Cuirassier

URC, I was talking in the operational sense. Sure it was tough tactically. Men got scared, killed, had to sweat and bleed etc. But in the operational sense, the breakthrough fight was easy, for tank-heavy formations. Sure there are a few cases it wasn't, but that was not the norm. Look at the souther prong of the Kursk offensive for example. The 2 SS PK hits the prepared 23 GRC and take casualties for sure. But in two days they have cut through and are completely effective, in the operational sense. Its not until the nearly Panzer Army sized 5th GTA arrives before the 2 SS is blunted. The only cases where you see tank-heavy forces repulsed in the breakthrough fight is early war British and Soviet attacks. But this is not because the tactical defenses were tough. Just as result of poor attacker combined arms. Once the allies fixed these issues, they generally broke through as easy as the Germans had. I disagree. Breakthrough was easy, fighting reserves was hard. All you have to do is compare operations to see this. The Germans romp in Barbarossa but lose Kursk. Why? The Soviet mech arm is broken in 1941 but works just fine by 1943. Another example. The Soviets romp in Bagration but are smashed during Mars. Why? The Germans have no armored reserves to speak of for Bagration, but have a bunch of Panzer divisions for Mars. Tactical infantry AT defenses could sting at that level. But they did not stop tank army sized formations from breaking into the operational depth and encircling things. That took counter-concentrated tank reserves. And that is where the real fight happened.

JasonC, Your thread on this game and the kind of CM scenarios it can be used to create has made me think about the game "A Victory Lost," which your praised some time ago. IIRC, both games are all about operational tempo and the initiative. I am curious what kind of scenarios could be created using this game. Obviously, the opening of Saturn has been done before and is easy to imagine. But what about the later German counterattacks (eg against Popov, 3TA etc)? What kind of tactical battles did Manstein's counterattack set up? Was surprise or huge local armor odds what gave the Germans the advantage? Or fresh troops (in the case of II SS Panzer Corps)? I'm just wondering how the operational situation created tactical battles that obviously favored the Germans and what they would look like. Probably not as interesting as the Leningrad scenarios, as I would guess infantry and artillery played less of a role, but am curious nonetheless. Of course, I'm not asking for you to make scenarios or anything. I'm just looking for some insight on how operational moves dictated the tactical fight in this particular period.

I may be wrong, but what I think Adam is getting at is that concentrated, armored attackers almost always faced inadequate anti-tank defenses during the breakthrough fight. Why? Because defenders need coverage, and have to spread out their limited AT assets to cover possible attacker routes. AT guns are also not very mobile, and even when concentrated, their LOS lines can't overlap everywhere. So the attacker breaks in where the defense is thin and backs off where it is too strong, sending artillery shells instead. Concentrated armored attacks were stopped in practice by arriving counter-concentrated armored reserves (arriving in 2-3 days typically) and, to a lesser extent, infantry depth and heavy artillery concentrations (something the Americans did quite well). The breakthrough fight was always a breeze in practice. Defeating arriving reserves was the challenge.

The Panther gets compared to the T-34 because they fulfilled the same doctrinal role. In theory, the Panther was to have filled out the panzer battalions in all of the German panzer divisions (like how the T-34 filled out the tank brigades in Soviet tank corps). The Stalin, however, was never intended to be a MBT that equipped all of the tank brigades. It was a breakthrough specialist, organized into Guards heavy tank regiments (similar to the independent Tiger battalions). That is why the Stalin is compared to the Tiger, rather than the Panther.

10:1? Where did you get that ratio? No attacker has achieved, or needed to achieve, a ratio that high. Even with attacker concentration I doubt local odds ratios have ever been that high in an urban fight. All attackers need is a continuous supply of HE and enough men in the logistical pipe to replace losses. High local concentrations of men aren't needed, and often just result in needless, extra casualties.

Well it got rid of most of the problem. This Windows phishing security thing still keeps popping up every couple of minutes too on my desktop, but disappears before I can get a good look at it. And again it temporarily minimizes things. I have run both spy bot S&D and malewarebytes but I can't seem to get rid of it. Any ideas?

Thanks a bunch guys. Looks like the malwarebytes got rid of the problem. God I hate hackers.

Yesterday some false anti-virus site showed up on my computer. Naturally I didn't download it and I ran a Norton scan to quarantine it. So now Norton is blocking that site. However, I still get these annoying popups every minute or so saying there is a security risk in my taskbar and trying to connect me to that site. Whenever it pops up it minimizes everything else and is really annoying. Does anyone here know what I can do to fix it?

Setting up MG's on the flank also creates a direction of attack problem for the Rifle company. For example, if taking MG fire from the flank, should the company reorient to take out the MG? They would have to close the distance just to spot it and then attack it with grenades, aimed fire etc just to KO a few men. All the while their flank is presumably exposed to the enemy's MLR and probably other MG's, now firing from their rear quarter. And this reoriented attack also means that the company is no longer even heading to its initial objective, but chasing after an MG team. Or the company can proceed with its objective and advance through difficult to spot MG fire the whole way. Even if they reach and take the objective they will likely still be in the MG's fire zone, but still be unable to spot it, as it is far out on the flank. Thus, it is difficult to simply bypass. Hence why it is now standard infantry tactics to use packet movement, use all available cover, attack in limited visibility etc.

Following up on what Stalin's Organist said, I think overwatch will have much more difficulty in identifying and neutralizing enemy targets. In CMSF, we don't see this as a huge issue (especially for the US) because of the advanced sensors, optics etc. But imagine buttoned T-34's trying to pick up MG-42's in cover. It will probably take a while. This will also likely make PAK much more effective and concentrated tank attacks more risky.

Well I will try to address the comments so far. On the map, It is true the map is not ideal (it is just a random QB map after all). However, the large hills break los from my zone to the attackers zone, and within my zone, laterally. I see armor as being the dominant arm of maneuver, and I think this map can support tanks well enough if they are cleverly driven. Whether I am capable of that is another matter;) On Adam's observation, It is true that these 'islands' are problematic when wanting to change positions while under observation. But I don't think that factor will be decisive. At least not until the armor war has run its course. On aircraft, I didn't want them in the game mainly because they are over-modeled and not player controlled. As a result, they tend to be high-variance items. I didn't want the results of the battle to be skewed by a 'chancy' weapon as aircraft are. URC, I agree the Adam has chosen a somewhat odd deployment. His armor was certainly visible instantly. However, I was initially expecting his infantry to be with his armor, so I have been caught somewhat wrong-footed in finding out he has at least a company striking out along the right flank. And of course, I am definitely trying to take advantage of his turretless afv's moving without strong flank support. Joachim, I understand that playing one game is not nearly sufficient to determine which doctrine is superior. One game is not even enough to determine which is more useful in any given situation. Just to develop any statistically accurate inference we would have to play many games to account for chance. Also, I am guilty of making my strategy increasingly attrition based as the game goes on. For example, I am hoping to smash just a few more Stug's before they can use their HE, hoping then that Adam won't have enough HE depth to dig my infantry out of every hole. Not a very maneuver-ee idea. But I see it as my best and most realistic chance for victory (provided I only trade evenly in the rest of the armor war). However, the game, like all AAR's, will allow for readers to hopefully understand the action and make conclusions as to what worked, what didn't and why.

Just out of curiosity, is this actually of interest to anyone? lol

File sent. So after a long delay the game continues...

Well I feel rather stupid. I had some severe computer issues (had to get a new desktop) and have just got CMBB running recently. I had a number of games going on but somehow managed to forget about this one. I will continue it again if you wish. I didn't read the rest of your post. I also have a new email address: rdinsdal@ualberta.ca Again sorry for not sending any news.

Withdrawing to avoid enemy artillery fire, deceiving the enemy as to the deployment of forces and economy of force (thinning out non-threatened sectors and just screening) were part of German doctrine in WWI. Sure some of these ideas were improved upon or adjusted for WWII requirements, but the basic ideas came before.

Sivodsi is correct. When using Syrian tanks, especially the older ones (eg T-55MV, T-62), offensive flanking maneuvers tend to be negated by superior US spotting and response times. To reliably knock out and Abrams you need good odds, and your tanks better be cooperating well so they all crest together. But expecting a single tank moving into los to get a flank shot and succeed is suicide. Whenever possible, even while attacking, try to use your armor defensively. What I mean by this is set up your armor in positions where the enemy has to move through your los lines, and not the other way. Of course, this can be hard when you are the attacker. One common tactic is to probe with infantry supported by tank HE, while you stay out of his armor los. As you eat his forward positions he will be forced to move his armor into los of your infantry, hopefully exposing flanks to your armor. Of course, he may also use keyholes and multiple firing positions etc. The whole thing is thus very map dependent. I also agree than over-concentration is bad. Forget the old panzer doctrines. US firepower punishes concentrated attackers. It is much better to have looser, skirmish lines that leak around the concentrated and less numerous US armor, crossing los lines at various points. Then if you run into some Abrams, only the few tanks opposite them will get whacked while the rest of your armor is getting into better position, supporting infantry etc. Just my experiences.

I don't know if the things you've listed are exactly new. That is just German defense doctrine of defense in depth, which has been practiced since WWI.

What c3k wants is the ability to use a building as a reverse slope position as you can in CMx1. For example, in CMx1 you could position infantry against a back wall or in the middle (if the building was large enough) so they would have los that extended to a max of 5 or so m from the outside wall. This allowed infantry to ambush leading elements while staying out of los of overwatch. Currently CMSF doesn't let you do this.

Just a couple things. Operation Kutuzov began in July, not August, and was the offensive against Orel. For the August offensive by Voronezh and Steppe fronts against Belgorod, you will want Operation Rumyantsev. And I see you don't have a battle for Operation Bagration. I would suggest 'Cracking the egg' by Rune.

Juutilainen, I would suggest you search the forums for posts by JasonC on tactics. His posts are very informative and contain lots of information on how to use combined arms effectively. Once you master these techniques, beating the AI regularly will be easy. His training scenarios depict the use of various Soviet force types in numerous settings. They are simply called the Russian training scenarios and are numbered (eg 100 110 etc). These scenarios can be found at blowtorchscenarios.com or probably the proving grounds. Just google either site and you should find them quickly.

Play smaller scenarios.

Ok I will send you a setup tomorrow probably. Are there any specific parameters you would like? I'm guessing you would want something with tighter terrain and fair bit of armor to maneuver with? Just let me know.

Adam1, Have you found a game to experiment with the mobile defence yet? I am certainly no great maneuverist, but I am interested in seeing how such a defense may counter the careful, attrionionist approach. I am up for a game if you want to try some of these concepts out.

Since JasonC and YankeeDog have arrived at apparently two completely different conclusions regarding the effectiveness of infantry versus afv's, I decided to give ATGM Ambush a try. I agree with YankeeDog that the initial setup for red is poor and must be adjusted. I moved my HQ's to the rear out of LOS, shifted the AT-4 positions into better cover and made sure the SPG-9's were really hugging the crests on the flanks. The only units not hiding were the MG teams, though they were given 400m cover arcs. My ATGM's were also given 400m cover arcs. My results? Three turns in both of my ATGM's open up on the Bradley's. The right placed launcher fires two missiles and the left launcher one missile. All the missiles hit each Bradley, resulting in all of the afv's brewing up! I recieved no return fire at all. 3 missiles fired and 3 dead Bradley's in a minute of action. Certainly lots of this must have been luck, because Bradely's don't seem to brew up often from AT-4 hits. But when I played the scenario this time, the infantry certainly beat the afv's, and easily. If anyone is wondering, I played the scenario on the elite level and turn based. I will certainly try the scenario again to see how much of it was luck. Edit: I tried the the scenario a second time. Indeed, my first run through was very lucky. However, this time around, despite some poor performances from the AT-4's, I still managed to knock out three Bradley's for the loss of 1 ATGM team. Again, the SPG-9's were not used; the AT-4's did the killing. This time around I had numerous misses (including the opening shot) and scored a couple hits that seemed ineffective against the Bradley's. Nonetheless, the Bradley's had difficulty spotting the ATGM launchers so the afv's were all eventually destroyed. My right hand ATGM launcher managed to fire off all of its missiles while the left hand launcher got off 3 missiles before dying. FWIW. [ April 12, 2008, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Cuirassier ]

I am always satisfied when I manage to deploy an 88 and get kills with it. Finding good positions for LOS and not getting them killed is is hard when using those guns. Good work.