Scottish Corridor questions

[Rittermeister]

Hello everyone! I have two questions for you regarding this campaign.

The first concerns British infantry as seen in this campaign. This is my first time ever really playing CW, and I'm finding the British infantry squad to be borderline combat ineffective against enemies in any kind of cover or at any appreciable range. They seem to have a great deal of trouble spotting enemies, even while being fired on, and more frustratingly, won't lay heavy fire down on those targets they do spot. I had thought that the presence of four BRENs per platoon, in addition to the Lee-Enfield of mad minute fame, would give them an edge over American infantry, but this doesn't seem to be the case at all; they get eaten alive by 12th SS squads on anything like an even footing. So far, I've been nursing them along with aggressive use of armor and artillery, but the great difficulty they have in suppressing, never mind eliminating, isolated enemy units whom they outnumber significantly is very troubling to me. 

Two, I am encountering snipers who seem nigh on invulnerable; just to suppress them takes an enormous amount of fire. Just a moment ago, while playing the second mission in the campaign, I placed three 95mms, a dozen 50mm mortar bombs, and probably 300-400 rounds of .303 on a sniper team behind a low hedgerow to no lasting effect. After moving, they opened up again, and upon rage cease-firing, I discovered that the sum of my efforts was one man lightly wounded. Is this normal? Should a single sniper team really be capable of holding down a flank by itself?

[Erwin]

Yes, playing the Brits is frustrating after the US or Germans.  Need to really mass the MG's and LMG's for support fire and use a lot of arty seemed to be the Brit doctrine.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Erwin

[Cobetco]

the Commonwealth Forces do suffer from a lack of fire power, so yeah that's just a thing. you have to make up for this by using the 2 inch effectively. lay down smoke where its needed and HE on the pricks who are giving you the most trouble. The mad minute was really more or less just silliness from before the first world war, a bolt action rifle is a bolt action rifle, while the SMLE does have double the ammo capacity of the K98, the time difference of aiming firing and working the bolt its probably negligible between the two. then compair that to the AIM shoot and shoot again nature of a gas operated semi auto.

And that campaign is a doozy, or at least i found it to be so.

as far as the snipers? the CM editor by default gives the SS fairly high Veterancy and Morale, and snipers tend to be given bumps in those stats by mission devs, so thats probably whats going on. i don't quite remember having that much trouble dealing with them but they were a pain.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Cobetco

[Rinaldi]

10 hours ago, Rittermeister said:

... even while being fired on, and more frustratingly, won't lay heavy fire down on those targets they do spot...

I've noticed this before at times as well; I believe it has to do with the quirk that for whatever reason (almost certainly a bug) the British section leaders don't have optics. This absolutely will effect the section's ability to find targets - even when they are under fire from them.  Its an even bigger pain in the ass when you realize that these squad-level optics are present in earlier theaters (Commonwealth troops have them in Fortress Italy, for example). I'm completely unsure if the Dev team has noted it, they likely have, but there was quite a bit of boneheaded mental gymanstics to try and justify the lack of binoculars.

This puts them at an objective and ahistorical disadvantadge compared to the German and American squads, which all have some optics. I work around that by making greater use of the Company level marksmen and leading from the front rather than the middle with Coy leaders and 2ICs. You need to get optics on target. Slow your roll and conduct more terrain recce, its a half-answer but its the best I got.

10 hours ago, Rittermeister said:

 

Two, I am encountering snipers who seem nigh on invulnerable; just to suppress them takes an enormous amount of fire. Just a moment ago, while playing the second mission in the campaign, I placed three 95mms, a dozen 50mm mortar bombs, and probably 300-400 rounds of .303 on a sniper team behind a low hedgerow to no lasting effect. After moving, they opened up again, and upon rage cease-firing, I discovered that the sum of my efforts was one man lightly wounded. Is this normal? Should a single sniper team really be capable of holding down a flank by itself?

Sounds like just plain bad luck.

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Rinaldi
More ranty wew

[Warts 'n' all]

Sgt. Fitzsimmons :- "Field Marshall, yerz fairther wassa Donegal man was he not?" .. Monty :- "Indeed, he was".  Sgt. Fitzsimmons :- "And I'm a Meath man meself. So why for the love of Mary, Joseph, and the beby Jeezus, do the fekkers keep ons calling uz Brits?"

[c3k]

The Commonwealth infantry structure was light on organic firepower...and manpower. They compensated for this by the attachment of support arms. Vickers were distributed (either attached or just alongside) from the MG Battalion. Plentiful artillery tubes and FOOs were used. And, of course, ATGs (which brought Brens and men to the frontline) were used. Vanilla infantry were poor at attacking. Plucky, brave, and all that...in spades...but missing the manpower depth and firepower of other combatants.

You need to use combined arms. Easier said than done.

As for spotting, get more eyeballs up front. Snipers, especially SS ones, are a pita. Don't expose your men. Find a sniper? Douse it with HE.

This campaign rewards the Monty approach: steady, well-planned, secure the flanks. At least, that's how I remember it.

(The bino thing: I thought it was settled that there were no low level binos in any TO&E table?)

[Rinaldi]

29 minutes ago, c3k said:

The Commonwealth infantry structure was light on organic firepower...and manpower. They compensated for this by the attachment of support arms. Vickers were distributed (either attached or just alongside) from the MG Battalion. Plentiful artillery tubes and FOOs were used. And, of course, ATGs (which brought Brens and men to the frontline) were used. Vanilla infantry were poor at attacking. Plucky, brave, and all that...in spades...but missing the manpower depth and firepower of other combatants.

You need to use combined arms. Easier said than done.

 

Good advice. I remember the Scottish Corridor was a painful lesson in ammunition-for-lives.

 

29 minutes ago, c3k said:

 

(The bino thing: I thought it was settled that there were no low level binos in any TO&E table?)

Ugh, I really don't want to derail this thread but: No, it wasn't settled whatsoever, and the idea that SLs didn't have Binocs remains almost laughable to me. What little anecdotal evidence we *did* get from that thread that was of any use suggested the opposite. Everything else was near-trite. Box art from minatures and 'top quality stuff, those German optics!'

Part of the Squad Leader's duty is to navigate; this requires at least a rudimentary map, some form of azimuth device and optics to help survey terrain and identify points of refrence. Based on this alone its easier to presume than not that they would be provided with optics, or procured them privately often enough to make it near-standard. (Its Osprey I know, but source; and here's another one and one more). This is google-fuing since I'm at work pretending I have more to do for this client, but I'm sure I'd find much more evidence if I dove head first into my sources.

Even, if you decide after all this hot air I've expelled I'm still on shaky ground (which is fair, and me having a mental breakdown about it definitely isn't helping ), then there's still a problem. If you accept the fact that binoculars weren't issued at the section/squad level then it doesn't' change the fact that the Commonwealth infantry section is at a disadv. compared to their counterparts who have optics that shouldn't be there. Just to show that I can appreciate the other side of the argument, the third source contradicts the first two; but illustrates my point that whether they were issued or not, one faction doesn't have them while the other two do - and that creates problems.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Rinaldi
Details, more google-fu

[Erwin]

Am wondering that in general do CM2 scenarios not provide the Brits with the artillery that they really need? 

Monty's slow but steady advance technique was based on his own WW1 experience of smashing the enemy with HE first.  That was his success at El Alamein.  It wouldn't be surprising if Monty tried to emulate this successful tactic in his future battles.  So, does SC starve the Brits of arty, or was that historically accurate in this operation?

[Bulletpoint]

The British in this game are like playing an extra hard game mode, as everything they have just seems rubbish compared to the gear of other armies. Instead of a 60mm mortar, they get a 50mm mortar. Instead of 36 mortar bombs, they get... 12.

But I believe the real kicker in this campaign is that the British lads are generally of low troop quality, and faced with many veteran and crack level Germans.

Think of it as an extra challenge. It's not an easy campaign, but it's well worth playing.

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Warts 'n' all said:

So why for the love of Mary, Joseph, and the beby Jeezus, do the fekkers keep ons calling uz Brits?"

I picked up the word watching the good old Beeb:

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161130-why-the-stone-age-could-be-when-brits-first-brewed-beer

[Warts 'n' all]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

I picked up the word watching the good old Beeb:

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161130-why-the-stone-age-could-be-when-brits-first-brewed-beer

Haha.. Lord Reith would be spinning in his grave. Although I doubt he'd approve of "fekkers" either.