Tatical Advice

[Cobetco]

found the ball mount of a flame Sherman... looks the same. So ignore that. Mmmm corndogs though....

[Bulletpoint]

Just remember at guns can take huge amounts of small arms fire and still shoot when armoured targets appear. When using mortars you need either at least 81mm or loads of ammo if the gun is in forest. My rule of thumb is to use double ammo if gun is behind bocage, three times more ammo if it's in forest with few trees, and probably five times more if in heavy forest. 

[DougPhresh]

Is there a smart way to use US Armoured Infantry in '43? I like the firepower of the platoons, but it feels like a liability sometimes. It's very difficult to keep the 37mm AT, 60mm and MGs moving up on the attack. In closed terrain, all those extra halftracks cause congestion, and I feel like leaving half the platoon behind is probably not how things were done. Since the squads only have rifles, I need all the supporting fire but have no idea how to use it. I'm able to set up overwatch, and win the initial firefight, but once those rifle squads move up, they're often on their own when they run in to the next line.

[womble]

Is there a smart way to use US Armoured Infantry in '43? I like the firepower of the platoons, but it feels like a liability sometimes. It's very difficult to keep the 37mm AT, 60mm and MGs moving up on the attack. In closed terrain, all those extra halftracks cause congestion, and I feel like leaving half the platoon behind is probably not how things were done. Since the squads only have rifles, I need all the supporting fire but have no idea how to use it. I'm able to set up overwatch, and win the initial firefight, but once those rifle squads move up, they're often on their own when they run in to the next line.

The first thing to note is that the halfies are essentially done with their job when the infantry debus in the setup zone. Don't rely on having them available to bolster the infantry's firepower; they are too vulnerable to too many threats to be used "willy-nilly" and need to be kept in defilade most of the time. The exception is where you're sure there's no long range response, when they can be brought up to maintain (not achieve) suppression on infantry positions.

The AInf organisation, to me, seems to be less flexible in some ways, due to the lack of organic autofire in each squad. As such, the platoon needs to move in a more tightly-coordinated fashion than an ordinary leg infantry platoon: the MGs and mortars are the base of fire, and the squads are the maneuver elements. The 37mm should, in most cases of offensive operations, IMO, be left hitched to the transport, and deployed "as appropriate". I suppose it could just skulk around at "Move" speed as the "last element" so it's available should it be needed and a vehicle can't be used to bring it forward.

So set up a base of fire with your crew-served elements, advance with your rifles under their cover, hold with your rifles while you bring up the fire base teams. Rinse and repeat. Your pace of advance is dictated by the speed at which you can suppress the enemy enough to advance with your rifles, plus the time it takes to scramble the MGs and mortars forward on their (hopefully) unopposed movement bound to catch up with the rifles and restart the process.

[Bulletpoint]

For armoured infantry, it's a range game. Each support element should be used at the proper range. Up to 300 metres you can engage with rifles but they are better at less than 200 metres. Up to 5-600 metres you should use your light machine guns. Up to 800 metres you use your heavy machine guns. For distant AT guns or important enemy positions behind non-flankable bocage you use your mortars. Resist the temptation to spend their limited ammo on the first target that pops up. Save them for things you can't kill by regular good tactics. 

[Cobetco]

So armored infantry do not have a BAR, but the BAR is kinda useless anyways, most of your firepower will come from your Garands in a normal US infantry Platoon, so i dont see it's lack being an issue, and as far as the 37mm and 57mm anti tank guns in the company, historically these were often "forgotten" and their crews became an extra rifle section, Combat Mission does not have this unofficial adjustment, but you could always abandon the guns, sadly the crews only have M1 carbines, which are lacking.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Cobetco

[womble]

As a dissenting opinion to Bulletpoint on the use of light mortars: I agree that they're very useful for distant threats, but they do come with a decent ammo load, and at close range are very accurate, needing very few rounds to dislodge or destroy infantry targets in all but the best cover. Save some for the IGs and ATGs, sure, but don't be too conservative; those trailed threats may never materialise after all

A crew section with M1s is pretty useful for close quarter work. Their RoF seems higher than Garands. for most situations you're presented with in CM, though, you don't need the extra riflemen, since you've got full (or nearly so) TO, and you might need the ATG. Sure, once the grinder has hollowed out the platoon a little, you might want to abandon the gun and press the gunners into service on the firing step, but best to save that irreversible decision until you need it.

[Melchior]

So armored infantry do not have a BAR, but the BAR is kinda useless anyways, most of your firepower will come from your Garands in a normal US infantry Platoon, so i dont see it's lack being an issue, and as far as the 37mm and 57mm anti tank guns in the company, historically these were often "forgotten" and their crews became an extra rifle section, Combat Mission does not have this unofficial adjustment, but you could always abandon the guns, sadly the crews only have M1 carbines, which are lacking.

I don't know I kind of appreciate the BAR's extra firepower at close range. I treat it like an oversized SMG and for some reason US Armored Infantry really lack those. Course you can just debark the halftrack drivers who usually have Thompsons. What the Americans lack in the BAR they make up for in the Browning M1919 anyway, which are almost always attached organic to infantry platoons. 

Also i'm not turned off to the idea of Armored Infantry attacking objectives from their mounts. I've done it before and it's been done to me and it can payoff. It's really great for chasing down stragglers. It just needs to be understood that infantry fighting from their half tracks are only marginally better protected from fire than they'd be in the open. Half tracks are really designed with protection from artillery fragmentation in mind. They're trucks with better protection but the open tops mean infantry can fight from them easily and have higher situational awareness because of standing higher (also making them bigger targets to boot). Context is everything overall. Send in a platoon of mounted infantry to finish off some sporadic rifleman contacts in an open field and they'll probably have a jolly time. Send them in by themselves to take the stereotypical Italian-villa-on-the-hill and you can probably expect a transfer back stateside for, oh, "the duration of the war". 

As for the light mortars, mixed feelings on them. More often than not they never deploy once and I end up just using them as extra rifles. On the other hand, you'd really miss them if you happen to come across a Flak 36 ominously perched on a hill overlooking your advance. Hell I took out a Nashorn with one once and if that's not clutch I don't know what is. 

 

Edited December 23, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[DougPhresh]

I find the Armoured Infantry setup from September '43 to be better. Three rifle squads, and not lugging around all those AT guns.

The difference between Sicily and Salerno in experience is pretty apparent I guess. 37mm with canister is nice on defense, but coming from CMBS it feels like a lot of work to lug around what I'm starting to see as a towed 40mm grenade launcher.

On that note, how should the Italian Brixta mortar be used? I've been using them like I use AGL sections in the modern games, to put down mass fires on infantry targets. Is that what is generally done?

Edited December 23, 2015 by DougPhresh

[Cobetco]

yeah you pretty much have the right idea on the Brixta, i personally use to for suppression, the bombs it fires are basically low power hand grenades so its not that effective by its self at clearing an area, but is a useful replacement for the Italians poor excuses for machine guns (really a clip fed machinegun?)

[Bulletpoint]

The BAR is useful not so much for the total amount of bullets it puts out but for its bigger effectiveness at longer ranges compared to the rifles. In my experience that is. Haven't tested it. 

[womble]

Brixia are the sole saving grace of the Italian infantry armoury, IMO. Their HMGs aren't appalling, and their SMGs are fine, though too scarce.

[Melchior]

The BAR is useful not so much for the total amount of bullets it puts out but for its bigger effectiveness at longer ranges compared to the rifles. In my experience that is. Haven't tested it. 

It still does provide American squads with the MG "reach". I'm not sure it's because the MG34/42 are better machine guns though as much as the US ToEs don't seem to distribute the BAR enough. The BAR is an automatic rifle, not a light machine gun. It would've made way more sense if rifle squads sortied with 3-4 per squad instead of one. From what I heard more usually found their way in the hands of infantry than the ToEs allowed anyway. The BAR gets a bad rap it does deserve somewhat but I think it's mostly the fault of doctrine here and not design. Too much confidence in the Garand and no prior experience with anything like the MG34/42. A family a machine guns that by itself probably bought Germany 6 months. 

yeah you pretty much have the right idea on the Brixta, i personally use to for suppression, the bombs it fires are basically low power hand grenades so its not that effective by its self at clearing an area, but is a useful replacement for the Italians poor excuses for machine guns (really a clip fed machinegun?)

A machine gun is a machine gun. Put them in a right place and clip fed or not the enemy won't be having a nice day. I'm not a big fan of the Breda 30 myself, but the Italians are about as generous with them as they can be and would be more so if they could have. The Italians also have a pretty reasonable HMG, the Breda 37. Though also clip fed that's much less of an issue for an HMG than an LMG. 

Biggest problem with the Italians to me is the often poor leadership and lack of radios. You have to concentrate an Italian force tightly which creates two big problems. One, tempting target for artillery fires. Two, predictable and unremarkable attacks seeing as once you identify the location of the Italians you've pretty much figured out what they're up to. No surprises in store. 

Edited December 23, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[DougPhresh]

I think from reading some details of CMFB that BARs will be more prolific late war, which would include the next CMFI module I hope.
Is the M1918A2 variable rate of fire modeled? Would it matter? I like knowing there is a BAR for the supporting element of a squad, for what it's worth.

There are two Italian vehicles that are standouts that I'd like to learn to use better. The AS.42 Saharina and the Semovente 90/53. They both seem really interesting and are unlike anything the Allies or Germans have (maybe the Nashorn?). However, as has been pointed out the Italians are so fragile its hard to keep these vehicles in the fight if the infantry collapses and lets the enemy get close or on the flanks.

[womble]

<3 the Semovente 90/53. It's dinky, so you can sneak about with it and bushwhack any armour present in the theatre... A nasty, stunning surprise to a HvH opponent who doesn't know about it and expect it

For me, the Saharina is neither one thing nor another. They simply don't have enough protection to use at any range where infantry can reply, a bit like troop transport halftracks; I'd rather have a "proper" armoured car that can at least ping long range rifle-calibre rounds off its armour without crew getting geeked as they try and serve the vehicle's weapons.

[Cobetco]

the Semovente 90/53 is criminally low on Ammo however, and that's mainly because the companion tender hasn't been modeled. and that wasn't modeled i assume because vehicle ammo sharing was never quite finished.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Cobetco

[Melchior]

If I could design a reasonable US infantry squad during this era i'd have 10 man squads with at least 2 BARS, a thompson, and a rifle grenadier. Every other squad gets a bazooka. HQ teams get a scoped Springfield. The light mortar teams get knocked down to two per Company, third team purely ammo bearers. One more M1919 added to each Company. The idea here is to make a group that does not rely primarily on the Garand for fire and can guarantee very heavy fire for the length of at least one engagement. I expect they'd be bereft of ammunition after that. But I've really de-emphasized the use of infantry in attacks without overwhelming support nowadays. They just die too damn easy. 

The Sahariana is nifty to me. It's very vulnerable yes but so are the Jeep and Kubelwagen and everyone uses those for recon. It's all about distance really you just make use of them on maps large enough to justify their mobility. When scenario designers stick me with them on 700x600 maps I'm kind of baffled what the idea was and you really don't have any choice except to just dismount them. The Semovente is cool too, but totally impractical without its companion tender. Even though ammo sharing was never finished in the game I don't think the Italians built many of the tenders in real life either. They only built 30 Semoventes after all and had earmaked only 50ish so guns for that kind of carriage. So it was never going to be a mass production sort of thing. Lacking of ammo is a grim but ultimately pretty typical stipulation of their use. 

[womble]

In some ways the Semo' 90's low ammo count isn't a problem: if you're getting (what is it? 9?) shots out of the thing at armoured targets, you're probably killing at least 3-4 of 'em (with the odd miss, and the crew winging multiple shots at targets to make sure, and that's a jolly fine performance for such a platform... I guess it's an issue where the enemy have a lot of light armour that you don't really need the big gun for, but if you task the thing to hunt Shermans, it's got enough ammo for a better-than-even exchange. And it's the only system the Italians have that's really got a prayer against an M4 from the front...

Aye, I agree that the Saharina is like a recon jeep, but personally, I don't like them much either  Too easy to spot, too easy to kill by pretty much any DF weapon system fielded bigger than a pistol. Great "long range desert patrol" vehicle, no question, attacking by surprise and in overwhelming force in a small location, but a niche tool in Sicily and mainland Italy, I feel.

[Melchior]

I guess you're right and if you manage to knick even one Sherman with the thing it's already been a favorable exchange. How long would it just sit in one spot shooting anyway? Its profile is huge and muzzle report gigantic nobody will have any trouble figuring out where to start shooting after it starts Hadokening the valley. 

 

[womble]

Indeed, shoot-and-scoot is the order of the day for the Little Tank Destroyer That Could...

I'm not sure what you mean by its "huge profile"; I went and paraded all the relevant vehicles I could find in vanilla FI, and it's roughly the same height as a StuG, lower-profile than the Marder II and a lot lower-profile than the T30 GMC (which I had to use as a stand-in for the T12, being unable to find that in the scenario editor).