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

[John Kettler]

LongLeftFlank,

This is becoming way too complex.

Hypothesis: Russian infantry in the attack has, since the beginning of WWII at least (have pics of Imperial Russian infantry doing exact same thing in WW I) preferred to attack in a line abreast (rank) formation, as opposed to line ahead (file) formation.

To that end, I provided several WW II pics as evidence, then went on to observe that this preferred assault formation continued right into the Cold War and beyond. In proof, I supplied the links to the authoritative Soviet Motorized Rifle Company (U) by the DIA and vid covering a recent exercise by such a formation in Armenia. In ALL cases, the actual formation is line abreast in the attack. This is true even when the attacking formation is not, in itself linear, and I showed that, too, using the DIA pub.

All in all, I think I've presented an eminently sound, well documented argument in support of my hypothesis.

I await your reply.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

I think I've presented an eminently sound, well documented argument in support of my hypothesis.

rofl.

Dunning-Kruger strike again.

[LongLeftFlank]

Nobody except you mentioned anything about attacking in files. But I really think I'm done here... it's getting beyond stupid.

[womble]

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.

The single file thing can also be mitigated by advancing in shorter bounds, as the troops will bunch up again at the waypoints and have less time to get strung out. Then again, troops of a team strung out in single file while advancing along a long movement leg are probably the most dispersed the game engine lets them get (barring anomalies) and therefore least vulnerable to HE burst...

[John Kettler]

LongLeftFlank,

If I misconstrued something you said, my apologies!

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

Long Left Flank - thanks, a part of my confusion concerns whether several other, distinct propositions were also being debated, and whether those involved are talking past each other.

But on the men deploying routinely, not stringing out into spagetti files along the line of movement, JK is simply right and anyone defending the single files business is smoking something. It isn't specific to Russians, nor specific to a certain era, or to open terrain. It is simply the normal thing infantry does in action.

It covers more frontage, it limits the effects of incoming, it lets all weapons bear without masking each other, it minimizes unintentional friendly fire, it gives more exhaustive observation (instead of being masked by single point obstacles), it avoids being surprised by bypassed enemies, it discovers any hiding enemy and even the threat of that will cause them to reveal themselves by fire before it comes to that, it laps around isolated positions and threatens single points from multiple angles, etc, etc.

The only reason to go in a file instead are to pass a natural bottleneck (e.g. a bridge or other terrain gap, or to use a path or road e.g.), to minimize risk from mines where the risk of that is much higher than the risk of a firefight, to avoid scattering and disorganization at night, and (occasionally and very tactically) sometimes to shelter behind a single LOS blockage - a "shadow" of defilade, with respect to a single dangerous enemy location - moving unobserved within it. That's it. Unless those objectives dominate, infantry deploys to fight. Anybody's infantry.

[LongLeftFlank]

I think you have the truth of it there from a doctrine standpoint amd if that's what JK was saying then he's right.

I think I proceed from the assumption that once heavy fire is encountered and men begin falling they go to ground and at that point tactical formation takes a back seat to cover-seeking. And that inasmuch as the assault resumes at all, it is in practice either

a. a slow infiltration along a terrain feature like a ditch or treeline offering some cover (which is probably... you guessed it, single file)

b. a series of frantic dashes from cover spot to cover spot by small teams; in that (highly stressful) case I'd take the shortest possible route and not worry about taking a dozen steps to my left first to please the Sergeant. And doctrine be damned! if Tommy hasn't been hit yet I'm gonna follow his path, just hopefully not so close that we both get hit.

c. Resuming the broad front skirmish line **in the face of unsuppressed heavy fire** happens too no doubt, but I have difficulty believing it to be the practical norm in 1944. Context and terrain dependent I suppose. And perhaps troops longer on élan and shorter on battlefield experience do it more often, to their cost.

This is all probably pounding the nail through the board at this point. But that's why I see some sense in how CMBN squaddies behave now, even though I'd be as happy as the next player to see some formation commands added.

OK, I need to go play some Pink Floyd now..... Forward! he cried, from the rear, as the front rank died

[c3k]

As mentioned upstream, don't lasso all your CM troops and give them a far waypoint...unless you WANT them to form a single file like kids on a museum trip. Instead, as mentioned upstream, SPLIT your squads (if you want), but, regardless, give each unit (squad or team) their own movement orders. At most 2 or 3 men will follow one another that way. The rest will be spread out. As they should be.

[Michael Emrys]

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.

I think you need to stop obsessing about the perpendicular-to-the-axis-of-advance image. That was never what I had in mind when I wrote of a more open order. The image I had in mind for a team or a squad would have been more like a very crude ellipse with individual soldiers arrayed semi-randomly within that configuration. In some cases, the major axis of the ellipse would lie along the line of advance, in others it might lie across it or at some angle to it. It is my belief that this is what infantry was trained to do, and the more experienced in battle they were, the more this was what they actually practiced most of the time.

Saying that, granted that terrain and/or tactical requirements might require something else, and we can talk about that as much as we wish. But don't assume that I am trying to revert to the days of musket and saber.

Michael

[LongLeftFlank]

Oh yeah, an African swallow, maybe, but not a European swallow. That's my point.

But then the African swallow's non-migratory...

No, the only thing I might be obsessing about is that the TacAI from early CMSF (fixed in 1.05 I believe) had squaddies spreading out upon reaching their destination so that in urban ops you'd end up with some hapless moron(s) swanning about in the street and getting wasted. I wouldn't want a similar kind of unintended zombie behaviour sneaking back in is all....

G1: So they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway.

G2: Wait a minute! Supposing *two* swallows carried it together!

G1: Nooo..... They'd have to have it on a line...

G2: Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of creeper!

G1: Wot, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?

G2: Well, why not?

[sburke]

Oh yeah, an African swallow, maybe, but not a European swallow. That's my point.

But then the African swallow's non-migratory...

No, the only thing I might be obsessing about is that the TacAI from early CMSF (fixed in 1.05 I believe) had squaddies spreading out upon reaching their destination so that in urban ops you'd end up with some hapless moron(s) swanning about in the street and getting wasted. I wouldn't want a similar kind of unintended zombie behaviour sneaking back in is all....

G1: So they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway.

G2: Wait a minute! Supposing *two* swallows carried it together!

G1: Nooo..... They'd have to have it on a line...

G2: Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of creeper!

G1: Wot, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?

G2: Well, why not?

There is no discussion, no matter how confused, that can't be improved upon by the Python.

[Michael Emrys]

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.

I've been wondering about this statement and puzzling over it. I never played SF (didn't have a computer that would run it, but hope to play the v2 when it comes out), so don't have any experience of this. So I wonder just what circumstances would cause this to happen, and I am trying to picture in my own mind what would bring this situation about.

Were you trying to cram entire squads into a space too small for them? Say, half a dozen or more men into a building only one AS in extent? Or was it just bad pathfinding by the early AI?

I don't recall seeing anything exactly like this in BN of FI, although I've seen men jump over a wall onto the enemy's side and then crawl back under it to get on the safer side...which is a bit weird to say the least. But none of this bears on the issue of what kinds of tactical formations should be used by squads/teams.

Michael

[Paulverisor64]

I've followed this thread from the beginning. It certainly has meandered a bit since the starting post. I still enjoy reading through this thread as it does have some good suggestions on movement that could absolutely make this game feel more realistic. There are some good pointers on how to achieve the desired movement as well.

Since we have a very good game engine to work with it would be interesting to see a somewhat scientific test taken to show results of how advancing in file might differ in effectiveness from advancing abreast (using the split squad method).

I certainly could concur with what Jason C has said in regards to the advantages of advancing abreast.

However; in the game I am playing right now I have run through a situation where I "felt" much safer advancing in line. I advanced through a wide open flat field where the enemy was gathering in a wide stanced hilly woods in front of me. I feared that by widening my advance I would allow more shooting lanes for the better protected enemy. Would this be another exception to the rule?

It would be interesting to see results of situational tests of both methods.

[Paulverisor64]

Since we have a very good game engine to work with it would be interesting to see a somewhat scientific test taken to show results of how advancing in file might differ in effectiveness from advancing abreast (using the split squad method).

I certainly could concur with what Jason C has said in regards to the advantages of advancing abreast.

However; in the game I am playing right now I have run through a situation where I "felt" much safer advancing in line. I advanced through a wide open flat field where the enemy was gathering in a wide stanced hilly woods in front of me. I feared that by widening my advance I would allow more shooting lanes for the better protected enemy. Would this be another exception to the rule?

It would be interesting to see results of situational tests of both methods.

I did try a little test of the exact same situation as specified in bold.

In the 1st test I gave the "Quick" movement command across the open field with NO adjustments. I used 2 squads (1 assault team and 1 HQ) which is the same as I tried from the prior attempt. I faced these 2 squads against 2 squads. I had only 1 casualty in crossing the open field.

In the 2nd test I split the assault team into 3 seperate paths and the HQ squad were set to equal distances apart from each other. Their orders was the identical "Quick" command. The result of this test was 6 casualties. I could absolutely see that the opposition (covered by the forest) had more open firing lanes. HOWEVER: The greatest deterent to this crossing was the ensuing confusion where there my troops spent 20 seconds trying to decide where it was that they wanted to go.

This test was done as a 2 player Hotseat. I saved the game just prior to the split.

I doubt this was a great test of advancing abreast or advancing in line given the glitch. However; given the tight time restraints and path finding issues it would be the only appropriate choice for the given scenario.

I hope to be able to see advantages contrary to this in other given circumstances. Prior to this thread I hadn't given the concept much thought.