Tactics That Might Not Work in CMBN

[JonS]

Dunno. I haven't read every AAR from the period, and most of those I have read go no where near the required level of detail.

If you're REALLY that anal about it, and would rather grind your well-worn axe than recognise a useful tactic, just make more complex buildings. It's easy enough.

You do know how to use the editor, right? Solve your own problems, rather than expecting everyone to scamper round after you like the parents of a spoilt child.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Ummm, where exactly have I asked anyone to design buildings for me. I believe your last sentence is what's generally referred to as pure speculation with no facts backing them up.

The fact remains it's quite problematic to use real world tactics when it comes to city fights, whether it be the use of early model (low powered) panzerfausts within buildings or having to defend outside a building to optimise the results when defending such a structure.

Regards

KR

[dieseltaylor]

I suspect standing in a street in RL was more dangerous than being inside because of the chances of mortar bomb blast or ricochetting bullets being channelled by buildings. And snipers would be less of a problem : )

Of course if large shells are coming through the roof going for a cellar makes sense as it should detonate before reaching that far.

For an isolated building being behind close to or many metres away may well be sensible dependent on where the other fire positions are. Lobbing a rifle grenade through when the enemy occupies it would be efficient if the building is not too large.

So ignoring the tactical set-up there might be some mileage in working out when size of building adds sufficient value in terms of protection. No doubt someone will already have done some research into this!

[Michael Emrys]

O.K. Do you consider regular use of that tactic accurately reflects what often occured in the ETO during WWII when defending a town, for instance? Do AAR's from the period reflect this practice?

Somewhere or other I picked up the idea that villages were defended not by putting troops in the first line of buildings, but in buildings behind the first line. That way, long range supporting fire was less effective against the defending troops. Just how common this tactic was I don't know. ISTR the source for this information mentioned it in connection with combat on the Eastern Front; whether it made it into NW Europe I don't know. But it sounds like a viable tactic to use in the game. In relation to the present discussion, you could put your units in buildings behind the ones you wish to defend. Or if buildings are not conveniently located, in foxholes.

Michael

[womble]

...you could put your units in buildings behind the ones you wish to defend...

This would usually lose the benefit of point-blank fire, and give the target unit moving into the building in question more cover. Fire from adjacent to a building is much more effective in-game than fire from an AS or two away across a road. One of the most deadly places to put troops is in a building that is behind the one that the enemy will enter, and butted up to it with openings in common. The attackers cannot see or fire upon the defenders until they are in the front building, and the defenders are stationary and firing at point blank at them as they do so.

Or if buildings are not conveniently located, in foxholes.

That's a neat refinement of "behind the building". I shall have to actively consider that next time I'm setting up a defense that's got some foxholes and buildings.

[sburke]

Ummm, where exactly have I asked anyone to design buildings for me. I believe your last sentence is what's generally referred to as pure speculation with no facts backing them up.

The fact remains it's quite problematic to use real world tactics when it comes to city fights, whether it be the use of early model (low powered) panzerfausts within buildings or having to defend outside a building to optimise the results when defending such a structure.

Regards

KR

LOL I am staying out of the overall debate, but again going back to my current source, September Hope. It becomes really hard to define exact tactics as most of them were theoretical. Troops generally had to figure it out on their own in the specific situation they were in. In Nijmegen apparently moving through backyards was excessively difficult so troops were forced to move from building to building via the street. At one point someone figured out to blow holes between them with a Bazooka (which then goes back to should a bazooka be able to be fired from in a building, but if we could I doubt we would use it for this. It would have to have been pretty darn dangerous).

I have no answers as to whether they should or should not be able to. As to firing from within a building the troops that finally were able to reach the buildings on the traffic circle facing the bridge were now under direct fire from various high caliber weapons and found that being in those positions turned out to be a bad idea.

Net answer - I can't say that I know very well defined doctrine for street fighting that troops really applied. The variables and experience vary greatly- so I work with what I have and JonS guys kicked my men's a**es until I flanked them and found them now exposed on the back wall.

[Broadsword56]

In Nijmegen apparently moving through backyards was excessively difficult so troops were forced to move from building to building via the street. At one point someone figured out to blow holes between them with a Bazooka (which then goes back to should a bazooka be able to be fired from in a building, but if we could I doubt we would use it for this. It would have to have been pretty darn dangerous).

Since paratroops carry demo charges, that's at least a consolation and a way they could blast their way through a built-up environment. And of course some engineers came in with the 101st and 82nd in Holland, too. I've never tried blasting through the adjoining walls of a block of row houses to make a covered passageway -- a fun experiment if someone wants to test it and show the results -- it certainly would take a lot of demo charges, though. Which is one reason I wish we could make ammo dumps or place extra demo charges (and smoke and HE grenades, for that matter) on jeeps and trucks for resupply. Realistic? I dunno.

[slysniper]

Interlocking fields of fire with machine guns. I have set up MG's with ILFF, and mutual support, just to watch the enemy advance through the kill zone with few if any losses, even in areas where the overlap puts them in the field of fire of 3 MG's at once.

Quite a few times they didn't even go to ground. I have gotten to the point where I have to wonder why I even bother with MG's, a couple teams from a split squad is much more effective in the same role. It looks like MG's in the game are treated as just another single rifle and don't have much real impact.

I thought the same thing at one time. But after some testing I have found that my expectation and what works seems to be the problem.

In other words, I should not expect 2 placed MG's to be able to pin two platoons of men coming at me, even in open fields. If I am lucky the MG's open up and each gun might pin 6 or so men each before return fire starts coming my way. But that leaves 40 men that start to return fire, soon I will find my MG's pinned and useless.

So I did some test, what I find is a 2 man mg team can pretty much win a fire fight with most any enemy squad. So one gun against 10 and they do great, they normally pin the squad first and start to get kills in a short period of time.

They normally even do good if they are up against two squads, but watch out for rifle grenade launching units, once the mg pins, the battle can switch advantage quickly. But open up against anything beyond that, I can promise you the Mg will be pinned very quickly and be of no value.

So when placing MG's you must either use them as support to get firepower advantage or. If as you are talking, you must position them so as to not be battling more than a squad or so at a time to have a true advantage.

Most of these comments on this thread goes back to my statement. - Good tactics, just played poorly equals poor tactics.

[Kuderian]

I haven't had the kind of success with my tank assaults as in this scene:

http://youtu.be/jfOx0PjQt34?t=34m30s

Those German tanks look like T-34's? And a swastika not a cross on the turret side is ahistorical surely?

[womble]

I thought the same thing at one time. But after some testing I have found that my expectation and what works seems to be the problem.

...

So I did some test, what I find is a 2 man mg team can pretty much win a fire fight with most any enemy squad. So one gun against 10 and they do great, they normally pin the squad first and start to get kills in a short period of time.

...once the mg pins, the battle can switch advantage quickly.

Something else to consider when firing MGs is that (AIUI) bullets whizzing past pTruppen don't suppress them. If you're directly targeting the advancing units and you're shooting up at them, or on the same level on open ground, pretty much the only suppression you'll achieve is from the hits you actually score on the pTruppen. Bullets hitting the terrain around the troops you're trying to suppress, however, also count for suppression, so if your MG is elevated compared to the infantry, or you're area firing at ground the infantry has to cross, you might see greater suppression. Similarly, if the troops are advancing through woods, the bullets hitting the tree trunks will spook them, and if they're hiding behind bocage, the splash on the hedge and berm will contribute to suppression.

I'm making no comment on the relative merits of area targeting the ground they're crossing (which will put "some" suppression, eventually, into an area 40m x 40m) vs the suppression effects of the higher casualty rate if the MG is directly targeting the squad. Nor do I comment on whether the pTruppen ignoring airborne bullets is a good or bad thing.

[ZPB II]

Those German tanks look like T-34's? And a swastika not a cross on the turret side is ahistorical surely?

They are Soviet tanks that the Finnish have captured and pressed into service. Finnish tanks were painted with the Von Rosen cross (swastika.)

[A Canadian Cat]

<snip>I also had a very harsh lesson taught me by another opponent. Buildings are great reverse slope deployment positions. Huh you say? Position your troops against the back wall of the building. They are almost impossible to spot. Your opponent can pound the heck out of the building all they want, but when they enter it they are pretty much dead meat. Took me quite a few bodies to realize I wasn't going to take the position by entering the building.

I was wondering how to get your guys to stand at the back wall and face out too. I see that JohnS told us how later (stand outside looking in). Very clever I would not have thought of that. Looking forward to trying that out. Actually I am playing Sticking it out right now - could come in handy once the fighting gets into the village.

Last thing, know when to split. If you know the ambush is compromised or if you have already sprung an ambush from there, it is time to leave. Hopefully you have picked a position that has a retreat route for your troops. If done well the enemy is going to have to assume that position is occupied costing them additional time.

Oh that is sooooooo hard. I cannot count the number of times I have stayed too long. I keep listening to the voice that says "that went really well, why pull back, stay there and keep hurting them". Gotta stop listening to that voice.

[akd]

Those German tanks look like T-34's? And a swastika not a cross on the turret side is ahistorical surely?

Kuderian - shortly to be driven from the forum in shame.

[Sergei]

Here's another tactic that is unfortunately unavailable in CMBN, attacking tanks with a club:

http://youtu.be/kp0O78bNXfI?t=1h50m14s

[Pak40]

I find that WP both instantly blinds and often wounds, so it can effectively silence MGs.

You can't intentionally fire WP rounds from armored vehicles, to my knowledge. You'd need a specific order for that. Also, if I recall correctly, the American tanks don't carry WP in CMBN, but my memory could be a little hazy.

Also, canister would be a welcome option for close hedgerow fighting.

[Kuderian]

They are Soviet tanks that the Finnish have captured and pressed into service. Finnish tanks were painted with the Von Rosen cross (swastika.)

Doh! Shows how little I know...didn't CMBB have Finnish forces?

[Sergei]

Doh! Shows how little I know...didn't CMBB have Finnish forces?

Indeed it does. In my Finnish Scenario Pack the scenario "Bull by the horns" depicts a Finnish counter-attack at the Portinhoikka crossroads, close to the area where Sergeant Reino Lehväslaiho - the T-34 commander - was wounded. Btw. the guy is still alive, and is well known in Finland for his WW2 novels. At least he's got better credentials to write about war than, say, Sven Hassel...

The scene in the movie is based quite closely on the real event. Suomi SMG was a common equipment on tanks (on some captured tanks the DT machine guns had even been replaced with them). Grenades were (and are) also commonly carried for close quarter defense. I don't know about the grenade bundle but I would not argue...

Finnish army was also using the Vickers/T-26 light tank as late as 1944, as seen in the film. In that scene there is also a KV-1 - in the real event it was a captured T-28, but there aren't any in a running condition so the Klim was used instead. Of course for a grognard it seems nonsensical to pull back a KV-1 and put a T-34/76 in front of the column, but it's a rather small compromise compared to most war movies...

[Jaksteri]

Here's another tactic that is unfortunately unavailable in CMBN, attacking tanks with a club:

http://youtu.be/kp0O78bNXfI?t=1h50m14s

That only works on the early tanks. Most tanks designed past 40 had wider tracks and stronger gears to decrease the risk of dislodging the track or anything short of a steel beam jamming them.

[Vark]

Here's another tactic that is unfortunately unavailable in CMBN, attacking tanks with a club:

http://youtu.be/kp0O78bNXfI?t=1h50m14s

Could never happen, there would be no flamethrowing tank in CMBN.

As for blowing holes to allow covered approaches, I though mouseholing was quite common. I seem to remember fron an Ian Hogg book, 'Infantry tactics 39-45' IIRC, that the British mouseholed (sometimes using a PIAT) into an adjoining attic and proceeded to clear the house top to bottom.