Playing a WW2 game

[Ivanov]

I have some experience with CM Black Sea and now I start getting into the Red Thunder. What I've noticed from the very start, is that comparing to the modern warfare, with it's lethality and man portable anti tank weapons, the infantry in RT is pretty helpless against the enemy vehicles. For example I start a scenario with German recon platoon - infantry loaded in Sd.Kfz. 251's. As soon as they bump into a Soviet recon element supported even by the light T-70 tanks, they get wiped out. The German recon has  Panzerfaust teams, but with their effective range of 30 meters, they can be useful only if they manage to ambush enemy vehicles in urban terrain or a forest. For now, I figure that the best course of action for my recon or infantry, is to withdraw as soon as the enemy vehicles are encountered and wait for my own tanks or anti-tank units. What are your thoughts?

Edited February 26, 2016 by Ivanov

[A Canadian Cat]

For now, I figure that the best course of action for my recon or infantry, is to withdraw as soon as the enemy vehicles are encountered and wait for my own tanks or anti-tank units. What are your thoughts?

Yes, I agree.  When you withdraw as you suggest look for places where they can ambush that armour - town, forest, farm stead etc.  That way if your enemy is too aggressive you can make them pay for it.

[Ivanov]

Yes, I agree.  When you withdraw as you suggest look for places where they can ambush that armour - town, forest, farm stead etc.  That way if your enemy is too aggressive you can make them pay for it.

So without at least a Stug, I shouldn't think of confronting the enemy? Makes me wonder how the WW2 German infantry of that period must have suffered. The game obviously focuses on the more sexy, tank heavy engagements, but in real life it was the less glamorous foot soldiers who bore the brunt of fighting...

[AttorneyAtWar]

So without at least a Stug, I shouldn't think of confronting the enemy? Makes me wonder how the WW2 German infantry of that period must have suffered. The game obviously focuses on the more sexy, tank heavy engagements, but in real life it was the less glamorous foot soldiers who bore the brunt of fighting...

I think it goes without saying that an infantry heavy force encountering armor is always going to have trouble during the WW2 period.

Edit: More so on the attack of course.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Raptorx7

[A Canadian Cat]

Actually the German Infantry have the best AT assets because they have the Panzer Fausts which are really nasty for short range and they have the Panzer Shreck for longer range.  But the point is that yes dealing with enemy armour is difficult.  I think that is why the tank battle is of increased importance in the game especially on small maps.  The infantry's usual support of AT guns are less effective if those guns cannot be at range which cannot happen on the smaller maps.  But you can deal with enemy tanks in close quarters if they have no infantry protection.  So, if you can get your infantry into a location where the tank has to come and get them you can make life difficult for the enemy tanks. 

[Pete Wenman]

@Ivanov If you fancy learning how to play German infantry on defence against Red Army armour have a go at Red Hordes as the Germans - plenty of on the job training, but you should emerge with a good feel for how to use limited AT assets.

Let me know if you enjoy it

P

[sburke]

@Ivanov - yeah switching back and forth between WW2 and Modern is a bit crazy.  WW 2 infantry is dependent on terrain to provide the ability to handle armor.  On the attack you better have Shreks or be in a town.

Russian infantry is just SOL unless you can close on the enemy.  Smoke can be a great aid, but really only works well on the AI.  If you can blind the vehicle with smoke you can close assault it even without PFs and shreks.

Edited February 26, 2016 by sburke

[Ivanov]

Guys, thank you for your comments!

@Raptorx7 - if it was up to me I would let my guys stay at home, if no tank support is available. Unfortunately some scenarios require moving your forward and in most of the cases, the probability of bumping into enemy armored vehicles is quite high 

@IanL - some good tips!

@Pete Wenman - I will check out that scenario

@sburke - indeed the difference between WW2 and modern warfare is just incredible. But IMO that's just a proof how good Combat Mission is in capturing those differences.

[Warts 'n' all]

Yes, Red Hordes is brilliant. A lot of fun to play from either the Axis or Allied side. Certainly give it a go.

[womble]

The other AT asset that infantry has is the ATG. Fully capable of doing as much damage on defense as a StuG if used well. Deploy them in keyholed locations, and good concealment and even 50mm guns can ruin a T-34's day from the flank. There have been plenty of discussions on how to use ATGs previously, and RT was the advent of some tweaks that make using them easier. Important to avoid having to move them if possible, because the bonus that ATGs which haven't moved from their setup locations receive to their concealment is considerable.

[Ivanov]

The AT guns are one of the main tank killers but I was wondering about the ways, how infantry can handle tanks on it's own. What about the Soviet antitank rifles? I guess they are not very effective?

[AttorneyAtWar]

The AT guns are one of the main tank killers but I was wondering about the ways, how infantry can handle tanks on it's own. What about the Soviet antitank rifles? I guess they are not very effective?

Unless you catch a Panzer 4 or Stug that doesn't have schurzen from the side and you are within at least 100m anti-tank rifles are pretty much useless.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Raptorx7

[Michael Emrys]

Historically, the ATR troops were trained to shoot at tanks' optics and other vulnerable spots. They must have done some good now and then else the Soviets were insane to keep sending them into battle.

Michael

[Bud Backer]

Historically, the ATR troops were trained to shoot at tanks' optics and other vulnerable spots. They must have done some good now and then else the Soviets were insane to keep sending them into battle.

Michael

Sometimes doctrine supersedes sanity...

Edited to add: However, you do have a point, they were used as you describe.

 

Edited March 1, 2016 by Bud Backer

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Leave even the biggest kitty in range of an ATR and they will plink away.  Before you know it, yellow optics and degraded spotting.

[A Canadian Cat]

They can ventalate half-tracks too. They usually want to run away once they have a few extra holes.

[gnarly]

 There have been plenty of discussions on how to use ATGs previously, and RT was the advent of some tweaks that make using them easier.

Womble, for a BS-only player like me, who will be getting FB as soon as it drops, can you mention specifically what ATG tweaks specifically were implemented in RT?

[womble]

Womble, for a BS-only player like me, who will be getting FB as soon as it drops, can you mention specifically what ATG tweaks specifically were implemented in RT?

The big (in terms of feature addition and use on the attack) "new" one was the ability to push the gun short distances without having to limber and unlimber. It's slow but it means you can deploy in defilade and push the gun up to a firing position (hopefully concealed) which means you spend less time moving about in spotting LOS.

Also, though, and this is the important one in defense, the concealment bonus for guns not moved since setup was increased... Though that might have been before RT now I come to think on it more. But whenever the changes were implemented, the current state of the engine means that it can be quite difficult for WW2 tanks to spot ATGs, even after they've fired. This is probably a combination of factors: the ability of buttoned armour to spot non-armour targets was reduced at some point too, so doctrinal (buttoned) use of 2-man-turret T-34(76)s will mean they're vulnerable to ATGs if unsupported by infantry.

One thing I saw in a Flames of War army list for germans post-Panzerfaust (and maybe earlier; it was a passing glance and I'm no FoW fan) was the idea of "Panzerfaust pits", basically a covered pit where a Faust team lie in wait for Soviet armour, pop up and launch at a tank (and then largely get mown down by MG fire I suppose). FoW being a tabletop minis game has them as undeployed assets which can be deployed during the game at certain distances from specific kinds of enemy unit. They're counterable by having infantry about to screen your armour. Since, I've wondered whether they're a real thing, and whether CM might benefit from them as a kind of fortification.

[hank24]

Ivanov: So without at least a Stug, I shouldn't think of confronting the enemy?

Precisely on the point, the German Wehrmacht must have thought the same. Sometime in 1944 they attached some organic Sturmgeschütze to their recon battalions. They were used for anti tank duty and what is called in German language 'schwere Aufklärung', i.e. heavy recon. It means you fire into a forest or village, if someone fires back, it is enemy occupied. Simple, isn't it?

[JasonC]

hank24 - No, recon battalions never had organic StuGs.

Mobile division recon battalions, the kind that did ride in halftracks like the original poster described, were light armor formations with armored cars, gun armed halftracks, the MG armed halftracks carrying the recon infantry, and support halftracks with short barreled 75mm infantry guns (SPW-251/9) and 81mm mortars as their "artillery" component for fire support.  Almost all of the armored cars had 20mm main armament.  The gun armed halftracks generally included some with 37mm PAK armament, on a one per platoon basis.  Very rarely, the armored car companies might include a small number of 50L60 (Puma) or long 75mm gun armed halftracks, late in the war only.

Those formations had a ton of light armored vehicles and tons of MGs, making them very effective against enemy *infantry* forces, and mobile even in artillery barrage areas, where leg infantry would get pinned down.  Those were the characteristics that gave them an operational reconnaissance ability.

But German mobile divisions didn't just fight their individual battalions alone.  There was generally another SPW mounted battalion in the panzergrenadiers; there was always a panzer regiment with 1 or 2 battalions of full turreted tanks, and there was also a divisional panzerjaeger (antitank) battalion that might have Jagdpanzers late war, or StuGs, or a mix of StuGs, Marders, and towed heavy PAK (75mm L48).  When the divisional commander wanted his recon to have armor support, he would create a kampfgruppe under the recon battalion commander with attached tanks from the panzer regiment or with all or part of the panzerjaeger battalion attached.  Sometimes it would instead operate with the armored panzergrenadier battalion plus an attached tank battalion as the main striking force of the division.

Operationally, this means you would sometimes see a recon battalion force with StuGs or Marders or Panzer IVs attached to it - or Panthers or Jadgpanzer IVs late war only.  But those weren't organic.  They were assigned to a KG from other battalions, cross attachments.

Note that the Russians didn't think nearly as highly of light armor as the Germans did, and they relied more on actual turreted tanks to give punch to recon forces.  With infantry riding those tanks, or accompanying them on motorcycles and light trucks.  The standard mechanized corps recon formation was a motorcycle infantry battalion with light tanks attached, and in a similar fashion to German KGs, they would add T-34 companies with tank riders to those when they wanted a heavier reconnaissance force that could punch through lighter enemies, instead of just stopping when enemies were encountered.

[BletchleyGeek]

Ivanov: So without at least a Stug, I shouldn't think of confronting the enemy?

Precisely on the point, the German Wehrmacht must have thought the same. Sometime in 1944 they attached some organic Sturmgeschütze to their recon battalions. They were used for anti tank duty and what is called in German language 'schwere Aufklärung', i.e. heavy recon. It means you fire into a forest or village, if someone fires back, it is enemy occupied. Simple, isn't it?

Armour and Infantry tended to operate together whenever terrain allowed from 1943 onwards, in all major combatants armies. The armoured charges across the open fields of Ukraine and the sands of Cyrenaica became a thing of the past, if they were ever a thing.

A very good example of this - brusque - transition I remember quite vividly is the story of I/Pz. Regt 26, the Panther Battalion of the 26th Pz Division in the opening stages of the Soviet breakthrough southeast of Korsun (the rest of the division was in Italy, notably engaged in Salerno). The Panthers counterattacked entrenched Soviet infantry supported by ATGs. The German armour engaged without infantry support, and it didn't end  quite well. So the combination of ground conditions, terrain and infantry supported by artillery (either direct fire, such as ATGs or heavier calibers) was more than enough to blunt an armoured thrust.

The episode features prominently in Zetterling's book on the Korsun pocket.

Edited March 2, 2016 by BletchleyGeek

[gnarly]

 

The big (in terms of feature addition and use on the attack) "new" one was the ability to push the gun short distances without having to limber and unlimber. It's slow but it means you can deploy in defilade and push the gun up to a firing position (hopefully concealed) which means you spend less time moving about in spotting LOS.

Many thanks for the detailed reply Womble. Good to know; I was aware that in BS, moving crew-served weapons (such as AGS) a short distance (one or two action squares??) did not invoke the pack-up/deploy times, so I assume it is the same mechanism/logic implemented for ATG's (being a crew-served weapon).

 

.

Also, though, and this is the important one in defense, the concealment bonus for guns not moved since setup was increased... Though that might have been before RT now I come to think on it more. But whenever the changes were implemented, the current state of the engine means that it can be quite difficult for WW2 tanks to spot ATGs, even after they've fired. This is probably a combination of factors: the ability of buttoned armour to spot non-armour targets was reduced at some point too, so doctrinal (buttoned) use of 2-man-turret T-34(76)s will mean they're vulnerable to ATGs if unsupported by infantry.

O

I will remember!

 

Thanks again for the info.

 

[hank24]

hank24 - No, recon battalions never had organic StuGs.

...

Oops, then somebody must have made a mistake in the historical notes of the 'Luneville' scenario of my old Panzer '44 boardgame from SPI (115 Recon of 15. PzGrenDiv). There they described that the role of the recon battalions of the Panzer and Panzergrenadier Divisions changed from gathering information to an expectation to fight stand-up actions, also. And that exactly fits to the role of the 1. Recon Battalion I served with in the eighties in the German Bundeswehr. It was equipped with 8 wheeled Luchs and Leopard 1. I know that there was a wide variation of the organisation of recon battalions and I am far away from knowing them all. Maybe, the StuGs were attached and not organic part of the battalion.

Edited March 3, 2016 by hank24

[Michael Emrys]

Oops, then somebody must have made a mistake in the historical notes of the 'Luneville' scenario of my old Panzer '44 boardgame from SPI (115 Recon of 15. PzGrenDiv).

I'm pretty sure that they made the same mistake in the design of the armored recon battalion in Panzerblitz (also designed by SPI). Possibly there and certainly in a couple other places over the years they described the battalions as being expected to fight for information, rather than be more or less passive observers as in the Allied model.

Michael

[JasonC]

Hank24 - the 15th Pz Gdr was a motorized formation that had a single armored recon battalion plus a single panzer battalion, alongside 2 regiments each of 3 battalions of motorized infantry, plus the usual artillery regiment and a battalion each of pioneers and antitank.  The panzer battalion was equipped with StuGs because there were shortages of turreted tanks by that stage of the war, and even some of the panzer divisions had to use them in place of turreted tanks.  Unlike a full panzer division, there was no halftrack mounted battalion in its panzergrenadiers, so the recce battalion was the only light armor component of the division.  They could readily have "tasked" the StuGs from the panzer battalion with the light armor from the recce battalion to create an armored kampfgruppe, but the StuGs were under the command of a panzer battalion commander in that case.  That would leave the rest of the formation as basically motorized infantry with artillery and towed anti tank guns, suitable for more defensive missions.  With that division organization, it is a "natural" enough tasking, whether to punch with or to use as a "fire brigade" conducting local counterattacks to support the motorized infantry positions.