jtcm

While waiting for a boat on the Greek island of Chios, after checking e-mail in an internet cafe, I fired up Call of Duty 2-- the first time I'd ever played a first person shooter. It was set in 1941-1942, and I played a Soviet soldier. After about 90 minutes, I felt nauseous, so stopped and went for a walk along the harbourfront. My boat was late. What a curious format-- a combination of Wolfenstein, whatever that game with the maze (where you had to pick up wands and jewels and potions), and some historical detail. It may be because I played it single player, but no provision for small-unit tactics-- i.e. no LMG covering fire, no fire and movement, only headless chickens with PPSh-41s. I also doubt a soviet soldier would lug a SMG and a rifle simultaneously... But some good, CMBB-ey moments: a firing line in a factory building, facing Germans in snowsuits in another factory building across a courtyard just broader than grenade range; a mad rush to man a blocking position in front of a German Co-strength surge (during which yours truly, in best CMBB fashion, unloaded a PPSh drum at a German squad which had unwisely bunched in cover) an immediate, hasty counterattack against the remnants of the German surge, firing from the hip; the counter-attack floundering against a German squad, with two LMGs, in good cover; the insistant murderousness of LMG fire; one lone tommygunner (yours truly) crawling forward under cover of dead ground, silencing a LMG with a grenade, and spraying the rest with SMG fire; the discovery that SMGs are not made for spraying and praying, but for short aimed bursts-- all good fun. Of no direct relevance, but interesting, at a different scale and with a different philosophy from CMBB,.. It may be that multi-player is different.

Whoo hoo ! Rock and roll. We want a. AARs from both side b. the scenario posted somewhere for downloading !

No offence meant (and this was discussed in earlier thread) but i dislike MEs against humans, because of their flag rushy element. Not realistic, surely; better probes, assaults, attacks.

What's the range of canister ? Fired at a HMG in support ? Either the HMG was at perilously short range, or the canister flew at the assault, since no gun would (I think) fire canister at a HMG 200m away.

Yes, advance, units within command range, short bounds. At least that's the theory; the problem with this sort of attack is winding down the clock and ammo reserves, ending with both sides showing negligible casualties (3-4 KIA in either column), You've still got to keep pressing your attack home.

T-34/76s, with deep HE reserves, can allow you to "pre-plaster" suspected enemy HMG positions: use liberally and see if sound contacts duck. HMG on your side need careful, thoughtful handling-- for instance to keep spotted enemies pinned while you creep closer

In relation to the original incident which started off this thread (and which looks like it was more complicated than Squatdog's description): do tanks fire canister, area fire, even when friendlies are within the danger cone ?

September 1941: a Co from a German Recon Battn advance, supported by two light tanks (37mm gun), aided by Stukas, through valleys, towards high ground, a N-S road perpendicular to the German axis of advance, and an enemy-held crossroads, next to which stand a church and some houses. A curious thing happened to Schmitz as he enters, with his half-squad, SMG at the ready, the tall inn facing the enemy held cross road : the floor suddenly explodes into flame, without warning. The fire spreads, then dies down. "Out !". The half-squad bursts out of the building, into the brush covered slope. A look back: the LMG element of the squad has set up in cover, they wave. Schmitz gestures to his small command: they move forward cautiously towards a clump of woods. An enemy team spotted inside the woods: mortar ? Move and fire, fire and move. But as the half-squad approaches the woods, a hail of enemy fire, close range SMG, pours out. The half-squad is wiped out. ***** The main effort: two plts (minus Schmitz's squad, sent as a flank guard and with instructions to probe aggressively), and one light tank, and heavy weapons support. Everyone sets up in woods, support elements at the ready, assault elements at jump off points. A Stuka zooms overhead, drops bombs on unseen enemy units. 81mm fire on suspected enemy-held woods. The enemy responds with mortar barrage of his own, which falls on squads as they leap frog forward: disorganization, then consolidation and advance. Enemy outposts spotted: concentration of LMG fire, at 100-150 m. The tank moves forward boldly, to support. Suddenly, without warning, fire bursts out around the tank; the turret is punctured, the TC killed. No way the tank can support infy now; it'll have to be done the hard way, with concentration of infantry light arms fire. ***** Muller's plt has come late to the fight, He moves forward, up slopes, 400 m to the right to the other platoons. A tank comes later on the scene, from earlier fighting. Muller sets up in woods: firebase, 50mm mortar. The tank draws up. Muller decides to accompany the tank forward. "Oh, look, there's Schmitz on our left". Schmitz goes down; as Muller deploys to engage the elements that wiped out Schmitz's half-squad, more Soviet infantry appears to his front, supported by MG fire from a tankette. As the firefight flares up, a curious thing happens to Muller: the woods around his position suddenly burst into flames. He retreats. Some of his squads are firing on the troops that destroyed Schmitz; a half-squad peels forward for the assault-- and is shot up by a hitherto hidden HMG. ***** The commander of the light tank accompanying Muller knows he should hang back, and support Muller, who is now engaged in a none too successful firefight. Instead, he rushes forward, destroying a Soviet tankette, past spotted enemy squads, reaching a road which sweeps north-south, swerves left onto this road, and drives through the enemy position, between the enemy's two lines, forward line of contact to his left, support elements to his right. Once he has passed through the enemy position, he turns round-- in time to engage and destroy enemy armour which has appeared in his tracks. [ May 11, 2007, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: jtcm ]

I don't know if anyone else has this sort of experience, in pure infantry assaults, with conscripts or better-- I apply the precepts, faithfully: set up weapons group, scout, move in bounds, weather long range HMG fire. Aha. enemy found. I set up firing line at 175m, blaze away, concentrating whole platoons on single squad, with HMG support. Minutes pass. Enemy squads go down, I place HMG fire on them to keep them pinned. I move forward to timidly. The clock winds down. When the game is over, I discover, to my dismay, that the enemy has lost one or two men per squad, but nothing much. For instance, the com-cam 1 scenario in TPG, 1941 German opposed river crossing (I tweaked the scenario to replace conscripts with regs): by the end, I usually have two full plts in cover, as fire bases, and one plt across the river, in cover-- all three platoons blazing away, with HMG and 50mm mortar support-- but all this barely makes a dent. The solution must be to get closer-- not to actually bayonet or overrun enemy positions, but to get some elements within grenade range. That, after all, is how the German handbooks prescribe it-- with half-squads of LMG support fire and SMG assault and grenade elements. But tricky in CMBB

Cheating in CM ? Surely not. I never felt that, even when I started playing CMBO as TCP-- and against some "Experten" (Sidewinder, etc), who played hair-raising, beautifully vicious, "matador" style CMBO, fully attuned to that game's specificities (killer arty, hardy infy). At times, I would lose games in15 turns, without quite knowing what had happened. What I quickly learned to dislike was something else than cheating -- cherry picking in QBs, so that one fought tedious battles against Brits with VT 155mm, Wasps and paras; StuGs in CMBB. -- fighting MEs with flag-rushers -edge-crawlers not cheating, but just as irritating.

I think draw was about right. Having taken a peek at the other side, I was struck how thin Sov. Cav forces are, with their 2 squad plts; also the plethora of support stuff, not that handy in this sort of assault. Once you set up your LMGs, mortars, etc, and discover that you have to re-emplace, you're reduced to pursuing with pretty thin infantry forces (which rapidly wear out in the snow), while the heavy weaponry has to trail behind. Ordering everyone out of the balka and towards the station was a bit sneaky of me-- I hoped my opponent would carefully approach and surround the balka while my guys legged it. I;ve tried AI version (with flags in the station to make AI do something). When playing the Rumanians, it's noticeable that any 'stay-behind' breakwaters rapidly get overwhelmed, even by the AI (but they do give time for everyone else to scram). When playing the Soviets, I noticed how pesky any defence using guns inthe balka, as a reverse slope is-- a solution I briefly considered, before wondering how I'd get anyone out of that deathtrap. ***** On this game, the losses were (IIRC) 78 men down Runanians, 47 Soviets (11 KIA to 14 KIA or something like that). 1 T-34 out, 1 T-70 damaged.

Rumanian round-up, played vs. Chris Hall, winter 2006-7. (edited, upon suggestion of J. Kettler, to avoid spoilers) Do not read if you want to play this JasonC-authored scenario for the first time ! * * * * * * * * * * * * The situation: retreat towards Stalingrad, N. arm of the pincer; Rumanian rear-guard, Co. strength, well-armed. 2 plts (4 squads + 1 tank hunter unit each). One good heavy weapons group: 1 "French 75mm", 1 47mm ATG (no shield), 2 ATRs, 2 HMGs, 2 60mm mortars; 2 trucks. One Co. command group. The present situation: troops resting in balka from pursuers, who lurk just beyond the 250m visibility range. They will have armour. Snow driving in wind. Steppe stretches in all directions, with small hummocks and patches of rough. 700-800m to the W, a railway embankment and a station: shacks, bushes, trees. Beyond, the exit zone of the map (let's say zone covered by another rear-guard unit). The aim: delay the Russians, get my troops out of harm's way. One way of doing this: sacrifice one plt, one ATG, one HMG; march the others off the map. I don't like this; cannot bring myself to order one unit to the slaughter. All will be saved, or lost-- together. The heavy weapons, some on foot, some on truck, make for the railway station, to emplace there. The infy plts are spread out as a screen, and once the weapons are well on their way, start falling back, with covered arcs at maximum visibiity range. The idea is to shoot at and pin any infantry pursuers, while falling back in bounds, in groups of 2 squads, until reaching cover just in front of the positions held by the heavy weapons. Fire at infantry, with all assets; lure Soviet armour into range of the ATGs, take out the armour, withdraw the infantry to cover just outside the exit zone, withdraw the heavy weapons under cover of smoke and fire. Tall order. All it would take for this to change into slaughter is a single tank pressing agressively. My gamble: the Soviets will move on to the balka cautiously. Once they discover the bird has flown the nest, they will press on aggressively to catch up. The plt on the left makes its way without problem to the railway station. I leave one squad and the tank hunter after all, at a hummock in the steppe, in the hope of catching any tanks that come close to the infy firing line. The plt itself occupies cover, in front of half the heavy weapons: 1 ATR, 1 HMG, 2 mortars, and the Company command group. Nothing much happens on this sector, so 2 suqads are ordered to slip away. On the right half, the ATGs set up in woods. One truck bogged down. In front of them, 1 HMG in a shack, 1 ATR in brush. On this side, action heats up. As the infantry falls back, it starts sighting enemy infantry, which it drives off with LMG and rifle fire. It occupies positions in weak cover in front of the heavy weapons. It is worth noticing that there are 5 layers of cover. 1. Closest to Soviets, clumps of brush, rough and trees, occupied by the infantry. 2. On the "far side" of the railway embankment, houses, including one occupied by a HMG. 3. On the "near side" of the railway embankment, trees, brush, occupied by the ATGs. 4. Behind this, a line of shacks and clumps of trees. 5. A line of cover just before the exit zone. Soon Soviet tanks appear in line: they move forward with infantry, and soon begin toroot out and destroy the Rumanian platoon. Its squads die, some immediately, some later, overrun and shot up by infantry. A tank also shells the house occupied by the HMG, and collapses it on top of the machine gun, killing 2 of the crew. But the tank moves into range of the 75, and is destroyed: a T-34, the most potent tank of the pursuit group (the Soviet company commander was riding it into the assault). Soviet infantry moves up, a whole co. ? It charges into mortar fire, directed by the company command group which has relocated to obtain LOS (from cover layer 4). 70 rounds sent downrange, first at the foremost Soviet squad, which is trying to flank the Rumanian line, then at the main Soviet units; the mortar units bug out. The 75mm fires all of its HE at advancing Soviet infantry, which doggedly keeps closing; Soviet armour weaves in and out of range, to get potshots and to try to distract the 75, which once puts a round through a Soviet turret, without destroying the tank, perhaps panicking the crew or damaging the gun. The Soviet infantry gets pressing closer, but takes losses from infantry small arms fire, notably from the company command group, and a LMG-armed half-squad shifted from the remainder of the left flank. Is that a Soviet company commander which just went down ? The 47mm isn't sure whether to fire AP at the Soviet tank it is trading fire with, to no effect, or HE at Soviet infantry. The Rumanian ATR occasionally gets a round off. Generally, if the Soviet infantry set up firebases and fired away at the ATGs, it would obtain pins; but it keeps on charging into HE. On the left, Soviet infantry appears-- a platoon, spread out in half squads ? It overruns the anti-tank outpost. A tank gets close, unrattled by a stream of ATR bullets pinging off its turret. The tank fire, 45mm, routs the Rumanian HMG, after the latter wipes out a Soviet half-squad. The Soviet infantry tries to rush the left flank, but takes losses when it stumbles into the fire of the last Rumanian units on this side: a plt commander and a half-squad— 2 SMGs, 7 rifles. These elements soon run off to cover layer 4, dodging Soviet 50mm mortar fire. The ATR on this side keeps firing, even though he is doomed. Meanwhile, on the right, the ATR is long dead; Soviet fire— mortar, tank, infantry small arms— destroys the Rumanian ATGs: the first 47mm, then the 75mm, which has been firing at infantry at ever decreasing range. By this time, the Co. command element has withdrawn. first to rear cover (layer 5), then off the map. Soviet elements have destroyed the HMG, capturing one crew member; turned the flank; one squad is now running down the rear of the position once occupied by the Co, command. The remaining elements from the left flank platoon take the Soviet squad under fire. Some of these elements also run off the map, with some difficulty. All that remains on the map are one routed Rumanian squad, a routed Rumanian HMG, and a Rumanian ATR, still stubbornly pinging away at a Soviet light tank, oblivious to the rest. Soon the shack collapses on the team, and wipes it out. Result: a draw ***** "Captain Tunaru's back, Sir". "Tunaru ? Still alive ? What did he manage to save this time, apart from his skin ?" "One platoon (reduced strength) and a few squads, two mortars (no ammo), one HMG team, one truck, one team of truck drivers". "No guns ?" "Both lost, Sir, with their crews". "Did he give the Bolsheviks hell ?" "He thinks so. They kept pressing at the point where he had his heavy weapons, instead of going round" "Good" [ February 14, 2007, 03:41 AM: Message edited by: jtcm ]

JasonC: Actually, your point is perfectly fair re. original question. "Why such heavy losses even in 1944"— doctrinal choice (infantry rather than armour break ins, hoarding armour), poor execution (as opposed to good operational concepts).

Thinking about it some more, I think what puzzled me about JasonC's post was the possible conflation between two points: A. Doctrinally / theoretically, is it better to effect break in of continuously held MLR with tank force or with Rifle Battns in frontal assault ? — JasonC seems to hold the former, on various grounds (timing of counter stroke); Rifle better for myriad other duties, notably infilitration and flooding MLRs with gaps. etc. B. Historically, break-ins with Rifle assets in the assault role were often badly executed, and hence jeopardized the whole sequence of the assault anyway. But it doesn't have to be this way; and (as discussed in earlier threads) all the elements are there for effective use of this sort of force (pathfinders who use stealth, grenades and "balls of brass", to quote a memorable JasonC post; follow up elements with organic heavy weapons, attacking in column. I seem to remember that the Russians fight increasingly well with this sort of assets, from 1943 onwards. Will look at "that" thread again.

Within the doctrinal choice of sparing armour and leaving the break in to massed infantry, the question becomes to what extent tactics were applied-- whether more infantry attacks were carefully prepared applications of tactics, or dawn human waves-- when, and where ?

All very interesting (and the scenarios look very interesting, too). I'm just a bit puzzled; I'd read earlier posts by JasonC, something like "how to fight like a Russian" or "how the Russian tactical system works", which actually extolled its flexibility, simplicity and effectiveness (notably explaining how tank riders + T-34s make for effective solution at taking apart infy +ATGs based defences). What JasonC seemed to be saying was that the Soviet precisely did not fight with the "Bolshevik hordes" in human wave, but careful tactical solutions (Rifle forces advance, meet HMG fire, hit the ground, call up organic fire support, fight like the dickens to make headway, or not)-- which in fact (I thought) lay at the basis of JasonC's much admired and imitated "attritionist model" as applied by counbtless CMBB battn commanders. And now... I see JasonC writing in favour of maneuverism; and posting long posts which seem to argue for (historically) human waves machined gunned down while shouting hurrah. What gives, in the end ?

JasonC must be correct re "ATGs"-- either my mistake or the translator's: so ATRs used against embrasures, windows, punching through cover and keeping heads down, rather than 3 76mm guns-- that would make the 45mm ATG rather redundant. So yet another reason to keep ATRs in action-- the Sov. version of the .50 M2 used against fortif. ! Not sure CMBB models this v. well. Another translation problem may be that of floors/ storeys-- were small-calibre guns placed in the "basement" or the "lower floors" i.e. ground floor (first floor in US usage). ?

Just bought a s-hand copy of Chuiko'vs memoirs, vol. 2-- up to and including battle of Berlin. What surprised me was his extreme attention to the detail of infantry tactics, and small unit actions. In urban fighting in Berlin, the "recipe" as applied by 8th Guards is as follows. Careful scouting meets with enemy opposition, usually strongly held buildings, with HMG and rifles for long-range fire from the top stories, and a small calibre gun + SMG elements in ground floor; also interlocking fire support from neighbouring building. Step 1: set up support weapons, to "frame" the building, i.e. isolate it from any infantry reinforcements. Set up direct fire elements; 3 ATGs (I assume 76 mm), 1 45 mm, mortars. 2. Suppressive fire on all windows; 45 mm has specific mission to take out the german HMG, then fire at targets of opportunity, i.e. any "jack in the box" units that pop up back after suppressive fire lifts. 3. Assault unit, prob. 1 plt with SMGs, closes under cover of suppressive fire, to grenade range; breaks into building, takes out German gun with SMG fire. Support units move up immediately. During assault, supportive fire shifts to neighbouring buildings. German counters: immediate counter-attacks, or, refined solution: counter-attack that "fails" drawing Soviet pursuit, probably without heavy weapons yet set up to support, and straight into close range ambushes. -- Nothing new; but vividly and simply written. Quite clear, too, that the assault units have the hardest job, and that Chuikov singles out leaders of such units for special bravery and competence under fire.

Two further notes 1. In Spring 2001, while browsing in the Borders bookstore in the WTC, I noticed a book re Sov Army in WW II, collection of studies on themes-- read v. good chapter on rocket arty, "Katyushas". Instead of the usual guff (rain of death, Stalin's Organ, etc), it was a hard-headed analysis of the "managerial" problems of this type of arty-- distribute or concentrate ? Each choice entailed sacrifices and advantages. There was also long, thoughtful report on all the things that were wrong with rocket arty. -- Can anyone identify the book ? 2. Reading the thread makes me wonder about post WWII Sov doctrine, with its formulaic solutions and "spreadsheet" approaches. Did Nato come up with good ways of countering the problems of defence against the Soviet Style ? (I ask as a once enthusiast TacOps player-- who was looking forward to Panzers East !, MajorH's never completed Eastern Front game-- but then CM came along)

How do tanks fit in the picture at rifle level ? Would they be rare, because of choice not to penny-packet, and concentration in higher formation for break through fighting by mech elements ? Their place taken by SU-76s ? By 76mm firing direct ? (again, consequences for your average CMBB scenario).

V. interesting summary of JasonC's sense of how Soviet grand tactics work. Some remarks, /en vrac/ Where does this style come from ? This is at a much lower level than "deep battle", operations, etc. Not "armour-boy" style thinking, but SOPs forged in the 1941-1942 fighting ? Response to particular pressures in command structure ? We want more scenarios with foot recon and shock groups ! Relentless, fighting like the dickens-- operative words. Hence the particular horror of defending against this still of offence. How does arty above field level work in this system ? As godlike, but unresponsive prep fires, only loosely linked to the antlike action at Battn level ? There must be a set of guidelines for genrating scenarios and QBs in there, but I'm too lazy to generate it.

Notice how the real-life SOP is different from CMBB-- the Russian manual tells the ATR team to let the tank come close and go for a kill, the CMBB player often lets the ATR plink away at long ranges, to button up. So what gives-- does the CMBB simulation in fact allow us to model a better use than the actual manual ? does CMBB allow us to rediscover what was 'field practice' rather than the fieldbook's regulations ? Do CMBB players use ATRs better than actual Soviet WWII soldiers do ? -- a question I often have when comparing CMBB performance and historical narrative or historical documents such as the manuals translated above.

Yes, I think that was my point, which I expressed unclearly-- CM models the actual assaulting as v. effecting (grenades take out tanks)-- but the problems are spotting, since the "close assault" is in effect an abstraction of heroes with Teller minen sneaking up, but the squad is still a single. persistently spotted target. Wray describes how strongpoints would have spiderweb of trenches surrounding them, specifically to allow fast relocation of tank hunting teams, to get close to T-34s when they tried to overrun or by pass-- that just doesn't work in CMBB.

Yet it worked in 1941-- I wonder if CMBB does't make close assault of tanks a bit harder than it should be ? I know, topic's been done to death.

As I embark on a PBEM game of the Chir engagement secnario by JasonC, am rereading the splendid piece re German defence, by Timothy Wray Wray German tactics against armour, in the absence of tanks or even ATGs: sit tight strip the infy from thanks, with liberal lashings of HMG, mortar and arty wait for tanks to come close destroy as many as possible at close range (molotov cokctails, grenade clusters) those that get through are taken out by ATGs or armour in depth. i.e. 1941 "tanks, schmanks" style defence -- does this work at the CMBB scale ? and what's the best counter ? -- except for just "wait for infy to catch up while we T34-76s plaster suspected HMG and infy positions with our endless HE" ?