SimpleSimon

A few years ago I had the pleasure of reading Gooch's book on the emergence and peculiar nature of the Military-Fascist "interdynamic" in Mussolini's Italy and the consequences that pattern of organization had on Italy's war effort. As Gooch admitted at the the time, the book was mostly about the theory and planning phase of Fascist Rearmament of Italy through the 1920s and 30s and terminating just before 1940 when Italy jumped into the Second World War as a major combatant. At the time Gooch stated (ominously lol) that an examination of the "applied" effort of Italy in the World War would require a new, separate book. Good on his threat, Gooch's new book "Mussolini's War" has come out on Amazon Kindle as of December and i've begun to read it. 
Gooch's highly dialectical and sober analysis of Fascist Italy's preparations for war was a book I found both intriguing and enlightening, and gives one a pretty important perspective on how authoritarian and totalitarian states still require a functional state bureaucracy and a degree of popular consent in order to function properly. Even more crucially how a failure to ensure good cooperation and communication between arms of the state from the military to private enterprise can lead to failure and-under abnormally heavy load-catastrophic structural failure, in this case of the Italian state's war effort against the Allied powers. Under Mussolini's leadership however cooperation was a byword for weakness and the Duce-less successfully than Hitler-often attempted to play his Generals and Ministers against each other under the presumption that his own position would be strengthened by the weakening of his competitors within the highly Piedmontese-Monarchist military establishment. This was never the case. Instead Mussolini frequently found himself embroiled in inter-office disputes between the various branches of the military which served only to obfuscate and distort reality as all 3 branches of the military (air, sea, and land) lobbied against eachother to achieve the Dictator's blessing. Their own (incorrect) assumption being that Mussolini's personal backing would result in the release of state funding to secure means to achieve ends. This did not transpire either. 
In reality, Mussolini's fascist reorganization of Italy-although not lacking in brutality and ruthlessness-never achieved the level of coordination the Nazis managed in Germany who effectively turned the entire state into an apparatus of the military-industrial complex. Italy required far more in the way of consent and was especially complicated by Mussolini's decision to retain the monarchy and operate at the consent of a semi-democratic Fascist Council he chaired. This system might not have proven fatal by itself, but under Mussolini's embattled, cynical worldview it certainly proved to be. 
So i've just started the new book, (ie: Mussolini's War) on the Italian War Effort-Applied. I'll be posting my various notes and reactions to events as I go. I've already completed the section on the Abyssinian War which i'll be pointing out some notes and reactions too later on. 

You guess right, although the Red Army didn't think of individual German positions really, they thought mainly of transiting from Point A to Point B and crushing absolutely whatever was unlucky enough to be right in their path. If we're talking about an offensive, and the given unit is priority movement, than we're talking a weight of shellfire support equivalent to raining freight trains. Nothing will be held in reserve, and the planned fires will be extremely comprehensive...although they will not have much left over to support the infantry once their movement commences. 
GHQ will provide the heaviest guns, 122mm A-19, 152mm M1937, and perhaps even 203mm B-4 gun howitzers. Generous allotments of spare 122mm M1938 guns will complement the Division's own section of those weapons plus the ZiS-3 built into Division equipment templates. 
The plan will be as follows, the heaviest guns will distribute their fire onto the locations of the map your infantry will later be conducting their movements right through. Where-ever you plan on placing a man in the next hour should be turned into moonscape first. Few gun-howitzers will be set aside for peripheral objectives but some can be used on suspected rear-area locations, roads, etc to suppress or destroy enemy headquarters assets and punish units trying to move into the map to reinforce the defenders. TRPs should be used liberally, especially for 2nd or 3rd phase fire plans to continue your advance. Lighter weapons such as the ZiS-3 will generally be set aside for suspected enemy positions on flanks to pin defenders and prevent them from repositioning. The idea of the suppression fires is not to kill Germans as much as it is to bind them to those locations and prevent them from thwarting your movements by reinforcing other sections of the defense or positioning to counter attack. It's totally reasonable for you to have the entire map covered in fire plans, although the heaviest fire plans should be used for where you actually plan on transiting. 
Your artillery plan is conducted purely on the grounds of *your* movement plan. Not what the Germans are up to. 
In return, very little will be left over for your use after the planning phase. Division and Corp HQ should not be used for Battalion directed "tactical" fire, they can be, but that's not an efficient use of their time. Enemy positions that survived initial bombardments are to be dealt with through Battalion and Division mortars, especially the 120mm PM-38 which a Rifle Division would have at least 24 of, and it would not be unreasonable to see all of them supporting *your* attack. X guns per square kilometer of front in the East were normally very thin, but that changed fast if an Offensive was planned, then that ratio changes to more like X guns per square meter  
It was fairly normal for entire Rifle Divisions to move through a 2km or even 700m section of front, just snowplowing straight ahead for miles until reaching their designated objective and stopping. No flanking attacks. No reserves. Just a straight advance in line with each subsequent Battalion, and Regiment following in line. Normally, a Rifle Division would not be prioritized for support unless they were Guards Rifles but if they happen to be The Chosen Ones today then the Stavka will be visiting their humble sector of the front with Biblical force. 
 
 

Heaps of what constitutes a "good" defense vs a "bad" defense is open to interpretation. People shouldn't get super hung up by doctrine because circumstances matter more. 
I've found that randomizing deploy areas for the AI can also serve to create a lot of excitement in scenarios they're attacking on Freyburg. It turns out you can in fact enable situations where the AI will be "good" at attacking as long as the player cannot easily predict where the attack will emerge from and as long as the attack is properly supported. Just like....reality lmao 

I know we've been over this ground before and I semi-apologise for bringing it up again, but it just really interests me.
(I thought about re-opening an old thread but they get so long...)
Anyway - I wanted to reiterate how impressed I am with the AI's ability to 'read' the map. Here are some screenshots.
 
1) Here are my super simple AI plans for static defence. I always give the AI several groups with different settings, but I don't usually put much thought into where it should set up - I let the AI make that decision and paint all over the map.

 
2) This is what the AI came up with for that map. This a typical example, by no means unusual or a fluke.
It has read the map, correctly ascertained the main vulnerabilities for an approaching force (exposed ground with limited cover), placed armour to threaten these in a well-sited spot, with its flanks covered, and placed infantry in good cover to defend against an attack on the armour.

 
There are things I would like to see improved with the AI, but I think the above is very clever and well done. I get literally hours of fun by:
making up a map I like that I think is realistic; choosing logical and challenging VPs and set-up zones; and then just throwing together some AI plans that give maximum 'freedom of choice' to the AI. Occasionally some of enemy forces are poorly placed (out of the fight usually), but never a high proportion of the enemy force and it never mars the game. Almost all the time, almost all the enemy force is very cleverly positioned.
The only caveat is that this works best for static defence, and I have had less success with AI plans that involve movement. However even these can work well if they are very general with wide parameters (such as the AI falling back at suitable intervals).
For a certain type of battle, this game has a really great AI
 

Something i've noticed is that the British kept the Ordinance 3in Mortar in service until the 1960s, in spite of its relatively short range for an infantry mortar. Later variants extended the weapon's range to match peers but I think the British were honestly just pretty comfortable with the idea of pushing the infantry's mortars right up into the line with the rifles. Crews could get ridiculously good at dropping rounds right into enemy foxholes and such with a line of sight. If a Universal Carrier was around i'm sure they'd shoot-n-scoot fast enough to present a challenging target for return fire too. 

It's incredible to me that guys often agree to go into multi or QB battles over a 800x800m map with artillery on one or both sides at all. It's not "shooting fish in a barrel" as much as dropping hand grenades on fish in a bucket. 

This is why I like the idea of allowing the player to play for extra time at the cost of VPs.  The briefing must be clear that the player has a decision.  Hit cease fire at the recommended 2 hour mark or play past 2 hours the cost of 300 VPs (or whatever VP amount is appropriate).  This also keeps a scenario from abruptly ending on a player who is having fun and wants to see his plans finish playing out. 
For replays of the same scenario It may be useful to identify what AI plan the player is fighting against.  For this purpose I sometimes use the following method in testing a scenario (when not on scenario author test mode) .  If the scenario has three AI plans: 
Three small modular buildings with no windows or doors are placed on the players side of the map.  There are at least three action squares (24 meters) between each building.  The buildings are landmarked (the red on map lettering) with PLAN ONE,  PLAN TWO and PLAN THREE.  When the player hits the red button to start the game an OpFor AI unit spawns inside the building with the AI plan that loaded.  A OpFor tentative contact icon will appear in that building.  Or if the player doesn't want to know he doesn't place a unit next to the row of buildings during setup.  So, if the player chooses, he now knows  what AI plan he is up against and if he has already played it before.
Granted, if he wants a different AI plan he now must exit the game and reload.  But for a player who's not comfortable opening the editor and turning plans on and off it might be something.  It's easy enough for the designer to set up.   
Hmm, I think there is another thread about replaying scenarios.  I might repost part of this reply in that thread if I find it.              

That's what I'm seeing too akd.
Machine Gun Battalion, Infantry Division, 1944 (niehorster.org)
Updated ToE for 1944. The Battalion was now distinctly organic to the Division it was attached to (I think previously they were an independent formation?) and resembles something more like a reinforced Heavy Weapons Company. A number of the machine guns were traded in for 4.2in heavy mortars, while the usual rearmament trends in the British Army meant things like more Brens, PIATs, and Universal Carriers all around. The way the 1944 formation is organized seems distinctly like a support-group thing to be detached to Rifle Regiments as needed. 

From 1943 on sub-units of MGs and mortars were generally parceled out to brigades as “brigade support groups,” e.g.:
https://www.saskatoonlightinfantry.org/during-the-war.html

It's hard to tell how those huge MG Battalions were used, and i've heard enough arguments both ways to say that there was no specific manner in which they used. Sometimes the guns and crews would be parceled out among infantry formations, sometimes they'd be used as you use them in "battery" all massed on a specific objective. 
Here's a TOE
Infantry (Machine Gun) Battalion, 06.04.1938 (niehorster.org)
Motorized too, trucks directly attached to the formation, also note large distribution of Boys Rifles for self-protection from armor. 
They seem to have been a holdover of the First World War Machine Gun Corp in which many Armies still used MG formations like artillery groups. The Red Army maintained Machine Gun Companies for the war too, but as I heard they were almost never used en masse but usually parceled out to locations not in the Russian's main path of maneuver in order to prevent or attrition movement as economy-of-force. ie: The Russians using the cheapest reasonable means for an objective such as flank screening. 
The Italian Army also had Machine Gun Companies but I don't have any specific on how they were used. I wouldn't be surprised to find out they were frequently withheld by Division HQ to protect Division HQ while the infantry could just screw off with their awful Breda MGs. 

You will have to work at night for safety. The Juvenile Centurion does not have IR capability. 
The adults on the other hand....

Thank you!  Finally there is a defense.
 
Also:  "Are you tired of your chess opponents threatening thermonuclear war? This tutorial on the Tennison Gambit in chess will explain how to counter your opponent by effectively using intercontinental ballistic missiles in your chess game to trick your opponent. The strategy is viable for players of all levels including beginners and will work on chess players of all ELO ratings."
 

I value the Stuart tank immensely whenever I have it, and greatly appreciate its ability to just shut down snipers, MGs, etc with total impunity. It's height means it's good at spotting and its light weight and small size make it handy for sticking close to the infantry. It laughs off mortar fire and the cannister shot is a sight to behold. In a pinch, if the planets align, it can even kill a Panzer. 
I fear no man, but that thing...it scares me. 

Many of the scenarios are designed around puzzle solving and play out almost every time like a siege. There are many symptoms of these conditions, but one of the most prominent is of closely matched headcounts or map populations between defender and attacker and this invariably promotes high lethality within a given slice of map. Force-to-space ratios with a high density of units promote extremely meticulous play and are often excessively relied upon to make up for a perceived passivity of the AI on defense. 
As long as you're making reasonable decisions you have a right to expect reasonable results, and the game should score you fairly for that. Unfortunately, I think the way that we score the player's conduct in most of the scenarios is sort of poor and in a minority of cases, egregiously unfair or abusive. 
 

I value the Stuart tank immensely whenever I have it, and greatly appreciate its ability to just shut down snipers, MGs, etc with total impunity. It's height means it's good at spotting and its light weight and small size make it handy for sticking close to the infantry. It laughs off mortar fire and the cannister shot is a sight to behold. In a pinch, if the planets align, it can even kill a Panzer. 
I fear no man, but that thing...it scares me. 

I value the Stuart tank immensely whenever I have it, and greatly appreciate its ability to just shut down snipers, MGs, etc with total impunity. It's height means it's good at spotting and its light weight and small size make it handy for sticking close to the infantry. It laughs off mortar fire and the cannister shot is a sight to behold. In a pinch, if the planets align, it can even kill a Panzer. 
I fear no man, but that thing...it scares me. 

I value the Stuart tank immensely whenever I have it, and greatly appreciate its ability to just shut down snipers, MGs, etc with total impunity. It's height means it's good at spotting and its light weight and small size make it handy for sticking close to the infantry. It laughs off mortar fire and the cannister shot is a sight to behold. In a pinch, if the planets align, it can even kill a Panzer. 
I fear no man, but that thing...it scares me. 

As far as soft units go, I feel pretty unprepared when I don't have a company of Combat Engineers around ready. Lots of scenarios may never call for them at all but it sucks when you roll up on the local hamlet/town and don't have them. 

I value the Stuart tank immensely whenever I have it, and greatly appreciate its ability to just shut down snipers, MGs, etc with total impunity. It's height means it's good at spotting and its light weight and small size make it handy for sticking close to the infantry. It laughs off mortar fire and the cannister shot is a sight to behold. In a pinch, if the planets align, it can even kill a Panzer. 
I fear no man, but that thing...it scares me. 

Thanks everyone.
Please don't fall prey to the "simple solution" bull****, like it's all some easy fix -- that's just propaganda so that folks don't have to face the really difficult reality.  Like the lies told last year ("they won't release water from the resorvoirs" - lie; "they sent all the water to the ocean"-- lie).  Classic blame the victims stuff.
 Western US had a dry & hot summer following a relatively dry winter.  And recently had very hot w abnormally low humidity, so perfect for fires.  Once fires got going we had many days of crazy strong east winds, driving the fire  -- we almost never get east winds this time of year, especially ones that strong.  Plus lots of lightning.  This is not due to negligence or some lack of effort, it's a natural disaster that came from a perfect storm of conditions.  CA already has a plan w forest service to clear dead wood out of 1 million acres a year (hundred of millions of dollars per year) -- except that there's 20 million acres to clear, at least -- so many years and many BILLIONS of dollars (and that's just CA).  100 years of fire suppression, plus millions of dead trees (much of this due to warmer climate that has caused bug infestations), plus ridiculous weather, and we get catastrophic fires.  We always have summer fires, we don't always have this kind of catastrophe.
Commanderski:  orange skies in NH?  welcome to the club!  that is crazy you have smoke ~2000+ miles away.
And combat mission is indeed the only bright spot these days -- oh, that and football.

Engineers and specialized assault troops are the only troops in the game that can use explosive charges to "breach and clear". Rifle infantry generally do not have this capability. You can split teams or use the Assault movement order to compartmentalize losses but the reality is you should never send a single man anywhere you haven't already sent many bullets.  
Urban fighting or MOUT in American parlance is an ugly, complicated affair under all circumstances. Real life Commanders avoid engaging in city fighting as much as possible for many, many good reasons. Not the least of which is the potential for catastrophe such as the one you experienced, an example which stacks up rather well with real life examples such as Operation Gothic Serpent. 

I'm still holding out for a Move command that defaults to cover/prone when being shot at than "try harder to get shot" 

What was faulty was assigning to the Russians the same socio-psychological behavior of European nations.  Wars were common in Europe and were usually resolved so that the prevailing royal power and status quo of these nation-states was maintained.  Basically: When one captured one's enemy's capital (or enuff vital territory) they surrendered and that was that - until the losing nation recovered and started a new war to recover what they lost ad infinitum.  But, the European Royal families were all related and having a jolly time slaughtering their subjects who were easily expendable assets.
The Russian psyche, as Hitler also discovered, is/was different.  They would fight on regardless of losses.  This would be an alien method of war to Nappy - as it was to Hitler.  These invaders simply did not comprehend this psychology or predict it.

Engineers and specialized assault troops are the only troops in the game that can use explosive charges to "breach and clear". Rifle infantry generally do not have this capability. You can split teams or use the Assault movement order to compartmentalize losses but the reality is you should never send a single man anywhere you haven't already sent many bullets.  
Urban fighting or MOUT in American parlance is an ugly, complicated affair under all circumstances. Real life Commanders avoid engaging in city fighting as much as possible for many, many good reasons. Not the least of which is the potential for catastrophe such as the one you experienced, an example which stacks up rather well with real life examples such as Operation Gothic Serpent. 

Artillery doc is hard to parse and often the differences are overstated, especially between the Allied Armies. In general though the Royal Artillery was known for its rapid response to Request Fires. This is a trait they picked up in World War 1, where it was important to move the guns right in trail of the infantry and be ready to fight off an immediate counter attack that could emerge from seemingly any direction. Destruction-by-fire proved elusive on the Western Front and the British began to prefer Suppression-by-Fire. All of this thinking was completely captured by the 25pdr field piece, one of the war's most superb Guns and so successful it is still in use by some Armies today. 
The 25 pounder's caliber and explosive load are too light to ensure destruction of anything tougher than basic entrenchments, that's not what makes the gun so valuable though. What made the 25 pounder valuable was its light weight, fully swiveling trunnion (allowing the gun a literally unlimited range of azimuth once deployed), and two piece shell and basic brass cartridge.* All of this translates into a gun with enormous operational flexibility and a constant state of readiness to commence fires on a ridiculous number of targets planned and unplanned. The light and uncomplicated ammunition it used was easier to transport and stock than fragile powder bags and heavier 105mm rounds in standard use by most Armies. The full 360 base mount meant the gun was also more stable than the average Field Gun, but the British didn't place as much premium on accuracy as they did on speed. 
British Forward Observers were attached to their Battery, but highly independent and mobile. FOs were given a truck (which could carry a better radio than a Jeep) and a map showing great detail in 1km sectors, they were additionally trained to make use of pre-planned or canned mathematic "rule-of-thumb" calculations^. The idea was to dispense with as much complication and thinking as necessary and to respond rapidly to attacks or targets of opportunity. Times from first call to first shot were still highly dependent on a host of factors but I don't think the average for the British Army often exceeded 10 minutes. I've heard of times as low as 2 minutes. 
Combat Mission is not an artillery sim, it's a tactical simulator. The nuance of the Field Artillery isn't distinctly visible in the game but it can be abstracted in many ways, through TRPs, FO counts and quality, and gun availability. If you know what you're doing you can actually abstract even fairly complicated stuff like the creeping barrage or zone-and-sweep. 
*Earlier in the war the 25 pounder's favorable weight and ease of use meant it frequently found itself pressed into anti-tank gun duty. The British were dependent on the insufficient QF 2pdr and the 6pdr was in short supply for this job, and the 25pdr had AP rounds issued to it (although I suspect these rounds were originally envisioned with bunker-busting in mind) that happened to be ideal for stopping tanks. Problem was this exposed the guns to loss, and worse deprived British infantry of fire support leading to "holes" in the crucial fire umbrella that the British picture their troops operating under as much as possible. 
^For comparison the Americans dispensed with canned calcs and math formula fearing poor accuracy might endanger friendly troops. Instead a full time planning staff was retained at a Battery's Brigade HQ who would plan out firing solutions from potential sites and then feed that information down to Battalion HQ who would disseminate it to Battery commanders etc. The Americans wanted Battery and Battalion commanders to concentrate on their own movements and safety than to spend inordinate time planning fires. The Germans, due to a lack of radios, often made their poor overworked Forward Observers have to do all this planning. German FO's were highly trained to account for a ridiculous number of variables (including density altitude!) which ensured great accuracy but slow first-shot arrival. 
muh prose strikes again coffee time