AttorneyAtWar

This is from ChrisND's stream that aired today, enjoy guys, and thanks Chris!
 
 
 

This is from ChrisND's stream that aired today, enjoy guys, and thanks Chris!
 
 
 

This is from ChrisND's stream that aired today, enjoy guys, and thanks Chris!
 
 
 

This is from ChrisND's stream that aired today, enjoy guys, and thanks Chris!
 
 
 

*cough* Wheres Combat Mission: Battle of France *cough*
 

Another reason the human race is doomed, we learn nothing, and somehow bigotry like this lives on. Don't respond to this either with your PC BS, that phrase merely serves as a clever way to hide your subtle racism.

Combatintman asked me to provide some input on the "other side" of this scenario as part of his final analysis. I'd like to give some of my overall design philosophy for all of my scenarios and some specifics for this scenario, hopefully it's useful for future scenario designers:

I almost always start my scenarios with a vignette I've read from a tactical or personal account. From there comes an idea. The details generally don't matter too much to me; whether it was Regiment A attacking Town X isn't important, what matters is the tactical task a unit had to perform. I like to focus on company and below stuff - everyone already makes scenarios about the famous clashes, I want to make scenarios about the day to day stuff everyone forgets about. In this case, it's the taking of a step off position for a later attack. An action that would have barely warranted half a sentence in a larger narrative, is the perfect size for a Combat Mission scenario. Once I have my idea, I find a location in reality that would suit my situation - once again the details aren't super important. I rarely use overlays anymore, I just put Google Earth on my second monitor and let the in-game map become it's own place.

Once I have my map built, I integrate my situation into it. I almost always start with the enemy side (since I only do Human vs AI). In this scenario, as it is a German attack, I started with the Soviet defense. I look at the map, figure out the required amount of forces to achieve the enemy "mission" that fits the situation, and start building the enemies plan. I never build my maps around the unit or task - this almost always ends up feeling canned and puzzle-like. In real combat, you don't have the power to level hills and move forests (unless you have good engineer support). You take the forces you have and use the hills and forests to your best advantage to build your plan. The small copses of trees in the wheat field isn't there because it would make for a good MG position, it's there because I thought it looked good when I was making the map. Now I (and the player) have to build our plans around it. About the only concession I make in this regard is adding terrain later to block LOS to at least part of the player's setup area. No one likes getting shot on turn 1.

For the Soviet side here, I decided a platoon with attached HMGs would be the best force to serve as the blocking/delaying position that fits the scenario. I built the defense to accomplish the mission I gave it, as if the scenario was designed to be played by the Soviet side. I utilized the terrain as best I could to create 3 mutually supporting positions with interlocking fields of fire. If one position was taken, the other two would be able to lay fire down on the one just overrun. I envisioned that most players would choose to attack the position "head on" in some fashion, either taking the town first then the position on the Soviet right, or the outpost position on the Soviet left, attacking over the open ground. Any Germans attacking would have a hard time indeed, and need to coordinate their fire support well to accomplish it. However, the one course of action I did not take into account for my defense was what Combatintman did right here in this very thread! Only one of the Soviet HMGs was looking into the open wheat field that he advanced so boldly through. Surely no player would push his infantry through such a large open field to be slaughtered! What spelt the Soviet doom was that I did not do a proper line of sight analysis - if I had, I would have realized that the critical HMG defending the entire left flank could not see the whole wheat field, and that so called open field had undulations in the terrain (again, something I built into the map BEFORE I started building the defense) that would have allowed a whole company to advance sight unseen deep into the Soviet rear. As such, I did not plan for the eventuality that the Germans would bypass my carefully developed, mutually supporting positions with barely a shot fired. Truly an example of the enemy "having a vote", and my future scenarios won't be so assuming. Next time I will be more complete in my planning. Blame Combatintman for the lesson learned and any increased difficulty.

A quick note on doctrine, because I saw it brought up - I am not a student of any WW2 military doctrine, so I built my defense based on what made sense to me and what I have seen work, not anything historical. I do use the built in TOEs to help pick my forces though.

To touch on the German side of this scenario, for my missions I try to pick a force that when handled properly, will defeat the enemy even if the player suffers some setbacks. In other words, you don't have to be perfect. I feel that most people play scenarios to win, and if they feel that did everything almost right but still lost, then I have failed to provide satisfying entertainment (some would disagree on this, but it's just how I feel).  Usually the degree of victory and casualties taken is the distinguisher between an ok plan and a great plan for my scenarios. A 2 to 1 advantage with supporting arms will generally provide a respectable challenge against the AI while still being able to be won by most. The ratio here is more 3 to 1, as open fields and long sight lines requires more firepower and bodies to absorb casualties. I try to not to force a plan on the player, instead giving them a properly balanced force to execute a variety of actions. I also believe in simple briefings that provides truthful information the player can use to plan, while not giving away the whole show. Everything I wrote was truthful, but it's up to the player to fill in the gaps. Combatintman took the info given, executed a solid plan here and was able to wipe the Soviets off the board with very minimal casualties.

So the 2 cents that was asked for is more like 20 cents, but I thought it would be beneficial to explain my overall theory on scenario design and not just this one specifically. I like to create simple, straightforward scenarios with a realistic enemy on beautiful maps, and hopefully I've succeed with this one in that regard. Combatintman definitely executed a great plan that exploited the weak point in my plan. Great thread and thanks for picking my scenario to do it with!

I want you to set up a quick battle, German probe, infantry only forces.  Hotseat game.  You will be playing *both sides*.
The Germans will get an infantry company, grenadiers will do, veterans.  
Give them 3 platoons and a heavy weapons section with several HMG teams and 2 81mm mortars.
Add a 105mm radio FO.
 
The defenders are a single Russian rifle platoon.  Set them up first, in defensive positions.  Split one squad as outposts, put the rest in a platoon position in some decent cover, with LOS forward and around, wide, up positions, nothing reverse slope.
 
You will play both sides.  When you are the Russians, you are forbidden from issuing a single command.  The tac AI can shoot from where you set them up, nothing else.  You use the LOS tool (fire command, voided etc) to check what they can see, you observe their exact morale state and the effects of all German fire.  You are trying to command the Germans and win and win easily with them, but you are blessed with *perfect information* and with an opponent who is *physically incapable of movement*.  You also outnumber them 3-4 to 1 and have heavier combined arms.
 
I want you to murder that Russian rifle platoon.  I want you to learn, directly and in your gut, seeing is believing, that said rifle platoon is utterly defenseless before you, simply because it is immobilized and you know every hair on their heads.
 
Feel free to put the 105mm FO on the center of that platoon position at the start, for a map prep fire.  Feel free to take all day approaching, if you like.  Feel free to use the LOS tool as the Russians to determine exactly every route they cannot see, and move the Germans exclusively in the perfect "shadows" of houses or hills etc that are out of sight of them.  Feel free to set it up so that your entire company can fire at a single half squad outpost before you first step into their view or pull the first trigger.
 
Next, add another Russian rifle platoon, but put it over in Cuernavaca, Mexico, completely away from any position that helps or defends the first platoon.  Kill them both, in whatever order you like, with whatever mix of weapons.  They can't move a muscle, they can only fire back under tac AI control, from right where they are.  Next put a modest heavy weapons position behind them, with an HQ, 2 Maxim MMGs, and an 82mm mortar.  It has LOS to some field or other that you don't necessarily need to ever enter.  Kill that force. You still know every detail, and they still can't move an inch, and you pick a sequence of fights to exploit the crap out of that immobility to kill them efficiently in sequence.
 
Why are you doing all this?  Because you are a sneaky German. You don't believe in fighting fair.  You are hacking the Kobiyashi Maru scenario to ensure you can win it, just because you don't like to lose.  *This* is how you want to fight *all the time*, in real scenarios.  As unfairly as possible, with perfect information, against a passive punching bag of an opponent, strapped into his existing positions and unable to react.
 
Moral - prove to yourself that an immobile and known enemy force is dead as a post, if you know and move and fight it intelligently, and it just sits there and takes it, and tries to fire back with one unit at a time.  You will in the process learn the host of lopsided match ups you are always seeking in real fights, you will learn to have confidence in them, and the like.
 
But there is a deeper moral.  You are learning all these things to arrive at the clarity, that the *whole real fight* consists in (1) learning exactly where the enemy is and (2) rendering him immobile.  That if you can do those things, the rest is a mechanical application of techniques a child could execute.
 
Once you have that base, you will understand what all the other, harder aspects of maneuver warfare theory are aimed at, or need to bring about.  Start with seeing how the forced mate in 3 works.  Then you can work back to how you set the enemy up for that forced mate in 3.

In the thread on Russian doctrine in CM, we went through how the Russian attack, especially their Rifle formation branch.  That method applies the principles of attrition warfare, depth, firepower, relentlessness, last man standing stuff.  German doctrine on infantry attacks was entirely different.  SlowLarry asked about it in the previous thread, and rather than bury an answer there, I am moving that part of the discussion to its own thread, here.
 
Elements of German attack doctrine apply to panzer forces as well, but the focus here will be on infantry division attacks.  Which may include StuG support or similar, generally divisional artillery FOs, battalion and company mortars - and squad infantry up at the pointy end.  Obviously there are some requirements of overall odds, suitable terrain, fire support, and enemy strength that are needed for infantry formations to attack successfully.  But the German doctrine uses everything differently, because the focus of their attack doctrine is positioning and articulation of forces - maneuver warfare stuff  - not primarily force ratios and losses and attrition thinking.
 
In the German doctrine, the chief element of the offense is surprise.  The idea is always to hit where and when one isn't expected, to catch the enemy napping, unprepared, with the wrong dispositions to deal with your chosen point and method of attack.  To achieve that, the focus is on information on the one hand, and adaptation on the other.  Adaptation includes mobility, heightening your own safe, feasible shifts of forces and weights, and restricting those of the defender.  Those can then all be used to arrange many on few fights at chosen points, which once won, further disarticulate the enemy force.  His elements are supposed to become less able to help each other, to find their proper combined arms targets, or to have the conditions of terrain and range and such they need to fight effectively. Some local advantages may be "cashed in" for dead enemy to move the overall forces in your favor, but most will be focused instead on continually reducing the enemy's options and moves.
 
In the ideal case, this ends with a surrounded and trapped enemy unable to move an inch without taking murderous fire.  Fire lanes into open ground wrapped around an enemy position are like ropes binding his legs.  Once all sides are covered around a given enemy this way, his "movement allowance" has been reduced to zero.  His ability to pick what firefights he will engage in has therefore disappeared.  You can decide whether to engage him, and he can't make an equivalent decision.  By fire and movement principles, that is as good as a kill.  An artillery barrage can then be laid on that immobilized enemy to destroy him at leisure.
 
In short, the idea is to surprise the defender, hogtie him, and fight the remainder of the battle with him in that condition.  Needless to say, this places considerable greater demands on the attacking commander than the comparative straightforward methods described in the Russian doctrine thread, and it can readily be screwed up, and will fail if it is screwed up.  The German approach in the matter was to take risks and generate chances for lopsided wins, and expect enough of those to pay off, to defeat the overall enemy more efficiently than the attrition method. The Germans don't ever want to fight fair - meaning no even engagements of like arm vs like arm without a big edge in their favor from one factor or another.  If there isn't yet such an edge, maneuver for one before engaging too closely.
 
That difference in approach is easily stated, but what does it mean in practice for infantry attack methods?  Three ways, really, each with some variations and subject to mixing with the others, at different distance, time, and force scales.  The three ways are (1) broad front, recon pull, aiming at envelopment (envelopment for short), (2) the coup de main, which is effectively trench raid tactics on a grander scale, and (3) infiltration tactics proper, which stresses getting well into the enemy defended zone, by slow and stealthy processes, before the main engagement occurs.
 
Broad front recon pull means that a skirmish line of infantry sweeps forward like a single wave, and finds *all* the enemy positions.  Not just one or two of them to chew on, but locating the entire enemy front line.  Weak outposts are driven in by this wave to find the real enemy positions, the ones with enough strength to stop a single thin infantry wave.  Besides finding the enemy, this leading wave is expected to pin him in place, to "find and fix".  That works by not pressing hard anywhere, sitting down in the cover nearest the enemy but not physically held by him.  Then reaching out by fire - from the LMGs the squad infantry brings forward, first of all - to cut up the enemy side of the field with fire lanes, around each body of cover on his side of the field.  The goal is to freeze in place as much of the enemy force as possible, by making lateral movement far too risky, several hundreds yards deep into his own positions.
 
Then a reserve and assault group, which has been kept back out of that leading wave, picks targets found and isolated by it.  The goal is to find gaps in the defenses already, and to widen promising fissures by destroying specific bits of the defense, to get deeper into it.  The reserve maneuvers in the German "backfield", sheltered by the leading wave and the knowledge it has provided as to which locations are clear of the enemy, which routes already traversed drew no enemy fire, and the like. It sets up opposite its chosen targets.  It brings with it heavier weapons - StuGs, FOs, 81mm mortars - and infantry weight in numbers.  These supplement the fire of the elements of the scouting wave nearest the chosen target, and "escalate" the pressure on those chosen enemies.  Meanwhile the rest of the battlefield is being ignored.  The scouting wave is just waiting in the ground they took and preventing easy lateral movement by the enemy, to help the position chosen for the point of attack.
 
The overloaded point is thus destroyed.  Now a new wave spreads from that point, into the deeper parts of the enemy defense.  The scouts nearest follow in the wake of the now leading reserve, and form a new reserve behind the entry point.  The new spreading wave finds the new enemy positions, and the process is repeated.  The goal is to roll up the enemy defenses or break through them, always fighting only the new few that matter for the moves the attack is making next.  But the attacker lets enemy weakness dictate where those points of attack should be.  Always, hitting where they ain't, and trying to get into them before help can come from either side, or from the enemy rear and reserves.  
 
Speed matters in this, because the enemy learns where the main point of attack is, as it gets going, and he will try to adapt.  The attack wants to adapt too, faster, with better information.  The scouting wave is also a counter-recon screen blinding the enemy as to one's own deployments.  If a reserve is arriving at A, the point of main effort wants to already be over at B by the time they get to the front.  Think of a running back making the defensive linebackers miss - it requires anticipation of enemy moves, faster reaction to new information.  It helps if ranged weapons can also disrupt enemy movements - StuGs get missions like interdicting all movement across a certain road, pairs of HMGs put down fire lanes with a similar intent, an FO may plaster the only cover point that allows movement from the east side of the map to the west side.  In other words, the role of fire is as much or more to restrict enemy movements as it is to hurt him directly.  
 
Every area of open ground on the enemy side of the field is analyzed for its usefulness on cutting up enemy moves, and locations that can see each are determined, heavy weapons teams maneuvered to such positions long before the attacker knows he will need them.  Enemy moves are systematically taken off the board by firepower threats into such open ground areas.
 
Frequently the scouting wave may start with a bias or direction, too.  E.g. as a wing attack on the left 2/3rds of the field, with the intent of turning the enemy's left flank.  Such routes or plans are made with an eye to being the least expected and likely to be the least defended against, *not* on the principle of the most promising terrain or routes for the attacker.  Otherwise put, since the first principle of the attack is surprise, "most promising" normally equals "least expected" - even if it means crossing dangerous ground - as long as that can be done quickly.
 
The infiltration method can be thought of as a more extreme version of this on a wider scale and with less of an emphasis on fixing the enemy, and more on using stealth to find his gaps.  Night actions, fighting in fog, use of smoke sometimes, are used along with this approach.  The idea is to sneak into the enemy position.  As much as possible, as deep as possible into his whole defense scheme, before first trigger pull.  And after first trigger pull, the triggers are used as a distraction - look, look, over here, there are some Germans over here - while the haymaker is winding up from the other hand.  The same principle of removing enemy moves by a tactically defensive stance and fire lanes to cut up enemy positions, executed by advanced wedges, is used here too, just like the scouting wave did in the previous method, once it went to ground.  
 
There is a critical mental shift involved in this understanding of the value of positions pushed forward.  They do not need to assault straight onto enemy positions. They do not need the weight to do so.  They don't need the weight to shoot down enemies in good cover, nor do they need to press home to root him out of his holes.  All they need to do is prevent him from leaving his present positions, without being cut up by ranged fire into the open ground bits he has to cross, to leave that cover and get to some other body of it.  Anything isolated in this sense, by having all its useful safe moves taken away, is "hogtied".  No reason to run up against them or fight that at all.  They are already in a prison cell, and artillery can execute them later if need be.
 
There is also a new principle in true infiltration methods - to just bypass, wherever possible, rather than fight.  Any position that can be ignored should be ignored.  If there is a route that blocks LOS to that position, maybe someone watches it or at least prevents easy moves out of it, but for the rest, they might as well be on the far side of the moon.  Consider anything that can't see you already defeated by poor positioning.  Bypass and press deeper, all the way to the back of the defense.  German infiltration attackers do not expect to keep the enemy in front of them.  They expect to have enemies on all sides of them.  Then blind them and pin them in place, and move between them.  You can see how limited visibility conditions are critical to the full application of this method.
 
I passed over the coup de main.  It is about surprise in the purest sense.  Here, instead of waiting for recon pull to tell you everything about the defense, you need to guess it.  Rapid, more limited scouting may be used, and there are certainly leading half squads going first - the usual drill.  But you just guess where the enemy is and isn't going to be; you pick a key point you think you can get to that will put some portion of those enemies at a disadvantage, and then you drive like hell for that key point.  Faster than the enemy can react.  Others are trying to pin him where he is - heavy weapons from back at the start line, e.g., or a 105mm artillery barrage that discourages anyone from getting up and walking around from over on the right side of the field.  But the basic idea is just "get there first with the most", where you picked the "there".  Win at that point by weight of numbers and the right combined arms brought to that fight for the enemy faced, and do so before the enemy can adapt his positions to that new info about what you are doing.
 
The follow up can be another such adaptation, or just to exploit what was taken in more of the "fixed them, then pick the next spot to overload" method described in the first approach.
 
Coup de main differs from the broad front recon in that it is less driven by what the scouts first discover, more by your command push decision.  But you are trying to base that on a guess as to where the enemy will be weak and won't be expecting you.  If your guess is wrong, you back off and try something else, don't turn it in to an attrition attack on enemy strength.
 
The coup de main effort can be materially aided by having armor behind it, or as a second best, good approach terrain over a wide area (e.g. large continuous woods or city).  It expects to win at the chosen point by getting a many on few fight there and winning that fight before the enemy can even the local odds.  For that to work, it can't be the case that all the enemy weapons bear on the chosen point.  You need to pick both the concentration objective and a route, such that only a modest portion of the enemy force has any chance to contest your approach, at first.  Then you just want to go down that route so fast that "at first" equals "until the fight for that objective is over", because they only differ by 2 minutes (5 max, 2-3 a lot better).
 
Now, in all of this, you still have to pay attention to combined arms, meaning having 81mm mortars around and HQs to spot for them if there is going to be an enemy gun or HMG position, and a StuG or a panzerschreck up close if there is going to be an enemy tank, and 105mm or 150mm artillery fire if there is going to be a big block of woods full of Russian tommy gunners.  Or you can put HMGs on fire lanes on 3 sides of those woods and just go around them, never into or by them.  Remember, if they can't see your main force, and they can't safely move to change that, they are already dead (hogtied, same thing).  They just don't know it yet.
 
I hope that helps explain the very different way German infantry attacks.

Several questions... First to Doug.
 
Don't use "fast'.  Running troops are very vulnerable, and the problem is not one of minimizing exposure time.  Fast should only be used in your own "backfield", to reposition a reserve inside a friendly town, for example, or to route-march down a road out of LOS of the enemy until you near a jumping off point - with friendlies ahead to ensure there is nothing enemy along the route.
 
The normal move order for advancing troops is "quick", in short dashes, which they can complete in a minute or less.  Before firing starts you can even use "move to contact", to have them all stop and get down as soon as fire is opened.  Inside woods or similar cover, and for heavy weapons teams that can't keep up "quick" without becoming exhausted, just use "move". But don't use that command (or "fast") once under fire.  If they can't "quick" they should probably not be moving at all, but sometimes "slow" to crawl 20 meters to cover may be necessary. While under fire already, mind.
 
The big mental adjustment is to just completely drop the idea that the problem is one of movement in the first place.  You aren't trying to get somewhere.  You are trying to keep the company alive and in good order, and presenting firepower to the enemy.  The only reason you are moving is (1) you don't have spots yet and (2) infantry firepower is higher at closer range.  If you don't have fire superiority in small arms terms, you emphatically would not want to close - you would just be driving up enemy firepower faster than your own.  Only if reason (2) is going to operate in your favor by a large amount does reducing the range benefit you.  Because you are not trying to solve a problem of movement or get anywhere.  You are trying to win a war of attrition by killing the enemy, preferably before he kills you.  
 
The biggest reason to walk towards him, therefore, is (1).  If you don't have any targets where you are, either you are expecting a change on the enemy side to give you some presently (whether from a movement of his, or from hiding guys coming off hide to fire, or similar), or you have to move to get to locations that can see enemies.
 
Next, do you prep fire at a merely suspected treeline?  If you have artillery fire support to burn and not a lot of time, you can fire at likely enemy positions directly along your planned path of advance, and follow that barrage as it walks along your route.  But usually you won't have enough fire support for this.  Indirect FOs are commonly put on only the single most likely enemy held position, either the objective or a point with good cover near the clearly most important route to the objective.  There needs to be a very high chance of a significant number of enemy under the barrage footprint to justify firing off a full module of ammo at a map reference, with no known target.
 
Otherwise, you can have an FO of a "reactive" artillery module call for fire on such a treeline and have the minutes counting down, while you advance.  If you don't find enemy, then you adjust the aim point of the barrage farther on.  You hold the barrage in readiness, in other words, a few minutes out, ahead of the advance.  As soon as the enemy threat becomes actual, you just stop adjusting (or make one final, adaptive adjustment to where the enemy is thickest) and let it count the rest of the way down and land on him.
 
Faster response comes from the on map HE weapons - the 82mm mortars, SU-76s, T-34s.  They don't "area fire" without a target.  They get LOS to that suspected treeline before your infantry steps out.  They are "overwatch", you only advance the infantry at positions your overwatch can see.  When the infantry reach a body of cover, they clear it of any enemy and check it and occupy its forward positions and look out at whatever they can see.  Then the overwatch displaces forward to that body of cover, or to peek around it, at the next LOS blockage.  When the overwatch is in place again, the infantry steps out again - not before.
 
Note, this is not a matter of the overwatch HE shooters helping the infantry move.  The infantry is clearing LOS blockages the HE shooters can't see through.  If you could already see the enemy and he couldn't evade or get away by ducking, you'd sit right where you are and casually murder them all with HE fire, from range.  It is only because the enemy is hiding or behind LOS blockages that anybody needs to advance in the first place.  Then the threat of your infantry walking right over them forces them to reveal themselves and fire.  If they don't, then your infantry finds them anyway, at a point blank range with maximum firepower etc.
 
You say the trickiest thing is what to do with the infantry heavy weapons.  They are like the HE shooters above - overwatch, and the 82mm mortars in particular are the most important weapons in the whole battalion.  HMG teams, ATRs, and snipers are also part of the overwatch element, along with the mortars, FOs, supporting armor.  The difference with the infantry heavy weapons is just that they are cover-loving like the squad infantry, rather than cover-blocked like armor.
 
That just means the normal place for the infantry heavy weapons is the last place the squad infantry just cleared.  Squads check out that woods, no enemy.  OK, so the HMG and mortar can set up there.  What can they see from there?  Well, why did you pick it as a place to reach and clear, if it couldn't see stuff that mattered to the next step of your planned advance?  An avenue of advance is, precisely, a sequence of cover positions each of which covers the move to the next one, by having observation of that next step in the chain.
 
If the range to the next little step is 80 yards, no you don't need to fetch up your 82mm mortars.  At that range, the infantry squads are their own cover fire.  But at 300 or 400 yards, their rifles and LMGs aren't going to do diddly; the infantry heavy weapons need to come up and cover that move, instead.
 
Of course defenders try to separate you from your overwatch.  Meaning, pick spots that can see your leading infantry, but that every part of your side of the field can't easily see.  That's normal.  Take all the spots they can't cover that way first, the locations they could only see from that "up" position on the front treeline or a top the hill, or from the forward line of buildings.  Those spots your overwatch *does* sweep, so those are where you head *first*, with the squad infantry.
 
Once you "own" those, you pick next locations because the squads can cover themselves (short distances, good cover), or you bring up the heavy weapons.  So if the enemy is on a reverse slope, first take your own side of that slope.  Get squad infantry up into the first cover positions on the slope, to spot what is immediately beyond.  Plan your next "move" after you determine all that, with your heavy weapons safely in your dead ground but near the crest, so they can pick whether to engage.
 
Every move the enemy picks has a counter.  If he is "up" and can see everything, then you "counter" with overwatch firepower from range.  If he is "back" and hiding and can't see much, you advance to take the ground he thereby ceded to you, and then you pick just a few of him to "overload".  He usually can't pick *both* to be hidden and also to have all his weapons bear on any of yours.  So you either rely on full overwatch to take on the whole enemy position, or you set up a many on few, then another, and pick your way through only a few of the enemy positions, enough to open a route and dislocate his defense scheme.  You don't get to decide which of those approaches to use.  The enemy sets up one way or another, and you have to use the appropriate "counter" to his chosen mix of "up" and "back" positions (wide LOS and forward slope each, vs narrow LOS and reverse slope each).
 
The next point for Doug should go without saying, but don't rush onto the enemy position.  Movement doesn't take ground - fire takes ground.  You normally clear a position by plastering the enemy on that position and them abandoning it as too hot (or routing away, or dying where they stand) before you send anyone there yourself.  Send shells and bullets, not bodies.  Only send bodies yourself when there is nothing left by bodies in the other sense of the term, as defenders.  OK, occasionally you may "assault" when the remaining defenders are heads down and cowering, but when it doubt, wait and shoot some more.  Get someone into cover at grenade range, or at least good SMG range, first.  It is usually the 3rd unit that "assaults", while one is taking reply fire and occasionally pinned as a result, and the second is firing back continually and keeping the enemy head's down (and freeing the first to add its fire etc).  Never quick or walk at an equal number of enemy shooters - you are just giving them free kills and are not a danger to them at all.
 
It may help to visualize the later stages of the attack, that you are trying to set up.  Every covered position 400 to 500 yards from the enemy with any LOS to any of his positions has MG teams along its forward edge, and HQs spotting for 82mm mortars farther back, hiding behind that cover, and FOs and ATRs and snipers.  Every covered position within 200 yards of the enemy has squad infantry lining every forward spot, with rifles and LMGs at the ready, the men rallied, even if a few have been hit and are down etc.  Supporting armor is peeking around a few of those (either kind), ready able and willing to toss in direct fire HE at any MG that the forward infantry discover.  Then the nearest cover "emits" small teams that "bound" forward at "quick", to any shellhole or house or clump of trees they can find, 75 yards from that enemy.  Then 30 yards from that enemy, after any spots at the 75 have "filled up" with teams that made it.  Anybody shoots at and stops those teams, the whole company sentences to death by firing squad and executes said sentence immediately.  Then another few teams repeat the procedure - as many times as the enemy likes, until they are dead or shut up and go to ground.  It only ends when there are squads rallied with SMGs at the ready at 75, and a few grenade throwers get to 30, alive.  They throw, and throw a little more, and then enemy has stopped firing.  Now someone moves "quick" into the actual cover they used to be firing from.  Same procedure if those get shot.  Repeat until they don't.
 
It isn't fast, isn't meant to be, doesn't have to be.  There is no panicking.  No "oh no, someone is shooting at us, we must DO SOMETHINK!!!"
 It is combat, being shot at is normal.  The something one does about it is shoot back.
 
I hope that helps Doug...

Turns 1-3
 
Note: Click on photos for larger versions. I am currently using Bright Night and War-Movie shaders. Let me know if its still hard to see details.
 
I was secretly hoping that my opponent wouldn't attempt to hold the crossings right up front, but unfortunately that is precisely what he is doing. While I don't think the position he's in is tenable for any amount of time, all he has to do is delay until sunrise....especially if he has any big cats or StuGs. A result of his frontal deployment however are quite early fireworks.
 
The first turn is spent with my engineers in cover and my FOOB spotting. I quickly spot German infantry dug in along the orchard and river bank; already in a zone pre-planned for a short airburst barrage. So far so good; my first reasonable assumption hasn't made an ass of me .
 
The second and third turn open up hostilities as the Engineer platoon makes its first approach to the bridge; its met by fire from several other foxholes. There's at least a MG42 per fire-team; which most likely means Panzergrenadiers. Unfortunately the first move to the bridge ends with a handful of casualties at the first scrap of cover for the two assault squads.
 

 
 
I had the wherewithal to deploy two M18s from my first Company team in hull-down  to cover the attack of the Engineers, and amazingly despite the low-light situation I'm able to fire .50 BMG and a few rounds of HE into the orchard with effect. Note the hull down position and target arc of the M18. I took a risk and did not have it pull back after a 30 second "Pause" command; and amazingly I took nothing but sporadic MG fire in return. Could it be that he's playing it close with his ATGs?
 
   
As the turn ends I observe enemy casualties in all the foxholes, as well as routing enemies. Its evident I've given as good as I've received, and I intend to move up the platoon of M4A3s to smoke the opposite bank and provide fire support as I probe the bridge. Fingers crossed that the bridge isn't mined. What a windfall that will be. Note in the below photo enemy casualties from the preparatory fire; the short barrage is lifting as the third minute comes to an end.
 

Your men will continue to die. But don't despair: this is what they WANT to do. Really. It's an honor for them to do so. I give my men all the opportunity for honor that they'd ever dreamed of having.
 
Lots of tips floating around the forum. Read 'em, and welcome aboard...
 
Ken

When a 45kg round smashes 25mm armor with ~12000J at almost verticaly, I'd think you don't even need to consider how effective the tip is. That's all discounting exсluding a 9kg explosive as well. 

The Armata is so awesome, Chuck Norris even worships it. 
Actually, it is a little known fact the Armata program is actually self aware. That's right - its actually Skynet . And  on August 28th, 2015, it will initiate a nuclear war between Russia and the West. Russia will obviously win (Armata knows this, so is doing the Motherland a huge favor) and will take over the world with its self-aware Armata tanks, which are impervious to nuclear warheads, Kim Kardashian, and heavy metal music. 
 
I've gone far enough off the reservation. Its time for me to stop...

This has been reported in at least 3 other threads over the past year or so.
 
Honestly BFC needs to have a disclaimer on the purchase page for these expansions to tell people they will not be able to play the campaigns if they have 3.0, its bordering on false advertising.

This has been reported in at least 3 other threads over the past year or so.
 
Honestly BFC needs to have a disclaimer on the purchase page for these expansions to tell people they will not be able to play the campaigns if they have 3.0, its bordering on false advertising.

Mark Twain once wrote his paper to inform them: "The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated."
 
To those who have expressed concern for my health and well-being, my thanks and I will reply to you individually as soon as I can get my e-mail program to send as well as receive. For all of you who may be interested, I will write a more detailed report as soon as I can and post it in the GF, which is I think a more appropriate forum for such discussions. But not to keep you in too much suspense, I will say here that on the 26th. of March I was struck by a pickup truck which resulted in 11 broken ribs and a broken clavicle (no, that is not a baroque musical instrument). Since then I have spent five days in hospital and about two and a half months in a nursing facility and only arrived home today. I am in pretty good shape due to some good rehab work by some dedicated people. More later.
 
Michael

It is done.  There are no other living soldiers in the cemetery now, only Hans and his comrades.   Hans looks down at the dead Ami.  There is very little blood so the killing shot must have been quick.  Hans doesn’t know if it was rounds from his machine gun that ended this man’s life.  Not that it matters to the American, lying still in the dirt.  Small consolation that the soldier didn’t suffer.  That is what they all fear, a horrible death in agony – just let it be quick; Hans and his fellow soldiers feel the same way.
 
 

 
He stands near the dead soldier for a moment, silently paying his respect to a brave soldier who refused to leave his fallen comrades and now joins them in death.  The Feldwebel knows what Hans is feeling and gives him a moment. 
 
Then the call rings out.  Form Up!  Gunfire rings out beyond the quiet of the cemetery walls.  The war goes on.  Hans turns and leaves the dead behind.  He is tired again, and still angry, but now just angry at the futility of it all.  He trudges towards the sound of the guns.
 
Heinrich505

There is no debate on whether this is all Russia's fault, once again people trying to defend this just dance around facts, New Zealand could be behind the previous Ukrainian leaders ousting and wouldn't matter one bit as long as Russia takes military action afterwords, there are no excuses.
 
-Russian forces illegally invaded and annexed Crimea
 
-Russian forces and equipment are being used in a war in eastern Ukraine
 
Can anyone else imagine a talk like that between Putin and Obama? No?
 
Yeah I didn't think so.

Oh yeah it has nothing to do with the Russian backed invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and the continuing war cutting the country in half.
 
Nope none at all, infact its the Americans fault!

There is no debate on whether this is all Russia's fault, once again people trying to defend this just dance around facts, New Zealand could be behind the previous Ukrainian leaders ousting and wouldn't matter one bit as long as Russia takes military action afterwords, there are no excuses.
 
-Russian forces illegally invaded and annexed Crimea
 
-Russian forces and equipment are being used in a war in eastern Ukraine
 
Can anyone else imagine a talk like that between Putin and Obama? No?
 
Yeah I didn't think so.

The joke
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Your head.

Oh yeah it has nothing to do with the Russian backed invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and the continuing war cutting the country in half.
 
Nope none at all, infact its the Americans fault!

Oh yeah it has nothing to do with the Russian backed invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and the continuing war cutting the country in half.
 
Nope none at all, infact its the Americans fault!

Oh yeah it has nothing to do with the Russian backed invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and the continuing war cutting the country in half.
 
Nope none at all, infact its the Americans fault!