Urban warfare

[Hilts]

Has anyone got any tactics for infantry combat against tanks in a city? I am playing a QB as the Germans fighting for control of a city. I hold most of the victory area with my infantry most of which have a panzerfaust in the squad but I am helpless against my oppos tanks who seem to be able to roam at will with impunity, even without infantry support, as I cannot fire my AT weapons from buildings. There is very little cover outside of the buildings and most of the walls are high. I thought it was supposed to be a nightmare for unsupported tanks to be caught in an urban environment but it seems to me to be the other way round! I can't even order my AT teams to position themselves at a corner of a building and peek round. They either run into the middle of the street and go prone or they face the middle of the house wall like cretins. I even tried waiting for a tank to pass then running into the road to try and get a shot off up it's arse but the spotting even of buttoned up tanks is so bloody good in this game that the tank rotated it's turret and fired before I even got my shot off! If anyone's got any ideas I'd like to hear 'em, but make it snappy as I'm not sure I can hold out much longer! Cheers.

[slysniper]

All your problems are real and no answers for you, there has been threads on it here before.

The best answer I have for you is if you can find spots on the side of buildings that will give you a shot as tanks roll by, normally I like intersections, where I can have a unit on each side of road out of view, so if the tank turns the corner to face one group of infantry, their ass is facing the other.

But from the sounds of it, you might not have a combat line left to even get troops in positions that are likely ambush points.

Most of the other threads came to the conclusion that the only fix is to have maps where city areas provide more cover and concealment for your troops.

here is one other tactic, let that tank focus on another group of infantry, which means sending units to their death before trying to move the unit you want out there to take the shot, about 10-15 second delay between the two works well.

[ZPB II]

When someone insinuates that tanks are kings in urban warfare because that's how it is in CM, my fanboy alarm goes off. I mean, seriously?

[Broadsword56]

My recommendation is to avoid urban combat entirely in CMBN. The game simply doesn't handle it well -- at least not yet. There are plenty of other great map types that work much better.

[Sergei]

It depends on the map, mostly. Some provide lots of low and tall walls and hedges and dead angles to ambush tanks from, others not so much.

[GI Adelscott]

It depends on the map, mostly. Some provide lots of low and tall walls and hedges and dead angles to ambush tanks from, others not so much.

agree +1

Most of urban maps don't reflects very well an urban environemet, specially a frech rural urban environement. I mean, narrow streets (and often twisted streets), high walls, little orchards, barns and gardens in the back of houses, impasse streets, etc.

In my opinion maps are very importants to get an immersive experience beyond the knows tweeks and bugs of the game engine, specially urban maps.

[A Canadian Cat]

slysniper gave you some good advice already. His point about the map design being a big problem is spot on. So is his advice.

I will add two more possibilities - actively surround tanks that are on the move. If they survive the ambush you set or find a path that avoids them try to surround them. For example if a tank is moving down a street have your infantry move the other way on then next street over or a back alley or even building to building. If you can get behind the tanks from two sides then you can make them have a bad day.

The other thing you can do is play hide and seek. The big problem tanks have in an urban environment is if they cannot see the enemy unit they will have trouble targeting them. This is another issue that I have experienced from the tank's point of view. When a tank is on the street and they cannot see any enemy units there is a good chance they will not be able to area fire HE against the buildings down the street. So, use that weakness and have your guys pop up in a window fire at the open tank and then move to a different floor and hide or slip out the back door into a different building and hide. If you keep your guys moving and hiding in the buildings down the street two things will happen. 1) the tank will be kept buttoned up 2) there will be so many ? targets and your opponent will not be able area fire at many buildings.

I realize that many feel that buttoned tanks see too well - no comment from me - the fact is they see better opened up so keep them buttoned. If, on your opponents turn they have few or no visible enemy units they will not be able to blast HE at the buildings your guys are hiding in.

[Vanir Ausf B]

BFC could improve the situation immensely by simply allowing AT weapons to fire from buildings. Their decision to not allow it really does make the game less realistic.

[Broadsword56]

Being able to fire from fully rubbled buildings would be realistic, but not indoor fire. The backblast from bazookas would not have permitted fire from indoors without injuring friendlies -- it was done in IRL in dire emergencies, but not standard practice. OTOH, with the Commonwealth mod I have hoped that CMBN might let the PIAT be fired from indoors, since it wasn't a rocket-type weapon and was spring-loaded.

[akd]

The PIAT projectile, like the Panzerfaust. was propelled by an explosive charge. However, PIAT was not recoilless and did not have back blast. They can be fired indoors in CMBN. Personally, I think the smaller panzerfaust should also be able to fire indoors as the preparations necessary probably did not extend past opening a door or window opposite the firing position.

[Sergei]

I have hoped that CMBN might let the PIAT be fired from indoors, since it wasn't a rocket-type weapon and was spring-loaded.

Just to clarify a possible misconception, PIAT used a spring to detonate a propellant charge which launched the munition. The spring then used the recoil to recock itself, reducing the impact on the gunner. Technically it was a spigot mortar and that lack of backblast made it safe to use from confined spaces. But it wasn't exactly spring-loaded like some giant slingshot.

[sburke]

The PIAT projectile, like the Panzerfaust. was propelled by an explosive charge. However, PIAT was not recoilless and did not have back blast. They can be fired indoors in CMBN. Personally, I think the smaller panzerfaust should also be able to fire indoors as the preparations necessary probably did not extend past opening a door or window opposite the firing position.

Is that confirmed for the PIAT in the CW module? Welcome news if so.

As regards the rest that debate has raged back and forth about backblast and having absolutely no experience of knowledge on the subject I am going to show my age earned wisdom and shut up. :-P

I do second all the comments about maps however. A map that doesn't really reflect true terrain conditions is going to leave you unable to behave tactially in a realistic manner, it isn't the game, it's the map.

[skelley]

Part of it is the game. You can't have a panzerfaust team step out from around a corner, fire and seek cover around the corner. Tanks also have way too effective spotting to try it.

[Felix_45]

This is why it is good news that the Russian front is going to be the last game coded. Urban warfare is not simulated realistically at all in the CMx2 games for all the reasons mentioned. Too bad because the company should have learned a thing or two from CMSF.....seems like most of the complaints have carried forward to CMBN. I suppose the question is, is it a lack of coding or is it a fault of the game engine/concept of the 1:1 representation of infantry.

Maybe a programer can answer that one.

With that said, I'm playing an urban scenario, one of Fredrocker's Das Dorf (something or other) and I'm have a great time against my PBEM opponent. So scenario designers are able to deal with the engine creatively. The game is new so I'm sure the more scenario designers play with the engine the better urban warfare will become. As far as QB's are concerned....the city maps kinda suck right now.

[Rocky Balboa]

I think this has been touched on previously but it bears repeating. If you have an infantry force in a town/city and you allow unbuttoned tanks to roam the streets at will then you have a problem with your tactics.

As someone mentioned before use small arms fire to button the tanks. This means keeping your squads split into teams and those teams should be on different floors or in different buildings. Target light the tank to make it button then scoot out the back or move to a different floor and hide.

This is mandatory, if that TC is just standing in the hatch and looking around then your riflemen aren't doing their jobs. Once the tank is buttoned, this will drastically reduce their ability to spot to the sides and rear and you should have no problem getting off a flank or rear shot.

Also once those tanks are buttoned you can attempt satchel charge/grenade attacks at close range. This works as well but you have to limit that tanks ability to spot.

[YankeeDog]

This is a complicated topic that has been debated back and forth a lot here already. While there's been a fair amount of the not so helpful "BFC fix er so sumfink" posts, I think there has also been some very useful information and ideas posted by some. My personal opinion at the moment (which could certainly change with new information) is that the current absolute prohibition on backblast weapons being fired from all building interiors probably goes too far in one direction. At the same time, simply allowing all such weapons to be easily fired from any building interior would probably go too far in the other direction and so this simplistic a change would not result in any real gain in verisimilitude; it would simply be swapping one unrealism for another.

Ideally, a balance needs to be struck. Panzershrecks, having the largest backblast, should probably only rarely if ever be allowed to fire from buildings. Ideally, it would be cool if there was some sort of exception that allowed them to fire from very large, open buildings like warehouses and barns, but I have a hard time seeing a 'shreck being usable from inside your typical cottage or townhouse. Another exception might be if the building interior and exterior walls are largely blown out. The backblast from a Bazooka is somewhat smaller than from a 'shreck, so perhaps they should be a little easier to fire from enclosed spaces, but I still see this as being an uncommon thing and the need for inclusion in the game marginal, at best (though there certainly are some historical examples).

I see a stronger argument for allowing at least Faustpatrones and maybe the Panzerfaust-30s to be fired from buildings. But ideally there should be some penalties for doing so. For example, perhaps the time from target acquisition to firing should be longer for 'fausts firing from building interiors, abstracting the operator having to be more careful about his shooting location to avoid the backblast reflecting off a wall. Maybe the game could also impose a degree of self-suppression and some chance of friendly infantry on the same floor of the same building (firer included) going to yellow "injured" status when a 'faust is fired from a building interior.

I dunno. It would be nice to see some tweaking here. In the meantime, comments re cover other than intact buildings being an important part of urban map design are very good. I have never been to Northern France, but looking around the urban area called Manhattan that is my home, there is a LOT of cover present outside of buildings proper, and there would probably be even more cover after some HE had been thrown around, knocking chunks off of buildings, putting holes in the ground, and so on.

[dieseltaylor]

Light and medium recoilless weapons obtain their most effective short-range antiarmor shots by firing from upper stories, or from the flanks and rear. When firing at main battle tanks, these weapons should always be employed against weaker areas in volley or paired firing. They normally require multiple hits to achieve a kill on a tank. Flanks, top, and rear shots hit the most vulnerable parts of armored vehicles. Firing from upper stories protects the shooter from tank main gun and coaxial machine gun fire since tanks cannot sharply elevate their cannons. The BMP-2 can elevate its 30-mm cannon to engage targets in upper stories. The BTR-series armored vehicles can also fire into upper stories with their heavy machine gun.

Modern threat infantry fighting vehicles, such as the BMP-2 and the BTR-80, have significantly improved frontal protection against shaped-charge weapons. Many main battle tanks have some form of reactive armor in addition to their thick armor plate. Head-on, ground-level shots against these vehicles have little probability of obtaining a kill. Even without reactive armor, modern main battle tanks are hard to destroy with a light antiarmor weapon.

The most effective method of engagement for hitting and killing an armored vehicle is to fire from an elevated position. A 45-degree downward firing angle doubles the probability of a first-round hit as compared to a ground-level shot.

Backblast effects must be considered when employing recoilless weapons. During combat in urban areas, the backblast area in the open is more hazardous due to loose rubble and the channeling effect of the narrow streets and alleys.

When firing recoilless weapons in the open, soldiers should protect themselves from blast and burn injuries caused by the backblast. All personnel should be out of the danger zone. Anyone not able to vacate the caution zone should be behind cover. Soldiers in the caution zone should wear helmets, protective vests, and eye protection. The shooter and all soldiers in the area should wear earplugs.

Since the end of World War II, the US Army has conducted extensive testing on the effects of firing recoilless weapons from within enclosures. Beginning as early as 1948, tests have been conducted on every type of recoilless weapon available. In 1975, the US Army Human Engineering Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland, conducted extensive firing of the LAW, Dragon, and TOW from masonry and frame buildings, and from sandbag bunkers.

Firing these weapons from enclosures presented no serious hazards, even when the overpressure was enough to produce structural damage to the building. Little hazard exists to the gunnery or crew from any type of flying debris. Loose items were not hurled around the room. No substantial degradation occurs to the operator's tracking performance as a result of obscuration or blast overpressure.

The most serious hazard that can be expected is hearing loss. This must be evaluated against the advantage gained in combat from firing from cover. To place this hazard in perspective, a gunner wearing earplugs and firing the loudest combination (the Dragon from within a masonry building) is exposed to less noise hazard than if he fired a LAW in the open without earplugs.

The safest place for other soldiers in the room with the shooter is against the wall from which the weapon is fired. Firers should take advantage of all available sources of ventilation by opening doors and windows. Ventilation does not reduce the noise hazard, but it helps clear the room of smoke and dust, and reduces the effective duration of the overpressure.

The only difference between firing these weapons from enclosures and firing them in the open is the duration of the pressure fluctuation. Frame buildings, especially small ones, can suffer structural damage to the rear walls, windows, and doors. Large rooms suffer slight damage, if any. Recoilless weapons fired from within enclosures create some obscuration inside the room, but almost none from the gunner's position looking out. Inside the room, obscuration can be intense, but the room remains inhabitable.

The Dragon causes the most structural damage, but only in frame buildings. There does not seem to be any threat of injury to the gunner, since the damage is usually to the walls away from the gunner. The most damage and debris is from flying plaster chips and pieces of wood trim. Large chunks of plasterboard can be dislodged from ceilings. The backblast from the AT4, Dragon, or TOW rarely displaces furniture.

While the results of the tests may have shown that the threat of injury from debris is rare, commanders must ensure that proper safety precautions are followed prior to firing weapons inside a room.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/recoilless.htm

I have not got any figures etc on backblast but my gut feeling is that if I am stalking a tank in an urban environment I would take my chance when it came regardless of the possible danger from the backblast.

It is perhaps fair to point out that in some old house room heights would be 10 - 13 ft ab dwith large windows open and doors the air displacement etc would be alleviated.

I suppose a trawl of sources is required to see if, in the heat of battle, soldiers made judgement calls on killing a tank before it killed them.

The quote also covers armament elevation and am I mad in thinking that in CMBN there is no elevation restriction modelled?

[dieseltaylor]

Whilst looking for bazooka action

BARFOOT, VAN T.

Rank and organization: Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army, 157th Infantry, 45th Infantry Division. Place and date: Near Carano, Italy, 23 May 1944. Entered service at: Carthage, Miss. Birth: Edinburg, Miss. G.O. No.: 79, 4 October 1944. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty on 23 May 1944, near Carano, Italy. With his platoon heavily engaged during an assault against forces well entrenched on commanding ground, 2d Lt. Barfoot (then Tech. Sgt.) moved off alone upon the enemy left flank. He crawled to the proximity of 1 machinegun nest and made a direct hit on it with a hand grenade, killing 2 and wounding 3 Germans. He continued along the German defense line to another machinegun emplacement, and with his tommygun killed 2 and captured 3 soldiers. Members of another enemy machinegun crew then abandoned their position and gave themselves up to Sgt. Barfoot. Leaving the prisoners for his support squad to pick up, he proceeded to mop up positions in the immediate area, capturing more prisoners and bringing his total count to 17. Later that day, after he had reorganized his men and consolidated the newly captured ground, the enemy launched a fierce armored counterattack directly at his platoon positions. Securing a bazooka, Sgt. Barfoot took up an exposed position directly in front of 3 advancing Mark VI tanks. From a distance of 75 yards his first shot destroyed the track of the leading tank, effectively disabling it, while the other 2 changed direction toward the flank. As the crew of the disabled tank dismounted, Sgt. Barfoot killed 3 of them with his tommygun. He continued onward into enemy terrain and destroyed a recently abandoned German fieldpiece with a demolition charge placed in the breech. While returning to his platoon position, Sgt. Barfoot, though greatly fatigued by his Herculean efforts, assisted 2 of his seriously wounded men 1,700 yards to a position of safety. Sgt. Barfoot's extraordinary heroism, demonstration of magnificent valor, and aggressive determination in the face of pointblank fire are a perpetual inspiration to his fellow soldiers

Pretty good huh!

Macarthur and Roosevelt, Jnrs are MOH also

[Broadsword56]

Just to clarify a possible misconception, PIAT used a spring to detonate a propellant charge which launched the munition. The spring then used the recoil to recock itself, reducing the impact on the gunner. Technically it was a spigot mortar and that lack of backblast made it safe to use from confined spaces. But it wasn't exactly spring-loaded like some giant slingshot.

OK, sorry -- I stand corrected. I guess I was recalling that "Sprrroooinnggggggg!" sound effect the Piats made in the the old Close Combat 2 game. Ahhh, good times... :-D

[JonS]

Everyone's a hero on teh intarwaebs.

I have not got any figures etc on backblast but my gut feeling is that if I am stalking a tank in an urban environment I would take my chance when it came regardless of the possible danger from the backblast.

My gut feeling is that actually you'd run away and hide, hoping the tank took an acute interest in someone else.

[dieseltaylor]

PIAT very effectively used against houses etc - a 350yd grenade thrower.

My gut feeling is that actually you'd run away and hide, hoping the tank took an acute interest in someone else.

Oh Jon you can't believe everyones like you : )

[sburke]

Everyone's a hero on teh intarwaebs.

My gut feeling is that actually you'd run away and hide, hoping the tank took an acute interest in someone else.

Absolutely not... I'd most definitely crawl away and go look for someplace to change my underwear.

[Waycool]

While quoting interesting engagements here is a very famous PIAT one that earned a Victoria Cross.

Ernest Alvia Smith was born in New Westminster, British Columbia, on the 3rd of May 1914. He was educated at the Herbert Spencer Elementary School and the T.J. Trapp Technical High School. Before enlisting in the army he engaged in contracting work. He enlisted in the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada and served with that unit until the 13th of April 1945. For some time following demobilization Ernest "Smokey" Smith worked in a photographic studio in New Westminster. In 1951 he re-enlisted in the Permanent Force retiring in 1964 with the rank of sergeant as a member of the Tri-Service Recruiting Unit in Vancouver and served as a sergeant at Headquarters of the British Columbia Army Command in Vancouver. Ernest "Smokey" Smith was appointed a member of the Order of Canada in November 1995.

On August 3, 2005, Ernest Alvia “Smokey” Smith, died peacefully at his home in Vancouver, British Columbia, surrounded by family and friends at the age of 91. Many thousands paid their respects when he lay in state in Parliament Hill in Ottawa and at his military funeral in Vancouver. His ashes were committed to the sea on August 15, 2005, as a fulfilment of one of his last wishes.

Citation

"In Italy on the night of 21st-22nd October 1944, a Canadian Infantry Brigade was ordered to establish a bridgehead across the Savio River. The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada were selected as the spearhead of the attack, and in weather most unfavourable to the operation they crossed the river and captured their objective in spite of strong opposition from the enemy.

Torrential rain had caused the Savio River to rise six feet in five hours, and as the soft vertical banks made it impossible to bridge the river no tanks or anti-tank guns could be taken across the raging stream to the support of the rifle companies.

As the right forward company was consolidating its objective it was suddenly counter-attacked by a troop of three Mark V Panther tanks supported by two self-propelled guns and about thirty infantry and the situation appeared hopeless.

Under heavy fire from the approaching enemy tanks, Private Smith, showing great initiative and inspiring leadership, led his P.I.A.T.(1) Group of two men across an open field to a position from which the P.I.A.T. could best be employed. Leaving one man on the weapon, Private Smith crossed the road with a companion and obtained another P.I.A.T. Almost immediately an enemy tank came down the road firing its machine-guns along the line of the ditches. Private Smith's comrade was wounded. At a range of thirty feet and having to expose himself to the full view of the enemy, Private Smith fired the P.I.A.T. and hit the tank, putting it out of action. Ten German infantry immediately jumped off the back of the tank and charged him with Schmeissers and grenades. Without hesitation Private Smith moved out on the road and with his Tommy gun at point-blank range, killed four Germans and drove the remainder back. Almost immediately another tank opened fire and more enemy infantry closed in on Smith's position. Obtaining some abandoned Tommy gun magazines from a ditch, he steadfastly held his position, protecting his comrade and fighting the enemy with his Tommy gun until they finally gave up and withdrew in disorder.

One tank and both self-propelled guns had been destroyed by this time, but yet another tank swept the area with fire from a longer range. Private Smith, still showing utter contempt for enemy fire, helped his wounded friend to cover and obtained medical aid for him behind a nearby building. He then returned to his position beside the road to await the possibility of a further enemy attack.

No further immediate attack developed, and as a result the battalion was able to consolidate the bridgehead position so vital to the success of the whole operation, which led to the capture of San Giorgio Di Cesena and a further advance to the Ronco River.

Thus, by the dogged determination, outstanding devotion to duty and superb gallantry of this private soldier, his comrades were so inspired that the bridgehead was held firm against all enemy attacks, pending the arrival of tanks and anti-tank guns some hours later."

[Felix_45]

As someone mentioned before use small arms fire to button the tanks. This means keeping your squads split into teams and those teams should be on different floors or in different buildings. Target light the tank to make it button then scoot out the back or move to a different floor and hide.

Are you talking about in a RT game or PBEM game? I can see myself doing that in RT but how do you do that in a PBEM game? In a one minute time span often that infantry is dead from HE fire.

Also once those tanks are buttoned you can attempt satchel charge/grenade attacks at close range. This works as well but you have to limit that tanks ability to spot.

Have you actually seen units throw a satchel charge in CMBN? I haven't yet so far....can it actually be done in the game?

[YankeeDog]

Are you talking about in a RT game or PBEM game? I can see myself doing that in RT but how do you do that in a PBEM game? In a one minute time span often that infantry is dead from HE fire.

It can be difficult, but in general you want to try to use units firing from a longer distance to button tanks. Taking on tanks with infantry is a team effort. This can be tricky in urban combats where engagement distances are often quite short, but e.g. an MG or small team of riflemen firing from a distant building down a long street (where hopefully they won't be spotted right away) can do the buttoning work, while closer teams do the assault work.

Don't give the infantry team firing small arms to button a direct target order on the tank -- just let them select target. This way, they'll stop firing on the tank as soon as it is buttoned.

Another trick you can use is to give the infantry a movement order with a PAUSE command to stay in place first for a little while. For example, you could tell and infantry team to PAUSE 15 seconds in the top floor of a building (during which time it will hopefully fire on a tank down the street and cause it to button up), and then SLOW out of the back of the building to break contact.

Have you actually seen units throw a satchel charge in CMBN? I haven't yet so far....can it actually be done in the game?

Yes. But there is no direct player control of this -- you just have to move the infantry unit with a satchel within close assault distance, and hope they have the brass balls to pull it off. As I understand it, the satchel charge "throw" is an abstraction -- IRL a satchel charge would be unwieldy to throw more than a very short distance. So it represents a soldier running up to the tank, and maybe tossing the satchel charge under the tank, or placing it on the engine deck or something. Not a tactic to rely on, but something you can try when you have no other option.