Urban fighting force composition

[db_zero]

Part of the problem is the limitations of the CM game engine as it currently stands. If not mistaken infantry a

cannot climb/crawl through windows so that means they have to enter and exit buildings through doors or holes somehow blasted in building s. That may limit an avenue of approach.

Some high walls can't be scaled.

Others mentioned the way close assault is handled could be improved.

No way to move through sewers.

Not a criticism if the game just some limits you have to work with.

I think the "conventional wisdom" is an attacker needs a 7 to 10 to 1 advantage in manpower when assaulting a built up area. Also takes longer.

[Apocal]

Which is why on any battlefield you will find the defender trying to turn them (urban areas) into fortresses and the attacker attempting to avoid them as much as possible. Unless your boss is a charismatic maniac named Adolf Hitler.

What does this have to do with CM? Or your advice to do things the hard, ineffective way?

There are numerous examples on both the Eastern and Western fronts of the attacker using maneuver forces to isolate urban areas in order to reduce them later. Usually with pure infantry divisions or armored formations that have been stripped of most of their vehicles for one reason or another.

Other than Arnhem, when did this happen on the western front?

[ScoutPL]

Another real limitation of the game system is how it handles rubbling buildings.

The most obvious is the buildings all collapse on themselves in neat little piles. In reality it was much different. If you rubbled the buildings along a street you would quickly find the streets on all sides blocked to vehicular traffic, forcing you to rely more heavily on your infantry.

This is why commanders eventually learned that when attacking urban area it actually made things worse to conduct a pre-bombardment with artillery or bombers. Any rubbling just favored the defender. It made it easier for him to dig in, camouflage his positions, street maps became useless for navigation, and it severely limited the use of vehicles (both offensively and for resupply).

There are also plenty examples of large brick and concrete buildings taking massive punishment without collapsing, again forcing the use of infantry as the primary means of seizing the terrain.

In CM the buildings totally collapse rather quickly and do so in neat piles. One of the few shortfalls of the game in my opinion.

[ScoutPL]

I wouldn't consider Arnhem an example of what I am talking about at all.

Examples of urban areas being isolated by maneuver before being seized:

Cherbourg, Brest, Rennes, Argentan, Aachen, Nancy, Metz

Those are just the ones I can think of in 1944.

[db_zero]

I would love to see realistic rubbling in urban environments. Tanks wit dozer blades or even bulldozers would become worth their weight in gold.

Don't know if we'll ever see that and I can see the person who programs CM groaning at the mention of this.

[Apocal]

I wouldn't consider Arnhem an example of what I am talking about at all.

Examples of urban areas being isolated by maneuver before being seized:

Cherbourg, Brest, Rennes, Argentan, Aachen, Nancy, Metz

Those are just the ones I can think of in 1944.

I'm referring to the bold bit about pure infantry divisions or armored divisions stripped of vehicles, when did that ever happen?

In CM the buildings totally collapse rather quickly and do so in neat piles. One of the few shortfalls of the game in my opinion.

I mentioned it last year, didn't get a response from BFC.

[sburke]

First let's skip the authenticity and strategic/operational level discussion. CM is a tactical game. Emphasis on both. Some of us just like to fight out battles in urban terrain. Did they happen? Absolutely. Were they all on the scale of Stalingrad, absolutely not. But I don't think anyone is talking about that... yet. Aachen actually did see house to house fighting. As well there were probably hundreds of small fights for various villages and towns that would qualify for a company scale engagement and plenty that could entail something larger (Cassino anyone?)

ScoutPL - I absolutely agree that buildings in CM do present some difficulty. They collapse too cleanly into a flat structure of exactly the same footprint and they still have pathing and placement issues despite being a rubble pile. However I think the potential is there. Maps just needed to be created specifically for this type of fighting. Forget the artillery. You really want to try to call in arty fire and tell the battery- "I think I am on Villa de Rosa street, but hell there is just a pile of rubble here so I really don't know"? Also knowing where friendlies are is many times over more difficult.

So if you premise the fight as being w/o arty and you work on a map specifically for this type of fighting, you can actually create some nice stuff. RockinHarry's mod does a great job of changing the terrain tiles. You can use the same bmp to cover multiple terrain types so you can't visually tell if that was a boulder, mud or rocky red tile. Bogging that tank in a rubble tile now becomes a significant possibility.

Streets can be blocked by rubble piles. Sections of wall left standing can be added. This little bit took me 5 minutes to put together.

We actually have a pretty good tool kit all things considered. Is it perfect, nope. However I am not willing to write off the ability of CM to create a pretty vivid urban landscape for a battleground and am itching for CM to hit 1942 on the east front. I expect by then BF will have given serious consideration to some of the unique factors of this type battle and we will be a bit further ahead in the engine development.

As to bulldozers, I wouldn't expect to see that anytime soon if at all. I don't know of a single instance of a bulldozer in WW2 participating in an urban battle. They'd come in after to clear the streets for the logistical element.

[ScoutPL]

Practically all of the cities mentioned above were cleared by US Infantry Divisions. None of which had organic tank battalions. Attached tank battalions were rare for city fighting, especially when compared to fighting in more open terrain.

On the Eastern Front I was thinking of German Pzr and Pzgr units that were tasked to defend urban centers. I would have to go dig out the books to bring up specific examples. And when I say stripped of vehicles I am mostly talking about the mobile infantry losing their HTs and trucks. In no way was I trying to insinuate there were tank crews defending Belgrade on foot, for example.

[ScoutPL]

Forget the artillery. You really want to try to call in arty fire and tell the battery- "I think I am on Villa de Rosa street, but hell there is just a pile of rubble here so I really don't know"? Also knowing where friendlies are is many times over more difficult.

I mentioned artillery use in a pre-bombardment mode. As in lets pound Stalingrad/Cassino/Aachen/Brest for a day or two before we send in the grunts. The minimum safe distance for artillery and even most mortars would require you be blocks away (and therefore out of LOS) to most targets.

We actually have a pretty good tool kit all things considered. Is it perfect, nope. However I am not willing to write off the ability of CM to create a pretty vivid urban landscape for a battleground and am itching for CM to hit 1942 on the east front. I expect by then BF will have given serious consideration to some of the unique factors of this type battle and we will be a bit further ahead in the engine development.

Your pics are pretty. Does that pile of rubble block movement?

[Pete Wenman]

Just to repost this from the map/mods section

Just a quick line to advise, as I don't think it's otherwise been mentioned, but rubble terrain can now be created in the game.

The rubble tile graphics are already included within the game but need to be activated by using the tag "rubble"

This then replaces the heavy rock terrain art to rubble and alters the rock doodads to bricks.

P

[sburke]

I mentioned artillery use in a pre-bombardment mode. As in lets pound Stalingrad/Cassino/Aachen/Brest for a day or two before we send in the grunts. The minimum safe distance for artillery and even most mortars would require you be blocks away (and therefore out of LOS) to most targets.

Your pics are pretty. Does that pile of rubble block movement?

Artillery - understood. My point was in agreement. You make the town look however beat up you want but avoid the artillery collapsing of buildings as the battle is too close now for it's use.

Movement - it can, it's really up to the map designer. For example, I use that same terrain mod for red rock, boulder and Mud terrain types. I can now create rubble piles that do nothing, potentially cause bogging or completely block vehicular movement and visually there is no indication they are different. You could tell if it blocks by using the cursor during the orders phase, but you wouldn't know if there is a chance of bogging. The mud tiles or swamp could also slow infantry movement similar to a loose rubble pile where you'd have to move with care.

In addition you can create the appearance of a rubbled building and emplace an AT gun there.

I experimented with some stuff with the Venafro scenario in Gustav, but a lot of folks have come up with ideas since then that make that strictly a first generation attempt.

Nice Pete!! I keep meaning to mess with that, just haven't had the time.

[Apocal]

Practically all of the cities mentioned above were cleared by US Infantry Divisions. None of which had organic tank battalions. Attached tank battalions were rare for city fighting, especially when compared to fighting in more open terrain.

Just the actual street-fighting portions of these battles, obviously, all include tanks/TDs or SP arty mentioned at least in passing in the official histories (green book series), AARs, etc.:

Cherbourg: 4th Infantry Division, 70th Tank Battalion and 899th Tank Battalion attached. 9th Infantry Division, 746th Tank Battalion attached.

Rennes: Very little actual street-fighting, CC A of the 4th AD attacked and surrounded the city initially, defenders withdraw when a follow-on infantry regiment reaches the outskirts to clear it.

Brest: 8th Infantry Division, 709th Tank Battalion (minus D Co) attached.

2nd Infantry Division, D Co of the 709th Tank Battalion.

Argentan: 80th Infantry Division, 610th Tank Destroyer Battalion attached.

Nancy: CC R of the 4th AD, 80th Infantry Division with 610th TD Bn, elements of the 2nd Cavalry Group.

Aachen: 1st Infantry Division, I see the 745th Tank Battalion attached, with official and German accounts crediting TDs and "SPA 155mm" as being decisive in the fight for the city itself, "When the Americans are using 155s as sniper rifles, it is time to give up."

Metz: 90th Infantry Infantry Division with 807th Tank Destroyer Battalion attached, TF Bacon with "cavalry, artillery, tank and tank destroyer units."

[ScoutPL]

OK, thanks for looking that up.

How about taking the time to look up the ratio of attached tank battalions in a more maneuver oriented battle?

I apologize if my earlier statement about tanks being rare in urban fighting somehow ruffled some feathers. I still think its an accurate statement. We can quibble about to what degree, but I dont much see the point.

What if I just say your right and I'm wrong?

[sburke]

OK, thanks for looking that up.

How about taking the time to look up the ratio of attached tank battalions in a more maneuver oriented battle?

I apologize if my earlier statement about tanks being rare in urban fighting somehow ruffled some feathers. I still think its an accurate statement. We can quibble about to what degree, but I dont much see the point.

What if I just say your right and I'm wrong?

LOL sorry no one is allowed to do that. You have to defend your position with increasingly cantankerous and snooty comments with less and less substance.

I think folks could actually find material to go either way, but I think we'd all agree - city fighting is the infantry's domain. If you can spare a few tanks to provide supporting fires great, but tanks aren't going in there without a lot of infantry to back them up. Though it has gotten better, CM can't fully do justice to the weaknesses of armor in this environment. I was reading one report on Stalingrad where the Germans would rollout their armor at Pavlov's house and the Russians would just go up on the roof and rain ATR rounds down on them. The tanks were unable to elevate to return fire.

In Cassino the tanks couldn't negotiate the streets.

In Aachen, well the example of the one incident belies how difficult the US army found it to deploy armor.

Needing most of its manpower to stave off German counterattacks and secure the area around Aachen, the 1st Infantry Division was able to earmark only a single regiment for the job of taking the city. The task fell to the 26th Infantry Regiment, which had only two of its three battalions on hand. Armed with machine guns and flamethrowers, the 2nd and 3rd Infantry Battalions would at first be aided only by a few tanks and a single 155-millimeter (6.1 in) howitzer. The city was defended by roughly 5,000 German troops, including converted navy, air force and city police personnel. For the most part, these soldiers were inexperienced and untrained, and were only supported by a handful of tanks and assault guns. However, Aachen's defenders could make use of the maze of streets which occupied its historical center.

The 26th Infantry's initial attack on 13 October provided important insight on the nature of the fighting; American infantry had been ambushed by German defenders using sewers and cellars, forcing the advancing American infantry to clear each opening before continuing down streets, while Sherman tanks found it impossible to maneuver to suppress enemy fire. German civilians were cleared as the 26th Infantry advanced; no Germans were allowed to remain in the American's rear. Success in Aachen was measured by the number of houses captured, as the advance proved to be sluggish; in order to cope with the thick walls of the older buildings in the city, the 26th Infantry Regiment used howitzers at point blank range to destroy German fortifications. The howitzer created passageways that allowed infantrymen to advance from building to building without having to enter the city's streets, where they could be pinned down by enemy fire. Sherman tanks were ambushed, as they entered intersections, by concealed German anti-tank guns. Soon thereafter, American tanks and other armored vehicles would advance cautiously, often shooting buildings ahead of the accompanying infantry to clear them of possible defenders. Pinned on the surface by Allied aircraft, German infantrymen would use sewers to deploy behind American formations to attack them from the rear. German resistance was fierce, as they launched small counterattacks and used armor to halt American movements.

On 18 October, the 3rd Battalion of the 26th Infantry Regiment prepared to assault the Hotel Quellenhof, which was one of the last areas of resistance in the city. American tanks and other guns were firing on the hotel, which was the city's defense headquarters, at point blank range. That night, 300 soldiers of the 1st SS Battalion were able to reinforce the hotel and defeat several attacks on the building. A furious German counterattack managed to overrun a number of American infantry positions outside of the hotel, and temporarily released pressure on the Quellenhof before being beaten off by concerted American mortar fire.

Two events then aided the final advance. First, to lessen frontline infantry casualties, it was decided to barrage remaining German strongpoints with 155-millimeter (6.1 in) guns. Secondly, to assist the 1st Infantry Division, a battalion of the 110th Infantry Regiment, US 28th Infantry Division, had been moved up from the V Corps sector on 18 October to close a gap between forward 26th Infantry Regiment elements within the city. The defensive mission of this new battalion was changed on 19–20 October to closely support the urban assault, participating as the depleted regiment's missing third battalion. On 21 October, soldiers of the 26th Infantry Regiment, supported by the reinforced battalion of the 110th Infantry Regiment finally conquered central Aachen; that day also marked the surrender of the last German garrison, in the Hotel Quellenhof, ending the battle for the city.

[Apocal]

OK, thanks for looking that up.

How about taking the time to look up the ratio of attached tank battalions in a more maneuver oriented battle?

US infantry divisions habitually had one tank (sometimes TD, sometimes both) battalion attached in the maneuver phases, same as the streetfights. There are occasional outliers upwards like 1st ID having around 150+ AFVs assigned at one point in early August 44.

I apologize if my earlier statement about tanks being rare in urban fighting somehow ruffled some feathers. I still think its an accurate statement. We can quibble about to what degree, but I dont much see the point.

What if I just say your right and I'm wrong?

My feathers aren't ruffled, its just inaccurate as near as I can figure for both west and east fronts. I was somewhat I'd read contemporary AARs mentioning tanks in cities as a prerequisite for serious combat, I just thought maybe there were some smaller fights that maybe I'd missed. Anyway, I'm just disagreeing that tanks are some kind of rare thing in street-fighting; protected direct HE firepower is just too useful.

Its more rare to see a serious urban battle without any form of armor than the opposite case.

They also aren't rare in-game either, you can get perfectly effective force mixes including armor, TDs, assault guns for minimal rarity cost in-game.

[GhostRider3/3]

I have to agree with Apocal.. it would be extremely rare to see any Assault on a large scale township or city without Armor. I just finished reading the history of the 5 SS Wiking Division, and the fighting in and around Kharkov was epic. I know that even some German Inf. Divisions would have by 1944 integrated some armor, like the 1st Heer Inf. Div with Pzjgr.Abt. Independant StuG.Abt as well. Anyways, I also construct scenerios realisticaly from what the actual divisions at the time would have available to them on both sides.. seeing street fights are extremely violent.

In Iraq.. we appreciated every Abram's tank.. and artillery, well we had the pleasure of Laser designators, GPS etc... they did not which could be extremely bad for friendlies.

List of Independent StuG Batteries. http://sturmvogel.orbat.com/stug.html

Iam sure alot of folks here already have books on Independent TD units (US) and StuG Batteries but this may help some folks.

[db_zero]

In my h2h of Venafro-which is in Italy the place looks pretty beat up and there is plenty of what appears to be rubble around. Don't know if tanks or other vehicles can traverse and there are no operating tanks-the ones in the game have seen better days.

Not sure if you can have a untouched urban area and have the same sort of rubble and obstructions appear during play when a built up area gets trashed. From what I've seen I don't think that is the case at the moment.

Realistic or historically accurate I've found tanks to be very useful in the 5 h2h games ( 3 are historical) I've played in built up areas. That's from the from receiving and giving end. I'm sure both my opponents in my 2 historical h2h games are cursing my tanks and crews at the moment.

Be interesting to see just how extensively tanks were used in WW2. There must be plenty of documentation somewhere. My impression from what I recall is they were used quite a bit, but just what that really amounted to I can't say. I would venture to guess the Germans with their doctrine, organization and experience may have been more extensive, but that's just a guess. My impression is the difference in doctrine and organization between the 2 armies may have had an effect?

One a side note I do recall early war reports from the American Army that there were complains about regular infantry being used as armored infantry and that they really didn't understand the role. I'm user the assumption armored infantry units tended to work with tanks more?

I have seen from some footage that today when the US military does combined armored/infantry training that safety is a huge concern. Just getting bumped by a slow moving tank can cause serious injury or death and that and other potentially dangerous issues is something you don't have to be concerned about in CM. So perhaps that along with other things such as no instant rubbling may make tanks a bit too easy to employ in the game, but then again its is just a game and not real life.

I also believe that if you're playing a h2h game in built up areas it may be fairer or more a challenge for the defender if the attacking player gets some force advantage. In a straight up infantry vs infantry battle I would say that is even more important-given both player are equal in skill. You may also consider upping the time limit in a urban fight as slow, methodical recon is vital for the attacker.

I also read in another thread that artillery is deliberately nerfed to not make it too powerful in light of the fact infantry squads don't automatically spread out when they come under arty attack. I wonder if this too may have some bearing on its used in built up areas where defenders are often under cover in buildings.

[sburke]

In my h2h of Venafro-which is in Italy the place looks pretty beat up and there is plenty of what appears to be rubble around. Don't know if tanks or other vehicles can traverse and there are no operating tanks-the ones in the game have seen better days.

Unfortunately I hadn't been introduced to the idea of modding different terrain types to disguise them. MikeyD and RockinHarry would open my eyes on that. I have a larger version of that same map that I will apply some of the lessons though I don't expect I would do that until the 3.0 upgrade for CMFI is available.

Here is a sample of what I should have been doing. The area where the buildings would have stood are boulder tiles, impassable to vehicles. The street itself is mud. They are both replaced with RockinHarry's rubble tile. I did try replacing the heavy woods tile, however it still shows brush through the rubble. (hint to MikeyD, RockinHarry or any other intrepid modders out there. A heavy woods tile would be a better candidate for a rubbled, impassable to armor, concealment bonus terrain). I was hoping for something that would add concealment for troops hunkered down in it.

The net effect is armor can negotiate the street at the risk of bogging, but can not drive through the building remains (potential for cellars collapsing etc)

Not sure if you can have a untouched urban area and have the same sort of rubble and obstructions appear during play when a built up area gets trashed. From what I've seen I don't think that is the case at the moment.

At the moment no and honestly I am not sure we will ever see that. Part of the deal with creating this terrain is you aren't faced with the limitations of a building rubble tile. That was where for me anyway the idea originated. Before we could position AT teams in buildings I tried to approach the challenge of Infantry capabilities by altering the terrain. That premise is till the primary reason for doing this, the look is an added benefit. You can emplace anything you want, AT guns, mines, Vehicles, bunkers, ammo piles etc. The effect is also enhanced with elevation changes. I just don't see BF having buildings collapse that would then change the terrain tile and the elevation not just to the building tile, but surrounding tiles as well.

[Rokossovski]

The Russian Tank-Hunter Teams DO have the RPG43 HEAT grenades ( just the icon is missing ).

Are you sure? As you noted, there is no icon or other indication the tank-hunter teams are fielding RPG-43s. The are shown to carry "grenades", but it does not specify a special type.

The manual does not mention RPG-43s, unless I missed something. How do we know they are using RPG-43s? Has BFC posted on the topic? Are any other units using the RPG-43?

[mjkerner]

Ross, yes, I have a picture sequence of that grenade taking out a German section on the first page of the Screenshot thread, but unfortunately I exceeded my monthly bandwidth on Photobucket, so you can't see it atm.

[Apocal]

Are you sure? As you noted, there is no icon or other indication the tank-hunter teams are fielding RPG-43s. The are shown to carry "grenades", but it does not specify a special type.

The manual does not mention RPG-43s, unless I missed something. How do we know they are using RPG-43s? Has BFC posted on the topic? Are any other units using the RPG-43?

Posted here.

The Soviet tank hunters are armed with RPG-43 anti-tank grenades. Unfortunately the game is not coded to show grenades as Special Equipment, therefore they don't look different. But they are until they are out of grenades.

Steve

[Rokossovski]

Apocal,

Thanks for hunting that down. That's good news. I'll have to have a test run pitting Soviet Tank Hunter teams against their customary prey.

Does anyone have an opinion as to how effective they appear to be in-game so far?

[Apocal]

Does anyone have an opinion as to how effective they appear to be in-game so far?

They work moderately better than engineers with demo charges.

[RockinHarry]

In CMBN I learned to love (and fear) rifle grenadier troops, when it comes to urban fighting. Unfortunately they´re (germans) are a bit underequipped with ammo. Normally they take a full complement of 15 grenades (half HE/half Heat) with the grenadier, but in CMBN they have hardly half the amount. Do russians in CMRT have grenadier troops?

The rubble pile mods are good when it comes to looks, but usually aren´t really an obstacle to movements, both for infantry and vehicles. Rubble tiles could be spiced up with AT obstacles and maybe AT mines (not yet tried) to make them a more realistic vehicle obstacle.

As Sburke suggests, a modded heavy forest terrain tile might work too, but requires to also mod the brush billboards, which are likely reused (?) for other terrain.

[Pelican Pal]

I've not seen any with rifle grenades in my time with the game.

My central problem with urban combat/close combat is the lack of any good assault command. Quick works decently well, but it's primary use as a movement command makes it a poor work around.