Flibby

I just wanted to weigh in to strongly support the viewing of Spencer Jones's talks from the western front association. Secondly, was there any difference tactically between an attack in 1917 and the Second battle of El Alamein? My reading suggests that the tactics were almost identical to post 1916 ww1 attacks, creeping barrage included.

Very interesting. I guess the Ukrainian offensive will give us some answers to whether the lack of Rus progress was down to them, or if it's a systematic issue in the current warfare meta.

I've been watching some interesting first hand accounts from British veterans of the conflict. One thing they all recount that stands out to me, is lengthy shelling from the Russians over a period of days or weeks. Very little in the way of infantry attacks or combined arms assaults. Is there such a failure in morale that the infantry fails to follow up the barrages, or have the ruskies forgotten post-1916 artillery doctrine, that you don't just shell an enemy and not try to get your own troops up behind the barrage?

I have been struggling with this interesting scenario by @Ithikial_AU The mission guidelines seem to suggest using MGs to cover the move through the valley to the trench network on the other side. I have outlined my intended manoeuvre in blue, up the shortest avenue into cover. I should like to cover my assault with a decent angle, but I can't find anywhere with decent LOS on my side of the valley. When I bring my MGs along with me, similarly LOS at any decent range to cover an assault is very limited. Has anyone any tips for MG placement on this map for an attacker? Cheers

I do not remember which poster used to espouse these ideas, some years ago now, but what really helped me was to think of firepower and how best to implement that firepower. Rather than just moving men around, what you are actually doing is moving men in order to position somewhere else to deploy more firepower. In practice that took me away from forlorn infantry attacks to rather congregating firepower effects on a single area, overwhelming the enemy, and then moving in thereafter. Infantry attacks without significant fire superiority, even through covered areas, seldom work out for me.

I hope that this is taken in the spirit in which it is meant - CM may just need a reasonable competitor in order to push the series forward. We all enjoy and appreciate the effort that is put in by BF. We would not be here otherwise. It is unfortunate however that CM is resigned to years of semi-releases and updates rather than the great leaps forward that I think we would all appreciate. The gulf in the trajectory between OpenGL and DirectX have been there for all to see for decades now. Unfortunately it doesn't really hold water to say that it's a surprise that development is limited by not taking a decision to re-engineer the engine in DirectX years ago. The new modules, battle packs etc are all well and good, as are the steam releases, but I can't think that I am in a minority who would sacrifice significant releases for a period for the knowledge that a new engine was being created, with current technology, which would allow an even more realistic experience. Much less talented game designers are out there creating games which, given the 'CM Treatment' would solve a lot of the on-going issues which cause issues with the current experience. I realise BF aren't a tripe A developer, but it's not as though we see a new release every year anyway. And they have moved to a different engine before. At the moment the competition is either too 'gamey' such a Regiments for example; or like Mius Front, has a UI which is totally unintuitive. Both things which CM excels at. Then we have Squad Battles by John Tiller for example which are great games but very abstracted given they are trying to emulate Squad Leader. Even Second Front which I had high hopes for looks like a cartoon and I can't take it seriously. Anyway - I'm going to keep playing the games because there's nothing better, and therefore little incentive to update the system. Perhaps I'm part of the problem.

Absolutely, sorry I wasn't very clear that I was referring to real life. I understand that there is some kind of abstraction of microterrain in-game.

Is black sea, of course. It's still more than possible to get fire superiority with platoon weapons in ww2 titles.

Well yes either that or they up their fire and gain fire superiority. Don't get me wrong, I'd be hiding behind a wall/tree...

Wouldn't troops without cover be less likely to get pinned, on the basis that they don't have anything to cower behind?

I think by way of an example I say this. If we have two units, one in a building and one prone in a field overlooked by the building The enemy in the building can only fire out of a window and therefore when they are visible to the troops outside. The troops outside can fire as they please. Surely the only benefit to the cover also means that you become a prisoner in that building, as enemy weapon systems will be trained waited for you to appear in the window. If the enemy was on the roof however, they would lack cover, but would have an elevated firing position, able to dominate the prone troops and increase their angle of attack and target size

I just wanted to spitball something here as I improve my play thanks to a lot of the great info on here. I have been having some success recently by focussing more on placing my supporting squads/weapons where they can best affect the enemy, rather than the way I would usually play which was to maximise the use of cover above all else and use those positions as a supporting position. My rationale is thus: when I'm crouching behind a wall or tree, if I am firing my weapon I'm exposing no more of myself than if I am lying prone. Perhaps more. Yes, of course I can duck behind cover. But in the attack where I'm looking to establish fire superiority to enable manoeuvre, I'm being proactive. What therefore is the benefit of cover? Yes rounds will be coming back, but if prone and showing such a small target, cover surely only allows me to hide and increase the risk of losing fire superiority to the enemy. To the contrary, I do see the psychological benefit in the real world of being in cover when reloading etc from experience, but game wise I feel less hampered by sticking to physical cover when effectively the fire that I'm putting down is cover in and of itself if it is suppressing the enemy.

Sadly not - loads of these annoying bunkers:

I remember doing that mission - it was incredibly difficult to deal with the bunkers which refuse to die to the MG's as you say, and only get whittled down by a few lucky shots - once you get the infantry close enough they can do more damage than the MGs. In that scenario though it sort of does go to my point - whilst you establish the MGs and mortars you get peppered by the enemy.

Thanks for the reply - it makes sense to use more off-map artillery with pre-planned barrages, but then problem arises with using artillery after this point - you still need a spotter in LOS to the enemy, and therefore able to be shot are surely?

I am having issues at the moment pinning enemy forces, in particular enemy units in covered positions such as buildings and/or trenches. When going through the planning stages I can identify areas with good observation and fields of fire on the enemy positions to facilitate manoeuvre however building fire superiority usually leads to my fixing troops being engaged by the enemy. Makes sense right? The enemy are sat there watching their front and we are moving up to a ridge with good observation of their positions - we can see them and they can see us but they are already set up for the fight with us in their sights. This means that we start from a great disadvantage. Is this accurate and is there any way around it being a bit bloody to establish fire superiority early in the fight?

I took the time to use much more smoke on the attack and use it to get the brens and mortars into better positions. Only 6 men killed which is much better thanks for the very helpful advice. How much was smoke used historically for these purposes? I don't remember seeing it discussed too much in handbooks of the time.

Thanks for that let me try it out.

I didn't realise that ring out of HE stopped you from using smoke. How would you explain dealing with MG positions? How can you gain fire superiority over a MG without tanks as infantry becomes pinned so quickly.

Just as a separate point, someone mentioned not bothering with the flank attack and just using the centre and then smoke to block off any enfilade fire. Upon trying this, as my scouts are going through the wood they find a HMG just off to the left. I don't know how to tactically approach this situation. Instinctively I would look to get into cover (the wall here) but when moving the section up to the wall, most of them bit the dust. In order to suppress an HMG on a tripod in decent cover without armour seems a hard task. Obvious a mortar would be the best weapon but here there is very limited scope to get a mortar to any sort of range where the HMG isn't going to nail him. In fact, an HMG's range is longer than a mortar so unless you have a well concealed area to get your mortar to, how are you to get a decent number of shots off without being spotted and nailed?

So I decided to try out my initial plan first – to see how it would progress. Initial moves over towards KT2 showed that the enemy had any route over to KT2 covered with at least one MG42 which took a casualty from the first team to hop over the wall. I moved up my mortar to deal with the position and after some very wayward shots he was able to do so. This allowed my troops to get into the concealment at the base of KT2. This move was still a bit hairy and caused some losses. With the benefit of hindsight perhaps I should have moved in bounding overwatch but I just wanted to get them out of the killing zone. I wouldn't have been able to suppress the enemy troops in buildings effectively anyway. It then became clear that the enemy had troops at the far end of KT2 which would have enfiladed the frontal approach to the village, as I feared At this point I could get my HMG deployed and firing into the positions that had been revealed in the village proper. I was able to clear KT2 from short range and then close with the village, get into the first building and then overpower the remaining enemy positions. The enemy was then forced into a surrender. I did however suffer a greater number of casualties than I would have liked. 13 dead in total. For such an attack against an enemy in an urban position perhaps this is not too bad in a WW2 context? I found that it certainly helped to have conducted a proper assessment of the enemy positions, key terrain and routes in. Perhaps smoke could have worked better, but by moving over to KT2 in the clear I was able to find out where the enemy was in KT1. I realise that this was probably not the hardest scenario and was against the AI – does anyone have any suggestions for a harder challenge on a map which would let me so similar to continue the learning process?

I know of WP being used with unpleasant consequences in the Falklands. Can you choose which your troops will fire?

The smoke is a weird one. I have smoke rounds and wp rounds which I thought were the same...around 8 of each I believe per tube, so plenty. It's an interesting idea to skip KT2 but it would mean that my support by fire position was 60m or so from the enemy held buildings. I always have in my mind getting long distance MG support at as close to 90 degrees from my assaulting units as possible.

That sounds like a great idea but I'm not sure where I'd start. Just place enemy positions where is out them? I would probably split squads down into sub units and set up mgs in the town and behind some walls or in hedges but the AI might be smarter than I

I posted a while back about creating an AAR to try to get some tactical advice. I have used the various resources in the forum including Bil H’s blogs to try to methodically approach a battle and see how this improves my typical results. I would be really grateful for people’s honest insight into my planning process and then how the battle goes from here. The battle that I have chosen is AD Snow Day from Combat Mission: Fortress Italy. I wasn’t able to find the designer to credit them. The scenario requires the capture of a small village. Our forces are 2 initial platoons of New Zealand Infantry with 1 platoon to arrive later on to complete the company. Supporting is a sniper, Vickers .303 water cooled WW1 HMG and mortars attached to the platoons with a low supply of HE and smoke rounds. Enemy forces are a platoon strength unit likely with a number of MG34/42 positions at crucial points including in the village. I have tried to identify the key terrain and avenues of approach. View from AA3 towards KT2 View from KT 2 KT 1 is the village itself. The village offers good observation over the open ground in the middle between the forest and the village objective. KT1 also offers observation over to KT2. KT 2 is the forest on the left flank. KT2 offers observation of the ground required to pass in order to get into the objective area. If the enemy holds this ground they can pepper my forces with enfilade fire as we approach the objective. If we hold the ground we will be able to support our forces via supporting fires and clearing the area will ensure that our forces are not attacked from this angle. There are three broad avenues of attack. AA1 which is the left flank to KT1. AA2 which is the central approach and AA3 which is the right flanking arrow. AA1 would leave a large area to cross to KT1 from KT2 and it would be difficult to support an assault from that angle. AA2 would be the obvious attack route due to the short distance of open ground before we could get a foothold in KT1. AA3 suffers the same issues as AA1 and does not allow for much support – in addition our forces could end up being funnelled in the small space available and held up by minor enemy forces. My thoughts are to take AA2 with a supporting smoke screen from KT2 allowing the advance and supporting fires from KT2 dealing with any fixed positions. My tentative plan is to work 1 Platoon along with the Vickers HMG and the mortar from 2 Platoon up to KT2. When KT2 is secured, 2 Platoon and 3 Platoon when available are to move to the stone wall in-front of the forest along AA2 before moving into the objective under cover of smoke. Once a foothold is established in the village, at that point victory should be certain. How does the plan sound? Am I way off base with the key terrain / avenues of approach that other people would look at? One concern I have is that all of the potential positions for support, even KT2, are within a few hundred meters of observation and one way or another I am going to have to fight into KT2 and will lose people doing so unless I just smoke the open gap.. I will look to get the ball rolling on moves at the weekend.