Broken

Atkinson does discuss the winter hardships and the problematic nature of a winter offensive in Italy, but from a reporter's "he said, they said" perspective. Likewise with his coverage of the piecemail attacks on the Gustav line. I agree that his focus on the narrative shys away from much analysis of lessons-learned, but that is the way reporters write. Less forgivable are some of his factual errors. For example, he claims that Vietinghoff "had amassed six hundred tanks and self-propelled guns" for the Salerno counter-attack (pg 223), the equivalent of an entire 1941-era Panzer Army. All-in-all though, a very good read with new insights for anyone but the most die-hard Italian Campaign-grog.

Not finished yet but great read so far. Clark's mis-handling of Rapido river offence and Salerno, Churchill's micro-managing of Anzio and the poor tactical thinking all-around (by the Allies) is well covered. Atkinson presents the very human strength and weaknesses of the major figures in vivid color. Some great material for CMAK scenarios.

I understand the need for for the LOS calculation to be quick- hence the LOS table- but the 8m LOS resolution falls apart at urban combat ranges. The artifactual blindspots and exposures become especially apparent at ranges < 100m. Why not use direct LOS calculations for short ranges where the CPU burden is the lightest, and save the LOS table for longer ranges?

The AT-4 seems decent at <200m with a flank shot against T-62 vintage tanks. My problem is getting infantry to not waste all their shots on long-range targets and/or other infantry. The "Target Light" order seems to be currently broken: Javs and AT-4s get launched regardless. However, "Hide"-ing your infantry until a <200m flank shot presents itself seems to work for AT-4s. In the campaign, I nailed T-62s this way in the Obj Dianne lead-up scenario.

That sounds much better. You know you are in the ambush zone because you've already taken losses, but they aren't catastrophic. Another possibility might be a much longer map with a number of potential ambush sites to make the location of the ambush uncertain. Make the scenario short enough that the scouts can't be dismounted the whole way. It would also be nice if hauling heavy loads like Javelins made infantry tire faster and move slower. There currently seems to be little or no effect, despite what the manual says.

I've had Stryker 12.7mm and 40mm area fires at a building face simultaneous with an infantry squad "Quick" moving into the same building face. No friendly casualties, no friendly suppression. Allows for some rather gamey tactics. Things that go boom, like tank rounds, airstrikes, arty, and ATGMs definitely can hurt friendlies. Don't know about AT-4s, RPGs, or grenades. I noticed a similar oddity in CM1 with flame throwers. You could torch bad guys, with friendlies in the same room unaffected, unless the building itself caught fire.

You certainly can, if your scouts are already dismounted and loaded for bear with Javelins and extra ammo. My point was that none of the above solutions are practical in the real world unless you knew the approximate position of the ambush in advance. Bradley's can't be popping smoke the whole way up the road and scouts can't lug Javelins for mile-after-mile on foot. I guess the "real world" lesson is not to scout for AT ambushes with IFVs in broad daylight. Nighttime would be a different story with the US IR advantage.

I played a very slow game as well, but ran out of TOWs, Javelins, Apaches and even AT-4s. Last two T-62s wouldn't die despite repeated Apache strikes. They hunted down my empty ATGM Strykers, which I found out after the game were worth mucho points for the Syrians. Tactical defeat for me, despite owning Phaseline Charlie. The key mistake for me was bad AT ammo management. The lesson was: save the TOWs for tanks. The Apaches and Javelins were not very effective against tanks for me in this battle. Definitely a scenario worth playing again sometime. Desperation kills of T-62s with AT-4 flank shots was fun, :cool: .

It would be nice if there was an "Un-Acquire" command so you could put stuff back.

That's what your "overwatch" element is for: Strykers, Javelins, etc. They can still shoot through the holes in the wall at ground floor Syrians, just keep the overwatch Strykers out of RPG range (200m +).

I don't particularly like this scenario because "shameless abuse of prior knowledge" is the only way to have a reasonable chance of winning.

You are approaching the ditch too early. Keep your Strykers and infantry near your edge of the map and kill as many Syrians as possible from there. Start with a half-squad or two dismounted to act as "bait" so the Syrians fire and reveal their positions. Kill or suppress any revealed Syrians with the Strykers. Then dismount some Javelin teams to take out IDed Syrians in the upper floors. Then you are ready to advance some Strykers to the ditch with infantry mounted. Keep at least half your force back as overwatch. Syrians in ground floor positions will still be active, so don't park your Strykers in front of breaches in the wall (RPGs!). Dismount a halfsquad to peek through a breach and draw fire from ground floor Syrians. Kill/suppress IDed Syrians. Rinse, lather, repeat. By this point, most of the Syrians should be dead, so you should be able to safely drive a Stryker-bourne squad up to the main building where they can dismount and enter. Use smoke liberally.

This mission has gotten tougher with patch 2 & 3. Defenders are more aggressive. RPG 7s now fire out to 200m+ , are harder to suppress, and hit with alarming frequency at these ranges. In Elite play, RPGs will get off at least one round before being spotted, even with good overwatch. On the plus side, infantry is now less vulnerable. This makes dismounts useful for more than hauling Javelins or drawing fire. I like it.

On Elite the 155m take 8 or 9 minutes, depending on whether the FO or the Co HQ is doing the calling, and canceling fire can take a minute or two(!). This strikes me as a bit excessive. I understand that communications can sometimes go belly-up, but there's no indication that that's the case here. In fact I thought the point of having all those comms on the FSV was quick, immediate, real-time communication with the batteries. </font>

What Thelmia said. There is no need to take ANY casualties in this mission. Put javelin teams and good arty spotters on the berm. The javelins will take out most of the Syrian armor. Use the 155 arty to sterilize the trenches: Linear, Medium, Short, Personel, Immediate, etc. Then move the Arty to the long buildings in the compound. Use General munitions. Don't move your armor past the gap in the berm until the Javs have taken out most of the Syrian armor. Then use the M1s and 105 Strykers to take down small buildings, bunkers etc. The Syrians will surrender without your infantry and IFV Strykers ever coming out from safety of the berm. No need to even get near the Syrian compound! The second mission isn't quite so easy. By the way, I haven't seen the 155mm missions take more than 5-6 minutes with the FO or platoon leader spotting. 81mm should be about 1 minute.

Isn't this thread just the heavy-but-slow force vs the swift-but-light force argument? Toe-to-toe, with both units 0% attrition and fully stocked, in reasonably open terrain, the Heavy Brigades beat the SBCT. The SBCT shines in mobility and much smaller logistics tail. For the same amount of fuel, you can move 10 Stryker MGS the same distance as one M1. For the same amount of fuel you can move four Stryker vs one Bradley. The practical Stryker road speed is 50% higher than either the M1 or M2. The Heavys also need a much larger maintainence tail than the SBCT. The Stryker BCT would also appear to be better suited for MOUT and other dense terrain combat. So, these two brigade types address different environments. A logistics-rich open-terrain theatre favors the Heavys, especially if air support is thin. A logistics poor environment, dense terrain, or heavy air support favor the SBCT.

The reverse-crest tactic for ATs has been around since the dawn of CM. It's been used in every tournament I've been in with nary a peep from any one. So Jason is speaking strictly on his own here, and few CMers I've played with would favor banning this tactic. Jason is looking at this from the realism POV. From the POV of CM as a game, the "reverse crest" tactic has marginal impact. Speaking of guns in general, the best guns for AT work are the little German 1919 or 1937 75mm field guns, especially from Oct '44 when they come with a few "C" rounds able to kill most Allied tanks. They are good cheap HE chuckers as well, and most importantly, they are highly mobile (as guns go, anyway). Do NOT entrench these mobile guns in foxholes. That way, they can shoot-and-scoot before the inevitable mortar rounds start landing. If they are emplaced at edge of LOS (such as reverse-crest, etc.) with a move order 50 seconds into the "ambush" turn, they can get off 4-5 rounds before scooting from view. The mobility of these field guns can also be exploited to reposition them if the attacker advances on an unexpected route. This simply cannot be done with the immobile PAK 75s (and other heavy AT) without a transport vehicle. If you do desire transport for the small field guns, even a transport-class 4 vehicle is adequate, such as a Kubelwagon. The big PAKs, on the otherhand, require transport-class 7. [ December 15, 2006, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Broken ]

I am reasonably sure that they are not harder to spot. I think only sharpshooters are harder to spot, everybody else is the same modulo HQ bonuses. </font>

Sorry I couldn't get to this earlier, too bloody hot here to sit in front of a computer. I have played the scenario partway through about 9 months ago. The scenario was from a tournament that died. The map is 800 meters wide. I don't know the exact point count, but I would guess the Russian defenders get about 1300 points. The Germans get about 50% more. I can send you the file and you can study it from both sides. Like most Boots & Tracks scenarios, it is beautifully done. OK, Jason, you have beaten me down. How about a 1000 pt Russian defence, Oct 1943, Central Russia, 40 turns, large town, gentle slopes, dense woods, standard rarity, dawn, fog and rain, light or medium damage, unrestricted quality, unrestricted purchase, unrestricted division type? 300 pts maximum armor for both sides. Default for all other settings. No StuGs or tougher German armor. We play both sides, my Germans with minimum of 3 FTs, yours without FTs. Sound reasonable? Ladder and tournament games usually have higher point values. The best players like a lot of points because it evens out the bad luck. The match becomes a matter of skill only. Also, bigger games add a Grand Tactical dimension absent from smaller battles.

2000 pts Defense is not huge. It is less than half the maximum of 5000. The map is a decent 1500 meters wide. I burned out on 300 meter wide maps a long time ago. It is like playing chess on a board only two squares wide. The best element of human vs human CM is the uncertainty of what your opponent is going to do. Tiny maps and small unit counts remove most of the uncertainty, it is simply a straight ahead grind. No fun. Jason, you said FTs suck. I told you I had examples of games where they were highly effective, but you were not interested, since you knew they sucked. I have offered a fairly balanced QB where I could show you that they were effective, but you have insisted I needed the additional handicaps of a tiny game and no useful HE throwers with more armor than a Pz IV. I will meet you half way. Pz IV limit on armor, 2000 pt Russian defense, combined arms, village, dense woods, mod hills, light damage, Oct 43, central Russia, dawn, fog and rain, cool, still air, unrestricted division type, unrestricted quality, 45 turns, everything else default values. No conscript arty spotters. No other restrictions. We can play both sides if you like. If you don't like that, I have a Stalingrad scenario from Boots and Tracks that was designed for a tournament that never finished. It is the Red October factory with 7 depleted Guards platoons facing 10 depleted German platoons of various types. Both sides have a good selection of support weapons. The Germans have two StuGs (50mm) and two Pz IIIs plus a few halftracks and 2 FTs. The Russians get a few AT guns, mortars, MG bunkers, trenches, wire, TRPs, and minefields. There are other random units I can't remember. It is a well balanced game, according to Boots and Tracks, and the FTs play an important role. Or we can do a woods QB in 44 when the Germans have no armor advantage. Up to you. Heh! Check our member numbers, Jason. You are more newbie than I am. And we have had numerous discussions over the years dating back to the time of Fionn. And you have refused to play me in the past, saying you don't do games against ladder/tournament players. I have no problem with any of that except we are unlikely to finish quickly with any of the scenarios proposed above. Concerning egos, I am not a sore winner or loser, but I do play seriously. If you are truly interested in tactics and having fun, then playing quickly should not be important. Yes, playing on kilometer-scale maps adds a lot to the tactical richness of CM. It is like fighting several small battles at once. The coordination of those battles and your reserves is a dimension missing from small games.

That's not the point though, is it? The proposed game was meant to demonstrate the uberness of FTs. If you aren't going to buy many of them, what's the point? </font>

I have never gotten Jason to actually agree to a game. The game I proposed already favors his side (the Russians). I have played several very similar QBs and the win/loss ratio favors the Russian side.

Then you completely missed my point. I know that you think sharpshooters are a cost effective unit, but I doubt you buy more than one per 1000 pts. A 2000 pt defense is not a huge battle. Defendering players don't have much work to do any way, certainly no more than you have put into this thread to date. As usual, you are refusing to play me except under the most lopsided of conditions. Jason, you know as well as I do (or at least I hope you do) that even Russian 45mm AT guns, at 33 pts apiece, will wreck havoc on Panzer IVs at at the 200-300m ranges typical in dense forest. The Panzer IV is a good anti-armor tank at long range, it is crappy in a knife fight. I'll tell you what, I will limit myself to 50 mm armor if you limit the SMG component of your infantry to three platoons. If you insist the Germans give up their advantage, it would seem fair that the Russians give up some of their's as well. SU-76 pathetic? That would be news to some of the ladder players. The SU-76s carry triple the HE load of a Marder, easily penetrate the sides of StuGs and the fronts of Pz IVs, and sometimes get Tungsten rounds. Yes, in this time period, the German armor is better. But the Russian infantry is better as well. If you want to take away the German advantage, than the Russian advantage will have to go too. You listed many good ways to kill StuGs. I have also killed 80mm Stugs from the front with SU-76 T rounds. It is really not that hard to do. And the StuG HE load is less than an SU-76s. Tell you what. We can play the QB from both sides. I will use FTs in my attack and you will not in yours. We will see who does better.

A 600 point attack force would not justify the purchase of three sharpshooter, nor would it justify the purchase of three FTs (except possibly in fog at dawn or other low viz conditions). In neither case, sharpshooters or FTs, do I usually purchase more than one per thousand points. A 3000 point attack would allow purchase of enough FTs to reliably demonstrate their use. Also, I am curious to see how you defend in general. You have written some good posts on defense and I might learn something from a game. Anything over 50mm is "uberarmor"? Jason, any decent Russian defender can handle the ubiquitous StuGs in this time frame in dense woods. The LOS is rarely over 300m. Even the dirt-cheap 45mm AT guns can get frontal penetration on a StuG with T rounds. 76mm T-rounds do a very nice job, and an SU-76 is a lot cheaper than a German tank. The QB conditions I quoted favor the Russians already. AT mines in such constricted terrain make ubertanks cost-ineffective. I tell you what, let's switch sides, you can buy any "uberarmor" you want, and you can have 10 extra victory points. My point was that FTs will break anything. I agree that there are few units worth buying crack quality. Not by you, you mean. Like I said, QB conditions I stated favor the Russians with standard rarity, regardless of the German armor. Combined Arms limits the Germans to 600pts armor, anyway. I am willing to restrict German armor to 99mm max. If you think that is unfair, I would be more than happy to play the Russians. Or we can advance the date to 1944. There are plenty of effective Russian AT weapons then, but the Germans have plentiful SMG troops as well.

Yes, the key is not to over-purchase sharpshooters or FTs. Often, just a few of the "specialty" units is quite sufficient for even large battles. No, FTs are not as mobile or even as generally useful as sharpshooters. One would be foolish to purchase them in a desert battle, for instance. However, FTs have the following unique combination of features: 1) Extreme morale effect - even double morale-bonus entrenched crack troops will break under FT attack. 2) Infantry mobility - FTs can go where vehicles cannot, bringing high firepower into dense woods or inside factory complexes. 3) Superior to demo charges - geater effect, more controllable direct fire capability, much more ammo. There are techniques for getting more than two turns of area fire from an FT. However, you are generally correct; FTs have more useful ammo than SMGs, but not by much. If an FT can route two key squads in heavy cover, it has more than justified it's purchase price. The Germans don't get reasonable high-firepower squads until mid-43. Even so, none of these units have the shear firepower, at dirt-cheap prices, of the Ruskie SMGs. Direct fire HE is less effective in heavily built up areas, unless you are packing large caliber SP artillery. Even so, the interiors of factory complexes are not reachable by direct fire. The DCs are handy because they can take out minefields as well as supply big HE effects. However,Pioneers are difficult to directly control; they have a mind of their own about when they use their demo charges. The FTs put their fire where you tell them to. Heh, heh, that is a strawman argument. No decent player would purchase an entire German Pioneer company as their main infantry. That would be like purchasing only sharpshooters to show that they are effective units. If you would like to play a Russian 2000 pt defence, in Oct 43, dense woods village, 45 turns, standard rarity, combined arms, unrestricted division type, I will do my best to demonstrate the proper use of FTs. No good player that I know of uses "uber-armor", but you tell me what you want specifically banned. To get enough terrain variety, a larger QB like the one I described above would be necessary. After all, you know those flameboys are coming, so I am giving up the advantage of surprise. A 2000 pt defense is not a big burden on your time if you only send a file or two a day. I am in no big hurry.