Why can't infantry ride tanks & other non HT AFVs?

[PzKpfw 1]

And SFAIK they were much more apt to stay on the tanks after the shooting started.

Michael

Yes they were, i have read of them rolling T-34's right up on German Inf positions thru a hail of fire, & dumping the SMG squads 50m behind the T-34s who then drove ahead & crushed German foxholes etc, when it was over the surviveng SMG squds piled back on and headed for the next objective.

Regards, John Waters

[Paulverisor64]

However, it would be nice to have a 'use as cover' command in which the infantry stick to one side of the tank which acts as a shield. This was a common tactic, but is hard to replicate since it requires having the tank and infantry move at the same speed.

The above would be a nice feature as it would allow for a better integration of combined arms.

I also would like to see the ability for infantry to hitch a ride up to the point of combat.

[Erwin]

Well, I guess we shold add it to the list of extra features we'd (or someone) would like to have: Tying an inf escort to a tank so they "work together" (however that is interpreted).

[JonS]

Well, I guess we shold add it to the list of extra features we'd (or someone) would like to have: Tying an inf escort to a tank so they "work together" (however that is interpreted).

But, isn't stuff like getting infantry and armour to work together The Game. If you want the engine to do all the hard and interesting stuff for you, why are you playing CM in the first place?

[LongLeftFlank]

True at one level, Jon, but my personal view is that anything that saves the player having to micromanage more than, say, 50 (ymmv) subunits per turn to obtain reasonable results for routine tasks like road following or cover seeking is worth considering, and worth asking for, even though we know Charles and Phil can't do it all.

As you know, designed scale of this game is company to battalion level tactical command (with an option to go down echelon at will) but at present, it's real Work -- and distraction from the evolving Big Picture -- to obtain the kind of results (behaviours) displayed in that great new promo movie. Fun sometimes, but still Work. That's why so many of us have an odi et amo relationship with this evolving game engine.

[JasonC]

US 11th armored division training documents (Lt Colonel George Pickett) -

"Armored infantry riding tanks: This is an emergency means of transporting armored infantry. The casualties which would be suffered from air burst and automatic weapons fire make this method too costly to be employed in attacking an organized position. It is used when road space or fuel shortages prohibit use of the armored personnel carriers."

Occurs in the middle of long discussions of the right ways to attack with a US armored force, including tanks leading with infantry mounted in HTs right behind them, using speed and the fact that the tanks typically draw fire first to get onto an objective - or, more extensively, dismounted attacks, with the tanks supporting by fire and infantry leading, especially common in woods or towns or river crossings, or where the two arms approach an objective from different directions (to enable the dismounted infantry to use terrain protection and to avoid the hazards of overhead fire) - etc etc.

American armored infantry did ride tanks sometimes, and armored divisions even took to attaching an infantry regiment from a division in the same corps to buff up their infantry strength, since they were notoriously light in that department, especially after any length of time in action and thus below TOE in riflemen while much nearly to it in tanks. The extra infantry could be lifted by the tanks. But this was mostly for road marches outside of combat, not a battle technique in actual contact with the enemy.

US armored infantry preferred to use its dedicated halftracks for tactical movement within range of enemy weapons, and even then only did so when the idea was to use speed to get to an uncovered objective, or around or through a defense (suppresed in the meantime by fire e.g. artillery or tank barrage). Going around, without stopping to duke it out to the finish - or only disembarking later at a position reached that way. That was in fact a characteristic, favorite method of US armored forces, to get a force behind or on a flank of the enemy and go tactically defensive once there, interdicting enemy movements by fire. (And then placing indirect fires on those bypassed this way). That is the tactical content behind the contemporary phrase "haul ass and bypass".

But when actually fighting it out with an enemy position that needed to be reduced, the infantry dismounted ahead of contact.

The Germans preferred those methods too, when they had sufficient SPWs for it. They also lifted extra infantry with the tanks for road marches, and in difficult terrain where the desired ratio of infantry to tanks went up (e.g. the FJ attached to Peiper in the Bulge). But literal tank riding to disembark in SMG range of the enemy was rarely used. Tanks and dismounted infantry advanced together, with the appropriate arm taking the lead temporarily depending on the detailed enemy and terrain problem immediately presented.

The big exception was the Russians, who routinely used their tank riders in that manner. They didn't have APCs sufficient to lift whole formations supporting their armor. In the late war some formations had enough US made scout cars for it, the closest they came. Instead the bulk of the infantry in their mech arm was truck borne (also true of the Germans), or motorcycle recon (same for the Germans early war, incidentally). While those got infantry "eyes out" and held areas already taken and cleared, they were insufficient to give direct tank-infantry team cooperation in combat. Russian tank-artillery cooperation was also thin by western and German standards.

They made up for it by putting a portion of their infantry in the mech arm directly on the tanks and using them tactically, very aggressively. This was a very expensive tactic in its human cost - losses to the riders were high. But it was effective. The main thing protecting the riders was simply the firepower of massed tanks. The "fist" they were riding lashed out at anything that hurt them, quickly and violently, and that kept the periods in which they were exposed to effective fire, limited.

But none of that has anything to do with clearing fields in Normandy. It is hard to come up with a less suitable place for it as a tactic. None of the speed gained by being mounted is worth anything there, because the terrain is so awful for rapid vehicle movement. And that speed is also completely irrelevant when the distances are so short. On the smaller fields, men on foot crossed from one hedgerow to another in 10 seconds, if fire didn't stop them. On the larger ones, that might rise to half a minute to a minute, tops. You don't need a tank to ride 80 yards - it is a pass play, not a marathon.

FWIW...

[Erwin]

That makes way too much sense, Jason.

I find myself becoming a convert.

(Damn.)

[JonS]

having to micromanage more than, say, 50 (ymmv) subunits per turn to obtain reasonable results

True enough, but that's purely a function of scenario size. If you don't like micromanaging a lot of units, don't play large scenarios. Or, if you do play scenarios don't pretend you like them when you spend most of your time moaning about doing all the things that make it a large scenario.

routine tasks like road following or cover seeking is worth considering

I'm not sure exactly what you mean with 'cover seeking' (and please don't explain) but I get your drift and to a degree I agree. But, see, that really is routine stuff. Especially pathfinding. But the particular request that Erwin came up with was "Do combined arms for me!"

Well, duh. If the game engine takes care of combined arms for you, then it really is playing the game for you. IMO, that is exactly the kind of thing that should be left firmly in the players hands. Good players will do CA badly, while bad players will do CA badly ... and ask for the engine to be modified so it does CA for them

[Erwin]

I didn't come up with that idea, Jon. I was commenting on someone else's suggestion.

But, I did happen to enjoy "automated" formations commands in other games. And I am firmly in the camp that wants to spend its time on tactical decision-making rather than micro-managing decisions. There is a difference.

And the reason that CM1 is still being played is that one can easily and efficiently play H2H with full regimental KG's/TF's on each side. I appreciate that some folks enjoy small scenarios and want more detail to make the small scenarios challenging. However, the earlier posts show that some of us like huge scenarios and CM1 has shown that they can be played easily if the UI is appropriate.

[John Kettler]

This is a collection of Russian wartime pics. A famous pic of a T-34/85 attack with tank riders (tank descent to the Russians) aboard is at 1:33. Note that most of the men have substantial protection against direct fire and, except where unavoidable, are basically draped around the tank. I further point out all the nearby disincentives to firing on the tank riders--a horde of other tanks, each with a bunch of guys with PPSh 41s in hand!

At 2:01, we see tank riders jumping off the T-34/76s in what's clearly a raging battle. Not only does it not look heroically composed, but the quality's terrible, which is why I strongly doubt it's a posed pic.

At 3:19, we see a T-34/76 M1943 moving administratively sometime during the Battle of Berlin (white turret band). That this is not combat is shown by the relaxed poses of men piled all over the tank.

At 5:36, we see an IS-2 involved in streetfighting, but it's posed, evidenced by the tank crewman visible to the right.

At 8:11, we see T-34/85s right after the tank riders have unloaded. This is clearly seen by the clump of men next to the tank in the background.

8:18 is a most revealing closeup of a tank with tank riders moving administratively.

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

But, I did happen to enjoy "automated" formations commands in other games.

The only place formation commands have in CM2 is at the squad/team level. Being able to make the smallest element (and probably only really rifle team/squads) advance in line abreast or arrowhead or echelon left or right, rather than the current line ahead behaviour would be an improvement. Having any automatic coordination between icon-level elements to maintain formation would be entirely out of place.

However, the earlier posts show that some of us like huge scenarios and CM1 has shown that they can be played easily if the UI is appropriate.

That's simply a false conclusion. The difficulty in managing large scenarios has nothing whatsoever to do with the UI, and everything to do with the scale of the game. Larry, Moe and Curly from CM1 are emphatically not equivalent to the individual modelling of troopers in CM2. The terrain scale is different by a factor of 2.5 as well. These things combine to make handling squad sized elements micromanagement intensive. IMO, it's easier (in WeGo at least) to split everything up into teams, because then you don't have to futz about with getting the second team to go where you want it at the terminal waypoint; you just send it there, or somewhere better than "an adjacent AS" (and it finds cover for itself).

What was it about the CM1 UI that made it so much better for handling large battles? I agree that moveable waypoints make setting up broad orders much more efficient, but those are in CM2 now. What else was there? Did I miss "formation" orders?

[JasonC]

JK - 1:32 and 8:10 are both clearly maneuvers, not combat. Tanks in parade ground formations, men clumped, etc. Also in the 8:10 example, there is no sign the men just dismounted, they are hugging the tanks as they advance to use them as cover, but are moving dismounted. At 1:35, you can see them walking in files in the direct path of the tank treads - a measure to avoid mines, and much more likely to be actual action - though still probably 2 to 1 odds on manuevers. At 2:00, there isn't the slightest sign of your "raging battle", merely a cloud of what is clearly dust from the movement of the tanks, recently halted to let the men dismount. It might be action, it could just as easily be maneuvers.

The most convincing action shots are at 7:50 and thereabouts, showing tanks with damage, and the KOed Panther with turret side holes in it. Both are after the action is over, however, and show the tanks not anything about riders.

But we don't need to go hunting on youtube for these things - there are entire book length first hand accounts of the experiences of the riders themselves, and many more shorter veteran interviews available online on Russian military history sites.

[JasonC]

womble - in CM1, if you gave a platoon a sensible advance order or a vehicles 2-3 waypoints, you got reasonable tactical behavior. Very straightforward. In CM2, to get anything like performance as good, you have to split your squads into teams, check out how they line up with linear cover, check where windows are, gaps in hedges, doorways. You should give about 4 times as many waypoints to land-navigate the split up men through that blizzard of gates and doors and passages.

I found it enjoyable to handle a reinforced company in CM1 and could play through an action on that scale in an hour. Running a battalion was getting to be gigantic and was work, and took longer - I could easily spend well over half an hour just on tasking and set up at such a scale. But I could play it if I wanted to. In CM2, I find a platoon and change comfortable to command hitting go frequently, but fights on that low a scale are seriously lacking in tactical interest (simple infantry, or they don't matter because there is a trump in play at the moment, on one side or the other). I find a company as much work, about, as a battalion was in CM1.

You can call it more realistic. I won't argue about that. But it is definitely more work.

[JonS]

In CM2, to get anything like performance as good, you have to split your squads into teams, check out how they line up with linear cover, check where windows are, gaps in hedges, doorways. You should give about 4 times as many waypoints to land-navigate the split up men through that blizzard of gates and doors and passages.

I just got a British platoon to assault across an apple orchard. They were in a couple of buildings on 'this' side of the orchard, and their immediate tactical objective was a hedgerow, about 80-100m away. There were no openings in the buildings facing the objective. I was fairly sure that the objective was un-occupied, but there was a second hedgerow about the same distance further on that was very definitely occupied, plus other Germans about in the arc from 12 o'clock to about 2 o'clock.

I started by putting two of the platoons units in each building, along with a pioneer team. The pioneers BLASTed holes in the walls of the buildings, then I had I had the HQ and one of the sections (un-split) move into some foxholes. Then the remaining two sections (also un-split) ASSAULTed from inside the buildings across the orchard to the objective, with one waypoint about midway, and the terminal waypoint on 'this' side of the objective. The three ASs lined up neatly along the hedgerow. When they were in position the HQ and the first section QUICKed across the orchard to line up with their mates. All up, the platoon attack took a total of eight (8) separate orders and ten (10) waypoints, spread over three turns. I don't feel that's a particularly high or unreasonable workload.

I took the objective, and lost no men in the assault.

Granted there was a lot else going on at the same time (the total scenario has 2+ companies of UK infantry, and two troops of Churchills), and the assaulting platoon was emphatically *not* crossing the orchard naked of support, and that support took a few turns and some more orders to arrange. However there is no "need" to split sections, or use dozen of waypoints, even for complex and potentially risky activities.

Actually, almost the only time I split sections is on defence, when I want to cover more ground, or spread my men out more. On the attack I split for recon, but during the fighting sequences tend to keep my men together.

Could I keep my losses down if I split more on attack? Maybe. Perhaps. A bit. But generally I can't be bothered with that kind of fiddling about, and my outcomes are good enough. Besides, I wouldn't be able to ASSAULT, an order I like to use

Jon

(On a separate tack; the assault occurred in the last ten minutes of a 40+ minute scenario, and this was the first fighting that particular platoon had seen. Having an uncommitted reserve that is fresh and available in the last quarter of a scenario really is a wonderful thing )

[womble]

womble - in CM1, if you gave a platoon a sensible advance order or a vehicles 2-3 waypoints, you got reasonable tactical behavior.

I'm not going to argue that you didn't, though I'd contend that you get the same output from the same input in CM2. "Sensible" just has to consider the more intimate scale of the game.

Still nothing to do with the UI. Your observations have merit but are all to do with the change in scale between the two games.

In CM2, to get anything like performance as good, you have to split your squads into teams, check out how they line up with linear cover...

If you split them into teams you don't have to check how they line up. They go where you put them.

..check where windows are, gaps in hedges, doorways.

Again, scale, not UI.

You should give about 4 times as many waypoints to land-navigate the split up men through that blizzard of gates and doors and passages.

Did CMx1 allow you to do the "pause before making entry, hose down the frontage and lob some grenades" thing? I don't think it did. Again, it's down to scale; CMx1 dealt with a squad that moved into a building that was actually representing several buildings (not many single dwellings in Europe with any dimension of 20m). CMx2 tries to represent each of the buildings individually. A 0.5-1m gap in a hedge doesn't even bear graphical representation on a 20m grid.

I found it enjoyable to handle a reinforced company in CM1...In CM2, I find a platoon and change comfortable...

Yep, that's about the scale change. 2.5:1

Still not the UI.

You can call it more realistic.

I have no idea whether it is more realistic. I find its degree of verisimilitude more satisfying, though. Much more. The individual stories of your pTruppen are very engaging; I never felt the loss of Larry, Curly and Moe as much as I do the casualties in my x2 PBI. Stopping outside a building and hosing down the windows and chucking in some grenades seems much more like a close assault ought to be, to me.

[Michael Emrys]

But, I did happen to enjoy "automated" formations commands in other games. And I am firmly in the camp that wants to spend its time on tactical decision-making rather than micro-managing decisions. There is a difference.

I hear you and happen to agree. But then, I'd rather be pushing battalions around instead of squads anyway...

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

I find a company as much work, about, as a battalion was in CM1.

You can call it more realistic. I won't argue about that. But it is definitely more work.

I agree completely. I do like the new engine and the games built around it, but I also pine for the days when I could routinely command a reinforced battalion without working up a sweat or having my computer do so.

Michael

[Broadsword56]

Normally I find battalion to be my happy zone for CMBN and CMFI.

But lately I've made an exception as I've been testing what CMFI is like in a North Africa setting (Tunisia). In my El Guettar historical battle scenario, on a 3200 x 3200 open map, the unit scale is something like US regiment vs. most of 10th Panzer Division -- ie, insane. But not only will CMFI run it, I'm finding the scenario to be quite playable and (at about 20 minutes in) thrilling. I'd never attempt this in Normandy, but in the desert one really can use group orders for companies and even battalions quite effectively. And as the terrain gets more open, the ranges open up, the maps get bigger, and one almost feels the need to play with larger formations -- unless it's more of a patrol action or raid-type battle. But I think it's important in the NA setting to have large or even oversize maps to convey that sense of a swirling armored action on an ocean-like landscape without fixed flanks, etc.

At first I thought the game-killer would be the workload of placing 5 min pauses all along the QUICK order routes for every dismounted unit. But actually that's not necessary. I move the German columns by putting the vehicles on SLOW and the dismounts on QUICK. After a while, when I see the dismounts reach the TIRING fatigue level, I just issue a group pause command to the entire battalion for a minute and a half or so. By then they've started outrunning the armor a bit anyway, so it lets the tanks catch up. Over time, a compact combined-arms spearhead will get stretched out along its line of advance. So, for example, one spearhead is now pausing behind a ridge to close ranks, reorganize and form up for the next phase -- an infantry assault on Hill 336. Now I have to split the assaulting infantry squads and it's a lot of work. But this is only on one turn. Their assault paths will carry them through quite a few of the next turns, and with movable waypoints it's especially easy now to divert and reroute and reassign various teams as the attack develops.

[Michael Emrys]

My computer would be totally incapable of running a scenario that big. It would simply choke and die.

Michael

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

I'll revisit the frames you cite. For me, it was more like going from a reinforced company (seldom operated at battalion level, except for things like Royal Opponent) to a reinforced platoon. As both 18 Platoon and those poor PanzerGrenadiers can tell you, even that's not gone well!

Not only is the workload high, the concentration of attention and focus very demanding, but it makes it that much harder to recruit either wargame virgins or console players into the fold. I recall how difficult it was to get people to even try CMBO, which, compared to this, is stupid simple. So far, the closest I've come to recruiting fresh blood is to get my nephew, Matt, into CM: Touch. As you correctly note, doing anything in CMx2 is hard, never mind something tricky. How I'd love to have phase lines and unit boundaries!

womble,

I see no good reasons why standard formations used by each force shouldn't be available, seeing as how they were relentlessly drilled as high up as integrated divisional maneuvers when possible. We should have basic commands for march column, line abreast, echelon left and right, diamonds and similar. Basic tactical formations are readily available for the forces involved, so it's more a question of BFC resources and coding issues. If what should be there in the first place is provided, workload drops, it becomes easier to actually play the game, and it lowers the present cliff face confronting newbies.

JonS,

I think I my try my next CW outing your way, then graduate to splitting squads and the like. Of course, some here may have me sent to the Eastern Front (or maybe the Murmansk Run) for doing so!

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

As you correctly note

That was an opinion, not a fact.

doing anything in CMx2 is hard, never mind something tricky. How I'd love to have phase lines and unit boundaries!

You want to make it simpler by adding complexity?

[Erwin]

One issue that is time consuming for no apparent gain in detail or gameplay value is when one wants to issue orders to a platoon (let alone a company) of vehicles.

It's wonderful that one can issue multiple waypoints for all the units in one go. But, unless all the waypoints lie in a straight line, the waypoints do not keep the platoon/company in formation, and units will start hitting each other and generally acting like they're all drunk. Even though they may all end up eventually where you want them, they arrive in a mess, often facing in weird directions etc. (This can be a serious problem in WEGO.)

Yes, we now have movable waypoints. But, it's time-consuming to go in have to move (say) 20 units worth of waypoints when each single unit may have multiple waypoints, and one can't simply click on a waypoint to access the unit. (That is a feature of CM1 that many of us sorely miss.) In CM2 now, one has to go back to where the original unit is and click on that unit, and only then can one adjust its waypoints.

I am doing exactly that right now in the (xnt) CMBN Himmelfarht battalion-sized scenario (which I highly recommend for those who enjoy larger scenarios).

Whether it be a formation order, or simply have the waypoints keep their relationship to one another so one can set a formation manually and have the units stay in that formation as they move, it would improve the gameplay.

[Broadsword56]

+1 to some sort of formation control in CM2.

Although even now in CMFI, I'm seeing company-sized "V" formations of AFVs that I set up maintain very close to their starting formation as they roll along in SLOW.

The infantry are the ones more prone to move strangely when in large groups.

[John Kettler]

JonS,

Very well. "As, in my view, you correctly note."

Regarding phase lines and other similar control measures, they impose a certain amount of order on the chaos, keep units from running into each other; theoretically keep supply routes and routes of advance clear, allow easier coordination of fire support, help reduce friendly fire incidents, are a huge help in planning offensive fires and defensive concentrations.

What I'd dearly love is a tactical overlay in which such things could be done, with objectives assigned, at least to the company level. Those wishing to play bigger scenarios would find this helpful and could do such things as designate concentration areas, forming up points and various objectives in depth. This would provide valuable context in which to run the units, mission plan, establish defenses and so forth.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

I know what phase lines are. I know why they're used, which is primarily in an attempt to impose order on chaos.

Most players would have no idea. Most players (including me) would find them pointlessly restrictive and frustrating in a game, particularly because most of the chaos they're used to try and control in real life is absent in CM (and any other wargame) due to Eye-Of-God.

Besides, phase lines and unit boundaries are sort-of already in the game. Terrain objectives equate to phase lines, and the map edge equates to unit boundaries.

All that other stuff, FUPs and such like ... meh. The SUZ is your FUP, and the rest you can do in your head. Or print a copy of the map and do it with a pen, if you really must.

By the by: you should really talk to Dunning and Kruger. I think you'd make a great case study.