Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 18, 1999 Share Posted November 18, 1999 I just confirmed this by setting up a hotseat game playing as the Germans. I sent my German Tanks right at the enterance point but off to the side where the hellcats will appear. So the axis tanks have los for sure. On turn 10, the US player can give orders to his hellcats to turn and target but the axis player cannot see the hellcats on turn 10's order phase. Is this done intentionally(to prevent gamey positionning) or is this a play bug? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary T Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 After all this talk of assaults, you may be interested in this veteran's officer's (British) view of German assault tactics in NW Europe. Basically he calls it 'assault by close range fire' i.e only closing to within 30 yards. Anyway, here's a very breif excerpt from the article: "To read one or two books about the fighting in the bocage you would be left with the idea that the German infantry thirsted to close with our infantry and, because they were braver and more skilful soldiers, overwhelm us. In my experience, which covered the whole campaign from the small Normandy beachhead to the end at Bremerhaven, this was just not so. Both in attack and defence and in the attack their tactic was to keep us at arm's length. It took me just a few weeks to realise what their little game was. When we attacked a German position the problem although a simple one, was very difficult to overcome. Vastly superior infatry firepower, both small arms and anti-tank, was their trump card(see previous article 'Infantry Firepower'). A german infantry platoon could produce about five times our own firepower. There was just no way through the curtain of fire from the MG42's. Sometimes, by stealth, we were able to bypass it; otherwise, artillery or armoured support was necessary - often both. But due to their excellent anti-tank guns, the 75mm and the 88, the use of armour could prove costly. Our doctrine for the attack was, by fire and movement, to close with the enemy with rifle and bayonet. Not so the Germans who, also by fire and movement, and heavily supported by SP guns (see previous article 'Sturmgeschutz') and mortars, closed to about thirty yards from our positions. At this point they deluged the defenders with fire, from MG42s, MP40s, sometimes Panzerfausts or Panzerschrecks, and grenades. This display of firepower, except against very determined soldirs, usually proved successful. This avoided what those who have very little or no experience of the battlefield refer to as 'hand to hand combat'. Few, if any, soldiers get involved in man against man conflict - not even the renowned German Fallschirmjager. On 12 February 1945 my 18 Platton overran a company of them at Bedburg. We killed thirteen, but once we were among them all weapons were dropped and hands raised in surrender. We took fifty seven prisoners; 18 Platoon at that time was only twenty-two strong." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 Interesting. Must have been a VERY lucky guy to survive the entire campaign as a Subbie... Jon ------------------ Quo Fas et Vino du Femme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 Just curious Gary as to where you got that excerpt from, is it available on the net? Thanks ------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Foobar Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 OK, here's a new question. What are your opinions of an "Overwatch" group. I will use last defense as an example. And use concepts based on no previous knowledge of the map/forces. -What is a tactically sound group composition to serve as overwatch? -How large should this group be in % of total force? -Should this unit be your "reserve" or should that be a seperate force? -How many of you Germans launched headlong into your assault the first time, without a single thought of possible Hellcat Hell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFox Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 Gary's post really reinforces what I have already read about the difficulties faced by allied troops in the ETO since they were obliged to do the attacking. It also explains why so many frontline units began to accumulate automatic weapons far in excess of of their establishment. While the allied preponderance in artillery was very important it is a relatively crude and ineffective method for dealing with well dug in infantry when compared with direct fire and assault. What is interesting is that this disparity between infantry firepower was recognised quite early in the war when the British encountered the Germans in the Middle-East. Though infantry in that theatre compensated for it as those in the ETO it is astounding that efforts were not made to do anything about it at an organisational level. I know that Australian units in the desert made every effort to acquire additional LMGs and if not able to get extra Brens would employ captured Italian LMGs (Breda? I think). The comments made about close assault are also quite interesting. I know that a common tactic employed on the assault at Tobruk was to split a section into a fire team with at least 2 LMG (Bren or Breda) which supressed the position while the rest of the section worked it's way in as close as possible before charging in with grenades and bayonets. The rifles weren't for firing just for carrying the bayonet They felt if they could get amongst the Axis troops with the bayonet the fight was won. I too would like to know the source of that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 Last Defence. Overwatch group. ALL FOs, ALL MGs, ALL surviving tanks, ALL surviving HTs. Have the infantry run to the wheatfield wall, then run 1 to the house, leapfrog the unit from the wall to the other wall and then bring the unit from the house to the wall. By the time you've done that the enemy will be well and truly softened up and you can take the first row of houses. I tried something a little different with my HTs in a game and so far for about 20 casualties (including 2 tanks knocked out to a zook ambush at the bend of the road on turn 1 :-( ) and despite losing 3 HTs in 3 seconds ( yes, 3 seconds) to mortar fire.. I've taken the town, captured about 5 Americans, wiped out all but 1 of the enemy's MG teams and am now about to take care of the guys guarding the portion near the woods. It's turn 8. I've used my HMGs to suppress MG positions and my FOs to blast the infantry platoon positions. It's worked rather well too (apart from the weird HT death mortars (sounds like the name of a unit in CC4 LOL) ). I like keeping my reserve close to the action e.g. my reserve platoon will actually be the platoon which overwatches the assault since that way it is close enough to take action, isn't expening vast amounts of ammo and is barely attrited at all. Others like keeping their reserve in the trees a few hundred metres back but I prefer the quick reactions possible from keeping it only 150 or so metres back from the action. USE the heavy weapons for support. That's what they're there for. Long-range rifle fire just doesn't hack it. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts