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

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Speaking from experience Jon

Regards, John Waters

[JonS]

Speaking from experience Jon

They use me as a talent scout now

[PzKpfw 1]

They use me as a talent scout now

ROFLMAO......

Regards, John Waters

[Apocal]

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.

Yeah, infantry in this game move like retards. If you give them a waypoint across any long stretch of ground, they literally go single-file. I have decent-ish APM from playing RTS, but actively moving a platoon of infantry (tactically) wastes way too many brain cycles. It's distracting.

I don't know why anyone would defend a craptastic movement system when we have 1:1 and tracking of every round fired.

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.

Off the top, do you know some of the better ones? The only account looking at tank riders in detail was "Tank Rider: Into the Reich with the Red Army" by Evgeni Bessonov and it was probably biased, along with much lost in translation.

[Baneman]

No doubt there's many improvements that could be made to the movement system - but it would be nice if they started with simply stopping infantry ( squads/halfsquads ) moving in single file.

[Michael Emrys]

No doubt there's many improvements that could be made to the movement system - but it would be nice if they started with simply stopping infantry ( squads/halfsquads ) moving in single file.

Moving in single file makes complete sense if the Move command is given. But under a Quick or Assault command, a more open order formation is definitely called for. I'm not sure about a Fast command, single file but with large spaces (16 m or more) between them, do you think?

Michael

[Baneman]

Moving in single file makes complete sense if the Move command is given. But under a Quick or Assault command, a more open order formation is definitely called for. I'm not sure about a Fast command, single file but with large spaces (16 m or more) between them, do you think?

Michael

Large spaces between men under FAST could be difficult since you want them all to go asap, not wait to create a gap.

Tbh, I don't care too much about FAST or MOVE since the one is usually only used when you're in deep trouble anyway and the other (presumably) when you're out of contact with enemy.

But QUICK and ASSAULT are what I was primarily referring to. I've seen 6 guys dropped from a single HMG ( strangely accurate, lol ) burst from their front.

[LongLeftFlank]

Hmm, let's step back and think about this a moment.

To my mind (happy to be proven wrong), the primary time RL infantry squads would form a skirmish line (i.e. perpendicular to the line of advance) is when advancing (MOVE) to contact across relatively coverless ground. That formation maximizes the chances of someone spotting something and minimizes casualties from the enemy first bursts, landmines, etc. I'd need to dig up my old WWII tactical manuals, but IIRC wedge ^, V and echelon / \ formations tended to be practiced at platoon level, not squad level.

Once contact is made, I'd tend to expect rapid reversion (for any further tactical movement) to some form of what you're calling "single file", with clumps of men all sticking to the same limited cover offered by available linear terrain. While Sarge keeps shouting "spread out dammit!" depending on the amount of incoming and the troops' experience level (he doesn't necessarily mean spread out laterally though). Consider also the impracticality of long maintaining a line while at a run carrying a combat load across farmland or worse, woodlands..... while under fire! Human beings just can't multitask that well -- they tend to follow the leader (the guy who's gotten farthest without being hit yet).

The exception, I suppose, would be a command to "fix bayonets and charge!" across open terrain shoulder-to-shoulder in the timeless style. Perhaps the Bagration build might add some kind of special HUMAN WAVE / BANZAI CHARGE command that would force squads into this kind of formation for the duration of the command. But don't let HBO fool you; those kinds of charges are comparatively rare in tactical warfare especially in 1944 against an enemy lavishly equipped with MGs. They are storied in infantry lore both because of that persistent "spirit of the bayonet" and because they are so hazardous and dramatic.... and bloody.

In game terms though, I worry that forcing infantry into ranks as a default would return to the early days of CMSF where you had random squaddies dangling out in the streets and getting picked off constantly.

Just a few thoughts -- like I said, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

[womble]

IIRC wedge ^, V and echelon / \ formations tended to be practiced at platoon level, not squad level.

However, to make a platoon form a line of echelon, each of the component squads/teams/sections needs to be able to form their part of the line, so be a mini-echelon in itself. Otherwise you get a staggered line of "clumped" (or line ahead, in-game) teams, which we can already arrange.

[akd]

The primary purpose of squad/team-level formations is to prevent masking of fire in the most likely direction of contact. Soldiers within a squad do no block each other's LOS or LOF in CM so squad level formations are largely irrelevant. Minimization of casualties is also a concern, but more tied to spacing than formation.

There is definitely room for some improvement in context-sensitive movement (and better control for team placement within the squad where the AI cannot sense the context), but selectable squad/team formations and all the UI that would entail would be a total waste of effort.

[LongLeftFlank]

Oh, I'm all in favour of Formation commands, and even a OURRAHHHHHH!!!!!! order that would force men to advance in a rough line abreast; or maybe two lines.

But to me that all fits under the Very Nice to Have category of "increased convenience of command" -- fewer clicks. As opposed to what some folks have implied above is a major bust in the engine .... 6 guys mowed down in the open by a single burst, etc. Not noticing that myself, or at least not because they were moving stupidly in files not in ranks.

[John Kettler]

Apocal,

The Wiki is surprisingly informative and far from mundane. To the contrary! Tank descents started during the Spanish Civil War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_desant

I did quite a bit of digging, in English, and the subject is practically impossible to find anything on. I went through everything I could find at IRemember.ru, searching under every reasonable term in the categories Tanker, Infantryman and Other. Nothing! Not one account by a tank rider. Foreign language stuff, which Google Translator handled, was also useless--unless you count wargame rules or something from the Czech Spring in '68.

Regards,

John Kettler

[mjkerner]

Hmm, let's step back and think about this a moment.

To my mind (happy to be proven wrong), the primary time RL infantry squads would form a skirmish line (i.e. perpendicular to the line of advance) is when advancing (MOVE) to contact across relatively coverless ground. That formation maximizes the chances of someone spotting something and minimizes casualties from the enemy first bursts, landmines, etc. I'd need to dig up my old WWII tactical manuals, but IIRC wedge ^, V and echelon / \ formations tended to be practiced at platoon level, not squad level.

Once contact is made, I'd tend to expect rapid reversion (for any further tactical movement) to some form of what you're calling "single file", with clumps of men all sticking to the same limited cover offered by available linear terrain. While Sarge keeps shouting "spread out dammit!" depending on the amount of incoming and the troops' experience level (he doesn't necessarily mean spread out laterally though). Consider also the impracticality of long maintaining a line while at a run carrying a combat load across farmland or worse, woodlands..... while under fire! Human beings just can't multitask that well -- they tend to follow the leader (the guy who's gotten farthest without being hit yet).

The exception, I suppose, would be a command to "fix bayonets and charge!" across open terrain shoulder-to-shoulder in the timeless style. Perhaps the Bagration build might add some kind of special HUMAN WAVE / BANZAI CHARGE command that would force squads into this kind of formation for the duration of the command. But don't let HBO fool you; those kinds of charges are comparatively rare in tactical warfare especially in 1944 against an enemy lavishly equipped with MGs. They are storied in infantry lore both because of that persistent "spirit of the bayonet" and because they are so hazardous and dramatic.... and bloody.

In game terms though, I worry that forcing infantry into ranks as a default would return to the early days of CMSF where you had random squaddies dangling out in the streets and getting picked off constantly.

Just a few thoughts -- like I said, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

For what it's worth, I think your analysis is spot on, LLF.

[DavidFields]

For what it's worth, I think your analysis is spot on, LLF.

So, in WW2, it would be an anachronism (as I have accused others of being) to think squads advanced:

Point

^--3 soldiers

Retello (radio), leader

^--3 soldiers?

[Vietnam era, from my experience, style]

Changing to a bounding, overleap, on contact?

[John Kettler]

Apocal,

I actually found something! This, clearly is NOT the right way to become a tank rider. From the account of Ivan Garshtia page 4, 1st paragraph. (Fair Use)

http://english.iremember.ru/infantrymen/46-ivan-garshtia.html?q=%2Finfantrymen%2F46-ivan-garshtia.html&start=3

"It is considered that our regiment was the first that had burst into the city. I remember the first attempt to do it: our assault company boarded tanks and - ahead! Who created that brilliant idea? We were comfortable targets, you know! The Germans fired at us in such a way that our company's remainders barely numbered twenty soldiers. (Later some General shouted at our battalion commander for killing a lot of men)."

LongLeftFlank,

Even the Russians were trained, though didn't necessarily remember, not to indulge in the insanity of a human wave attack. Ivan Garshtia, though, started out in a regiment with one rifle for every six men. What he has on assault training is instructive.

"Why did we suffer such heavy casualties? Of course, there were our headquarters' miscalculations and defects. However, I see that the main reason of our misfortunes lay in weak trained troops. What could we master in some six weeks? It is a too short period for complete training. Nevertheless, some elementary rules were mastered. (For example, yet in the reserve regiment we were taught: while attacking, you should advance by short rushes: 3 - 5 meters ahead, then fall and crawl away for a couple of meters instantly. Unfortunately, not all of us followed this rule). A lot of soldiers suffered from their combat unreadiness. During the period that I had fought, i. e. from October 1944 till May 1945, we were shifted for re-forming four or five times."

Am strongly inclined to dispute your suggestion that an assault was conducted in files, not ranks. Why? Line abreast in the attack was not only the standard formation during WW II, but it was STILL the norm in the Motor Rifle Company during the Cold War. Here are some examples from WW II.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/06/fow-mastering-charge.html

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/7194/vdovienkoimage28.jpg

And here's a Motorized Rifle Company, attacking dismounted. It's from a vid taken, I believe, recently. The proof of my claim is 45 seconds in.

http://en.rian.ru/video/20121012/176574848.html

And not a single Wiki citation for you!

JasonC,

I think the pic here is of a tank descent very early in the disembarkation phase. It may or may not have been taken in combat, but as the article indicates, by this stage of the war, the Russians had crushing superiority.

http://metaldetectingworld.com/world_war_2_p8.shtml

Regards,

John Kettler

[LongLeftFlank]

Hopeless red herrings, John.

Advancing in line in armoured APC/AFVs is done for very different tactical reasons than advancing Very Much Unarmoured leg infantry shoulder to shoulder in a rifle squad; it is basically useless to compare the two for purposes of the above discussion -- in fact, it's just confusing. In any case, there is precisely nothing in the game that prevents vehicles moving forward in ranks, wedges or what you will.

Also, please note that 100% of postwar Soviet/Russian military footage is propaganda, staged and framed for show (Urrahh pobieda!!!!!! Tremble before the proletarian bayonets of our fearless Soviet hordes, decadent bourgeoisie!) providing zero evidence of real battlefield tactics.

I don't even want to go down the other rabbit holes.

[LongLeftFlank]

So, in WW2, it would be an anachronism (as I have accused others of being) to think squads advanced:

Point

^--3 soldiers

Retello (radio), leader

^--3 soldiers?

[Vietnam era, from my experience, style]

Changing to a bounding, overleap, on contact?

Will defer this to someone groggier than I on small unit tactics, but didn't the drills you're alluding to that became standard in for all arms in Vietnam generally derive from tactics pioneered by the Marines in the Pacific? (or maybe it was the Army and the Marines copied -- no reason to get in a p*ss*ng match).

I am pretty sure though that small unit drills were nothing like as closely choreographed for WWII infantry, even elite forces, than they became postwar in the age of the automatic rifle. Squads trained in bounding fire and movement, sure, but each section basically followed its leader, sticking close to available cover, except when one squaddie was told to go grenade a bunker or sumfink.

[John Kettler]

LongLeftFlank,

The point of providing the video of the Motorized Rifle Company was to show you the infantry attack formation was a combat line, not a file. For the record, this is in complete conformity with the following Defense Intelligence Agency publication, one that was part of my professional library when I was a Soviet Threat Analyst.

Soviet Motorized Rifle Company (U)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33890816/DIA-Soviet-Motorized-Rifle-Company

Please Section III, 71 © and Figure 45 on page 41. These unmistakably show that in the assault, the combat line abreast is the preferred formation for the Motorized Rifle Squad. In case you think that's a fluke, please note that, independent of platoon formation, the Motorized Rifle Squad still attacks in line formation. See page 59 and Figure 54 thereon.

Regards,

John Kettler

[LongLeftFlank]

So you contend that even in 1944 Russians weren't like normal rational human beings and being mindless Bolshevik subhumans in terror of their rat-faced commissars, ignored the cover of an available ditch or embankment in order to form nice Napoleonic rows that would have made Kutuzov (or Eisenstein) proud. And then obediently got mowed down advancing ("Urrah!") shoulder-to-shoulder on German machine gun nests, bayonets fixed. So it's a good thing the Red Army had endless new Asiatic hordes to clamber over the backs of their own dead to build a bridge of corpses all the way to Berlin.

Put more simply, I think you're confusing formations used during the approach to contact with the actual engagement and killing of the enemy once said contact is made. By being spread out laterally, the motor rifle squad maximizes eyes out front and minimizes losses once the fireworks start (you know, most casualties occur in the first 7 seconds of a bump).

Once the shooting starts, you have a snap second to say "Charge!!!!" if the enemy is that close or the firing is weak or you're clearly in a kill sack and the best way out is forward. John, I am willing to believe that green Russian leaders defaulted to that more often than other nationalities even in 1944, with grisly results, but none of what you've presented speaks to that.

More likely though, everybody -- Bolshevik subhumans included! -- goes prone and seeks cover, each returning fire the best he can. That cover is seldom evenly spread across the terrain, even in farm fields. Men form small clumps around the best cover, converging on their combat leaders (the guys who aren't cowering) or machine guns. Or BMP as the case may be. Further movement forward proceeds from that basis, in small groups practicing a more or less refined version of bounding-and-firing -- the Napoleonic skirmish line or serrez les rangs! does NOT reform.

[PzKpfw 1]

I just dont see it, the Soviet Imfantry just did not have the numbers after 43 to afford to many losses, After Zitadelle the Soviets, up until Bagration suffered heavy losses especialy in their Rifle Divs due to reverting from useing their tank & mechanized formations for deep penetration encirclements, they used brute force frontal attacks.

By November 1943 the Soviets had to disband their Rifle Brigades to provide Rifle Div replacements Ie, the 4th & 125th Rifle Brigades were disbanded to rebuild the 212th Rifle Div alone. Other measures were taken as well Ie, in September 1943 the RDs reduced their gun crews from 9 to 6 men & sent the surplus to the Rifle Cos as replacements. By December 1943 the RDs were combing out their rear service personell for replacements Ie, the 336th RD had to use 40% of its rear services personell, to replace its Rifle losses.

In June 1944 2nd Guards Army combed out its rear service personell, of all men from 40 - 45 years of age, just to get each Rifle Div up to an strength of 400 men. They also resorted to combing out hospitals etc.

Below is an example of the average Soviet Rifle Division Company strength from Sept 1944:

32nd Rifle Div - 40 men.

43rd Rifle Div - 60 men.

70th Rifle Div - 50-70 men.

77th Rifle Div - 50 men.

119th Rifle Div - 35 men.

145th Rifle Div - 35 men.

179th Rifle Div - 40-75 men.

204th Rifle Div - 77 men.

268th Rifle Div - 60 men.

306th Rifle Div - 60 men.

379th Rifle Div - 30-40 men.

The Rifle Bns were reduced to just 2 Rifle Co's & an SMG Co in most cases.

From 1944 - 1945 an Soviet Rifle Divisions frontage on an attack, was 2500m, a Rifle Bns frontage was 700m, on an attack, a Rifle Co's frontage on the attack, dropped from 350m in early 1944 to 100m by late 1944. Because of decreased manpower levels in the Rifle Div. The Soviets provided them with very lavish supt, Ie, each Rifle Co had 2-3 artillery pieces & 3-4 tanks or SU's provideing direct fire suport for the attack. Soviet Rifle Divs were low priority on replacements.

By 1945 attrition in Soviet Rifle Divs had taken it's toll Ie, the 262nd Rifle Divs, 950th Regt was down to 2 Bns & miscellaneous units for a total of 631 effectives. The 91st Guards Rifle Regt was down to 1 Rifle Bn with an 161 men. Add in the Regts AT, Mortar, & an SMG co etc & the 91st had about 400 men out of its authorized 774 men. The whole Div was down over 2000 effectives that could not be replaced due to manpower shortages. 5th Army in the Baltic reported 11 of its Rifle Divs had an average strenght of only 2,625 effectives, in March 1945, this was down from an average of 3000 - 3200 in Febuary 1945 and this was in an 'quiet' sector.

The Shtat for an Soviet Rifle Co in 1945 was reduced to 53 effectives, An Rifle Co consisted of 2 Platoons of 23 men each. During the Berlin fighting the average Rifle Div Strength was was under 3000 effectives in 12 Rifle Co's. The Rifle Co strengh had been reduced by attrition to 20 - 30 men each Company. The reason given for the strength decreasein the RDs was not because the Soviets could not replace the losses,but that they chose to create new tank & Artillery formations instead of replaceing Rifle losses. This was where The Soviets again changed back to useing their tank armies for deep penetration, encirclements etc..

Regards, John Waters

[John Kettler]

LongLeftFlank,

Did you even bother to read what I carefully said before?

Apocal, (snip)

LongLeftFlank,

Even the Russians were trained, though didn't necessarily remember, not to indulge in the insanity of a human wave attack. Ivan Garshtia, though, started out in a regiment with one rifle for every six men. What he has on assault training is instructive.

"Why did we suffer such heavy casualties? Of course, there were our headquarters' miscalculations and defects. However, I see that the main reason of our misfortunes lay in weak trained troops. What could we master in some six weeks? It is a too short period for complete training. Nevertheless, some elementary rules were mastered. (For example, yet in the reserve regiment we were taught: while attacking, you should advance by short rushes: 3 - 5 meters ahead, then fall and crawl away for a couple of meters instantly. Unfortunately, not all of us followed this rule). A lot of soldiers suffered from their combat unreadiness. During the period that I had fought, i. e. from October 1944 till May 1945, we were shifted for re-forming four or five times."

Am strongly inclined to dispute your suggestion that an assault was conducted in files, not ranks. Why? Line abreast in the attack was not only the standard formation during WW II, but it was STILL the norm in the Motor Rifle Company during the Cold War. Here are some examples from WW II.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/06/fow-mastering-charge.html

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/7194/vdovienkoimage28.jpg

And here's a Motorized Rifle Company, attacking dismounted. It's from a vid taken, I believe, recently. The proof of my claim is 45 seconds in.

http://en.rian.ru/video/20121012/176574848.html (snip)

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

I can't keep track of what you fellows are actually disputing, but I can spot one item at least. Did infantry deploy to advance, tactically? Yes. Did they instead bunch up in single file behind their NCO? No, and their NCOs would all be dead in five minutes if they did. The only tactical causes that would make infantry adopt a single file for movement was a danger of mines, one, and to maintain orientation in night time advances while not yet in contact, two. Otherwise they would spread out.

That doesn't mean they'd keep a parade ground ruler straight line, but it does mean they'd be more on-line than in a single file.

The portrayal of movements in CMx2 is clearly just a limitation of the path finding engine, not any period tactical reality. If you split the men up into as many units as possible, it isn't a big deal. That just increases player micromanagement and workload. That's a cost certainly, but it is better than stringing the men out in long single files.

FWIW...

[LongLeftFlank]

I don't click on links from Russia, pictures included.

Regardless, you need to state an affirmative case for some point of view, instead of just shoveling "data" at us and assuming that's somehow helpful or clarifying.

You aren't a troll as such, John, since you clearly love the subject matter, don't engage in ad hominem baiting, and are trying very hard to be helpful. And you are even drifting away from the being the Forum crank-in-residence, since you also appear sincerely willing to learn from others. That's a positive step forward, no, really.

But so much of what you post here still just.... adds more confusion, not less. I am truly sorry to be so nasty. But I just don't see any purpose in pursuing a discussion with you unless you're willing to state an actual hypothesis, e.g.: Russians Attacked In Line Abreast Wherever Possible And This Is Why That Makes Sense.

.... and now it is the appropriate time to wheel out the sources. But do not use the sources AS the hypothesis, i.e. Russians Attacked In Line Abreast Wherever Possible Because These Five Pictures Tell Me That Is What They Did.

[LongLeftFlank]

I must confess that I've gotten a little lost here too, Jason, but I think the core is this:

In CM2, whenever infantry moves forward any distance, the little pixeltruppen in the subunit (squad, team) tend to sort themselves into little queues regardless of whether they are following linear terrin (ditches, hedges, roads whatever) or not, or whether they're actively under fire or not.

Some folks have posted various comments to the effect that this is a serious game break, doesn't represent RL WWII tactics and leads to excessive casualties when guys are caught in defilade.

I guess where I come down is that if CM infantry *needs* to move around in little clumps, I prefer follow-the-leader (preferably staying close to available linear cover) vs. spread-out-perpendicular-to-the-axis-of-advance as a default. At least for any game set subsequent to 1864.

That's when JK came in with his Russian doctrine stuff.

[Apocal]

I can't keep track of what you fellows are actually disputing...

My only opinion was that they should have put reasonably intelligent pathfinding into the game at the same time they did 1:1 representation and before tracking individual small arms' rounds. Some of the situations that arise currently are comical.