jtcm

CMSF: talk about jumping the shark...

JasonC-- I must admit I can fight a plt across the ford, an start "swinging the door"-- but even so, I find that I've run my HMGs low, and can't break the Russian 12-men squads in their shacks. Would you like to PBEM this tactical problem ? I would propose that you play the attackers (with regulars rather than conscripts), in 2 games: one where I as the defender keep the AI style setup (Russian plt in village, small holding force on wings), one where I try to cover the ford with more forces. Both on 45 minute timescale. If interested, e-mail me (johnma@ccc.ox.ac.uk)

The ComCam (company Campaign) 1 scenario at The Proving Grounds actually shows what you're saying, JasonC, if you tweak it and play around with it. Basic situation: Russian well armed plt in light buildings, across river. You attack with a full company with HMG support. Experiment. If you want, you can move say 2 plts to 150-170m of the enemy line. Then what ? You trade fire, you concentrate plt fire on squads. You can do so for a half hour, the clock runs out-- you find out that even at that range (good for rifle and LMG), even if you replace the scenario's conscripts with regs, even concentrating fire, you've killed only a few enemy, and burned through most of your ammo. So you have to close in, in this scenario by flanking and closing, wih the other plts offering suppressive fire. Walpurgis' intricate half-squads in the defence was partly about scattering the posibilities for attacker's fire integration

I agree with that, Slappy. I assume that was a lesson real life units learnt: save the ammo for closer (300m or less) range fights, even if you can see enemy positions; and it's all too easy to lose a game because by the time you've approached, you've only got a few minutes left. What you want is to be at 150-170m, with plts concentrating rifle and LMG fire-- and even so it doesn't always work. (I'm the only one to believe this, but I propose that winning the firefight depends on disrupting long range overwatch, and disrupting the tempo of enemy firefight (i.e. having enough, varied "jack in the box" units popping back up and firing back to make the systematic, sweep-the-enemy-out of his firing positions, plt concentrations of fire impossible. If anyone can understand the previous sentence pls write to me

The quality improves as the campaign goes on. But I agree that regulars or green might make sense. In the first engagement, the point is that the troops haven't seen action before. (the first engagement would be better as an Attack than as a Probe).

I highly recommend the "Company Campaign" scenarios at The Proving Grounds-- Axis against AI, recognizable tactical problems (Co forces crossing against defence), set in 1941 with 9as far as I can tell) good 1941 conditions and equipment, and (for me at least) quite tough.

Thumbing through Max Hastings, Armageddon, noticed the chapter on East Prussia. Made a quick scenario afterwards: Jan. 1945, dawn, Volksturm Co with depleted ammo, a 50mm ATG, dug in trenches on the side of a railway embankment crossing the frozen landscape, driving snow. Russian attack, infy battn with T-34 support. After 60 min, a Vet Infy Co with StuG plt comes to relieve the Volksturm, who bug out. Makes for a simple scenario against the AI. In real life: the Soviets come forwards hesitantly, under long range fire from the boys in their trenches. Finally T-34s come in, then retreat under fire from Fausts. During lull, Volksturm relieved. In CMBB: Soviets rush, die, rush, swamp the place.

Played a TCP game against GravesRegistration lately-- Spring 1945, Soviet attack (he took Poles), 800 points. I concentrated my meagre forces (VG Co, ATG, 20mm AA, mortar, Schreck) in a "hedgehog" in trenches with what I hoped was good cover and good LOS blocks; various OP and blocking elements (including a keyholed StuG) across rest of the map. GR came on with an assault column-- a whole Bttn of pioneers. If the lead elements came under long range HMG fire, other plts just swarmed forward. If the lead elements came across an "up" force, they formed a base of fire, and other plts deployed right and left into a firing line, at about 150m with concentrated rifle fire; if my men withdrew into wooded cover, pioneers closed in and delivered a rolling carpet of demo charges and rushes. There also was a plt of T-34/85s, and various elements in oerwatch, including mortars. It worked: steamrolled through my delaying elements, then hooked across the map, to fight the hedgehog, with long lines of riflemen deployed at good range to concentrate fire. That and the survivng tank did the trick. Dunno if this is a historical way of using pioneers; but it was splendid, concentrated aggression.

I may just lack imagination, but I find it so difficult to actually visualize what goes on in battle and in combat-- true for WWII, true for black powder warfare, true for edged weapon combat. You might as well try to write the story of a ball. -- but please carry on the discussion: illuminating, and well beyond r-Oman-esque views of "column vs. line" which dominates e.g. popular fiction on Nap. warfare.

I like the setup, but this is my experience with 200-- Sov Infy moves out. Ger ATG fires, taken out by mortars and return fire. Sov Infy stalls under Ger HMG fire. Ger infantry starts to run out towards the map in the rough; gunned down in the wire. Sov Infy reaches rough, but still taking HMG fire Sov 120 mm and 122 fall on rough (120) and woods (122). More Ger Infy runs out and is gunned down. The clock is running out, so I move the remaining (1 or 2) T-34s up to the woods, where they canister Ger infy. -- is there any way of making AI Ger infy stay put ?

I like Bartov's stuff (I read his book on Hitler's army at the same time as Christopher Browning, and come to think of it at the same time I visited the "Vernichtungskrieg" exhibition at the Museum for the History of Hamburg, around 1993, the one with the photographs and the extracts from German letters), and wouldn;t exactly call it revisionist (reserving that term for Holocaust deniers); and Catherine Merridale's Night of Stone is a very moving history of death in the Soviet Union-- and the repressed memories of suffering. The Merridale, and the Bartov, is not about painting glowing image of the Soviet system; but to comment on the experience of the Soviet soldier, caught in circumstances of incredible hardship. The review is humane, and powerful, and I found the last paragraph deeply moving.

In the latest Times Literary Supplement, there's an excellent, and movng review of Vassily Grossmann's wartime notes (presernted by Anthony Beevor and others), and Catherine Merridale's book on the Gr. Patriotic War seen at "grunt level" by the Soviet soldier, and his incredible suffering and sacrifice TLS Bartov review

JasonC-- Like a good professional cardplayer or gambler, you're a good spread-sheeter. You're right, of course, that the overwatch rallied, the manoeuver platoons unpanicked, and that the whole machine could have ground on say 10 min. later (at which point i got bored with playing against (with ?) myself. You're also right that fire against the elements in the open was possible at anytime; it's just that the "local counter-battery' strike against o'watch made it that bit more difficult for the Soviet to supress the German fire elements-- in other words, the Germans got say 5-10 minutes of "turkey shoot'. I suspect that in real life (to pick up on something you wrote in an earlier post), that might be enough to make an attacking force pause for thought, and extend the timeframe to the half day or so that real life AARs seem to show for this sort of action. In CMBB, if the attacking player keeps his "gambler's nerve" and presses on once things have settled down, the attacker will come back and grind forward to make contact, with a defender this time without 120mm or 81 mm. Psychologically, I'd say that's the right time to unveil the next trick-- if only I knew what it was.

I hotseated a little test scenario: 2 Cos Soviet Rifle infantry, 1943, attacking over sparsely wooded terrain, against 2 plts of German standard rifle infantry + 2 HMGs in trench + 1 on map 81mm + 1 FO 120mm + 1 Flak 20mm + 3 TRPs Soviets set up 2 overwatch groups: a small one in a patch of rough (officer + 2 HMGs). a larger one in a patch of woods (officer +sniper + ATR + 2 HMGs + 4 50mm mortars). Germans: HMGs in trench in front of patch of woods with officer, + FO and mortar in command range; 1 plt in cover in centre of map; 1 plt scattered as "reinforced LMG" nests'; 20mm in back of map. TRPs on likely (well, I knew which, since I was playing both sides) overwatch positions. Soviet "firepower attack" ground forward, came into contact with the first German plt. At this point, I threw everything I had at the "large' overwatch group (which I had some spots on)-- 2 minutes of 120mm, 81 mm, area fire by HMGs and 20mm Flak. The area fire by weapons not terribly effective; the arty panicked one HMG, depleted another HMG team, killed sniper, ATR and 2 out of 4 mortar teams. 1 more minute of 120 mm on the "small" overwatch group panicked one HMG team (which ran off the map), killed the officer. It's true that the overwatch groups rallied. But the "strike" gave the Germans time to switch fires on to the Soviet manoeuver elements-- and rout those which were in the open. Worth bearing in mind, i think.

The issue is whether the right target for HE is the enemy's infantry, or the support elements. I'm under the impression that the support elements really give the assault elements the necessary bite-- i.e. without support weapons, it's difficult for straight infy to duke it out against defensive positions. So (to revise my scenario) perhaps it's not so much a question of duelling overwatch elements (as JasonC writes) with a hope to knock them out, as putting enough HE and area fire on them to suppress and disorganize them, and hence deprive the forward elements of the crucial "oomph" during the first minutes of the firefight-- to delay the folw advance, and inflict serious losses on the enemy's lead plt-- and also to dismay and surprise the attacker. Sidewinder (if anyone remembers him) excelled at the multiplying shock effect of unexpected ambushes. But I digress. Again, I'm not sure if this will work during a real battle; but often, on the offense, when I'm setting up my admittedly highly stereotypically arranged overwatch elements (2 HMGs, HQ in middle, mortar within command radius but behind ridge or LOS block, I wonder why my opponent isn't dropping one salvo of 105, 120, 150 or 152 mm on me, to spoil the day. Perhaps the men would rally after a few minutes; but a knocked-out mortar or immobilized HMG or panicked FO seems to me as much of a loss as if the HE had been spent on a bunched-up plt.

Heavy weapons groups in overwatch-- HMGs, mortars, guns-- play crucial role in ramming home attacks, by infantry or tanks: infantry spots, overwatch groups pin HMGs, silence ATGs, root defenders out with HE, let the infantry move to effective small arms range or the tanks move on. Fine. I've never managed to do this, but often wondered: how to silence overwatch groups ? How to ambush them long-range and destroy them, leaving the assault elements to fend for themselves with unfavourable odds ? This must be doable, especially since they often are within command radius of a HQ. Fionn (if anyone remembers him) used to insist on the necessity of locating and engaging overwatch groups, in depth. Example scenario: I have plt strength defensive position ©. In front of it, good cover at 200 m (; beyond that, covered position with LOS to my defensive line, at 400 m (A). The enemy will scout A, then move up his heavy weapons, while he moves on to occupy B, whence he will move forward to locate my position C, and bring his fire to bear, close and long, concentrated. Could I open up with a LMG, to pin but sspecifically to give the enemy a target to aim for aas he pushes on, allowing him to set up his support group in A, move forward in leaps and bounds, perhaps with speculative area fire from the support group, until he occupies B-- then activate an "ambush" on A-- i.e. a mad minute of long range HMG and AA fire from specially prepared positions, behind my defensive line C, mortar fire on A, and, if available, one minute of heavy arty registered on A or slighly behind A, to catch any mortars or FOs ? At the least, it should cause discomfort to the support group; this is the moment to open up on the infantry with the plt. in C. Don't know if it's possible; no idea if it's gamey. But have been thinking along these lines. Since my time on PBEM and TCP severely curtailed since I became a family man, I thought I'd try it out theoretically here, rather than on an opponent. I once did something a bit like this, dyring a game of CMBO (hosing down a likely wood with .50 fire), and it did keep a FO out of the action. I still lost the battle.

Had a whiz through various scenarios, and lost all of them (sorry for the "grazing" approach). But fun. 100: in a real game, I don't think I would play cat and mouse with the PzIII for fear of a long range o'watch shot 110: after a few tries, I approached from the left, up to the patch of woods there. Advanced one squad 30 m or so, and spotted the trench. Ordered full plt. speculative fire on the trench, at about 200 m. Much to my surprise, the HMG team actually flinched and ran. (I had imagined trenches to be much tougher)

I'm interested. john.ma@ccc.ox.ac.uk many thanks

That movie's like something out of a Soviet wartime propaganda tale

Alas, the shotgun blasts are probably just below the level of CM-style resolution. Va-s-y Dédé, balance-s-y donc d'la chevrotine à ces Boches m-poum, m-poum

Can the "column in depth" infy attack be beaten by enfilade fire ? I mean assets firing "from left to right", across the axis of advance, from behind LOS blocks, with interlocking "you scratch my back, i scratch yours" fields of fire to prevent the enemy from just marching up to the LOS block. In other words, keyholed HMGs, with a field of fire across the enemy line of march-- thus avoiding the massing of fire by overwatch elements.

Read an interesting article in the French magazine "Batailles" (www. bataillesmag.com, but their site is down). Winter 39-40, the French and Germans waged a vicious winter outpost war, in the no man's land between the Maginot line (and other MLRs) and German lines-- often dense forest and abandoned villages. German superiority in fieldcraft and close combat tactics (SMG + grenades) quickly told. The French responded by forming ad hoc, plt to co size "groupes francs", "corps francs", hunter killer patrol teams.Uniform adapted: greatcoat dropped in favour of jackets (vareuse, canadienne), helmets covered with burlap or replaced by knitwear, rubber boots favoured; at same time, try not to be taken for "franc-tireur" (guerilla), immediately shot if captured rather than taken POW. Equipment: long rifle exchanged for carbines (mousqueton). Multiplication of LMGs (fusils mitrailleurs) [ 2 per squad ?]. Mutiplication of grenades, including WP grenades for village fighting. Pooling of SMGs-- usually from stores of SMGs confiscated from Spanish Rep. refugee troops in 1939, or taken from Germans. Finally, splendid touch of French systeme D (improvisation): liberal use of moden "Hammerless" shotguns, presumably loaded with buckshot ("chevrotine", as in the movie "Le Vieux Fusil"), to break contact in ambushes-- apparently highly efficient in woods and brush. Not enough winter cammo. The groupes francs seemed to have done well; some members fought with Free French, and later in Indochina and Algeria. What's interesting is the development of short range, multiple LMG+ SMG + grenade based tactics-- a while before the Eastern Front fighting. Probably part of post WWI culture of all major Europaean armies !

Quick, some 22 PD scenarios for CMBB please ! fighting as Germans with Pz38s would certainly make for a change

Well, can you ?

Hi-- if you don't mind me asking-- What do you mean by "their" forum, and "here" ? And why do you feel reluctant to post here about Shermans ?