Cuirassier

Is it just me, or do these tactics threads always degenerate into such arguments lol. Anyways, thanks for the corrections to my post JasonC. Just one quick question. When do the Pz. IV's get HC ammo?

Misereor, I was simply stating that the general comment, "control the battle" and you'll win probably isn't overly helpful to players trying to learn the game. Sure you will win if you control the battle, making the enemy do everything you want while he can't do the same to you. But how do you consistently do that? Knowledge of proper combined arms tactics is the foundation that all players need if they are going to be competent. Experience can make players better than competent. But a player that simply tries to follow the generic advice of Sun Tzu or Napoleon without knowing the basics of WWII combat will suck. Plain and simple.

I think Misereor is oversimplifying things with the whole "just control the battle and you'll win" dictum. There are some basic tactics or rules a player should know if he is going to use armor effectively, be it German or Soviet. First of all, it is important to know vehicle specs well. This means know what your armor can kill, and what it can be killed by, at any given range and angle. Since you specified early war German armor, here is the basic rundown: The mainstay of the German armor force is the czech Pz. 38, the Pz. III and Pz. IV. The Pz. 38 (take the 50mm front models when possible) and the Pz. III are your basic main battle tanks, designed to kill other vehicles. The Pz. IV, though it can kill armor, was designed to destroy soft targets such as infantry, not duel other AFV's. All German vehicles, even the Pz. II, will dominate the early Soviet light tanks, such as the BT-7 and T-26. Against these vehicles, a player rarely even has to use proper tactics, as the German tanks will readily stomp them. This is because these Soviet tanks have horrible optics, no cupolas or radios, thin armor, often poorly trained crews and the undermodelled 45mm is relatively ineffective, even against German 30mm plate. Against the thicker 50mm plate found on most Pz. III's or czech 38's, its useless. OTOH, the newer Soviet types of the era, being the T-34 and KV-1, can absolutely dominate German armor. The KV-1 is practically unkillable. If you must engage it, only do so with many on few, hoping to get a gun damage or just scare the crew out of the tank. Be prepared to lose armor though, and realize you need tremendous odds (5-6 to 1) Against KV's, a better tactics is to kill them using assymetrical counters, such as the historical 88mm (though the gun is difficult to use in CM due to its immobility), infantry assault (pioneers' demo charges are excellent) or overmodelled aircraft. Unfortunately the standard 'door knocker' PAK's of the era are ineffective. Probably the best tactic to counter KV's however is to deny battle. The enemy is likely to only have a couple of the beasts at most. Push wherever they *aren't*, and skulk out of LOS if you encounter them, pushing every else. Against T-34's, Pz. III's with the 50mm and Pz. IV's with the 75mm L24 can engage frontally at short distance. They will need turret hits however to penetrate. The T-34 can kill you at any distance. So have lots of shooters within range if you challenge a T-34 frontally. Again, many on few is vital. You can also go for the flanks, which will be readily penetrated by both guns. To get flank shots, you will need infantry to spot the enemy armor to get real time info on its facing. Distract the enemy armor if necessary using infantry or other vehicles. Then strink his flank with your armor while he is facing the wrong way. If you have good odds, sit there and shoot it out. If not, shoot and scoot. Smoke is also another tool that can be used to generate many on fews, by blinding part of the enemies force temporarily while you strike lead elements. Intel is also vital. Send infantry first. You want to know where his tanks are, especially when facing superior AFV's. This way you can get real time info on their positioning and stalk them with your armor, taking advantage of their wrong facings, distraction by other targets etc. If you can, prevent the enemy from gaining intel on your vehicle locations. Against enemy AT guns, it is important to stay concentrated and use combined arms. If attacking with an armor heavy force (mech parent), the platoon is your minimum unit of maneuver. This is because generally a full platoon of tanks is needed to outshoot a single PAK along their path. You must avoid PAK fronts by just simply guessing the right route. Use the terrain, only moving your tanks into LOS of certain 'cells' of terrain, while being out of LOS from the rest. They cover that area while infantry checks it out. If PAK opens up, mortars on overwatch, and/or overwhelming tank fire should silence it. If the infantry find nothing, move on. If the enemy opens up, eat up the position with your HE chuckers (the Pz. IV's are good at this, as are Stugs). A general rule of thumb is don't move your armor if they still have enemy in LOS. Only move when you need targets, and even then only move carefully into LOS to the next piece of terrain you intend to take. I hope this is useful.

See this thread here

"Not to mention that those who perform....poorly, will no doubt be shot. On both sides." Or those who prove to be politically unreliable...

I could probably fit in a game

AdamL, I am very interested in the operational aspects of the campaign, though I'm not sure if I will have the time to take on extra responsibilities. Could you perhaps indicate more specifically what the tasks would be for a German staff member? I would be very interested in being part of the staff; I just don't want to make any promises yet if I'm not sure I will be able to keep them. Thanks for the offer. Hopefully I will be able to participate in some staff work.

Bump

Just looked at the Lauban forum and saw that it more or less answered my questions. I would be interested in being a German player if possible.

"Too bad you don't have time for a single low-speed PBEM game, but don't worry, when you do I'm sure there'll be a spot for you." Bigduke, Sorry if this was already mentioned in the thread, but if I were just a regular player in this campaign, what would my role be? Would I just have to play a couple battles and achieve a turn a day or so? Does a player have additional tasks? If all a basic player has to do is get a turn done a day, then I could probably participate, if spots are still available.

How is that humorous?

I don't think I have the time or experience right now to participate, but is there anyway for people not involved to see how this campaign progresses. I would be very interested seeing some AAR's, or just how these operational CM campaigns work and the decisions players make at this level.

Also forgot to ask if there are any memoirs from Soviet commanders worth reading (eg Zhukov)? Did Konev and/or Rokossovsky write any?

I'm thinking I will get "When Titans Clashed" and Glantz's study on Kursk. Just wondering, does Glantz's book on Citadel only cover the German offensive, or does it also cover the Soviet counter-offensives (eg Kutuzov)? And since "Lost Victories" has been brought up, I think this is an appropriate place to ask some questions about it. These questions are just off the top of my head from the major points I remember, without specific reference to the text. In the memoirs, Manstein suggests that his 11th army, after having successfully reduced Sevastopol and taken control of the Crimea, should have been allowed to push across the Kerch straits to help pocket the retreating Soviet forces falling back on the Caucasus mountains, in coordination with Operation Blue. To me this would have been a good plan, as it followed traditional German doctrine of annihilating the enemy, instead of driving for economic objectives. However, was this a feasible option, or is Manstein leaving out potential difficulties and problems? Manstein also suggested, if 11th army wasn't to be used for the above purpose, then it should have been put in reserve behind the Stalingrad front. If this would have been done, would 11th army have been able to prevent the encirclement of 6th army and the inevitable retreat, or would it have just provided some additional forces to allow for a less strenuous and dangerous retreat, but retreat nonetheless? I'm thinking to actually stop the Soviet "Uranus" and "Little Saturn" operations, a whole Panzer Army would have had been necessary in reserve. 11th army, at least when it was in the Crimea, was almost completely composed of infantry formations. Would these have been enough to stop the Soviet armored thrusts, or would 11th army actually have required 2-3 Panzer Corps at its disposal? Also, one of the prime weaknesses of the German army and its doctrine was its fixation with the offensive, particularly when involving armor. This often lead to piecemeal committment and squandering of reserves. In the Kharkov counterattack however, Manstein gathered armored reserves after the retreat and struck a concentrated blow against the Soviets, instead of squandering those forces in premature counter-attacks as other commanders may have done. After Kursk however, in the battles along the Dneipr, small formations of Panzer divisions and Panzergrenadier divisions are sent back and forth to deliver counter-attacks in what almost seems like piecemeal commitment of reserves. Now, are these mistakes being made by the Germans, or just inevitable fire-brigade actions that have to be done to deal with Soviet breakthroughs? Manstein also gives some Soviet strength and casualty figures for some attacks. Are these accurate? He conspicuously leaves out German casualty figures (other than for Stalingrad), describing beaten formations only as "exhausted" or "weary." I would ask what German casualties were, but his memoirs cover numerous battles, so I'd obviously have to be more specific. Nevertheless, I'm assuming Soviet casualties were consistently higher than German ones in the battles described by Manstein. Just some things that came to mind as I was reading. Some further questions I forgot to include first time around: Manstein makes numerous references to the muddy conditions that plagued operations. He credits the mud or generally poor weather with delaying the assembly of units, causing poor advance rates, and just making some attacks impossible or less successful than hoped for. So, was the 'mud' such a huge limiting factor on operations, or is it being used as an excuse similar to how Soviet commanders earlier credited swamps to their defeats? Also, in the short chapter covering Citadel, Manstein believed that the southern attack should have continued depsite the failure in the north, to at least attrit Soviet armored reserves. With just a couple of understrength Panzer Corps, was this viable? Particulary with he threat of Soviet breakthrough in the north at the Orel salient? [ May 08, 2007, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Cuirassier ]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I have picked up "Lost Victories" and have almost completed it. I second the comment about Raus' memoires. In another thread I commented on how I could not finish them, because of how ridculously one-sided and false they were. Anyway though, I'm on sort of a limited budget, so if I'm going to pick up some books, I'm thinking of getting mid-late war Eastern front. I'm more interested on seeing the situation from a Soviet POV. So should I go for Erickson or Glantz?

I'm looking for some books that give very detailed descriptions of the operations conducted both by Germany and the Soviet Union throughout WWII on the eastern front. I don't mind if its really dry reading, I just want something which gives a very detailed account of operational planning and moves. I know there are probably a lot of titles to consider, but which are suggested? To a lesser extent, I am also interested in finding books that describe operational actions that happened in North Africa and post D-day. Thanks.

I think I know the scenario you are speaking of. Once I found out that both armored columns were padlocked within LOS of each other, I exited out. I hate scenarios where the scenario designer forces you into a situation without allowing the players to determine the outcome of the game. German armor tends to slaughter Soviet early war armor for numerous reasons. First, most German vehicles have cupolas, while Soviet tanks do not. This enables the German vehicles to spot much better when buttoned. German vehicles also have radios, which means all armor in a platoon will stay in command, even when buttoned. The Soviets do not have this luxury until much later. Also, German armor generally has superior optics, which makes for faster ranging and superior accuracy when compared to Soviet armor. Also, early war Soviet AP ammo (eg the 45mm) is grossly undermodelled, why German AP ammo is not. Thus, Soviet shells often break up or have horrid behind armor effects on the rare occasions that they do penetrate armor plate. Lastly, real German tanks (Pz. III, IV, etc) have five man crews, which means 3 men in the turret doing different jobs. The commander is looking for the enemy and directing the fight, while the gunner is focusing on hitting his target, and the loader is feeding the gun with the appropriate ammunition. In early war Soviet vehicles, the turret usually only has two men in it. This means there is an increased workload for the crew, which translates into longer reaction times. As for tactics, the best is not to use early war Soviet light armor. Use KV's or T-34's. If you do not wish to cherry-pick like that, use towed 76.2mm longs, and use jeeps or trucks to quickly relocate them. The Soviets have excellent AT guns throughout the war, so you might as well make as much use of them as possible, instead of fighting German armor symmetrically with your own. If you have to use Soviet light armor early war, try to keep it massed and only take on single targets. You have to realize that the poor penetrating power and behind armor effect of the undermodelled 45mm will require many shells to take out even a lightly armored target. OTOH, German AP rounds will slice through the 15mm plates on your tanks at any distance with ease. So you need great odds to win any engagement. Surprise is also useful. I hope this helps. [ April 27, 2007, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Cuirassier ]

jtcm, The solution is to get closer. Shooting with entire platoons and companies against single squads is important to get the enemy heads down, and to fix him in place. However, as you found out, infantry and MG's at range cannot demolish enemy positions, but only suppress. Thus, you need to close with the enemy. This does not mean fire until you think he is suppressed and then mount a bayonet charge. It means your infantry should be creeping forward. All your infantry should be moving, just not at the same time (2/3rds up and shooting, 1/3 doing short advances to next piece of cover) The goal is to have the enemy thoroughly pinned from using the tactics you have described. You want to keep closing to lessen the range, while a squad or two should get into grenade range of the enemy, while avoiding melee combat (30-40m away). And this was indeed practiced by the Germans tactically, and by all other armies as well once they became tactically adept. The general maxim is that rifle and MG numbers are needed to suppress while grenade and SMG numbers are needed to route and kill. It is also useful to infiltrate squads or platoons around fixed enemy positions to cut off their retreat. Thus, when the enemy is broken and runs, you can easily cash in his morale collapse for dead men. It is also important to remember the basic combined arms matchups. If you have responsive enough artillery or numerous HE chuckers, use them to plaster enemy concentrations and then mop up with the infantry. Only lean on the infantry as much as you have too. I hope this is useful.

This should be useful. A primer that shows how to attack with conscript infantry supported only by field guns and mortars. A Conscript Battalion Attacks

DaveH, "Ummm, don't you think it's a little premature to settle on your thesis and limit your research to only that evidence which supports your thesis? Can you explain to us exactly what level of organization qualifies as your theoretical "state"? Do tribes qualify? Confederations? What about different religious and/or economic and/or political segments of the population of a single state?" The essay is for a high-school class, not post-secondary, so it is not expected to have incredible depth. Our study of war only really encompasses 19th century to present. The "states" I will be talking about will just simply be nation-states. Tribes therefore do not qualify. So I guess more accurately, my essay must argue why wars have been started from 19th century to present.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed thus far. First of all, the various book titles suggested appear interesting, and I may look into them. However, for this essay, my sources will mainly be the textbooks I have been provided and the internet. I'm still thinking I will go with nationalism or economics, or maybe both. Dook, The breakdown of the arguments made by the authors you have listed has been very helpful and insightful. I'm thinking I will use the second argument provided (the state-ppl coming into social groups) as my basic thesis as to why wars are started. This argument may cover both nationalism and economics, which I see as the prime causes of war. The third argument provided (no overarching authority to enforce peace) I find interesting, and something I never had thoughtfully considered before. However, I feel the developement of the state, or nationalism and economics, are the prime causes and will be easiest to support. So now I need to get examples to prove this, and I see that some people have already provided some. Thanks again. Just to let everyone know, the conflicts I will probably look at the most intensively are WWI, WWII, the Arab-Israeli wars, Franco-Prussian war and maybe the Napoleonic wars. I may add or remove wars from this list as I read about them and learn more. So thanks again everyone for the replies. I am willing to further discuss the causes of war, but now I think I am primarly interested in finding evidence that proves the state, and thus nationalism and economics, is at the heart of conflict.

Good ideas posted here already. I will also emphasize the importance of hail fire as a tactic for early war Soviet mech forces. The horrible time delays make coordination difficult, so maneuvers dependent on the intricate coordination of your arms should be avoided (eg diversions and flanking) Now, I'm not saying they are unworkable, its just that such maneuver oriented tactics are much harder with radioless, buttoned tanks, with no cupolas, and often with low quality crews. So plan ahead, make sure your plan is simple and workable, and make maximum use of your depth and mass on the attack.

...on an essay I need to write for school? I know that this isn't CMBB related, but I am unsure whether all the people who contribute to this forum also contribute to the General Discussion forum. So instead of risking it, I'll post here because I feel I will get better responses overall. Anyway, using examples, I have to argue why wars are started by nations. We were given numerous possibilities we could argue, and I've narrowed it down to a few. Right now, I'm planning that my thesis will be that nationalism is the prime cause of wars, though I'm also considering economics and incompetence of leadership. So for those who are interested in helping a student (hopefully a bunch of ppl), please post your ideas for why wars are started. Please help explain using historical examples as well, which can range anywhere from the Napoleonic era to present. Thanks in advance.

JasonC vs. the noobs...When will it end? lol

DAF, I was just going to ask that, but you beat me to it.