ScoutPL

The scenario file has been added to the end of the tutorial. Enjoy.

You'll notice there is no alternate position planned for any of the companies. This is why. The forward company will quite probably be overrun before they can get out. I spent eight years in the light infantry and everytime I fought an anti armor defense I died beside my foxhole. Its not pretty, no one likes to admit it, but when it comes to anti armor fights the infantry are there basically to protect the obstacles and AT guns. Which means they're within small arms fire range as soon as they engage the enemy, making withdrawal very hard. It will usually be piecemeal and will result in a lot of stragglers. The trucks are there because there's really nothing else for them to do and they may be of some help to a lucky squad or two. But dont bet on it. As far as the wooded center, he can push all the infantry through there he wants. His vehicles wont get off map without clearing the obstacles and passing through my EAs. All of the company BP's are mutually supporting and well dugin for handling dismount threats from any direction. Plus my task force reserve can deal rather effectively with any dismounts that come over the hill without tank support. Dismounts are definately a concern but I'm more worried about them massing against my BP's then I am about him walking deeper into my sector just because he can. Actually I would rather he dismount and attempt to dislodge me without armor support first anyway. I'm dug in with plenty of well sited support weapons. I'd love to be able to deal with him piecemeal like that.

I have to say this Pillar, and please take it lightly, but its obvious you 've never had to fight a battle with the clock racing against you. It sounds to me like you'd like to spend just as much time reconning a company or battalion objective as you would actually attacking it. A smart way to go for sure, but a luxury a real commander will never enjoy. But at least the theory sounds good right? Aren't most of the works you've studied on broad front recon concerned with operational (brigade and up) level operations? I think that is an important distinction that has to be made for the less experienced or knowledgable guys here. The one thing I carried away from my military experience (both in training and in combat) is the total randomness and fast forward sensation of battle. As a leader I was often faced with four or five decisions and only had time to make one or two. By the time I got to the third they were either moot points or five more problems had sprung up. Who to maneuver against that machinegun? Do I send some one after the retreating enemy? Could it be a trap? How can I assign supporting fires? Do I use them to suppress the gun or to provide support for the platoon in contact? What does the colonel need to know? How is the casevac going? Do I need to send someone back for ammo? Who is that shooting at me? All within a few seconds, all desperately in need of a solution. The good commanders could pick out the key problems and let the rest slide, or better yet ensure they had well trained subordinates who could lighten the load (a good RTO who could update the colonel, a good casevac SOP that the lead medic could implement, an FO who knew how you thought and could call for the fires you wanted before you had to ask). The thing about CM is that is does a very good job of simulating that, unless you look at it as a chess match and spend hours going over the possibilities between each PBEM turn or want to apply operational doctrine in a klick square box. I'm sure you disagree, which is fine, we've discussed it before. I just like throwing it all out there again for the new guys to think about.

I'll post a copy of the scenario with just the US setup on the map later tonight. Thanks for all the great comments. Henri, I'm a grunt not a computer "specialist". Any ideas you might have on how to get a 2km x 5km map in one screenshot, I'm all ears. Plus any help on improving the quality of the screenshots after two or three conversions without making them into 1mb files would be a help as well. I had hoped a close study of the terrain would reveal which EAs were used for the actual COA that was selected but its a good point, I'll go back and make it clearer. I didnt think unit types really needed to be distinguished since I used graphics depicting infantry platoons (the main combat units of an infantry battalion). I could fill up my alotted 25mb with pretty pictures of every foxhole but that not what I wanted to do. I am paying for this you know. Thanks for the help.

Go to www.geocities.com/fpd131 to check out my new post. Setting up a battalion defense in sector is discussed.

My two cents. You guys are missing the forest for trees. There are 8 other principles of war, as I'm sure you're all aware. Its the successful battlefield commander who masters them all rather then focusing on one or two. I've wanted to jump into your debate but kept finding it rather narrow in scope. There are plenty of other principles which make the massing of troops AND firepower possible while at the same time dissolving the effects of artillery. Maneuver, Security, and Surprise jump right out at me as a few examples. Also, Nathan Forrest has always been the one credited with the "fustest with the mostest" quote. But it has recently been debated whether he is the true originator of it. Like most famous quotes it is most likely the product of some enterprising newspaper man expounding over something he heard around a camp fire.

Not much to add here so I'll try to bring it all together. Set up an engagement area that includes at least one of your Victory locations. Mass you AT assets around this EA and provide plenty of infantry protection. Use the rest of your asets to persuade or force your enemy to move into your EA. Do this by making him think you are strong in areas other then the EA. This will be hard to do with your limited assets. But perhaps after a good terrain study you will determine that he has few armor AOA's anyway. That'll make it alot simpler. Once he's in your EA hit him with the mortar fire to button him up and then hit with the AT guns, always attempt to get in flank or rear shots. So your EA may be a few hundred yards wide but as long as 500 yards. Use the terrain and foliage to conceal your guns from the enemy's perspective. Place hills and wooded areas between your guns and the enemy's map edge. This way once you open fire, only those units in your kill zone can bring your guns under fire. Be sure to provide an infantry screen to prevent him from bringing dismounts around your flank. Depending on how your map is set up this could be either really hard or really easy. The actual engagement ranges will depend on your EA. If you can stay concealed, the longer range shots are always better. Key points: good security, mass fires, and be willing to write some terrain off and take some risks. Good Luck! By the way, I'll have another tutorial up in a day or so on how to set up a battalion defense. It gos in pretty deep on evaluating AOA's and EA's so hold tight, more help is on the way!

A few replys: "The problem is that mortar/arty usually wipes out any semblence of organized defense within five turns. As a result, especially on smaller maps, concentrations are really a no no. Any thoughts?" Limit your opponents to artillery that would realistically support a company or even a battalion in the attack. Such as a mortar platoon and a battery of 105's. If your arty is having that much effect against dugin troops then its gotta be the big stuff that was usually used for farther behind the lines for interdiction fires or for huge bombardments right before major offensive operations. The average rifle company in the attack has to beg for Mortar fires from higher and a 105 splash is like a godsend. Keep in mind we're talking about WWII here. The predominant mortar system was 81 and the arty system was 105. I think its way to easy to get bigger stuff in the game. On the other hand use your hide command and make use of cover and concealment. If he is moving spotters forward, he should be well into your engagement areas by the time he spots you and you should be able shut off his fires quickly by killing off or disrupting his spotters. Also keep in mind that MASS is a Principle of War for a reason... "Number one, the positioning of the 75mm ATG probably accounts for its relatively rapid loss once it became engaged. It was set up for a wide field of fire, with the result that many enemy tanks could fire back at it." This is a very good point, and serves to illustrate another. A company commader has three school trained LT's working for him. I'm sure the LT who was focusing on that EA would have noticed the gun was too far forward just like you did. But as the guy trying to do it all, I missed it. Stick that in your hat, team work is the key to success, always. "Second, I question using up the last of the 105mm ammo on further "interdiction" fires on the enemy infantry mass moving up along the southern approach." Like I said at the beginning of the tutorial, there's a technique for every man who would attempt to defend this ground. I felt that I would gain more by using the arty to disrupt his movement, cause him casualties, and disperse his forces. Also the spotter was located with the deception forces and I couldnt bet on him making ot back. I felt the firepower I could bring to bear on the hillside with my MG's and squads would sufice to make it costly for him. It worked well. Thats not to say that a well timed arty splash near the wire wouldnt have helped out, it probably would have. "Just one quick point re your photo caption... I personally would hope that mistakes would be analyzed. Analized mistakes might require the attention of the medics, although this approach could possibly yield a more effective teaching tool. You gotta watch out for those big mistakes though..." I realize by posting this work of mine I opened myself up to such criticism, but I'll just throw this out there for good measure. If Herr Oberst wishes, I'd be happy to send him my next work for proofreading, that way he can share in the effort and time put into it rather then just have a good laugh. Thanks for the point, its well taken (no pun intended). I'll try harder next time to do a better job of proofreading my posts.

Bumpty Bump

Rather then continue to harass all these other great site managers about posting my tutorials I set up my own page to do it. Go check out www.geocities.com/fpd131 to find my new defense tutorial, my old infantry attack tutorial, and a glimpse into the future! Thanks for all the great comments on past tutorials!

I can never get over how everyone gets upset when hollywood makes a movie with a historical(hysterical) context. Thats all it is guys. Context. Everything after that is just ticket getting eyewash. You should look foward to going to the movies to get entertained, not educated. Otherwise you will be continually disappointed. I doubt there's anybody in the world that could come up with the budget or the knowledge to really portray the house to house struggle of stalingrad as it was seen by the average panzergrenadier or guards rifleman. NO way! So quit sounding do disappointed when hollywood keeps making movies to sell tickets to teenagers, rather then make a film that is faithful to what really happened. If it really concerns you, buy stock in The History Channel, get a controlling interest and make them start making little historical movies, thats the only way it'll ever happen.

Hey, Pillar, if you havent found an opponent yet, I'll play you. I think you'll find that TOAW will be a better forum for testing the kinda "operational" tactics you were always advocating in our debates. Lets get it on! Todd

If I open a PBEM file and then save it as a regular saved game file, can I then complete that game over TCP/IP? Is it possible to finish an uncompleted IP game over PBEM?

I wont argue that a fluid (mobile) defense in depth will not work against a frontal attack. Thats how I was trained to defend, after all. My argument was that due to the way CM has to be played on a isolated battlefield it allows players (sometimes) to force an opponent to defend VP locations, usually with a strongpoint defense. Case in point, you arent the first to come back to me about my attack tutorial and offer up pincer/envelopment tactics. I was trying to explain why I felt the way I did about those options, not that I thought delay/counterattack in depth defenses wouldn't work. I'm currently working on a battalion level defense in depth tutorial that will illustrate alot of the tactics you're talking about here.

In your example above were you fighting the AI or a human opponent? If it was a Human opponent how would you rate his experience level? I apologize if you're taking my opposing view as an attack. That was not my intention since I didnt think you were attacking me when you posted critical views on my tutorial. Bygones.

Tri., You miss my point. If you allow full movement of attacking forces across the CM map then you limit the defender to only one form of defense, strongpoint. My point being that this sorta restriction is not true to a good simulation of WWII combat on the western front. (The strong point defense was much more common on the eastern front.) IF you are playing for VP locations. I personally only like to play for exit points since it offers alot more flexibility and realism to the play. I know Fionn did an example of using counterattacks as a part of his defense once but I doubt very seriously he can always do that since it requires almost parity with the enemy in maneuver units. I.E. there's no way a platoon can defend against a company team by launching a succession of counterattacks and still have sufficient force to hold key terrain (VP) at the end of the battle. If in every CM battle, the attacker can maneuver to attack from any direction then you are not simulating WWII combat along the FEBA, FLOT, MLR or any other acronym. In most combat situations the commander will rarely have enough knowledge of the situation and the enemy to even begin to guess at how to get around to the enemy's rear anyway. If you want to play the "God's eye view" to the hilt then yes, you can run rampant all over the map. I choose to play as realistically as possible and take the harder road. Just a difference in playing styles and desires in gaming experience, thats all. Ask yourself this: As an artillery officer I know security was something you had to worry about when it came to battery location. But was it ever a major concern? Probably not, because you knew the grunts at the FLOT/FEBA were tied in tight and werent about to let anyone through if they could help it. I know there are plenty of examples from history of wide unit frontages and gaps, but they were the exception not the norm. OK now for some definitions, right out of FM 100-5-1 (Operational Terms and Graphics): FLOT: Forward Line of Own Troops. A line that indicates the most forward positions of friendly forces... The FLOT may be AT, BEYOND OR SHORT of the FEBA... FEBA: Forward Edge of the Battle Area. The forward line of the Main Battle Area. MBA: Main Battle Area. That portion of the battlefield extending rearward from the FEBA in which THE DECISIVE BATTLE IS FOUGHT to defeat the enemy attack. I think using these definitions one could argue that CM covers the entire MBA to include the FEBA and the FLOT. Once again this is not an attack on you, just healthy debate.

Triumvir, Most of the posts Pillar referred you to dealt with our differences of opinion on using scouts to recon the last few hundred meters of a battle which, as you pointed out is what CM covers. As you could probably tell we never really reached a concensus and just agreed to disagree. But let me answer some of your questions directly, so that we can clear some things up and help out those on the board who just arent blessed with the tactical prowess that you, Pillar and myself possess. (THAT was a cynical, sarcastic statement, fellows, please dont take it to heart! ;-] ) When selecting a movement formation (not to be mistaken for movement techniques) a couple things have to be taken in to account. You are right, one of them is the enemy situation. A few more are mass, economy of force, surprise, and most of the other principles of war. The company in my tutorial had a very good idea of the enemy disposition and of the ground. The commander knew exactly where he wanted to hit the enemy. In order to do this he chose a column formation. Here's why. The column offers the best control, flexibility and force protection to the commander. It offers control because everyone is playing follow the leader so it is very hard for units to get lost or disoriented on the battlefield. Which can happen very easily and often, take my word for it. With a column the commander knows exactly where his subordinate units are and what they're doing. It offers flexibility because the commander will be making contact with the smallest element possible. In this case his lead platoon. That gives him the two trail platoons with which to maneuver against the enemy with, if he sees fit. At the same time it protects those two follow on platoons for the actual business at hand which is the seizing of the objective. I cant rely on my engineer platoon to make a breach if they get slaughtered fighting through a couple machinegun nests just trying to get to the objective. Yes, it would be haphazard for the lead platoon in this terrain to use column movement. Since they are definately the most likely to make contact they use a wedge or V, depending on their platoon leaders analysis. Their lead elements would actually probably move using a bounding overwatch technique that close to the objective. But in order to get the mass of combat power on the objective at one time the company commander should opt for a formation that offers the benefits I described above. And here we hit the crux of the matter. Ranger Instructors at the US Army Ranger school have a favorite saying. Whenever some Ranger student comes up with some Machiavellian/Sun Tzu/George Patton plan for raiding an enemy supply cache they just look him in the eye and go "Thats a technique." At the end of the patrol, if the student is successful and his patrol gets to eat enemy rations that night then it was a good technique. If the attack fails, then his technique sucked and everybody starves for another night. Ranger instructors are more concerned about the students grasping the principles of a Raid then they are about technique or even tactics. You dont get a passing grade on how wonderful your tactics were, just whether or not you stand on ground once held by the enemy at the end of the day. (Sounds a lot like combat doesnt it?) The point being that we could each come up with a way to attack the little village in my tutorial. And given the right amount of luck they would all have probably suceeded to one degree or another. That said here are a few comments on your proposed "technique." I quote: "I'm not sure that your choice of creating a static firebase and a breaching force was the best possible. Obviously it works well... but I wonder if a twin armed envelopment might have done better." First off I wanted to do a breach just to offer a technique for conducting a breach. Something I think alot of us wil be doing in the future since the cost of obstacles has been significantly lowered in ver. 1.1. But take another look at my force structure. Its almost 50/50 anyway, not counting the engineers, who really dont count after the breach since breaches are some of the biggest manpower eaters in war. Now, I've split the company in half. Half to assault with, half to suppress with. I came out with a major victory and minimal casualties. Really think you could do that if both forces were attacking from opposite sides? Reliant on themselves for suppressive fires and overwatch? That reduces your actual assault elements down to a couple squads rather then a couple platoons. Now a couple squads was probably all it would have taken to take out the three enemy squads in the ville. But did we know there were only three at the beginning of the battle? What if there had been four or five squads with machineguns in support? Would two weak pincers done a better job then one hammer and anvil? I dont think so. Not to mention that fire control and fratricide would have been major problems in a two prong attack. With a "static" support by fire position I can adjust or cutoff those fires as needed. Not so easy to do when you have aggressive infantry trying to clear the same town from opposite ends. The sweep to the rear. This brings up another controversial point for me when it comes to CM. What I like to call, "Playing the edges." I wish I could produce a mod so that anytime a unit comes within 10 meters of the edge of the map it disappears. The problem being that real world, those edges dont exist and commanders have to plan in a 360 degree battlefield. If this were a deliberate attack against an enemy position in their MLR then they would be tied in to units on their left and right. Units that would make a sweep to the rear of that ville very difficult if not impossible. Unfortunately due to the limits of the game most defences have to be 360 degree strongpoint defences just to protect a player against the tactics you advocate, which in my opinion detracts from the game. As far as Fionns "defend while moving" I cant say too much since I havent read it. But if you get a chance check out my defense tutorial for a definately different perspective. I hope you dont take this as an attack on you personally. There has been way too much of that in the past, myself included. After all, "Thats a technique."

Are you talking firepower as in effectiveness of fires? Or are you talking about 30 shots, which is an abstraction of number of rounds available rather then raw firepower.

Thanks for the enthusiasm guys. I did send it to MaddMatt a few days ago and even got a query from Fionn. Hopefully they'll have it up soon. If you just cant wait let me know and I'll send it to you.

My fault Matt. I dont think I saved them properly. The saved game from that scenario is listed but there is no actual battle in the scenario file and the program locks up when I try to open the saved game. Probably lost some vital stuff in the conversion. No big deal, I'll design it again in 1.1. Thats half the fun anyway.

Anyone having problems loading custom made scenarios with 1.1? Can't open with 1.05 either, it says I need to upgrade to load. Can play scenario fine but just cant load it to edit.

Posted message on General Discussion board. Please read and if interested post a reply there.

Reinforced Rifle Company, means a standard TO&E company with attachments. Attachments are made with units and are often very temporary in nature. What this means is that rather then get a few MG's here and a few zook's there, what you get is an additional rifle platoon or heavy weapons platoon from another company or a tank platoon. This helps maintain unit cohesion and organization. Could you imagine being that zook team that keeps getting passed around from company to company never finding a home? Talk about bad morale! Realistically attachments should be made at the platoon level, very rarely at the crew level when you take into account battalion level assets such as AT guns. As far as Arty goes, the numbers you provide for ammo expenditure are very high for what a rifle company commander would have at his disposal. That much artillery is usually controlled by the battalion staff and is reserved for battalion level fire missions. A more realistic approach would be to always have a 81mm spotter. These are integral to the battalion and so under the full control of the battalion commander. A 105mm spotter on most missions. And very rarely a 155mm spotter since there was normally only one 155mm battalion in the entire division. As far as Armor divisions go, Infantry would normally be atttched to support a Tank company, not the other way around. Hope this helps.

A couple points to add fuel to the fire: Towards the end of the war the US tried to come out with a stripped down model of the M1917 MMG to serve as a squad support weapon. The Marine Corps had THREE bars in each squad by TO&E, but squads in all services tried to get their hands on as many as possible. The US Army gave up on the heavy barrel squad support rifle (the last version was a heavy barrel, full auto M14) in favor of a belt fed LMG in the early 80's for use as a squad support weapon. I dont know much about what happened at company level in WWII but I think you could take the points illustrated above and draw your own conclusions.

Seizing buildings takes a lot of planning ahead. Suppressive fires are a must and smoke obscuration if you have it available. If the enemy in the building out numbers your assault element, which should be approximately a third of your available firepower (the rest should be suppressing, include MG and bazooka in your total), then kill his guys off until the odds swing in your favor. Destroying the building is a popular solution but you should take into account whether you may need the building later to serve as a jump off point or support by fire position to take the next building.