jtcm

Thanks, makes good sense. I remember seeing a picture (probably from Signal or some such publication), in which German ATG crew celebrated brewing up a T-34. The background of the photo was a ridge; the T-34 was was taken out once it crested this ridge, the gun is in a camouflaged pit, but basically just sitting in the open, probably at the bottom of the valley or perhaps the start of the rise of the 'second slope".

I once saw a picture of an ATG bunker on a Normandy beach-- it did not face out on to the sea and the whole beach, but was oriented to shoot along the beach (enfilade ?), with its side towards the sea (and, i should add, not a slab of concrete, but a 45 degree sloped side). I've tried this when siting ATGs in CMBB-- to fire with a narrow keyhole that cuts across the whole map, perpendicular to the axis of advance which I assume the enemy will adopt; the ATG shielded by a LOS block (usually woods), themselves defended by wire, mines and a squad, to prevent the ATG from being close assaulted. But can't quite get it to work.

Wow. Time for scenarios / QBs !

Correct a sentence above to "Short answer: to keep the other guys busy while the assaulting Co., well, assaults..."

Most helpful. The last two games I played, indeed, I did try launching an infy Co. at at Battn-sized position. What was I thinking ??-- probably to devour the plt at the point I had chosed to overload (well, with 2 plts), then roll up a flank. Um, it doesn't work that way-- why else do attackers have to have the numbers edge ? Short answer: to keep the other guys busy while the assaulting plt, well, assaults (by moving plts to flank positions, or shooting from within the depth of the column, or manoeuvers out onto the open squad by squad, or whatever). D'oh ! In other words, my Co. "manoeuvers" against the AI should be either: 1. Battn against Battn, with e.g. one Co. assaulting, one Co assets specifically allocated to protect the flanks of the point Co. by drawing fire of the enemy line, and one Co, to follow up. The Co. in the attack (with its various problems of how to locate heavy support weapons, and how to manage the developing of plts on the ground once under fire) is part of a larger ensemble, but this ensemble frees it to concentrate on its job, local fire and manoeuver. 2. Co. against plt, i.e. driving in a plt. outpost-- perfectly realistic situation, too (I think often given in tactics manuals as one of Co infantry's jobs). Back to practice.

Got you, thanks. But if more enemies pop up to stop my second plt, and my heavy weapon group starts to silence them, it means I have to take them off relieving the point plt / killing enemies in front, at the point of attack. I mean, a Co in the attack has 2 HMGs and a mortar or two ? (the JasonC style "toolbox" used long range). Nice point re. using firepower to ease rotating the lead units and withdrawing them.

The fine art of leading a infy co. in the attack-- surely the best use of fighting against the AI, to practise co. commander skills. Anyway, I tried again: lead plt forward, hits enemy line of resistance, second plt swings left-- and, presto, gets hit by all kinds of fire from other parts of enemy line; it being the AI, you can see squads scurrying forward to relocate to join in the fun. So when choosing approach route: important to visualize how the fight will develop, once the lead plt has found cover and is exchanging fire with the enemy line-- where do the follow up elements go ? -- Have a plan: e.g. mask them from the rest of the enemy line, with smoke, while they flank; or have a covered route by which you can feed them, squad by squad, into the firing line to relieve the lead plt. before it's bled dry; or have a plan to leap frog them past the lead plt, once the heavy weapons have started making an impact; or... But keep active, and avoid "foot traffic jams". OK, will try this I wonder how, in real life, you carry out as delicate an operation as withdrawing a lead plt under fire, to relieve it ? I mean, if you do it at one go, e.g. by masking with smoke, the enemy can simply retire to another position; if you do it piece meal, without CM style godlike control, doesn't it turn into a churning mess ?

I attack with infantry-- having read the JasonC posts, i try to attack in depth, in a column. OK, so a company attacks: heavy weapons emplaced, a few h/squads as flank security or deception or scouts across the map, and one sector chosen as the focus of the attack: two plts one behind another, 2 squads frontage with hq in middle, and maybe the Co commander leading a group of the left overs from the third plt, and also to collect any stragglers. The lead plt jumps off. Moves from over to cover. Takes HMG fire. No matter, JasonC's written the book: some units hide and recover, other units continue moving. Cover arcs, 150 m. After soaking up a lot of HMG ammo, finally contact is made, the shooters localized, around 200 m or less. My own HMGs and mortars can start to play on the localized enemy line. My lead plt takes up positions at 150-180 m from the enemy line. This is when I never know what to do with the follow-up units: should they deploy around the lead plt (which is formed up in a firing line) ? If so, they often attract unwanted attention from other parts of the map. Should they move forward ? if so, they usually mash up into the lead plt, into a bit foot traffic jam. Should they wait ? If so, the lead plt just fires away its ammo

Jean Norton Cru, the French historian (and veteran) of WWI, has something in his seminar work "Du temoignage": in modern warfare, as much as possible, no one aims for even match ups, but always for slaughter: infantry gets it from e.g. mgs or field arty, field arty gets it from heavy arty, heavy arty gets it from the air. Hence the immense strains and terrors of modern warfare; hence Norton Cru's disbelief of any "witness" account with chivalrous jousts, rather than mechanical boredom for the appliers, and abject terror for the sufferers, of oerwhelming violent means of destruction. I don't mind this principle being applied in my CM scenarios. Long live assymetrical mismatches !

Played the first of JasonC's RtoL scenarios, the one where a Soviet battery is attacked by German troops. I played this three times against AI-- but this would make a very good two player little game. Spoilers * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * I played this three times against AI-- but this would make a very good two player little game. I think the briefing should give an idea (to the Soviet players) of WHERE the approaching sounds are from, nd perhaps a landmark saying "Enemy activity ??". Else, simply tell the Soviet player-- all's quiet, all's well. Each time, AI attacked in column down the left side of map. First time: I ordered all guns to bug out. 4 got out. Second time: I tried to fight with 2 guns, 4 got out. Third time: I ordered everyone to stay and fight. Rushed the commander in his jeep to command the two guns and the infantry. Moved the infantry to covered positions in the scattered trees in the centre. The Germans marched into crossfire (small arms, 76 mm direct and area) from the front and from their right, and died in droves. All three times, a draw. Perhaps not the best game for AI-- I noticed that the Germans come with all kinds of toys (82 mm, MG 34), and lots of transport: even if the Soviet gunners decide to stand and fight, it should be easy (with 20 min rather than 15) to destroy the guns one by one.

Yippeeeee !

"Forgotten battles of the north; road to Leningrad 1941" --seriously: keep the 1941 focus !

Can't wait for the scenarios: early war, and with 'asymetrical" objectives !

What is this movie, in fact ? OSS training movie, from 1944 ? Did they get a bunch of people in German uniforms to perform "German tactics" ? Or could this be a captured, and redubbed, German training or propaganda movie of e.g. 1940 ?

Then, of course: what does Katyusha fire, concentrated, ("sea of fire", etc), do to the tanks ? Kill crewmen ? Jam communications stuff, throw tracks ? Hit at the "soft" parts of the armoured fist ?

Just to help me visualize: Katyushas used to break up / stop tank concentrations viz advances: what are we talking about in terms of CMBB ? A typical case, what would it be ? I assume it's just behind the jump off point for assault-- by what ? (Panzer Division ? The sharp end thereof ? Meaning a battn strong force of tanks ? Moving off in armoured wedges ?) How many tanks ? Stuff along with tanks ? E.g. HTs ? HTs with mortars ? Towed guns in the assault ? Fuel, etc ? Technical staff, command elements ? Infantry ? What rains down on them, in CM terms ? One 132 FO ? Several ? Sorry for these elementary questions.

Hi Adam-- I've no desire to make you eat humble pie or wear a hair shirt (I'm sure JasonC's modesty would forbid that), but could you spell out what follows from what you just posted ? I.e. are you now of the view that tactical test cases show that CM modelling is OK, i.e. there is no "super open" terrain in realistic and reasonnably RL combat conditions ? Best wishes for 2009

or just plain tired

I see 2 strands here. To simplify-- 0. Premiss: in war people do not get gunned down with 100% losses to 100% accuracy. 1. JasonC: this is because in real life, human behaviour means that people break off etc, so 100% slaughter doesn't happen. Adam: OK, but in CM, it *should* occur, if troops force attack over certain types of terrain-. THe consequence is that the CM player would be forced to behave like real life ("no way we're going over the top sarge", "that's just suicide"). In other words, by implementing the possibility of 100% slaughter, CM would mercilessly simulate what never happens in real life, and for good reason. 2. JasonC: 100% slaughter doesn't happen because, even in best terrain, there is no "rifle range accuracy" or "fps accuracy", people shelter behind dead bodies or lie down behnd their packs or get lucky. [i would add: maybe all those combat psy studies show that people are so scared or hyper in combat they just don't shoot v. well, even Boers with Mausers, even Germans with MG 42s ranged, etc. ]. So CM shows this OK. Adam: that I find difficult to believe, that there isn't terrain where tactically, any kind of advance would be wiped out. It just can't be the case that, in real life, you can CM-advance in *any terrain at all*. JasonC: we need to prove this. ***** Apologies for putting words and thoughts to interlocutors. On strand 1 I agree with Adam, on strand 2 I agree with JasonC. Not sure where that leaves me.

Thank God hate training didn't catch on. Or maybe it did ?

Thanks, John. Such a good piece of writing by Wigram, too (gutful individuals !-- in plain English, "nutters"). Reminds me of something JasonC once wrote: elite units not made up of supermen, just guys who turn up on time and do what they're told, as a unit, under any conditions, no matter how dangerous or disgusting. Reminds me of Steinbeck's descrption of seeing SAS or commandos in Italy in '43: lots of expectation about the heroes of derring 'do, but finally sees 6 very tired, very small, very dirty men with huge packs, brewing tea. Have read Bourke, on and off, quite illuminating about how vile WWII really was; Grossman, only know as a name. Will look up !

John: do you mean this man http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/Wignam.txt (Lionel Wigram ?)

Yes, but I thought Marshall had been pretty discredited by now ?

Adam: like Diesel says, perhaps, in combat situation, people actually a lot more reluctant to fire, or a lot more prone to miss (adrenaline rush, etc) than could be expected. CM style casualties inflicted by the 10% natural killers ?

If I understand correctly-- Adam: under certain conditions, all things being equal, firepower against units in open ground should be absolutely lethal. CM doesn't show this right. JasonC: open ground is never a billiard table, and all things are never equal (defending units need only inflict some casualties for attackers to break off, defenders need to conserve ammo). CM represents things fine. Adam: there must be some situations where open ground is "super open"; if there are "real life" reasons why people don't get slaughtered in open ground, CM should represent this, i.e. defenders must be suppressed or masked, or there should be an ammo incentive for them to keep things reasonable, or the attackers should automatically be forced to ceasefire if they take e.g. 20% casualties. Or something like that. Personally I want a WWI game, early, with ranged rifle fire at 800m. As an addendum to Laffargue's narrative: 1. 800 m is the longest range on the graduated sliding backsight on the Lebel; beyond that, you have to flip up a fiddly, C19th style ladder sight that goes up to 2000m. DUring long range fire fights, easier, perhaps, to shout "800m" i.e "extreme long range on your rifle sights" and let everyone blaze away (rather than shout "1100m" and have every one fiddle with the ladder sights". 2. French conscripts, rural, hunters-- might also explain good long range skills of the 1914 French infy.