How to attack like a German - sample forces

[JasonC]

"Due to spotting difficulties experienced by Sturzkampf pilots from their nearly mile high vantage points (5,000 feet was the average start altitude for dive attacks), there was always a risk that bombs might fall on the very troops they were supposed to assist...most of the time the dive-bomber's objectives were well behind the battle area"

The second part I quite agree with. I disagree with the first as a reason or excuse for either it or FF cases. P-47s regularly dive bombed from above 10,000 feet, and they were going twice as fast as the old Stukas did. They did not have serious difficulties IDing targets, and often achieved quite close cooperation with armor columns, attacking in squadron to group strength (12-36 planes).

Yes, there were occasional FF incidents. But tiny compared to those caused by medium and heavy bombers dropping from altitude, with miles-wide bomb scatter patterns - those were the main cause of Allied air FF incidents when they occurred. Tac air generally did not have such problems.

Part of it was relatively primitive radios. Part was early and relatively naive doctrine. But much of it was simply institutional - the Luftwaffe and army simply did not work very closely together, as many outsiders seem to imagine they did.

Individual officers showing high personal initiative sometimes worked out detailed, pre-planned coordination with particular air groups, for specific operations or series of operations. It was quite ad hoc. Such men either made such things happen by working closely with and visiting each other at their respective working HQs before an operation, or they did not.

The Luftwaffe was going for "battlefield interdiction" targets because they were operating largely independently. They were told in general, such and such force support the army along this axis or support this higher HQ. The air units so tasked went out and flew recon over that area and reported that to their army counterparts. They shot up targets of opportunity on the ground behind that area of the front - moving columns on roads, prominent buildings that might be HQs, whatever looked like a supply dump - all by the seat of their pants and according to their own intel gathered from their own flights.

That this had an impact on the enemy in that sector is obvious. That is was any essential doctrinal, closely coordinated thing worked out intellectually in advance is often assumed, especially by foreign observors, but is simply false. A journalist level understanding of the early war saw air attacks and tank breakthroughs as new and revolutionary things, compared to wars past. Occasional important fights showed marked coordination - like the Meuse crossing. People put 2 and 2 together and imagined it was all some master plan for air-land battle. It simply wasn't.

As for the real cause of the occasional FF incidents in the early war, it wasn't from blown sightings in failed attempts at true close air support. It was much simpler than that. The Luftwaffe was doing "battlefield interdiction" sweeps behind the enemy front lines - or so they thought. They just had no idea what positions their ground counterparts had yet reached.

Whenever the front line was moving fast enough, they were in danger of attacking friendlies on their sweeps, because long friendly columns of vehicles were traveling along roads in what the Luftwaffe guys still thought was the enemy rear. So were retreating enemy columns. They couldn't tell which was which. That was all. Nobody managed to tell them in real time (as opposed to 24-48 hours later - that much they knew) how far the ground units had advanced.

[ June 25, 2002, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[JasonC]

Ari - thanks for the quotes. They fit my own understanding of the subjects mentioned very closely.

On the zook vs. KT match up, I think the issue there is how CMBO models armor quality. The right number for the front plate doesn't apply to the thinner side and rear plates. That makes the side of the KT no better than the side of a Tiger I, because the low quality offsets the sloping. In reality, the sloping would be there and not offset, making the side of the KT nearly as good as the front of a Tiger I.

The zook penetration numbers are probably a bit on the high side (e.g. it predicts regular penetration against T-34/85s, which we know from Korea did not happen). 80-85 rather than 90 is probably the right maximum, which would account for hard but possible side kills on Tiger Is, rear kills on KTs, but no side kills on KTs.

As for the short 75, I bet it could defeat the KT from the side with APCBC, rather than plain AP. In Normandy they had only the latter and had problems even with Tiger Is. By the Bulge they had the former (M61 rounds), and could KO KTs from the side. Instead of the one figure CMBO uses, it should probably be 5-10mm lower early on, and 5-10mm higher later on, as more APCBC became available.

[jtcm]

I tried your "2000-pointer" with green troops, Axis assault against US. It worked quite well, with the proviso that my opponent rushed his set up because I told him i wanted to go to bed a little earlier. So my apologies to him (if he reads this). Since we played green troops, i added 3 150 mm IGs, which played all over the central area. In 20 minutes the right flank was driven in, and infy plts wheeled left. The fog probably aided the assault, too.

Good night

[JasonC]

A useful report, thanks. The 150s undoubtedly help, though in towed form they deviate a bit from the doctrinal idea. I don't doubt they worked pretty well, though.

The Germans did use 150s with Panzergrenadier heavy weapons, incidentally, 6 per regiment. But self propelled "Bison" or "Cricket" AFVs, best modeled in CM by the Hummel. 2 Hummel added would be perfectly realistic additions for the Panzer forces given.

Which 2000 pt force type did you try?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Part of it was relatively primitive radios. Part was early and relatively naive doctrine. But much of it was simply institutional - the Luftwaffe and army simply did not work very closely together, as many outsiders seem to imagine they did.

You are only talking about 1940 here I presume? In 1941 armoured FACs were quite normal in the Panzergruppen (attached to the advance detachments of the divisions), and in Spearhead for the Blitzkrieg, his contribution of the German officer monographs for the Army's historical division, Luftwaffe General Paul Deichmann complains about the involvement of even medium bombers in close-to and on-battlefield operations (suffering heavy losses in the process) instead of doing what they were supposed to be doing.

An early version of the RAF's 'bomb dependency' argument of 1944, probably.

[JasonC]

I am talking about 1940, yes. But I do not think it improved that much in Russia (some, sure). The Luftwaffe's spectacular achievement there was destroying most of the Russian air force on the ground in the opening days. Much of the rest was the same "armed recce" as in France.

Yes, the Luftwaffe complained about being tied to army support instead of what they "should" have been doing. But they thought what they should have been doing was bombing cities, so "supporting the army" means a heck of a lot more than true close air support.

Perhaps the problem is partly terminolgy. When I speak of true close air support I mean front line forces calling in airstrikes on enemy targets holding them up, in real time. There wasn't any of that yet. We will be attacking in sector D, put planes over D - certainly. We will try to reach Wheresville by dusk tomorrow, raid Wheresville - certainly. Sigint puts an enemy army HQ at Whatsits, raid Whatsits - certainly. Colonel Whoever to pilot, give me everything you've got on Hill 362 right now - not a chance.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Perhaps the problem is partly terminolgy. When I speak of true close air support I mean front line forces calling in airstrikes on enemy targets holding them up, in real time. There wasn't any of that yet. We will be attacking in sector D, put planes over D - certainly. We will try to reach Wheresville by dusk tomorrow, raid Wheresville - certainly. Sigint puts an enemy army HQ at Whatsits, raid Whatsits - certainly. Colonel Whoever to pilot, give me everything you've got on Hill 362 right now - not a chance.

I understand what you mean. But if they were not capable of doing that, what was the point of putting an FAC into a HT and letting him trundle along the Panzerspitze when all that he achieved was getting himself in danger of being shot up in the process? The job you describe could as well have been done by him sticking to regimental HQ.

[CrapGame]

Played a 2000 pt ME vs the AI last night, as the Germans. I utilized 11 Mk IV H and 5 SS Motorized Platoons, 1 of them Vet, all the rest regular.

Using 1 regular platoon in split squad mode as a screening force supported by 2 Mark IV's, and each of the other 3 regular platoons supported by 3 Mk IV's a piece (kept the vet platoon as a reserve to exploit any gaps), I advanced the three platoons, 2 up, 1 back about 200 meters behind the recon force. I found a gap in the left flank of the landscape, and exploded through the AI's line at high speed, then wheeling right, advancing at a pace far faster than I usually do. It was interesting to see the result of the speedy advance, as the AI's arty calls were falling behind my troops, causing minimal damage to my forces. The AI eventually called arty on its own positions (did it do that intentionally, or did it retreat right into its own arty strike?), which caused them to completely capitulate, surrendering on Turn 24. It was very interesting to see how the AI's troops (all Vet Ami's) crumbled under the weight of the concentrated application of force.

Score 92-8, 40 Casualties for me, lost 1 Mk IV to a Sherm 76(W). 244 Casualties for the AI, who lost 2 Shermans, a Priest, a couple of miscellaneous light armors and 41 prisoners.

What a blast. Is that (11 Mk IV's, 5 platoons, no arty) a somewhat historically accurate attacking force? I suppose the result would be different in an attack versus an ME, but what fun.

[Farslayer]

Originally posted by JasonC:

But rumor has it that Walk Like Me by Blondie is more my cup of tea.

Ooooo, had lots of Shermans and it was a gas,

soon found out... they were made of glass...

[-Havermeyer-]

Thanks, JasonC. Do you really type at 300 words/minute? I thought it was only a story told to knew CMers.

[JasonC]

"what was the point of putting an FAC into a HT and letting him trundle along the Panzerspitze"

Mostly to inform the ground commanders what the Luftwaffe was likely to be doing, when, and what to expect as possible. For example, Guderian describes how his own Luftwaffe liason officer in 1940 gave them good advice on HQ locations, to avoid both friendly fire incidents and enemy air.

Is that over there the kind of target the Luftwaffe could spot and hit from the air? If I can get drive this portion of the enemy into retreating up that road, will the fly-boys be able to catch and clobber them? What is a good bomb line to halt along, to wait for a scheduled raid to go in before proceeding?

There are plenty of problems that the leading ground commander would like to have air force insight on, that can only be assessed by being there and seeing with your own eyes, and that only trained air force guys would understand.

[JasonC]

To CrapGame - yes, that is a perfectly realistic force. A slightly depleted Pz IV company with half a Pz Gdr battalion (or a full one, depleted).

They might have had 1 FO (105 most likely) instead of the 11th tank, and then yours could have done some of the work the AI's own did in your game. Bringing 10 tanks fast is a lot different than sending 2, cautiously picking their way forward by fire, isn't it?

[JasonC]

To Farslayer - LOL. How about (to the tune of "fade away and radiate")

Oo baby, I hear you spend nite-time

Wrapped like candy in a pale green CM glow

Blaze away, land navigate

Blaze away, land navigate

Oo baby, watch your lines

Cower pinned in brain wave time

Weapon teams move so slow

Burning tanks, faintly glow

Electric forces seem to emerge

Hidden units wreck your surge

...

The beams become my dream

My dream is on the screen

...

Foggy frames that still arise

Die in nineteen forty-five

...

[ June 26, 2002, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[jtcm]

When I tried out a 2000-er, it was the infy version, so 2 Cos VG, some 120, 6 Stug-III, 2 StugH, five Schrecks.

Since they were Green troops and I had some left over points, i splashed out on 150mm IGs, and also (probably horribly impossible in historical terms) some 150 rkt, which i threw into the mix once action had started.

On the other hand, i tried to play the way you suggest for the scenario "Fire and Maneuver", but the long range AT fire quickly reduces any attempt at armoured fist...

[JasonC]

Too laconic, jtcm. You have to explain what happened in re "long range AT fire" and "armored fist". As for rockets, that might well happen but as prep fire really, and 120s plus rockets plus 150s direct is trying to win by HE, which is not the idea at all.

Note that my proposed force, even with regulars rather than greens, was 3 companies of VG, not 2. For infantry forces, a full battalion is wanted. I also had 9 assault guns rather than 8. So even with regulars, heavier on the maneuever elements instead of the fire support.

[ June 26, 2002, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Tarquelne]

on map, dug in, "back" positions

How far back....? Rhetorical question. What I'm getting at is:

Jason (or anyone) - How about suggesting a map size and general terrain? Maybe two sorts of terrain: Attacker friendly and defender friendly? (Esp. if there's a difference between the sort of country Germans or American's liked to attack through.) Turn limits and Victory flags suggestions? (To make the scenario "balanced" even if the forces aren't.) The force compositions and sizes - for both defender and attacker - look fun. As do the tactics outlines. (Thanks Jason.) Given those, plus the map/turn info, we'd have the framework for some really nice generic attack/defense scenarios. I can see using Jason's suggested forces and the "Auto Generate" feature (plus maybe some map tweaking) to create interesting scenarios quite quickly.

[jtcm]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Too laconic, jtcm. You have to explain what happened in re "long range AT fire" and "armored fist". As for rockets, that might well happen but as prep fire really, and 120s plus rockets plus 150s direct is trying to win by HE, which is not the idea at all.

Note that my proposed force, even with regulars rather than greens, was 3 companies of VG, not 2. For infantry forces, a full battalion is wanted. I also had 9 assault guns rather than 8. So even with regulars, heavier on the maneuever elements instead of the fire support.

The long range AT fire refers to the training scenario, "Fire and Manoeuver", that comes on the CM CD-ROM: 76 mm fire over open ground 1000 m away.

Point taken about the emphasis on manoeuver elements rather than HE. I noticed-- as you pointed out-- that with a v. full complement of armour, I was less careful about micromanaging the placement of each time, just trusted more in speed and mass. But that might be wrong; and "Fire and Manouver", the scenario, shows that massed armour in the face of unsuppressed long range AT guns with interlocking fields of fire is not the way to go, speed or no speed

[JasonC]

To jtcm - may also have been an effect of StuGs. When you use the infantry based forces, you definitely want the AFVs to hang back behind the leading infantry, 200 yards or so. Because StuGs can be penetrated by most common Allied AT weapons from the front, and lack turrets to engage targets quickly as they appear.

Pz IVs are as vunerable, but the faster turreted ones (not J) can partially make up for it when moving in platoon strength (or at least paired), through rapid engagement speed. It is much easier to get away with "tank charges" with Panthers, Tigers, or Jadgpanzers (though the last is less than ideal, due to no turret). Because they bounce zooks, PIATs, 57mm and short 75mm from the front routinely. And those between them account for the majority of Allied AT weapons in realistic encounters, especially at the front line or before reserves arrive.

But yes, you do want to pay attention to how you drive the tanks, and you do want infantry to spot for the tanks. All my force and fighting method recommendations include infantry scouts, with half squads in front, preceding "patrols" of HQ plus 1-2 squads, meant to be strong enough to hit enemy half squads.

When there is a screening action on one part of the front, it should move to contact before the main body, too. That enhances deception about the point of main effort and it spots things before the main attack. Some forces recommend backing the scouts with 1-2 AFV. In those cases, the infantry scouts still go first; the AFV helping them is/are meant to engage e.g. enemy light armor doing counter-recon, that pin down your "point".

The speed part of the idea does not mean *start* with a tank charge. It means *when* the tanks engage, do so en mass - and likewise with the infantry, send a main body that is deep at only part of the enemy, rather than a line that is narrow and thin across the whole front. The main body should launch along *one* route that scouts have already moved over. The delay behind the scouts can be as short as 2 minutes, so it can still seem pretty fast. But some eyes do need to go first.

[JasonC]

To Tarq - typically the second line would be anywhere from 400 to 800 yards behind the first. It was not really meant to support the first while under attack, even by heavy weapons fire. It was meant to be a position the front could retreat to if necessary, and where reserves could reinforce, to "thicken" into a full front line again with minimal loss of ground, if the front line was lost. It should be close enough to *see* the front line, so e.g. it can call down artillery fire if the first line is taken. It tighter terrain, the seperation would be toward the low end of that range; in more open and especially hilly terrain, it rises, and conforms to available ridges or bodies of cover.

As for terrain, the most common would be farmland with moderate trees. That is open enough to be good tank country, because the farmland terrain type is relatively open for the same vegetation setting. Anything with light trees would also be good tank country, except a city obviously. The American style of fighting would prefer heavy trees if farmland, or village or rural if moderate trees. Obviously, the more cover, the more the tanks depend on their accompanying infantry to clear bits of it and create infantry-AT free paths of advance for the tanks. Since the US style of defense depends on stripping the infantry off and still having an intact infantry defense themselves, they want cover not wide open ground.

Againt the American style of firepower attack, on the other hand, the Germans want hills to hide behind in reverse slope defenses. That helps seperate the overwatch Americans rely on from their maneuver elements. Hills help defenders. But they especially help German infantry force defenders (who unlike armor, have limited range with infantry, while their ranged weapons are stationary) from firepower method Allied attacks.

As for size, the CM QB maps for battles this large are big, certainly big enough in width. They aren't always deep enough though. A 3:2 ratio of depth to width is probably more realistic for the sort of layered defense battle I described. To create reasonable maneuver possibilities, the absolute scale of the map must rise above 1 km, since otherwise individual strongpoints too easily cover the majority of the map. The more cover there is, the smaller the map can be and still allow meaningful maneuver. 2 km wide by 3 km deep is a good scale for the largest 5000 point force types.

Give the defender fully 2/3rds of the depth of the map on which to deploy at start up. But his front line force may be required to use e.g. only the forward 400-500 yards of that. Give the attacker 400-500 yards back to front (i.e. don't force him to line up without any depth in a 100 yard strip at the edge). The initial no-man's land does not need to be so far the two sides can't see each other. Realistic NMLs were sometimes as narrow as 200 yards between outpost lines, and rarely beyond 500 yards (MG range). Vehicles did not go right on those front lines initially, but that is a measure of prudence the players can decide for themselves.

So, layered, you'd have attacker set up zone, no man's land, defender's forward zone, defender's support zone, empty defender's rear area, with the defender reinforcements arriving in the last. Each on the order of 400-500 yards. Note that the last is essential. One, because reserves do not arrive right on the support line. Two, because it must be possible for the attack to get all the way through the local defenders, and thus behind even the second line, without going off the map. The maneuver consequences of breakthrough are masked if there isn't any open area behind the defender's line.

Force to space ratios, in terms of width, varied over the course of the war. They were high in Normandy, where the fighting was someone "claustrophobic" - and the terrain exceptionally tight in the US sector, as well. In those conditions a single US front-line company might have only 1 km to defend, not 2. That is part of what happened to Panzer Lehr's attack attempt in July, actually. The defenders were more like the size and composition of one of the US attacking forces given, meaning a full battalion on 2 km.

At the west-wall, force to space was less because the line length had expanded more than the forces had, compared to Normandy. And in the Bulge, the original attack sectors were thinner still, the thinnest on the whole front - at first. Dispersion of troops front to back ("meeting engagement" style confusions, 2-D rather than just linear maneuvering, etc) kept the force to space ratio relatively low in the Bulge fighting. But it climbed back to the "ordinary" levels, if not to Normandy ones.

I hope this helps.

[ June 27, 2002, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by JasonC:

To Farslayer - LOL. How about (to the tune of "fade away and radiate")

Oo baby, I hear you spend nite-time

[snips]

...

Hurrah! Prolonged, thunderous applause (as the stage directions for Stalin's speeches always used to say).

I look forward to suitably CMish versions of Blondine masterpieces such as "The Hardest Part" (the exact Brinell hardness being quantifed by Rexford), "Hangin' on the sound-power phone", "Giant ants from space" ("ants" here obviously being short for anti-tank guns), and, of course, "Youth nabbed as sniper, errrh, I mean sharpshooter".

All the best,

John.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by JasonC:

To Tarq -

<snip>

I hope this helps.

Thanks much! How about suggested German defense configuration?

[JasonC]

A generic realistic German defense. OK. First one for 2000 or 3000 point battles -

Front line force (first 400 yards) -

1 rifle 44 company

2 extra HMG

2 81mm mortar (on map)

3 schreck

1 sharpshooter

1 81mm FO

plus

2 TRP

3 AT mine

10 AP mine or wire, any mix

Second line force (400-800 yards) -

1 rifle 44 company minus 1-2 platoon

1-2 schrecks

2 75mm Infantry guns

1 75mm PAK

1 105mm FO

If it is a 2000 point battle, the second line has only one squad infantry platoon. In a 3000 point battle it has 2, and an extra schreck. The force should be ~1367 for the former (3:2 initial) and ~1500 for the latter (2:1 initial). See the next for where the rest of the points go.

Then pick an "upgrade" option. You can choose one of the following -

(1) convert all 6 HMG into wooden bunker

(2) add 1 AT mine, 10 more AP or Wire

(3) add 5 schrecks, 3 up, 2 back position.

(4) add 2nd 105mm FO in rear position

Then give reinforcement groups, random arrival as with the Americans -

Battalion reserve -

2 Infantry platoon, 2 schreck (or company with no HMGs and 3 schreck in a 3000 point battle)

TD platoon -

3 Hetzer or StuG (any model) or 4 Marder

Artillery support -

1 105mm FO (additional)

When everybody arrives that should give ~2000 points, a bit more in 3000 point battles but still leaving odds (under 3:2 though). If your choices leave leftovers, add schrecks, sharpshooters, AP mine or wire with the leftovers.

In a 5000 point battle, the defender needs a stronger force. Put the 2x75mm IG in the forward position. Put 3x75mm PAK in the rear position, instead of just one. Make the rear position a full infantry company instead of being light a platoon, and give it a 3rd schreck.

Then make the reinforcement a full TD company - 9-10 StuG or Hetzer, or 12 Marder - plus a full infantry company (no HMGs), the same 105mm FO. Odd numbers get up to ~3333 for overall 3:2 odds after arrival go to schrecks with the reinforcement company.

So in a 5000 point, eventually the German defender will get a battalion of infantry and a company of TDs. Instead of as little as 2 companies of infantry and a platoon of TDs, in a 2000 point battle.

Not nearly as many guns as CM players like to use, but realistically they did not have that many. The infantry AT has a lot more of the burden to carry, until the TDs show up. On the other hand, there will be far more mines than most CM players use.

If you like, the reserve reinforcement infantry can be better armed, 2 LMG types - FJ or Mot. Pz Gdr - to represent more heavily armed "reaction" forces. (Even in Heer, some battalions had enough to equip 1/3rd or so at the 2 LMGs per squad level). The front line and support types could be security instead of plain rifle 44, for +1 SMG per squad and an extra weapons platoon HQ, etc.

Not anything remotely like a gamey optimum. But it is a realistic German infantry division defense.

[JasonC]

If you don't know how to set up and use that kind of force for a German defense, it may seem quite underpowered against the attacking American ones. But if you set it up right, it can hold out.

The main idea is to use reverse slope style deployments to avoid the attacker's overwatch weapons, tanks, and FOs. Try to draw him in close, trying to get LOS to your guys. This is especially true of your squad infantry, which you must protect very carefully. You don't have enough and he will try to run you out. So you have to be careful with them.

You must set up alternate positions, using split squad foxholes, incorporating a few buildings, etc. You will use these especially when you get shelled. You need covered routes back to them. If the enemy is about to cut your covered route, it is time to get out of there. When you see large spotting rounds, it is time to get out of there. If tanks have LOS, break it and get out of there. All with your squad infantry, understand.

Then you must construct traps all over the place, designed to catch probing enemy platoons and destroy them. This comes in many varieties - TRP artillery, AP minefields at the edge of fields, so they have to retreat a long way under fire after hitting them and not getting through, direct fire "keyhole" sight lines for the 75mm IGs, platoon ambushes at close range behind a crest line, AT mines and schrecks covering gaps between trees, etc. Use HMGs to deny open ground areas to his scouts, and to soak up his ammo. Site 81s to fire on likely overwatch positions (with an HQ spotting), or shoot them at a TRP.

Expect to lose the teams and guns while slowing him down and attriting him, and making him run through his ammo, both infantry small arm and artillery. Try to keep as much of the squad infantry as possible alive and falling back to each successive position. Never sacrifice it rashly in firefights you aren't winning anymore.

The support line can fire in defense of gaps in the first, places it does not put traps e.g. But its foxholes should not be directly observable from the foxholes of the first line, and it should be out of easy infantry fire range whenever such LOS lines can't be avoided. You want the attacker to have to leave the front set of holes to tackle the second line. Use the split squad ability in the back portion to make extra holes for squad infantry retreating from the front position.

You fight in this "trap and slink" manner behind your obstacles in the first line. Ideally, your reserve arrives in time to help with the stand at the second line. If you need to delay that event, use your artillery or unhide guns to buy time for the reserve to show up. When to unhide the PAK is a key decision in such defenses. Remember that you will have serious AT ability from TDs once they arrive, but until then it is all the ranged heavy AT firepower you've got.

Once the TDs show up, you should have a very good idea where the enemy is and where he is pressing. His armor should be trapsing through the remnants of your forward zone, trying to get LOS to the rear position, etc. Hunt them to blunt the attack. Put the fresh infantry (which may be better armed) in somewhere it can make a difference, or in you are ambitious a local counterattack.

What you want is the lead US tanks dead between your front and second line, as much of your squad infantry as possible alive on the second line, and the American infantry shot up, broken, and out of ammo. You may still have to play some "dodge" with falling heavy shells. Just watch for the spotting rounds and take them very seriously.

In the case of the 5000 point force, your TDs have to win the armor war in a big way when they arrive. StuGs are your best bet in that scenario size, because after they win it they will be needed for infantry stopping work. Note that the StuGs are relatively resistent to big HE, too.

[JonS]

HOW TO ATTACK LIKE THE BRITISH

What follows is a very stereotyped, planned attack {1} by part of a British infantry division, using bog-standard formations, set sometime between June – October 1944. A similar attack profile could be conducted with the Canadians. After October the types of vehicles will change, and the ratio of Firefly to regular tanks moves from 1:3 to 2:2 {2} . Also, support vehicles such as Crocodiles and Wasps become more common.

Readers Health Warning: It should be noted that I haven’t tried this line-up as I tend not to play QBs. It is presented as a companion to JasonC’s pieces on “How To Attack Like The Americans”, and “… Like the Germans”

5000 Point Scenario (attacker gets 7500 Points), unrestricted force type.

Basic Force:

Inf Bn{3} w/MG plt (Reg) x1

25-pr. Spotter (Vet) x 6

5.5” Spotter (Reg) x 2

= 4215 Points

Armour Force (all Reg):

Churchills (9 x VII + 2 x VIII){4} = 1681 Points

OR Shermans (9 x V + 3 x VC){5} = 1557 Points

OR Cromwells (9 x CromVII + 3 x ShermVC + 2 x CromVIII){5} = 1760 Points

(Shermans and Cromwells work in troops of 4 vehicles; three of standard and one Firefly. Churchills in troops of three MkVII, plus a small troop of 2 MkVIII){6}

Attached Force:

4 x Wolverine (Reg){7} (SP AT Tp) = 408 Points

4 x 17-pr. + 4 x M5 Halftrack{8} (Reg) (Towed SP Tp) = 552 Points

6 x Universal Carriers{9} (Reg) (for bn. engr. pn. in half squads) = 204 Points

1 x Rifle Coy (Reg) (reinforcing coy) = 379 Points

13 x Kangaroos{10} (Reg) (enough to mount one coy) = 663 Points

4 x Sharpshooters (Vet) (one per coy){11} = 88 Points

2 x 25-pr. Spotter (Vet) = 442 Points

1 x 4.2” Mortar Spotter (Vet) = 111 Points

1 x 3” Mortar Spotter (Vet) = 141 Points

Take the Basic Force, one of the Armour Force choices, and as many of the Attached Force options as can be afforded and will suit your needs{12}. You will still have some points left over, so use those at your discretion.

So, for example, you could buy the following:

Basic + Churchills + Wolverines + Kangaroos + Carriers + Sharpshooters = 7317 Points, leaving 183 ‘spare’ for a few more Sharpshooters, PIATs, etc{13}, or to upgrade the quality of some part of your force.

The Bn comes with four rifle companies, and the basic attack formation is ‘two up’, with two companies in reserve. Each of the leading companies also goes ‘two up’, with one platoon in reserve. Each platoon again goes ‘two up’, with one section in reserve. Each of the lead companies gets one of the troops of tanks in support. The other support elements are held in reserve or cover the flanks as required. Instead of having two companies in reserve, one could be used to conduct a feint, or attack a minor objective.

Prior to the attack carefully choose an axis of advance that you will be attacking along. The attack will be conducted with the two attack companies side by side, on a frontage of approx 120-160m (30-40m per leading platoon). The artillery will flatten this attack route ahead of the infantry with a rolling barrage.

Pick a line roughly 2-300m ahead of your where your lead platoons are set up along the Start Line. On Turn 1 target all six 25-pr. Spotters along this line, at a spacing of approx 30-40m, to give an artillery-frontage of 150-200m. Don’t go too wide, or there will be ‘gaps’ between the beaten zones of adjacent spotters. Once the rounds start to fall, advance the infantry up behind the barrage{14}. When they start getting too close, jump the line forward approx 100m and repeat. With the dispersion of the falling rounds you should get complete coverage at each line of a zone 200m broad by 100m deep, and as the barrage advances this coverage will be extended over the entire area of the attack corridor.

As an alternative to stepping forward by 100m every 3 minutes or so, you could sneak the fire forward a little bit every turn, to avoid the long delay involved in retargeting.

This barrage probably won’t destroy too much, but it should cause sufficient suppression to allow the infantry to continue moving forward, as long as they stay fairly close behind the barrage. It is important to keep the barrage jumping forward, and not dwelling too long on any line. Each of the Spotters has enough rounds for about 10 minutes of fire, and you need to have the infantry on the objective within that time limit. The total depth of the assault covered by the barrage will be on the order of 3-500m, which is another factor to consider when planning your attack.

The other indirect spotters (the battalion 3” Spotter and the two 5.5” Spotters, and any others you bought) can be used to engage any stubborn positions, to smoke the flanks of the corridor, or to engage targets off to the flanks. As a enhancement, you can change the two flank spotters of the barrage to smoke for the turn before they step forward so that the infantry advance between two lines of smoke (sort-of).

During the advance the tanks will be supporting it with direct fire{15}, and the engineers can be used to clear any minefields that appear.

Once the objective is taken, get the reserve companies up to secure and defend it supported by the battalion 6-pr. AT guns, along with any other stray elements. What were the lead companies can go back into reserve, and/or secure the flanks of the assault corridor.

This type of attack telegraphs your intentions to the German player fairly early, but as long as you keep moving forward and stay in a fairly tight fist you ‘should’ be ok. A particular concern is that all your units are moving along a single corridor, and are therefore vulnerable to German off-board artillery. Also, units on the flanks are largely ignored, so you may get a lot of flanking fire. Smoke along the edges of the assault corridor may help alleviate both problems.

For ‘assault’ scenarios you will have 8750 points available. Use these extra points to buy another 6 x 25-pr. Spotters (Vet) (to give 12 total) as part of the Basic Force. Use the extra spotters to form a parallel barrage line behind the first, to give a total beaten zone of 200m x 200m. When the infantry approaches the first barrage line, leapfrog it over the second, and so on. This extra line will give a much more effective barrage.

There will be less leftover points once the Armour Force has been purchased, and these can be used on items from the Attached Force list, and/or more engineer platoons, and/or another troop of armour, or possibly a pair of engineers tanks – Crocodiles or A.Vs.R.E.

2000 Point Scenario (attacker gets 3000 Points), unrestricted force type.

Basic Force:

In Coy (Reg) x2

3-in. mortar Spotter (Reg) x 1

6-pr. (Reg) x 2

Vickers MMG (Reg) x2

Universal Carriers (for Vickers and 6-pr.) (Reg) x4

Pioneer Pn (Reg) x1

25-pr. Spotter (Vet) x 4

= 2163 Points

Armour Force (all Reg):

Churchills (3 x VII + 1 x VIII) = 608 Points

OR Shermans (3 x V + 1 x VC) = 519 Points

OR Cromwells (3 x CromVII + 1 x ShermVC) = 510 Points

Attached Force:

2 x 6-pr. + 2 x Universal Carrier(Reg) (Towed SP Section) = 174 Points

1 x Rifle Pn (Reg) (reinforcing pn) = 127 Points

4 x M5 Halftracks (Reg) (enough to mount one pn) = 168 Points

2 x Sharpshooters (Vet) (one per coy) = 44 Points

Same mix and match as before. Same basic tactics, except on a narrower front, with one company up, and one in reserve.

For smaller battles, and you will have to forgo the barrage, as there simply won’t be enough spotters to make it worthwhile. Keep the 3-in. Spotter, and 2 x 25-pr. Spotters. Try to keep to the format of the Basic Force, centred on infantry with artillery and Armour Force support, fleshed out with Attachments.

For tactics, keep half to a-third of your force as reserve, and use what artillery you have in concentrations on identified targets.

Regards

JonS

Edit: Not surprisingly, John Salt took me to task on this , so I've included his comments:

{1} A nice Anglo-Canadian variation might be a night infiltration attack, either with armour (as per Ken Tout’s adventures on “Fly-by-Night”), or infantry alone (such as the KSLI’s night infiltration during “Bluecoat”). Unfortunately, CM:BO handles night combat poorly. I assume that we are dealing only with the formal attack or advance in contact here, hence the lack of recce vehicles; otherwise, there should be all sorts of light armour swanning around – and, as we’ll see, you can always use more carriers.

{2} Comet, obviously, has no 17-pounder or CS tanks mixed in.

{3} The CM:BO British infantry battalion as given is deficient in carriers, having only 10. 6 are needed to two the 6-pounders; 6 are needed for the mortar platoon, although these can be neglected as the 3-inch mortars are “off-table”; and the carrier platoon is authorised 13 of the things. The carrier platoon should have some 2-in mortars and PIATs of its own, as well, say 1 each per section of 3 carriers.

{4} This is an excessive proportion of CS tanks. There should only be 2 at SHQ, so 2 per 17 or so gun tanks. I don’t know what proportions of Mk VI to Mk VII are reasonable, but all VIIs is evidently a bit luxurious. I find it handy to mix VIs and VIIs to meet a particular pojnts value. An amusing game can be had trying to attack the AI with a “pure” Churchill squadron; at regular quality, 6 Mk VIIs, 8 Mk VIs and 2 Mk VIIIs make a full-strength squadron on almnost exactly 2250 points, which is what you get for a 1500 attack.

{5} If you have the points, you might buy all 4 sabre troops of a squadron, and the guns tanks from SHQ, which seem to be missing.

{6} Yes and no. Fireflies are normally mixed into the troops, but some regiments ran a centralised Firefly troop. CS tanks were nominally on the strength of SHQ, although “Villers Bocage Through the Lens” shows that the Sharpshooters dished out CS tanks to sabre troops. Cromwells from squadrons of an armoured division’s armoured recce regiment should not have Firleflies (though I believe they should have Challenger when it appears); Shermans representing DD squadrons should not have Fireflies either.

{7} For shame! Make them higher quality just for being Gunners!

{8} Could also use a truck representing the Morris 30cwt.

{9} I am not aware of sappers being transported in carriers as a regular thing. Trucks would seem more likely to me.

{10} The other APC that one might see is the M5 halftrack, used by the motor battalion of an armoured division or “swinger” armoured brigade. Each company of a motor bn at full strength should have three rifle platoons each in 4 M5s, a scout platoon with 11 carriers, and Coy HQ with 2 carriers and 3 scout cars. They should not appear in the same battle as Churchills, which were found only in the independent tank brigades.

{11} Assuming for a moment that these represent snipers who’ve done the course and got the ghillie jacket, AIUI British sniper doctrine has always stressed operating in pairs. This is certainly the case now, and I believe it has remained unchanged for a very long time. It is also currently the case that snipers are authorised by the Bn CO, up to 8 pairs. They would probably not be affiliated to any particular company while sniping. If these do not represent proper “ghillie-jacketed” snipers, I don’t know what they represent, as I doubt anyone else could get hold of a scope on their G1098.

{12} This seems to me to be a good scheme that reflects the way British commanders handle “atts and dets”. You might also have a “funnies” add-on, including AVsRE and Crocs; unfortunately Crocodiles are so expensive that one is unlikely to see the advised minimum of a half-squadron, say 6 vehicles.

{13} I always buy PIATs and 2-in mortars as “makeweights” with left-over points. This strikes me as reasonable because quite o few of these weapons were authorised for people like the admin, AA, ATk and carrier platoons who might well be induced to “lend” them to the rifle companies.

{14} CM:BO’s artillery mechanisms don’t really let you do barrages terribly well. If you have a nice long battle and a big map, though, you might be able to advance down one flank and then turn through a right angle to attack across the table. I’ve done it a couple of times against the AI. The beaten zones then give a more barrage-like feel, and, if you have to fight to clear your start line, well, sometimes people did.

{15} Tanks might be in intimate support actually mixed in with or leading the infantry, or, especially if they’re not “I” tanks, jockeying along crest lines and shooting HE from up to 2000 yards away – as if ever see a 2000-yard LOS in CM:BO.

And similar comments for the smaller battles.

P.S. Thanks to those who help with this

[ July 09, 2002, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by JonS:

HOW TO ATTACK LIKE THE BRITISH

[snips]

{12} This seems to me to be a good scheme that reflects the way British commanders handle “atts and dets”. You might also have a “funnies” add-on, including AVREs and Crocs; [snips]

Mr. Picky, who seems to be suffering a more than usuakl percentage of speling erros, should of course have written "AVsRE".

All the best,

John.