DougPhresh
-
Posts
769 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by DougPhresh
-
-
I would like to know that if field divisions are coming, the HG will get a second look.
-
This whole "time" excuse is bizarre. Here are two very small, very complicated, niche wargames. How much "time" are the developers wasting by posting updates?
Because they have been hitting their release dates, while updating the community and listening to feedback.
http://nws-online.proboards.com/thread/1445/rule-waves-2-developers-journal
http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/22735-work-in-progress-dreadnoughts/
-
I'm not talking about the content, I'm talking about communicating the content.
Quote– Added movement sounds for wheeled vehicles
– Reduced base bonus move chances slightly for all types of terrain
– Reduced base to-hit chances slightly for point fire
– If a unit is destroyed and it had been selected as the player target, the player target is now cleared
– Added an input event flush to the Wait function, should avoid the Windows spinning wheel of death again
– Changed from a “hatch open / hatch closed” system to a “Crew Exposed / Button Up” one
– If a position has no hatch, crew can only be BU
– For some weapons, crew must be CE to fire (eg. the MG on the PSW 221)
– For some very exposed open-topped vehicles, crew can only ever be CE
– Changed some code so that vehicles can have “turret”-mounted weapons without a rotatable turret, such as the Kfz 13Is that really much different than an update on a CM title would be?
or this
https://unityofcommand.net/blog/2017/05/02/developer-diary-10-performance/#more-2339
QuoteIt’s been a few months since the last diary entry, so frankly you’d be excused to think we’ve all gone AWOL or something. BUT! – we were in fact cheerfully working on various low level systems, and actually managed to get a lot of work done. The screenshots below show you approximately where we are with the rendering engine, that is, almost everything works now.
I was happy enough to load the game onto a laptop and start showing it, somewhat gingerly, to other developers at the Reboot Develop conference last week in Dubrovnik. We got a lot of positive feedback, which may or may not be down to devs being a supportive bunch and all. It did feel good to have a working game again.
-
Here's a one-man wargame that was well-received by RPS and Wargammer and he manages to post on a regular basis, explain how progress is coming along, explain why his updates are occasionally infrequent, and otherwise take the time to engage with the people who will buy his product.
-
@Erwin you're going to pretty fantastic lengths to excuse bad communication. As several people have pointed out numerous times, we're not asking for much more than a couple sentences every so often, which would maybe take five minutes to compose.
"In CMRT's next module we will be including the Polish First Army as a Soviet force. We had the units and oob largely in game already and used voice files from the other titles. Polish vehicles will display the white eagle crews often painted, rather than the red star."
-
I don't think anyone is asking for huge dev diaries here. Although if you're looking for an example of a niche company absolutely killing it in once-a-week posts,
In any case, I think people are more asking for simple, general things.
- What kind of changes are in the patches
- What kind of additions are coming to CMFI
- What (broadly) will be coming to CMRT
- What bugs/TOE/OOB/suggestions by the community have the devs noticed, and what has been passed on to developers
An example of this done right is how BTR's great post in the CMBS tech forum was received
What would bring this to a level I think would absolutely impress the community is to say, "Coming with the CMBS patch are the changes pointed out to us by community member BTR back in 2015!" with a side-by-side of fixed models.
-
The Canadian army had armoured Mercedes trucks in theatre, but we mostly used Bisons (Like the LAV but without turret) for logistics outside the wire.
-
I'd just like the fortifications to not be scattered all over the map when I start the deploy phase of a QB. It would be so much easier to have them neatly organized like units were, and how they were in the CM1 titles.
-
I don't mind that things are delayed, I mind that the customer base is often left in the dark, often for months on end.
This has admittedly gotten much better in the last few weeks, but it has been months of waiting for the 4.0 patch.
I can't say for sure how this is effecting the player base but look at how posting has died off for CMFI and CMRT - titles I personally really enjoy. There are threads detailing bugs and TOE/OOB errors and omissions from 2014 that have still not been commented on. Are they being fixed in the next patch? Who knows?
If BF is aware that for example FJ gun transports in CMFI carry 50mm ammo regardless of the gun in the platoon, and it's being fixed in the next patch, then that's something I don't have to worry about, if they let the customers know and then I don't have to resurrect dead threads from 2014 in the hopes that it will be noticed, only for there to be no response because nobody is posting in the CMRT forum, lest of all devs.
In my opinion, it's not the big things like delays with the website or CMSF2 being a little later than expected, and certainly not major additions like France and Italy being added to CMSF2 at launch, it's the lack of patches and dev blogs on the existing titles. Little things like the graphics issues with the BMP-2M in CMBS, generated many, many community posts and were met with silence. Would it be so much to say "We're aware of that, we're fixing it, it will be in the upcoming patch for the 4.0 engine".
The responses to the question about CMBS bugs persisting into CMSF2 and asking if they will be addressed in a patch for CMBS is a ray of hope, I can only hope that there is a more organized way of doing that going forward.
Maybe have pinned threads in each of the titles' boards and one day a week (if possible) have someone a dev or beta tester come in and give a little update on what's being done on the title, what the known issues are, maybe even solicit help from the community if there is uncertainty about a TOE or OOB. So on Tuesday say, go into the Development Thread in CMFI and say "You know, we looked at that Italian infantry handbook you guys posted back in 2013 (and was reposted in 2018!) that mentions the squad breaking down into 3 man teams, but we think that was just for running in bounds and the Italian rifle squad was fundamentally a LMG section and a rifle section and couldn't maneuver as smaller elements than that." and then on Friday post on the CMFB board and say "Yeah, we're aware that the availability dates for HVAP for the 76mm gun might be off, we'll address that" (No more specifics needed, 10 seconds to post!). The following Tuesday, if there's less going on in the development of CMFI maybe just check in and say "We didn't really take the time to go back to look at the Italians after the engine updates, since they were in the initial release of CMFI and we couldn't just port over assets from other titles when we added AAA. We'd like to add stationary Breda 20mm guns to give Italians the ability to have AA units, and luckily we already have this modeled in game on the AS. 42. We'll hopefully have time to add this as a small patch to CMFI between CMSF2 shipping and Rome to Victory"
I know people like to say customers ask for too much. I disagree. We're not asking for detailed weekly dev diaries, just some indication of what is being done.
I know people say that posting on the forum takes away from development time. I disagree. Just say something like: "Not only will Module 1 for CMRT bring the timeline to the end of the war and add German formations and equipment, but the Soviets got a second looks too. So now Cavalry Uniforms are a selection as appearance in the unit purchase screen instead of a mod tag. Oh and since we already had Polish voice files from other titles, we're adding the First Polish Army to the Russian side". That took about 30 seconds and covered questions raised in dozens of threads and hundreds of posts dating from 2014. -
Not trying to knock you, but I'm trying to puzzle my way through the situation as well. I'm obviously far more familiar with the Canadian side of this equation!
Without posting pages from the manual, since you are not conducting a battalion or regimental eschelon attack, would it make more sense to go "by the book" for carrying out the initial phase of a meeting engagement? Move to contact, and then "pile on" with the elements of your force, which is approximately a Forward Security Element and parts of an Advance Guard?
If I'm reading the pam right, you would need about 3 vehicles to establish contact, and then can start an attack with 10 vehicles, 4 tanks, 6 mortars, 6 guns, all of which I think you have.
-
The smallest combat unit that carries out independent action is the Regiment. In the Combat Mission scale, I wouldn't use anything less than a Battalion for an attack.
QuoteA battalion normally attacks as part of its parent regiment. A battalion does not have the organic combat support or combat service support required for independent action. The exception to this is the employment of a battalion as a forward detachment to accomplish a deep, independent mission. In such a circumstance, the battalion would be reinforced to sustain itself for as long as possible.
A battalion attacking in the first echelon of a first echelon regiment would probably have a mission to
attack through strongpoints of defending enemy battalions and to continue the attack in an assigned direction. Soviet subunits normally do not stop on objec-tives and consolidate them, but continue the attack deeper into the enemy rear.
A motorized rifle battalion has three motorized rifle companies and normally has a tank company attached, as illustrated below. A tank battalion has three tank companies and may have either a motorized rifle platoon or company attached.
Now, if we take that into consideration and look back at the briefing for this scenario:
QuoteA NATO attack is in progress and they are making massive gains. In an attempt to slow them down high command has decided that a spoiling attack is required. We are the tip of that spear. Our task is to Probe into the assigned sector on the flank of the NATO attack and determine the strength of the Canadian flank security force in front of us and if possible, destroy it or force it to withdraw. Our force will not be reinforced unless successful, so if we fail, another unit will become the spearhead for the main attack.
And the fact that the scenario is a probe, we might re-evaluate the appropriate doctrine. I would suggest that we treat Mike's force as either an ad-hoc formation acting as the Regimental recon screen, or a first echelon force. In either case, there is doctrine for this kind of engagement with roughly the forces Mike has.
QuoteThe forward security element(called the"advance party" in some texts) is normally a motorized rifle company reinforced with tanks, artillery, mortars, engineers, and chemical defense. The mission of the FSE, moving up to 10 kilometers behind the CRP, is to advance at maximum speed and to engage lead enemy elements. Through use of its mobility and fire power, it seizes and holds a position advantageous for subsequent commitment of the advance guard main body.
The advance guard main body constitutes the bulk of the combat power of the advance guard.
The advance guard main body has the mission of either eliminating enemy opposition, permitting continuation of the march, or fixing the enemy force to permit a flank attack by the main force. Artillery and tanks are habitually placed forward in the column. If a threat comes from the flank, artillery and tanks may be placed in the middle of the column.
Typical Composition
of Advanced Guard Main Body* Motorized rifle battalion commander, staff, artillery commander.
* Signal platoon. (Not in the scope of CMSF2)
* Antitank platoon.
* Antiaircraft section.
* Artillery battalion (minus 1 battery with the FSE).
* Tank company(minus1 platoon with the FSE).* Two motorized rifle companies.
* Rear, including medical post. (Not in CMSF2)QuoteThe advance guard precedes the main force on the same route and provides movement security and warning. It normally consists of about one third of the total combat power of the main force.
The advance guard of a motorized rifle regiment is normally a motorized rifle battalion reinforced with tank, artillery, antitank, antiaircraft, engineer, and chemical elements.
The advance guard of a tank regiment is normally a similarly-reinforced tank battalion. In a division marching on multiple routes, the lead regiment on each route forms its own advance guard. There is no "divisional advance guard," as such.The advance guard, in its turn, will dispatch to its front a forward security element (FSE) consisting of about one third of its combat power. A forward security element of a regiment's advance guard will normally be a reinforced company. (The FSE is known as an "advance party" in some texts.)
The FSE is preceded by a combat reconnaissance patrol (CRP). The CRP is normally a platoon rein- forced with engineer and NBC reconnaissance elements. It reports intelligence information and makes the initial contact with any enemy forces encountered.
QuoteThe Attack
The attack against a defending enemy is employed when the enemy is in a defensive position, and the Soviets know his location. It normally follows a plan, based on intelligence on enemy disposition and the factors of mission, terrain, troops, and time available.
The attack against a defending enemy is the tactic which has been incorrectly described as a "break- through" or "deliberate attack." These terms are incor- rect because they do not fully describe all options avail- able to the Soviet commander conducting what he calls attack against a defending enemy.
Principles of Attack Doctrine
* Conduct aggressive reconnaissance.
* Breach enemy defense at weak points or gaps.Maneuver against enemy flanks and rear.
* Bypass strongpoints.
* Rapidly maneuver forces and fires in decisive direction.
* Mass fires.
* Give priority to destruction of enemy nuclear weapon systems.
* Strike rapidly and deeply into enemy rear.
* Maintain momentum under all conditions.
* Employ radioelectronic combat.The two methods of conducting an attack against a defending enemy are to attack from the march and to attack from a position in direct contact.
An attackfrom the march,the preferred method of attack, is launched from march formation out of assembly areas in the rear. Subunits deploy laterally at designated control lines and assume attack formation within approximately 1,000 meters of enemy defenses.
The Soviets perceive the advantages of the attack from the march to be as follows: The unit is not committed before attack. The attack increases chance
of surprise, allows greater flexibility, decreases vulner- ability to enemy artillery, and enhances momentum. Preparation for combat is performed out of enemy contact.
-
While I have always admired your ability to use western techniques like the recon pull, this illustrates issues that I see a lot of gamers facing when using Eastern Bloc forces.
Attack by echelon is brutal, simple, predictable and effective. I would suggest focusing on a command push, using the forces you have at hand, and using the appropriate doctrine for them. A T-72 is not a worse Leopard, it is a lethal weapons system when used in its intended role.
This post by JasonC in the CMBB forum fundamentally changed how I think about Soviet forces and has made me a much better player at not only CMRT and CMBS but any wargame that puts me in command of units that start with "T" instead of "M".
Quoteam going to address the fundamental formation aspects of the question and ignore the cold war context, because half to the nuclear coping aspects of that era's doctrine was frankly fantasy from start to finish. There are the basic tactics the Russians actually used successfully in WW II, and their conventional update to cold war conventional thinking, which isn't too far from that practice. And then there is the pipe dream of dodging thousands of tac nukes by being dispersed or "pentatonic" (the US version of the idiocy). The latter basically isn't worth comment, it is approximately as intelligent as "duck and cover" drills. So I will stick with the WW II version and its general, not specifically Russian let alone post-war, principles.
First to clear up the loose usage of "echelon". It is being used to mean three
or four things, none of which are its original or proper meaning (which certainly
isn't "trainload", by the way). Echelon in a formation. It means subelements
are staggered off to one flank with each trailing and to the same flank of the
one ahead of it. Echelon right means the farther right you go, the farther back
that subelement is, and echelon left means the other way. This is the basic or
underlying meaning from which all the others are loosely derived.
Many of the tactics being describe here are instead *column* tactics, and refer to a different formation in which the subelements are directly behind one another. The term column is sometimes avoided in that sense because it can be confused with still being in *road column*, which simply means a column with a frontage of one vehicle, whereas a column formation means a frontage of one subelement, with the formation within that subelement left unspecified, but potentially as broad as a 1 rank line.
An attack in which the first element hits and fixes the enemy, and the second
hits again in the same spot as a second wave, and a third exploits a breech
expected to result from the first trading off the enemy and the second taking
his positions, is not an echelon attack properly speaking. It is a column
attack.
An echelon attack properly speaking is meant to defeat an enemy by turning
one of his flanks - exactly one. And to do so not by wide maneuever but
as a progressively escalation of and widening of a frontal attack. The
first subelement is oriented directly on the enemy and matches his width.
It attacks and fixes the enemy; the attack is typically not pressed home
fully but it is not a mere screening action, but an actual attack. This
can be unpleasant for this component of the attacking force, but it draws
the fire and attention of the defenders, and this is what is meant by
"fixing" them. Not restricting their maneuver, incidentally.
The whole attacking formation is expected to outnumber the defenders by
a step size amount or roughly 3 to 1, and the the fixing element is therefore
the same size as the defenders' entire force. The whole attacking formation
begins in true echelon formation, echeloned to the right or the left. The
frontal attack occurs *first*. The second subelement is, by the definition
of echelon formation, off to one flank of the fixing attack. It may be a
staggered echelon with some overlap with the initial force (half or a third
of its frontage are common amounts of overlap), or it may be completely
clear of the fixing force in the lateral direction. The third is similarly
displaced with respect to the second, and trailing by an equal interval,
as well.
So what happens next in a true echelon attack? The second echelon does *not*
hit the same frontage as the fixing attack, because the attacking formation
is not column, but echeloned right or left. The whole attacking formation
remains in motion, and therefore some time after the fixing attack has begun,
the second echelon reaches the active battle front, off on one flank of the
existing battle. Perhaps overlaping, perhaps not. It continues straight on,
and therefore it either collides with some supporting defensive unit off
on that flank, or if there isn't one, a portion or all of the second
echelon will "hit air" to one side of the defenders or the other.
Assuming no immediately contiguous defenders of equal power (since that
would imply equal overall odds, not the superiority expected), the second
echelon will strike only part of the defense, as a second wave, and will
extend beyond its flank. Its mission is then to turn into the defense,
not to get clear of it. It is the levering portion of an overall,
sequentially delivered turning movement. The part past the defender's
flank continues a modest distance and reorients defender-ward aka
inward, and presses home on that defender's flank.
The third echelon is, by the definition of echelon formation, still further
to the same flank and still further trailing. By the time it reaches
the initial battleline, the fight of the other two elements should be
well developed. Moreover, the degree of overlap of the staggered
formations is always half or less, and therefore the third echelon is
always completely clear of the frontage the first echelon hit directly.
Since the battle is continuing to develop and the second echelon is
working to roll up the defender's flank on the same side, the active,
live portion of the defense is expected to extend less than its full
initial width in that flank's direction, by the time the third
echelon reaches the original battleline.
The *entire* third echelon should therefore hit air, if all has worked
as intended. Moreover, the flank of the defense that it is passing
around, is being actively attacked by the second echelon, as the moment
the third reaches that point. The defense is expected to be engaged
in two directions, by superior forces, for an extended period of time,
by the time this stage is reached. All of the above is expected to mean
the opposition the third echelon directly encounters will be *minimal*.
The role of the third echelon is emphatically not to act as a reserve,
or to support either of the other two attacks, or to pick some weak
spot and add its weight to the attack there. While the second echelon
deliberately turned toward the defense, seeking battle, the role of the
third is to *avoid* the remaining defense, and to exploit the gap
expected to have opened on the flank of the defense hit by the previous
echelon. The third echelon is to "haul ass and bypass", heading straight
for the rear beyond the defenders as fast as possible, ignoring its
own flanks.
This is meant to put a force as large as the original strength of the
entire defense, alive, untouched, in their rear, having passed "close
aboard" one of their flanks, as that flank was actively pushed away from
the point of passage (to avoid hitting further supporting defenders too
far from the originally hit enemy unit). The third echelon is to drive
well behind the whole defense and then to establish blocking positions
behind them, in a tactically defensive posture to prevent their escape.
At this point the defense should be surrounded on three sides, and the
attacker has a intact route into the interior of the defender's zone
for following units. The defenders are expected to be reduced by the
attacks so far, and to be doomed by the force behind them far too strong
from them to attack through on their own, under pressure.
That is the principle of an *echelon* attack. In shorthand, the first
echelon fixes, the second turns the defense, and the third exploits.
But not from column, nor by hitting the same point in three waves, but
precisely by extending the battle repeatedly in the same flanking
direction at separated time intervals. One may also regard this formula
as a kind of "total dose" that is unwilling to pick between a frontal
assault, a turning movement, and an outright bypassing attempt, which
tries all three in succession hoping one will work, or that the synergy
from trying each of the previous will make the next easier. (lol)
It is also meant to be so simple, so hardwired into the original
formation of the attacking unit, that the subcommanders can't screw it
up, and no real decision making or virtuousity is needed by any of them.
The second echelon doesn't need to do something different depending on
what happened with the first, or base on what scouts say about where the
enemy's flank actually is, or where he is strong or weak. If the enemy's
position is too strong and too extended, the second echelon winds up
delivering another frontal attack - and the whole attempt has to bump up
a step size in scale. That's about all the "online learning" needed to
adapt the attack. It can therefore be delivered rapidly from the march.
From their roles in an echelon formation or attack, the sub-elements
themselves come to be designated as echelons. Thus the loosely usage to
mean just the first, second and third "thirds" of the overall force to
reach and engage the enemy. Which is then transfered to descriptions
of *column* tactics, in which all of the subelements follow *directly*
in each other's footsteps. But strictly speaking, column tactics are
column tactics and echelon tactics are echelon tactics, and they are
not the same.
A third form of loose usage speaks of 2 up, 1 back formations, which are
strictly inverted wedge formations, or the reverse, the true wedge
formation, as being "in echelon". Because the same principle of a
staggered supporting unit occurs with those formations, as with the first
and second elements of a true echelon formation. If a portion of a wedge
or inverted wedge is unengaged by the enemy, it can "act" as the third
echelon. The third echelon gets conflated with any reserve. But these
are loose adaptations that arise from some of the same principles of
echelon tactics, applying to those other common formations.
Defensively, an echelon formation is used to meet a threat to one of the
flanks of the unit, as a kind of refused flank, with elements of reserve
flexibility. Compared to a true refused flank, which might put 2/3rds
of the formation in line across the main expected axis of enemy advance, with
1/3rd angled back to defend a threatened flank, the echelon formation in
defense in less linear and puts less of its force right along the expected
front line. But it is reasonably close to putting 2/3rds in that formation
with a remaining third held farther back in reserve - the reserve is just
prepositioned opposite an expected threatened flank instead of in the
interior or rear of the formation.
I go through all of this at such length because I find the looser usages
maddening in the confusion they can cause, compared to the crystaline
geometric clarity of the original and underlying meaning. Which is brutely
simple. Nearly all the real effectiveness of the idea comes from the
brutally simple original version and not from the complications and
qualifications and adaptations of the looser meanings of the term.
Compared to first accurately knowing the enemy's flank and enveloping
it by maneuver alone in silence and with surprise, echelon attack is
potentially much more expensive, less artful, less clever, attritionist,
all the usual hate-words of the perfectionist maneuverist. But it is
incredibly robust to battlefield friction and confusion, while perfectionist
ideals cannot be expected to survive contact with a trap-laying enemy.
Especially in the hands of a perfectly average, merely professional commander.
The required roles can be reduced to a clear duty based on position in the
formation.
"I am in first echelon, therefore as soon as I find the enemy I must put my
forces on-line and attack him vigorously".
"I am in second echelon, therefore I must march to the sound of the guns,
extend existing friendly forces and envelope the enemy, attacking from the
moment of contact".
"I am in third echelon, therefore I must heed all reports of the preceeding
waves, avoid enemy strength, and drive hell for leather into his rear. Only
once across his main routes of withdrawal should I deploy, to block his
withdrawal."
These are maneuevers that can be accomplished knowing where friendly forces
are and how they are doing, almost exclusively. Perfectly accurate and
timely information about the dispositions of the *enemy*, are not strictly
required, though they can of course make each force's job easier.
No one trying to make Russian doctrine into a perfectionist formula to
meet each contingency with the perfect counter, understands that doctine.
Its guiding star is, instead, simplicity, clarity, and robustness to friction.
Echelon tactics now being understood, it is trivial to answer Adam's actual
question. Forward detachments do not use echelon tactics. They screen.
In some circumstances they might act as a first echelon or transition to that
role, by delivering a fixing attack as their supporting main formations
maneuver against an open enemy flank or deploy into a standard echelon attack.
But normally a forward detachment only seeks to fight enemies so small it
completely outmatches them, and even then only does so to gain information -
that is, to prevent an enemy screen from denying the forward detachment
the ability to see the bulk of the enemy force.
A forward detachment normally just wants to establish visually and by experience
of taking enemy fire, where the enemy positions are - and to deny to the enemy
any information about where its own covered main elements are. Its normal
tactical posture is defensive - or in CM terms "move to contact". Once in
contact it may snipe, it might look for an open flank to see more or lever
a small enemy force out of position, or it might try to bowl over a small
roadblock if the commander thinks it a bluff rather than a real position.
All recon tactics, flexible and up to the detachment CO.
A first echelon of a main formation, on the other hand, considers its tactical
stance not its own autonomous affair, but an integral part of a scheme
of maneuver of its larger parent. If it finds the enemy it is to attack
him outright, regardless of the chances of winning, simply to develop the
battle from the decisive remaining echelons. Not merely screen, and not
based on the COs assessment, nor based on his real time intel picture. He
is first echelon, so he attacks, because that is what his role is, that is
what will allow the remainder of the formation to do its own jobs, etc.
Maneuverists in the west fixate on forward detachment roles in Russian
doctrine as closer to their own flexible mindset with its recon pull and
close intel adaptation. The Russians only employ that for gathering info,
and do not rely on it for actual battle. Compared to western thinking, their
tactics are formulaic, brutal, direct, and apparently unadaptive. That they
are also reliable and highly dangerous to the enemy is occasionally admitted,
but usually this is put down to their alleged similarity to pet fetishes of
western thinking (breakthrough, flanking to avoid strength, flexibility and
recon pull, etc). This is projection, and not the internal logic of the system
itself, which is scarcely even noticed.
And from US Field Manual 100-2-1 The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics.
Quote5-24 Battalion Attack
A typical tank or motorized rifle company attack frontage is from 500 to 800 meters. Platoons normally attack on a frontage of 100 to 200 meters, with 50 to 100 meters between vehicles. The frontage of a 4-tank platoon attached to a motorized rifle company could extend to 400 meters.
There would probably be little maneuver evident in platoon and company tactics. These subunits normally attack on line, in unison. However, maneuver probably will be evident in the way a battalion commander moves his companies.
Normally, company and battalion commanders are located centrally and slightly to the rear of lead ele- ments in combat vehicles with extra antennas. If commanders are killed, the attack probably would not grind to a halt but would be carried forward on its own momentum. However, elimination of tactical com- manders would diminish coordination of the attack, especially fire coordination.
Conduct of the Attack
Mounted assault speed is approximately 12 kilo- meters per hour (200 meters per minute). This speed allows tanks to fire from a brief halt, allowing one aimed round to be fired from the main gun. There are indications that the Soviets are striving to increase mounted assault speed to 20 kilometers per hour to reduce vulnerability to antitank weapons. Dismounted assault speed is approximately 6 kilometers per hour.
Soviets prefer motorized rifle units to assault mounted.
If a dismounted attack is planned, a dismount line is designated, within about 400 meters from the FEBA. If possible, dismount is performed with the BMPs or
BTRs in defilade to protect riflemen from machine gun fire and vehicles from antitank fires. Factors favoring
dismounted assault are-
-
* Strong enemy antitank capability.
-
* Well-prepared enemy defenses.
-
* Fords or bridges.
-
* Obstacles or minefields.
-
* Rough terrain: no high speed avenues of attack.
-
* Maximum firepower needed.
-
-
The most probable array is:
* Line of tanks
* Line of dismounted infantry * Line of BMPs or BTRs
-
or
* Line of tanks
* Line of BMPs or BTRs
-
-
Dismounted riflemen follow closely behind tanks. The BTRs or BMPs normally remain within 100 to 400 meters behind tanks and fire through gaps between tanks. If the terrain is rugged or heavily wooded, motorized rifle subunits might lead the assault.
The artillery preparation should end just before first echelon elements reach the FEBA. Fires are normally shifted on command of maneuver commanders within about 200 meters of lead elements, depending upon weapon caliber. There is no pause between the preparatory fires and the start of fires in support of the attack. While fighting through enemy defenses, maneuver elements will be preceded by a pattern of intense artillery and mortar fires. Fires like the rolling barrages of World War II are unlikely; however, fires on successive concentrations or lines will be provided.
Fixed-wing air strikes normally are used for targets beyond artillery range. Attack helicopters provide close air support on the FEBA in direct support of ground units.
Subunits go into the final assault moving at maximum possible speed.
Combined Armed Tactics
The essence of the attack and final assault is combined arms cooperation based on the close and uninterrupted interaction of all forces to best exploit their capabilities. Each arm provides strength and protection where another arm is weak or vulnerable.
The Soviets believe the tank is the major ground force weapon. The tank is the keystone of combined arms cooperation in the attack. Concern for the enemy antitank threat is the dominating factor in coordinating the combined arms effort. For this reason, Soviet tanks normally carry more high explosive (HE) rounds than antitank (AT) rounds.
Tank fires are directed by tank company commanders and platoon leaders. An entire tank company may engage an area target with salvo fire. Tank platoons engage area orpoint targets at the direction of platoon leaders. Platoon leaders direct fires by visual signals, radio, and designation with tracer rounds.In summary, use the tactics developed for the equipment you have. By analogy, I often see players in CMFI complain about Italian forces. While there are obviously shortcomings with the equipment and organization of the Italian Army in the Second World War, many of the complaints stem from trying to accomplish missions using doctrine tailored for other forces.
Take for instance the Infantry Battalion: The Italians do not have MG focused squads like the Germans, and do not break down into small 4 man teams like the Germans and Western Allies. This breaks down the fire-and-movement tactics at the squad and platoon level players are used to. Instead, the Italian Army has an exception light mortar in large numbers that provides the base of fire for platoon attacks and medium mortars and heavy machine guns used to support the company and battalion attack.
The Syrian Army will always lose if using tactics developed for NATO forces. As demonstrated in the Golan, and even more-so by the Egyptians in crossing the Suez, Warsaw Pact equipped forces can beat Western forces if used with the appropriate tactics.
-
-
Strangely this has only happened on maps I converted from CMFB and CMFI, maybe that could play a part.
I keep having BMP-3Ms with only the 30mm disabled, sometimes as much as 30% of my total force.
-
Two issues with the Pak 36 in CMFI - GL.
First of all, the gun tractors for the Airborne AT platoon carry the correct 150mm HEAT ammo, but the remainder of the ammunition is 50mm and not 37mm ammo.
I believe this is also an issue with the recoiless gun ammo sections.
Additionally, the Gun does not rotate to fire at targets.
-
I wish it was just a bit easier to make quick battle plans. It's one of the things that could really open up the game.
-
On 7/30/2018 at 11:55 AM, JoMc67 said:
That's interesting, Doug-e-Phresh, and hope BF takes this under advisement
-
Phone posting, double post!
-
With Field Divisions making an appearance, will the HG Division finally get a second look? Their depiction in Sicily is great but once the fighting moves to Italy it’s fairly apparent that their uniforms are a copy-paste from CMBN. HG in mainland Italy often had cuff titles and wore SS Oakleaf camoflauge smocks. Additionally, their ranks were white and not green as in Field Divisions. This applies to both the unit skins and the unit information screen.
-
It’s a very small thing compared to AFVs, but having lend-lease jeeps, White scout cars and half tracks available would make a big difference for conducting recce on the big maps.
The T-70 is just not a good recce platform and carrying out recce on foot on a 3km x 3km map is laborious.
-
It would be nice if, in addition to Target, Target Light and Target Timed there was a way to select which weapon to fire. The BMP-2M comes to mind which has an Autocannon, LMG, ATGM and AGL.
The first thing that comes to mind is having something similar to when you place a move order on a building and you get the little pop up that asks which floor. Simply have that come up when you place a target marker and have a list of available weapons, with the default set for all, which is I think the current behavior.
-
I’m itching to hear more about the patches. If we are still in the window where we can report bugs, it would be nice to know which ones the devs are aware of.
-
A small but I think significant thing I’d like to see going forward is the ability of Russian vehicles to generate smokescreens through their engines. This is a valuable capability to add in-game. The lack of smoke grenade launchers on AFVs and slow call for fire times are represented in both CMRT and CMBS, which is great. However the alternate way Russian forces add obscurants to the battlespace is not, which leaves them without that capibility altogether.
QuoteMy understanding is, and I welcome correction, is that the Russian technique consists of spraying diesel onto the hot exhaust manifold itself to create the smoke screen. So it only works to create smoke behind the tank, either leaving a smoke trail behind it, or the tank could back into the smoke screen for concealment.
To my knowledge, no Western tanks use this system. However, both Russian and Western tanks have smoke grenade projectors which fire forward. Both systems create smoke, but are used differently.
This naturally has implications for Syrian forces in CMSF which use Russian equipment. Every major Russian AFV in CMSF should be able to generate smoke.
Aesthetically, I would like hit decals to appear on AFVs with ERA. If you use the camera to clip through you can see the impacts and penetrations on the actual hull armour, but not on the ERA tiles. Easiest example: BMP-3M with ERA takes autocannon fire, you have to clip through the ERA to see where the vehicle was hit, it otherwise looks undamaged.
I would also like clarification on if the turret ERA behind the rubber skirt is modelled on the BMP-3M with ERA.
-
1 hour ago, MikeyD said:
Remember the title takes place 12 years ago.
Anecdotal, but the C9A2 was filtering into battalion at least in '04.
QuoteC9A2 refers to a modernized version instituted after combat experience in Afghanistan in 2002
The manual also specifically includes the C79 as an integral component of the weapons system.
http://biblioteka.mycity-military.com/biblioteka/Diemaco/C9 Light Machine Gun.pdf -
Of course now that there is a Sherman Crab, I have hope for more engineering vehicles.
Nijmegen Ported to CMBS
in CM Black Sea Maps and Mods
Posted
Great job! In porting maps to CMBS I've had a very hard time placing brides correctly. Did you figure it out?
Additionally, I find every title except for CMBN will port maps to BS, and even then MG and the battlepack port, which leads me to suspect hedgerows are to blame.