Attack - whats harder? Defending or attacking?

[karch]

Fionn,

I'm very interested in your tactics. I'm really curious if you save your PBEM files.. esp movie files. We have a T1 I could post a batch of your PBEM files on in evenings. (we run our company on the T1 during the day, but I could batch the directory to server from 6pm-6am). I'd really love to see a small/med size game and watch your technique in action. Especially if it's against a particularly good attacker. Email me at skarch@mac.com if you are interested. I can get a directory put together pretty quickly.

Great thread, BTW. I'm learning a lot.

all the best. Scott

[GenSplatton]

TRPs are a must to buy with gun pillboxes, otherwise they are wasted.

Redwolf, I know of using TRPs with artillery, but what does it do for a pillbox???

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by PiggDogg:

Redwolf,

In your post with the snapshot of the pillbox, 37 killer AA, and soon to be dead Stuart, you are well aware that the 37 AA will get a turn or two of unabashed bliss of whacking Allied thin skins if they are foolish enough to hang around.

However, against a competent opponent with sufficient resources, probably in two to five turns, the 37 AA will assume ground temperature from off board arty, from on board mortars (spotted or not), and/or from a bunch of heavy skinned vehicles and ground pounders.

Indeed, your set up is finely done and I would use it, but is certainly not perfect or permanent. However, as we all know, in CM there is always a counter to everything.

No question about that. This is not meant to be permanent or universal.

The construction is meant to optimize the damage you do to the attacker. Even with the resource superiority he/she enjoys there is no endless amount of 37mm vehicles, artillery or mortars.

The attacker's choice is basically what to expose to get the 37mm Flak spotted the hard way. It must be something that the defender is willing to expose the Flak for. Tanks won't. MG-only vehicles won't. Infantry probably won't if there are MGs defending the pillbox/Flak combo. Only 37mm-armed armor will. So basically if the attacker plans to kill the pillbox by exploting the high rate of fire and high hit probablity of the 37mm guns, then he has to commit himself to it without getting a chance to probe for the Flak. The alternative within the 37mm attack is to nuke the position without actually knowing the Flak is there, which most attacker's can afford either.

Of course the attacker can choose an entirely different tactics, not trying to exploit 37mm guns anymore, like infantry rush under smoke. But that is all the combo I proposed is about, goal reached.

Also note that the 37mm Flak is pretty deep into the woods. That increases stealth (a 2+ stealth HQ is good, too), but usually the drop in hit probablity does't make deep-woods placement worthwhile for guns. The Flak however has plenty of hit probablity to start from so we can affort doing that.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by GenSplatton:

Redwolf, I know of using TRPs with artillery, but what does it do for a pillbox???

TRPs increase the hit probablity of anti-armor shots. Rather dubious in the manual, but the effect is there.

[JasonC]

I find the 75mm pillbox plus co-located 37mm set up rather silly. It costs 182 points as regulars. For that price you could have 3 positions with just a 37mm Flak or 75mm PAK stationed alone. All of which can hide, and any of which can kill the 37mm AFV from ambush. If I encountered that set up, I'd just smoke the pair. Co-locating to get the same LOS also means you can be taken out of the battle by the same couple of smoke rounds. But 3 towed guns at different locations could not be masked so easily.

What does the pillbox get in response? Individually it is more likely to win a solo duel with an ordinary Sherman, certainly. But compared to 3 hidden towed guns? If those opened up together they would be practically assured of bagging a lone Sherman. Invunerability to artillery? Fine, but it would take a lot of artillery to knock out 3 seperated dug in guns, and it does not take a lot of smoke to mask the pillbox-flak pair.

I can imagine situations in which 1-2 gun armed pillboxes might be a useful part of a defensive scheme, though an expensive one (god like attacking artillery, wide open LOS lines from a pair of dominant peaks, etc). But hardly an essential aspect of general defensive schemes, or one likely to repay the high cost most of the time. Most of the time you will be far better off using those accurate 37mm FLAK beside simple 75mm PAK, with stealth rather than concrete, and more of them.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Patgod:

In a current game this is what i tried to do. german defense, only had 100pts to spend on armor. i took a crack hetzer, and assumed he would come at me with 2 76 shermans.(1) given that the map was going to be relatively open i gambled i could win the duel at that range. 2v1 with them being regulars.

once the armor was gone i intended to use the hetzers limited HE to sure up which ever flank he hit the hardest, in combination with a good 81mm spotter. given that the terrain was rather poor for defense i figured this was my best bet. in fact i still think it was.(2)

unfortunately i got oh so very unlucky. in the first exchange between my hetzer and his 2 sherm76's(i guessed right hehe) my commander was hit by a richocheting shell, shocking the tank. as it sat there taking hit after hit, all non penetrating, eventually the armor began to flake, and after a second casualty the crew bailed.

i dont know why i'm typing this, the game isnt over, which is btw why i havent given specifics on my infantry numbers, locations, and types. it does look however like he will win, the 2 sherms are taking their toll on my infantry, which is slowly being eaten up.(3)

(1) This is me you are playing against. Good guesswork!

(2) No, your best bet would have been a Crack 88 Flak. Would have killed me.

(3) Correct! Anaconda Doctrine applied.

[ May 30, 2002, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Austrian Strategist ]

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

Someone in a "seige mentality" could easily overlook most opportunities to counterattack, which would certainly make defending far more difficult. [/QB]

Sure; but I was not talking about a limited local counter-attack. Rather, the all-out-counterattacking style Fionn seems to have in mind.

[Austrian Strategist]

DP.

[ May 30, 2002, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Austrian Strategist ]

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Next come MG pillboxes. These are actually protected against light mortar rounds and indirect artillery fire. They are major fortifications with the price tag of a superior ATG. However, they can be KOed by bazooka and 37mm cannon fire from the front. At least they can reply to the bazookas. They can deny open ground to unsupported infantry within their limited covered arc and LOS, and so have the potential to play an important role in an integrated defense. But a little examination will show that in practice they can essentially never do this very well.

The problem is that two aspects of MG pillboxes pull in two different directions. Their limited covered arc counsels placement to cover wide areas in one direction, with long LOS lines. Because otherwise the area they cover is so trivial that once spotted (which they will be rapidly, having no stealth at all) they are easily avoided. But such long LOS lines invite countering AFVs, which trump them outright without loss. The way to avoid vunerability to AFVs is to use reverse slope or angled deployments that limit the zone they can be fired at from, and preferably require any AFV that can see them to come close by, and thus potentially into range and LOS of some supporting AT weapon. But such deployments give tiny total LOS footprints in their forward arcs, making them easy to avoid.

So either they don't cover much area and the attacker just goes around, or they do cover a lot of area and the attacker can safely put any gun-armed AFV in any part of that area, and they die.

Yes, they die. The AFVs, I mean. Because there is a hidden 88 Flak just beside the bunker right on top of the hill. The bunker is the bait in the AFV trap. Let´s say the three enemy AFVs kill the bunker right before they get killed by my flak, I am ahead by how much?

Combined Arms don´t add up; they multiply. :cool:

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Scott B:

So it would seem that a more close reading of Clausewitz does not support your assertions-- which has me puzzled.

Oh, it does. You read Clausewitz correctly. But there is a vast difference between the local, tactical counterattack, which is indeed a vital part of defence, and the 'carrying the war into attacker´s territory', which Fionn, if I understand him at all, has in mind.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by NightGaunt:

there is no static defense i have played against that can not be defeated. It is just too easy to probe until a weak spot is found or pile up and attack 1 main spot. With flxible units and more specifically the ability to locally counter attack, a defense is bound to fall against even a smaller attacking force that can hit each defensive area peacemeal and slowly nibble it to death.

Well, ok, after a fashion. But I believe QBs are meant to be played with a turn limit that forces the attacker to somewhat hurry. ('Finish the enemy, before his operational level reinforcements arrive')

I agree with you in principle, but the turn limit should not allow the application of your method.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I find the 75mm pillbox plus co-located 37mm set up rather silly. It costs 182 points as regulars. For that price you could have 3 positions with just a 37mm Flak or 75mm PAK stationed alone.

I find it silly, too, and I was even thinking of an 88 bunker

This is just meant to solve the problem that people engage punkers deliberately exploiting their weakness against 37mm shot floods. It will do the job, if you defend in a quickbattle and bunkers were not excluded, then you will see lots of targets for the 37mm, for sure.

20mm Flak guns on the flanks may do as well, though, because people tend to buy Greyhounds, not Stuarts, to save the armor points for the Super Pershings you will shoot with your Pueppchens.

Did I mention that I almost completely switched to playing scenarios these days?

[Scott B]

Originally posted by Austrian Strategist:

Oh, it does. You read Clausewitz correctly. But there is a vast difference between the local, tactical counterattack, which is indeed a vital part of defence, and the 'carrying the war into attacker´s territory', which Fionn, if I understand him at all, has in mind.

It's not my reading of Clausewitz that I'm concerned about-- it is yours. You correctly note that Clausewitz argues that the defense is the stronger form of warfare, but then you go on to misinterpret some of the reasons why. Then, you have him saying that the only time one should counterattack was:

a) the Attacker has already spent his forces -Napoleon at Waterloo!-, or

the Attacker is inept in the first place.

This is quite clearly not the case, as I have previously noted. Your interpretation of Clausewitz is tremendously flawed if you do not appreciate how what he actually wrote is far more akin to what Fionn proposes than what you have written; indeed, I'd say Clausewitz outright disagrees with you. Which is why, in my previous post, I offered that you were likely miscommunicating your points; now, I think you are just wrong.

To be fair, I'd say it is not entirely wrong, though-- I should add that your argument does mesh well with On War in that the point is made that time passing benefits the defender, all other things being equal, and at the least your point regarding game lengths in Combat Mission being adjusted downward to benefit the defender appreciates this fact. However, if it does come down to a matter of turns, or map size, as to whether your defense succeeds or fails, I imagine that it would be rather difficult to characterize as "nearly invincible."

Scott

[Fionn]

Scott,

Check out CMHQ ( http://www.combatmission.com ) They have some old AARs I've done and there's a new AAR going up at Mods and Modders ( link can be found in news section of CMHQ) featuring a Soviet-style attack (using American forces) on some German Fallschirmjaegeren entrenched in a village and its surrounding terrain. You may find it interesting and illuminating. If you have any questions there is a thread here on the forum to post comments and questions re: the AAR

[ May 31, 2002, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Scott B:

It's not my reading of Clausewitz that I'm concerned about--(1) it is yours. You correctly note that Clausewitz argues that the defense is the stronger form of warfare, but then you go on to misinterpret some of the reasons why. Then, you have him saying that the only time one should counterattack was:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />a) the Attacker has already spent his forces -Napoleon at Waterloo!-, or

the Attacker is inept in the first place.

This is quite clearly not the case, as I have previously noted. Your interpretation of Clausewitz is tremendously flawed if you do not appreciate how what he actually wrote is far more akin to what Fionn proposes than what you have written;(2)(3) indeed, I'd say Clausewitz outright disagrees with you. Which is why, in my previous post, I offered that you were likely miscommunicating your points; now, I think you are just wrong.

To be fair, I'd say it is not entirely wrong, though-- I should add that your argument does mesh well with On War in that the point is made that time passing benefits the defender, all other things being equal, and at the least your point regarding game lengths in Combat Mission being adjusted downward to benefit the defender appreciates this fact. However, if it does come down to a matter of turns, or map size, as to whether your defense succeeds or fails, (4) I imagine that it would be rather difficult to characterize as "nearly invincible."

Scott</font>

[JasonC]

No, you are not "up" anything, in fact you get behind. Because (1) it does not take 3 AFVs to kill an MG bunker - one 37mm light AFV, or at the outside a plain Sherman will do just fine (2) said AFV costs the attacker 73-122 points, but also outnumbers you 3:2, so you have to KO one for a loss of 52-81 points or less just to break even while (3) the MG pillbox costs that much all on its lonesone and (4) you just revealed a hidden 88, which nobody will walk into the LOS of afterward unless they first distract it, smoke it, or shell it to death indirectly, which (5)they will do presently, after which the MG pillbox is dead too. Which 88 (6) has to kill more than one vanilla Sherman to pay for itself, in addition to the loss of the pillbox. And which 88 (7) could have done the job without the pillbox in the first place, by just hiding, since enemy AFVs have to get LOS to something sometime to be worth anything, making every item you have useful as "bait" in place of the expensive MG pillbox, in addition to fufilling their own proper tactical roles.

It is just a waste to buy a MG pillbox just to lure a Greyhound into a trap. Greyhounds walk into traps for a living. You don't have to expend a platoon's worth of your force to bring that about. If you want to lure him to that particular spot, put an HMG team there with reasonably wide LOS and then just don't hide it. It will see things and open up soon enough, and attract an AFV to suppress the MG. More likely a 75mm vehicle rather than 37mm, too, because smaller direct fire guns aren't as useful against an HMG team as against a pillbox (silly but true).

[Fionn]

Deleted because it simply isn't worth it.

[ May 31, 2002, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Fionn:

I wasn't limiting myself to discussing only tactical or operational or even strategic counter-offensives or offensives.

I know. What you are, in effect, arguing is that there is only the meeting engagement. If the defender is to maneuver and attack as if he were the attacker, there is obviously no reason to give the attacker a pts advantage.

You are implicitly denying there is any real advantage in, specifically, being the defender. (Because he should act like the attacker, anyway.) I say that cannot be correct.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Fionn:

I am materially weaker ( at the start) but I am definitely always (in my own eyes) morally superior since I never have any doubt going into a game. I firmly believe that but for a fluke ( and/or playing Bil Hardenberger) I'll win 100% of games I play.

Fionn,

Morally superior meaning: Cracks vs. Greens. I am talking not about believes and self-images, but about the kind of moral superiority that can be expressed point-wise.

[Fionn]

Deleted because it simply isn't worth it.

[ May 31, 2002, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Fionn:

I play with Regular troops mostly. Because I BELIEVE I will win they outperform most opponents' Crack troops. MORAL superiority is a real phenomenon with real effects on your in-game troops.

Now we know how Fionn cheats. It is the ultimate cheat with no counter measure. He uses his overwhelming psychokinetic powers, the POWER OF BELIEF to twist the bytes to do his bidding .

(There has actually been many parapsychological experiments where human intention seems to affect some random atomic level processes in a statistically meaningfull way. Go here for more info: http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/

You can also hone your CM cheating skills trying those on-line experiments! Well, propably this is utter bull, but you never know...!)

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by JasonC:

No, you are not "up" anything, in fact you get behind. Because (1) it does not take 3 AFVs to kill an MG bunker - one 37mm light AFV, or at the outside a plain Sherman will do just fine (2) said AFV costs the attacker 73-122 points, but also outnumbers you 3:2, so you have to KO one for a loss of 52-81 points or less just to break even while (3) the MG pillbox costs that much all on its lonesone and (4) you just revealed a hidden 88, which nobody will walk into the LOS of afterward unless they first distract it, smoke it, or shell it to death indirectly, which (5)they will do presently, after which the MG pillbox is dead too. Which 88 (6) has to kill more than one vanilla Sherman to pay for itself, in addition to the loss of the pillbox. And which 88 (7) could have done the job without the pillbox in the first place, by just hiding, since enemy AFVs have to get LOS to something sometime to be worth anything, making every item you have useful as "bait" in place of the expensive MG pillbox, in addition

to fufilling their own proper tactical roles.

It is just a waste to buy a MG pillbox just to lure a Greyhound into a trap. Greyhounds walk into traps for a living. You don't have to expend a platoon's worth of your force to bring that about. If you want to lure him to that particular spot, put an HMG team there with reasonably wide LOS and then just don't hide it. It will see things and open up soon enough, and attract an AFV to suppress the MG. More likely a 75mm vehicle rather than 37mm, too, because smaller direct fire guns aren't as useful against an HMG team as against a pillbox (silly but true).

I'm not quite sure whom you are answering to here, but a couple of points:

In a normal quickbattle I would buy this stuff mainly for fun. A Jagdpanther is clearly better from a winning standpoint and costs even slightly less that the 88 pillbox.

Seriously employing a conrete pillbox would be reseved for a defense where you can review and walk the terrain beforehand - which would be entirely historical, pillboxes weren't build anywhere.

It is true that even with terrain review beforehand, the pillbox will most likely not pay off point-wise because as you say the opponent may wish to avoid it. It will, however, shape the terrain. The attacker will either have to try to kill the pillbox, which you can make costly, or he will have to narrow his choices of approach paths, where all the other paths can enjoy a high friendly unit density.

With regards to the other discussion going on in this thread: I agree that pillboxes are fundamentally unsuited for couterattacking.

[Zipper]

Originally posted by Fionn:

I firmly believe that but for a fluke ( and/or playing Bil Hardenberger) I'll win 100% of games I play.

What a testament to this game that someone who thinks they'll win 100% of their games still plays it. If I had a game that I won all the time, I would drop it and find another (harder) one.

Zipper

[Tripps]

Aww look, can we see the AAR's of say, 4 games between Fionn and Austrian Stategist, 2 games defending, 2 games attacking??

then maybe we can see how these differing tactics work against each other??

Austrian Strategist's "siege like attack" vs Fionn's "Attack defense" would be a mighty encounter

good thread too, totally absorbed!

[JasonC]

I think Pillar's comments are very much to the point. I think Fionn's comments about moral superiority are the emptiest braggadocio, and obscurantist nonsense. I see nothing more than the blue pants St. Cyr French 1914 cult of the offensive, which is one of the most thoroughly refuted and ruinous ideas in the history of land warfare. (It is also thoroughly drummed into many a junior officer's head to this day, mostly for its training and morale effects, and pretty heedlessly considering the common historical consequences of that attitude).

But I nevertheless agree with Fionn that aggressiveness matters in a defender. To put that together with Pillar's "doesn't it depend?" comments, I think we have to start making distinctions rather more careful than "counterattack" vs. "sit still".

There is a difference between all adaptative movements to roll with an attack, shift reserves about, etc, and counterattacking. A defense that doesn't do even the former is usually a weak defense, unless the terrain is unusually favorable for it (which does happen - more on that below) or the attacker particularly dim. Against the CM AI, if you can't win without moving a piece you don't understand some basic principles of defense. But that is a demonstration of the stupidity of the AI - a "stupid AI trick".

Particularly favorable terrain for it might be successive linear ridges, each steep but fairly close together, with relatively bald tops. With a reasonably high ratio of force to space, and not too long a frontage compared to weapon ranges. Then one's forces behind each ridge line are "firepower integrated" - the slopes and bald tops allow pretty much every shooter between crest A and crest B to see every point between those two - but does *not* allow them to be seen by overwatchers beyond crest B. Firepower integration makes attempts to achieve local odds basically futile. The attacker will have to fight everything between the ridges with whatever he gets over the first one. Some AP mines and TRP artillery is still necessary to prevent "dense packing", but that is pretty easy.

On a flat table top, you don't get the same fire integration because the attacker can stand off at long range from this or that angle, and disunite the defending shooters by range. And he can suppress here or there, with his whole superior force. The ridges effectively remove the first option by requiring all initial ranges to be less than some figure set by the defender, who chooses how far behind the crest to set up. And the ridge seperates the attackers front to back.

Even in those circumstances there are reasons to move. Dodging artillery is one, shifting positions along the rear of the crest is another, and switching valleys on is in (e.g. to shelter a reserve one ridge farther back) is another. But the need to move about is minimized, because the defenders don't really need to choose to block route X or route Y.

Terrain typically breaks up defensible locations and gives the attacker choices of route, with defenders along one out of position to defend along another - but rare types of terrain make nearly all approaches practically equivalent. The simultaneous attacker imperatives to crest the ridgeline together and to avoid presenting too bunched a target for artillery nearly force the attack to be delivered as a broad front shove.

More broken terrain favors mobile defenses. Such terrain compartmentalizes the defensive zone into cells seperate from each other in single-firefight (and thus fire ascendency) terms. That makes it much easier for the attacker to achieve local odds by picking his route through the defense and going along it in a relatively tight spearhead. If the defenders cover everything they are too thin in each spot. If they don't, the attacker may blow through one of the thin spots and compromize the defense before the defender can react.

Essentially the only way to deal with that is by using a concentrated reserve and maneuvering on the defense. You can make it an MLR in one area with others covered only by obstacles or artillery, or you can start with the reserve well behind a thinly held planned MLR, and then reinforce at the right spot. But any way you cut it, you have to play "man to man" rather than "zone" defense, and key off the attacker's moves. Otherwise you will be defeated in detail, one bite at a time.

There is another issue about local counterattacks and aggressiveness on the defense where I think Fionn has something. A counterpunching defense is less predictable than a passive one. This need not involve grand transitions to a meeting engagement or any cult of the offensive. Often it means just swinging forward one platoon to catch an attacking force from two sides, cut a line of reinforcement to prevent help for a hotly engaged area, or finish off an attack group broken by ambush fires or an artillery trap.

There is a counterintuitive aspect to the last of those, which can be the most important in CM QB defenses. The front of the enemy attack force is not always the most dangerous place. Sometimes it is a vunerable place instead, because he has walked into your fires. The flank of his attack force may be the location of his overwatch group, which is probably in better shape. So straight ahead counterpunching, but with very careful timing, can often pay off.

The idea is to not just break a portion of his attack, but to kill it dead, beyond the possibility of rally, and creating a real threat of your own. The attacker may be winning elsewhere, but if in the spots you win you don't merely hold him off, but smash him, you can even the score.

Understand, this is not a matter of playing the whole fight like a meeting engagement. It is a matter of stepping out of your holes to "finish the bastards" that you've already shot the heck out of from defensive positions. *That* kind of aggressiveness on defense, I have indeed found often pays high dividends. Executing it properly requires judging the current state of his attacking forces, the depth of his attack, etc.

There is also a version of both the previous and the need for "man to man coverage" in certain types of terrain that can put the two together, in a sense. Sometimes you can send your reserve not after his main effort, but after a secondary one or a direction he has neglected to attack. On a compartmentalized battlefield, you can get your own many-on-few fights that way. The edge you have is better intel from him entering your defended zone instead of the other way around. The most common case is the original attacker's secondary route (or feint) that you first mess up in an ambush, and then counterattack with your reserve to finish off, before he can react.

Obviously the forces available also influence which sort of defense you use. AFVs and high quality infantry are better at delivering local counterattacks than green infantry with dug in guns. And terrain enters in various ways - e.g. in a town the best cover is heavy buildings so you don't care about moving out of foxholes. Half squad extra sets of holes, holes from HQs, and integration of some heavy buildings into defensive positions (moved to after set up) can also create large alternate fortified positions, so that moving within your defended zone need not mean giving up your cover edge.

I think a smart defense does move, but mostly within the defended zone, with only occasional and typically limited scale "sorties" beyond it. A smart defense is aggressive about finishing off attackers broken by defensive fires. And a smart defense tries to act unpredictably, to throw curves, and never lets an attacker just dismantle it one piece at a time while doing nothing about it. But a smart defense is a defense, not a blue pants faith in l'arme blanche and the power of positive thinking. Giving up the intel differential, use of obstacles, and the cover differential by fighting in the attacker's own zone, down in odds, is usually foolish rather than smart.