Jump to content

Bring out your dead!


Recommended Posts

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Another thing to realize is that most attacks made in QBs are with a 1 to 1.75 ratio in open terrain, something that just was not done in the Western front all that often. Very few division commanders would order an attack with that ratio of forces in anything but terrain that ideal for attacks. <hr></blockquote>

Slappy, open ground IS ideal for attacks. How many times do we have to explain this to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In the few multiplayer campaigns I've taken part in, the casualty rates are much lower. When you have to fight another day, no reinforcements are coming and your pals depend on you. Well, you don't tend to throw it all away just to get a point victory.

In Winter's Storm campaign, there were several fights where both sides just threw arty and random fire in the general direction of the enemy. Very low casualties.

But even in campaigns, when a major attack is taking place the troops in the "meeting point" get hurt and hurt badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many good points have been made here. It's refreshing to see that many players consider life important.

Because this is a game, sayings like "lose the battle, win the war", and "live to fight another day" do not apply. For the same reason, opposing forces are generally far more balanced with one another, and have only nominal difficulties with supply. (Historical scenario design can help here)

Map size is limited by necessity. This takes much of the guesswork out of finding kill zones.

As Franko has pointed out, we all cheat with our nearly omniscient overhead view of the map.

As Andrew Hedges says in his sig: "Play Green Troops! The secret to realism in CM." This certainly helps IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by CMplayer:

Slappy, open ground IS ideal for attacks. How many times do we have to explain this to you.

I'm with Slappy on this one.

Open ground is ideal only in CM. The modelling favours the WWI style assault. A tight fist, all in LOS approach works best when you are overpowering the defenders units one by one. What you need is local superiority. You can do the squad/platoon rushed but when the shooting starts the side which can get the local firepower superiority in the LOS will most propably get the upper hand.

IRL an attack like that will most propably fail. A single LMG/HMG can suppress a whole company in the open with short controlled bursts. Even a single SMG can do the job (an überFinn tale I will not burden you with, if any of you have read the Unknown Soldier by Väinö Linna you can find a description of the action).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

A single LMG/HMG can suppress a whole company in the open with short controlled bursts. Even a single SMG can do the job (an überFinn tale I will not burden you with, if any of you have read the Unknown Soldier by Väinö Linna you can find a description of the action).<hr></blockquote>

Yes but in truly open ground your tanks and SP guns can provide long range direct fire support. So that single LMG won't be around long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reality open ground is very poor for attackers even in CM for a number of reasons.

1) Infantry cannot advance fast enough to avoid artillery. This is very realistic since artillery is a major infantry killer if they are in the open when it hits. A prepared defender can use this to their advantage if they have lots of open ground in which to observe units moving up.

Now, in very large scenarios, this may be worked around by using units to draw fire and staying put with the main force. This of course requires a number oif turns to work and is part of recon, but in smaller games it just wont work since loosing even the smallest unit (platoons) can represent a tenth of your force and a half squad just wont draw any artillery fire.

2) Allied tanks just cannot advance through open terrain against German anti-tank and tank assets, or even most German artillery with very few exceptions, unless the infantry can use cover to get into firing positions to suss out enemy armor and make enemy AT guns vulnerable when and if they unmask. Frontal assaults by Shermans are doomed to fail.

3) In the reality of the Western front, the German tank was a relatively rare thing, which is why German units had so many AT assets assigned to leg units. By August of 1944 every US infantry division had a tank battalion and a TD battalion (100 to 120 vehicles depending on losses and scrounging) assuring that Battalion attacks would have a few tanks where they were needed without much effort. German tanks where much rarer on the battlefield, and some of the German very heavies were something so noteworthy that their appearance would be entered into Corps commander logs. At the same time the more common German tanks were often held away from the front lines for counter attacks rather than placed in the line with small defending forces (Germans where masters of the counter attack). In CM quick battles which many people play, and in most scenarios, you will find German tanks. This is because it is more fun to play games when both sides have tanks, but the reality was far different, and an American tank supported infantry attack could go weeks without seeing a German tank of any sort.

I think the best you can say CMPlayer is that you have a preference for attacking over open ground, and prefer to play on open maps, and may have tactics developed which allow you to be successful in the open, but historically attacking through open ground was a bad idea, and in CM it is also not really a great idea in the average battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by CMplayer:

Yes but in truly open ground your tanks and SP guns can provide long range direct fire support. So that single LMG won't be around long.

IRL there is no absolute spotting. Each and every swinging dick has to spot the location the fire is coming from to suppress and/or take it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Infantry cannot advance fast enough to avoid artillery. This is very realistic since artillery is a major infantry killer if they are in the open when it hits. A prepared defender can use this to their advantage if they have lots of open ground in which to observe units moving up. <hr></blockquote>

Infantry is just as or more susceptible to arty in trees, and if the defender moves forward some 'eyes' the enemy will be just as observable moving into and out of patches of forest. So you will get hit by the defender's arty regardless. If infantry wants to move fast, then they need to be mounted.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>2) Allied tanks just cannot advance through open terrain against German anti-tank and tank assets, or even most German artillery with very few exceptions, <hr></blockquote>

If you are playing a major breakout, then you need well armored tanks like churchills (or tons and tons of artillery and piper cub spotters) and you need a more realistic attacking ratio like 1 platoon of tanks per platoon of infantry. CM autopicks usually do the opposite, a company of infantry with maybe 2-4 tanks which, for the allies at least, is a bizarre ratio on the attack.

I'm not denying that it's nice to have a covered approach, but sooner or later there is going to be open ground to cross and that is a fact every attacker has got to deal with somehow. And it is definitely better to be in ground which is open enough that your tanks and SP guns can support your infantry while remaining out of range of hand held AT assets. When it gets too forested, or too built up, you have to move your tanks in close enough to be susceptible to schrecks. This also opens up possibilities for the defender to ambush and then fall back. In open country, once the defender reveals himself there's nowhere to run (though in real life dust and haze provided a lot more concealment than you see in CM, I believe)

[ 12-09-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by CMplayer:

Think about it. Would you rather attack across the steppes of Russia or through dense forests? Of course the forests favor the defender, whereas the open ground is ideal for tank armies.

I'd take the forest. The LOS impediments work both ways. In the open you stand out like a sore thumb making an excellent target for any LR asset the defender has for a longer period of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Gallipoli, Somme, Verdun, about any Russian attack with massed human wave attacks.<hr></blockquote>

Which part of the Gallipoli Penninsula actions are you referring to - Anzac, Suvla or Krithnia ?

Conditions varied across the penninsula over the period in question and in the various locations.

Edward N Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BigAlMoho

Hello,

Just a comment on casualties in CM:

They are not all dead and wounded... ANYTHING that takes a man out of the battle at hand is included in the totals... Alot of them are not official casualties but only ineffective for the duration of this battle... and so CM casualities appear alot higher than the historical reality...

Thanks,

Al

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

I'd take the forest. The LOS impediments work both ways. In the open you stand out like a sore thumb making an excellent target for any LR asset the defender has for a longer period of time.<hr></blockquote>

You guys must be trolling me. Attacking in forests means:

No tanks to help you. Planes can't see well through the canopy. You don't know exactly where the defenders are so you have to find them. They will wait to engage you at very close range, and they will get off the first burst every time. Then when you finally are about to take their foxholes they will bug out and shell your position with great precision, i.e. you will be under treebursts. Then you have to do it all over again in the afternoon or the next day. Repeat for 2 weeks and you have 300% casualties.

I mean seriously, have you ever heard of guerrillas heading for the open plains to make their last stand? Report on discovery channel: the partisans dug in in the OPEN GROUND where they had nice long lines of sight. The army just couldn't get them. But some other dumb partisans went to the rugged, forested mountains, but since that is such great ATTACKING GROUND the army just went right in and cleaned 'em out.

You and Slappy must just be pulling my leg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main goal of an attacking force is to engage part of the enemy force at a time with the main part of its force, allowing localized 5 to 10 to 1 ratio of combat power. While you may have found frontal assault over open ground to be good for you CM Player, most people are going to want to keep their attacking forces intact long enough to take a few objectives. This means moving them up through cover, and only making rushes where tanks and machineguns can be brought forward to cover the advance.

Allied tanks just cannot survive frontal attacks. For that matter, at close range, neither can Germans, although the superheavies have a better chance. Also remember every Allied attack does not include Churchhills, and even if they do Churchhills are very liable for bogging and track damage.

Again, you just have a difference of tactical style. Most people though wont attack over more than a relatively short open space against the germans because they will loose, and loose big.

As for Gallipoli, it had no trees, and the main attack access up to the ridge above the landing beaches was completely exposed, allowing Turkish defenders to fire almost down to the beach. There are several very good books on Gallipoli with contemporary pictures if you want to learn about this difficult and hard fought battle, including Alan Moorehead's book of the same name, "Ordered to Die : A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War" by Edward . Erickson and Huseyin Kivrikoglu, a which includes an account of the battle from the Turkish side, and "The Dardanelles Campaign, 1915: Historiography and Annotated Bibliography, Vol. 21" by Fred Van Hartesveldt, which is a research reference for further study. All sources mention the open terrain of the three landing zones that allowed the Turks to fire down on attacking Commonwealth soldiers.

If you did visit the battlefield and see trees and buildings, remember that the campaign occured more than 80 years ago, giving plenty of time for what you saw to be somewhat different from what the soldiers fighting there, whose accounts are recorded in hundreds of books, thousands of letters, and a huge body of research, saw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, my two cents.

I would argue that what CM is doing (and hence the high casualty rate) is simulating, as best the designers know how, a "fairly even" contest in order to maximize (not in any particular order):

player fun and enjoyment;

use of tactics/weapons available during time period;

I don't think many of us (with an obligatory nod to the purists) would want to play scenarios where the forces are not balanced and one side or the other has a marked advantage from the outset. This even applies to "historic" scenarios.

Rather, we are given a situation, made as potentially even as possible by the scenario designer (read balanced), so that we experience maximum challenge and enjoyment.

Consequently, the casualty rate is fairly high because of these 'evening out' circumstances.

I would also add that were we to somehow magically command units that suffered the same casualty rates as we, as players, allow, many of us (me included) would be relieved of our commands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by CMplayer:

You guys must be trolling me.

Tero is singular, plural would be Teros. :D

No tanks to help you.

So ? That means the opposition will not have any either. Direct fire support you get from MG's, grenades, infantry cannons etc.

Planes can't see well through the canopy.

Which is bad ?

You don't know exactly where the defenders are so you have to find them.

So ? You go find them.

They will wait to engage you at very close range, and they will get off the first burst every time.

Not if you spot them first and get to their rear. IRL it works differently from the CM, VERY differently.

Then when you finally are about to take their foxholes they will bug out and shell your position with great precision, i.e. you will be under treebursts.

Not if you have them surrounded. And if you locate them first what prevents you from shelling them first.

Then you have to do it all over again in the afternoon or the next day. Repeat for 2 weeks and you have 300% casualties.

You really should get some books on the überFinnish war experience.

I mean seriously, have you ever heard of guerrillas heading for the open plains to make their last stand? Report on discovery channel: the partisans dug in in the OPEN GROUND where they had nice long lines of sight. The army just couldn't get them. But some other dumb partisans went to the rugged, forested mountains, but since that is such great ATTACKING GROUND the army just went right in and cleaned 'em out.

Apparently they never heard of the Yugoslavs.

You and Slappy must just be pulling my leg.

It is not your leg we are pulling. tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

As for Gallipoli, it had no trees, and the main attack access up to the ridge above the landing beaches was completely exposed, allowing Turkish defenders to fire almost down to the beach.<hr></blockquote>

Different definition of "open", Slappy. Gallipoli and in particular, ANZAC cove is covered in steep gullies. They provided considerable cover at the time of the landing and during the battle to attain the heights. It is not what I would call "open terrain" by a long shot, nor would most other people.

Yes, the terrain was "exposed" but that does not equate to "open" which refers more to level, unvegetated land than a bloody great ridge furrowed by gullies and reentrants, dotted about with rosemary bushes and a few stunted olive trees.

The only place which would could have been called "open" are at Suvla Bay and behind it, on the long slope up to the central ridge.

BTW, there are no buildings, except at the cemetaries, in and around ANZAC cove and along most of the peninsular. It is basically exactly as it was, 86 years ago. Today, its a national park and a sacred place of pilgramage for a large number of Australians.

Oh, and yes, what does the charge at Beersheba suggest about the thesis that its impossible to attack over open ground?

[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Before this 'conversation' goes any further it might do well to define what people mean by "open ground". From a tactical point of view you can hardly lump all terrain which is denuded of vegetation into the same category regardless of topography.

To me "open terrain" means any terrain not covered by dense woods, regardless of topography. In other words if you can not traverse the terrain diddy bobing upright without being spotted from several points over a 180º arc in front of you then the terrain is open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...