations. Often, there will be a limited number of potential firing positions that are more likely to hide enemies than other locations. Human beings will instinctively identify and focus on trouble areas. But in the game, it's always the same chance to spot enemies at any given point (affected by distance, experience etc but not by how complex the situation is).

That's probably a longer reply than you were looking for, but I think it's an interesting topic. Not saying real tactics never work in the game - just that there are some limits.

 

 

[slysniper]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

 

That's probably a longer reply than you were looking for, but I think it's an interesting topic. Not saying real tactics never work in the game - just that there are some limits.

 

There is no question that the game engine does not represent real life all the time. I think its a impossible task to think that it could, its going to have short falls no matter what,  I also think its good to suggest possible solutions as to how to improve the game also.

So no issue with any of that and yes I do see some things similar to how you do.

for a new player trying to learn how to use the game and apply realistic tactics, the comments were not of any help. Pointing out the shortfalls and suggesting how best to apply correct practices is. - That is all I meant.

 

Also I will point out that spotting in the game and it spotting cycle is unrealistic at times (I agree with you) - no question about it. but it is a interesting way to create something that is much more realistic than most any other game has ever tried. I hated the feature at first, but the more I thought about real life experience's I had while in the service, the more I came to the conclusion that it reflects real life sighting challenges pretty good in some ways.

Including, me and my partner on a mission not spotting a tank right out in the middle of a valley  that we had be observing for over10 minutes once. It was not until a crew member opened a hatch that either of us spotted it.