How to use BMPs? They're a funny shape!

[Aurelius]

@Chibot Mk IX Great illustration. One major flaw - it took you five minutes to transmit that data throughout your units. As I play H2H only, it is of no use to me.

I tried doing something similar on several occasions and the results were spotty - hence my doubt.

I had a reserve militia battalion HQ (highest HQ of the formation) and special forces company HQ (highest HQ of the formation) in the same building. Next to the building was the tank company HQ (highest HQ of the formation) that was unbuttoned. They shared exactly 0 spotting contacts.

The Syrian C2 system is sketchy at the best.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Aurelius

[Erwin]

The CM2 C2 system is not compelling.  I tested having several infantry units literally sitting on top of each other and when one unit had a confirmed spotting of an enemy, this info was not conveyed to the other 3 or 4 units in the same action square even after 5+ minutes.  Maybe the C2 system only sort of works in a hierarchical command structure(?)  

[Chibot Mk IX]

Thank you Aurelius , it is the fundamental problem of SAA's outdated structure on modern battlefield.  Looking at the bright side, it is still better than two units fighting blindly in a defense and meeting engagement H2H. And it could help if the SAA is taking the offensive role.  

The same trick should also help WWII title gameplay ( I think I learned this trick from someone posted in CMRT forum? )

 

HQ's experience level impacts the efficiency of the communication. Better to have high experience level HQ sit there.  My observation is : it is much easy to have a Veteran HQ share the information with a Green HQ than vice versa. Avoid conscript level, it can take 10min for a conscript HQ to broadcast through radio.  

[Aurelius]

6 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

HQ's experience level impacts the efficiency of the communication. Better to have high experience level HQ sit there.  My observation is : it is much easy to have a Veteran HQ share the information with a Green HQ than vice versa. Avoid conscript level, it can take 10min for a conscript HQ to broadcast through radio.  

Will do!

6 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

The same trick should also help WWII title gameplay ( I think I learned this trick from someone posted in CMRT forum? )

Strangely enough, I have no problems with the Soviet side in Red Thunder, even though it has some pretty severe restrictions - a common soldier can't walk up to the company commander and tell him the situation. The company HQ exerts no C2 over him.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

53 minutes ago, Aurelius said:

I had a reserve militia battalion HQ (highest HQ of the formation) and special forces company HQ (highest HQ of the formation) in the same building. Next to the building was the tank company HQ (highest HQ of the formation) that was unbuttoned. They shared exactly 0 spotting contacts.

The Syrian C2 system is sketchy at the best.

This matches my own experiences in recent testing.

[Chibot Mk IX]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

The CM2 C2 system is not compelling.  I tested having several infantry units literally sitting on top of each other and when one unit had a confirmed spotting of an enemy, this info was not conveyed to the other 3 or 4 units in the same action square even after 5+ minutes.  Maybe the C2 system only sort of works in a hierarchical command structure(?)  

Units from different formation share information in CMx2. What you experienced could be a bug. 

In WW2 title, I practice this a lot. Split a 2 men scout team form the inf sqd, carry the word that an ATG has been spotted and run to an unbuttoned Tank Commander that belongs to a different formation, TC will spread the word through radio.

 

1 hour ago, Aurelius said:

Strangely enough, I have no problems with the Soviet side in Red Thunder, even though it has some pretty severe restrictions - a common soldier can't walk up to the company commander and tell him the situation. The company HQ exerts no C2 over him.

 

55 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

This matches my own experiences in recent testing.

To be honest , I don't play CMSF 2 often, I only played around 10 SP scenario as Red since the first release of CMSF 2.   I didn't experience too many trouble of communication between different formations. But there could be something not right under the hood , and I didn't notice that because my limited gameplay. Also considering the last update was couple month ago, there could be something happen and a bug introduced with update. Anyway, the illustration above was run under 2.04. That shows the information sharing between different formation can happen.

I will do more testing later.  

[MikeyD]

There have been complaints through the years about military end-users using their 'not-a-tank' vehicles as though they were tanks, placing them into roles they were ill suited for. In the 1970's Belgium purchased the Jpz Kanone as a close infantry support gun carrier in preference to a stripped-down Leopard 1. Their rationale was if the vehicle looked too much like a tank HQ would be tempted to use them as tanks. This happens a lot in CM titles. If a vehicle remotely resembled a tank (BMP-1 for instance) off they go into battle as ersatz tanks.

[Chibot Mk IX]

Back to the topic

In a modern mechanized warfare, an IFV should be the backbone of an infantry squad. I remember The Operational Arts of War (TOAW) gives BMP-1’s anti-personal value at 9, BMP-2’s AP at 22, in the comparison an Infantry squad is at 7. There is a tremendous difference on the Firepower between a vehicle and footman.  

That’s how an operational wargame describe the battlefield. I know it is very hard to translate this into CM, because CM is a tactical game, it’s about details. A general staff at Division level cares about if he has 3:1 numerical advantage on the attacking axis, a battalion commander has much more things to worry about, he may have a 3:1 advantage but most of his troops' sight are blocked by trees will do him no good.    So in CMSF, troubled by spotting and communication, BMPs don’t stand a chance against NATO tanks. But they still have teeth to bite NATO soft target. Hide them from enemy’s LOS, let the infantry do the spotting and share the information. Move forward, area fire, retreat back to safe harbor in 15 seconds (before Javelin can get a good lock)

 

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2020 at 8:57 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The 73mm gun is OK vs infantry in buildings, but the Tac AI has a tendency to launch an ATGM at hard targets, which can lead to issues when the idiot gunner pops up to load a new one. 

Yes, it is very annoying. Especially in urban fight.  The dumb gunner will bravely expose himself to small arms fire, he will not back to turret until he takes a 7.62mm  

 

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2020 at 9:46 AM, SimpleSimon said:

The BMP is designed with an offensive slant-predisposition in mind. For defensive work it'd usually be dismounted or dug in. They are not intended to change the whole battlefield by themselves, but to fit inside of an overall framework that called for MBTs to lead the way into pummeled moonscape while the BMPs advanced right behind protecting their infantry from artillery fire and NBC weapons. It's a very 1945-ish vehicle, designed in a time when infantry ATGMs were rare and likely opponents would be the M113 and trucks. The BMP is only one generation removed from the so called "battlefield taxi" design of previous generation APCs, and is designed with defeating those vehicles in mind not the Bradley and certainly not enemy tanks. 

Asking "how should I use the BMP" should be rephrased into "how do I use Soviet doc". For Red Army Doctrine the thinking is meant to be "the big picture" and fixating a lot on little details can give one a misleading impression of the whole picture. You won't get a lot of mileage out of any single weapon system in a Soviet designed ToE...that's not how it works. If you're running a scenario for the Syrians without things like artillery and air support you're crippling them right off the bat by restricting their combined arms kit and should expect little. 

I agree on most of the part, BMP-1/2 are just a part of Soviet machine, so they have to be put in "the big picture"

Talking about Soviet's Doctrine, nothing advertise a 60's-70's Soviet Doc better than A.A Sidorenko 's book " The Offensive" . Just image an age that a Soviet regiment commander has four tactical nukes at his disposal.  (he don't need his boss'  authorization to approve where he want to throw the nukes at), and then the whole concept of BMP make sense. It is designed to be used in NBC environment.

Well, a regular APC can be fit with NBC protection. But to reduce unnecessary exposure , it is need to reduce the deployment of AT weapon, so Soviet put AT weapon on the battlefield taxi design.  Tanks have good characteristics for a NBC environment but they are too heavy. In a tactical nukes exchange, many bridges will be destroyed. the Engineer/pontoon units will have difficulty time to pass through contamination zone. so a small river could block the whole tank formation until the engineer units can catch up. In order to address this problem, the "battlefield taxi" has to add amphibious ability to control the other side of river bank. And now we got BMP-1s.

[MikeyD]

The Offensive's strategic doctrine is a bit too high up the force structure ladder to be directly applicable to CM (aside from scenario backstories) but its still a very interesting read. I pulled out my ancient copy to reread just recently (there's something about the 2020 ___-storm that makes me nostalgic for the cold war of my youth). If you look at late WWII Russian offensives you see the combined use of massed blunt force with rapid exploitation. In theory by the time the BMPs appeared on the horizon your positions would have already been bombed and blasted mercilessly leaving you unable to counter them.

[Erwin]

18 hours ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

a small river could block the whole tank formation until the engineer units can catch up.

Were not Soviet tanks (substantially) amphibious for that reason?  We see a lot of PR videos of them crashing thru (small) water obstacles even being submerged.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

They were equipped with deep wading/fording gear:

Edited December 12, 2020 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Erwin]

Looks like a "small river" to me.     Probably the only real problem was the big rivers.

[chuckdyke]

On 12/11/2020 at 7:53 AM, Khalerick said:

 

It very rarely comes up, but here's an example of just that:

It is an IFV infantry fighting vehicle. More effective than the old M113. First its function is to get the troopers from A to B and provide support. The troops dismount or debus at the last feature on the terrain or urban area while the vehicle is behind cover. Going Hull Down is the last of its problems. It is designed to fight with the infantry you can't do it in Shock Force 2 but walls have been breached by driving the vehicle through it. Try it in a game once your infantry suppresses the enemy in a fire fight have an APC or IFV move right up the wall to do the killing it works. That's if you play WeGo pause the game and see or the enemy is suppressed. 

[Thewood1]

I think Iron mode makes a difference here also.  IIRC, Iron mode has more "realistic" limitations on verbal and visual comms.  You have to be closer for longer to pass info on to subordinates and non-subordinates.

The comms and the morale stuff are still two of the main features that other wargames lag behind on.  CM2 seems to have a more detailed model for both and they are inter-related.

[chuckdyke]

43 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

I think Iron mode makes a difference here also.  IIRC, Iron mode has more "realistic" limitations on verbal and visual comms.  You have to be closer for longer to pass info on to subordinates and non-subordinates.

The comms and the morale stuff are still two of the main features that other wargames lag behind on.  CM2 seems to have a more detailed model for both and they are inter-related.

I just put on a post how to speed up intel on Iron as a new topic. 

[THH149]

On 12/12/2020 at 9:35 AM, MikeyD said:

There have been complaints through the years about military end-users using their 'not-a-tank' vehicles as though they were tanks

This seems to affect the way the AI plays too. AI plans seem to force BMPs and infantry just charge into attack without applying doctrine, I find it annoying and unrealistic from the AI, and encourages unrealistic human play too.

[THH149]

On 12/12/2020 at 6:18 AM, Erwin said:

I tested having several infantry units literally sitting on top of each other and when one unit had a confirmed spotting of an enemy, this info was not conveyed to the other 3 or 4 units in the same action square even after 5+ minutes. 

I'm not sure if the AI is modelling reality, or the effect of reality: perhaps even if the spots are shared in a colloquial sense but the receiving unit has no way (given their equipment, skills, motivation etc) to see the spot anyway (no Borg spotting!). US and NATO have little ipads that have a map and precisely the location of the spotted unit, which is networked to other units ipads, so  the receiving units can decide what to do with it (which is another part of decision tree for the C2 to decide whether there's enough info to allow the player to spot the unit (which would then allow spotted unit to be targetted if the player wants to). 

The manual says IIRC that spotting and spot sharing is complex.

But heck I dont know

THH

[MikeyD]

BMPs were designed to ferry troop over an irradiated landscape and allow them limited ability to still fight while buttoned. Old Soviet BMP combat doctrine was large scale. Its rather like early WWII German Blitzkrieg offensive doctrine, which basically can be summed up 'Don't mind the horrific localized casualties, when the offensive is over you will have won due to your broad aggressive offense.' In your CM-size scenario you may have blunted their attack but in the meantime forces beyond your vision have flanked you and cut off your retreat. CM doesn't really deal with tactical situations at that scale (though it can be hinted at in the orders).

Edited January 3, 2021 by MikeyD

[DMS]

BMP-1 is an "armoured taxi" and infantry cannon in 1 piece. In 1944-1945 Soviet infantry was supported by direct lay 76 infantry guns, 7,62 HMGs. BMP-1 was intended to replace infantry guns and heavy MGs. After dropping infantry they must stop and fire to supposed enemy positions.  I use "target area" order, placing target on question marks or randomly. If BMP company randomly shoots ahead, suppression is usually enough to get closer.

By the way, IRL PL assistant stayed in 1 of BMPs. So 1 BMP of 3 had a commander.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

2 hours ago, DMS said:

So 1 BMP of 3 had a commander.

That's good to know as that is usually how I find my BMP Bronegruppa crewed in both CM:SF & CM:BS.....I suspect that's neither accidental nor a coincidence. 

[THH149]

7 hours ago, DMS said:

After dropping infantry they must stop and fire to supposed enemy positions.

The consistent description I have for these kinds of vehicles - whether Marders, Bradleys, LAV, et al - is that they drop infantry 100-300 metres from battle zone and then let infantry advance with the vehicles providing fire 100-300 metres behind infantry both to suppress and destroy strongpoints etc to help speed the infantry along in their mission.  They also have option of dropping infantry closer to objective, on the objective (very dangerous/aggressive), or past the objective, as well as forming a kind of battle group of AFVs (eg bronegruppa) to perform specific tasks including fire group onto the enemy from a different angle or relocate to a different part of the battle zone.   

The US and NATO vehicles seem to be able to be used more variably/aggressively as they have ERA which helps protect against RPGs.

The combat power of their weapons doesn't require them to be point blank to have an effect, a hull down position 200metres behind the infantry is fine if it has LOS.

The BMP is a little different as it has a low silhouette and has difficulties using reverse slopes to get hull down as the gun depression angle is just 6 degrees. BMP1 and 2 is more exposed to fire and has to find other cover or a greater distance behind infantry, and doesnt have ERA.  The BMP3 seems more comparable to modern western vehicles.

 

[chuckdyke]

2 hours ago, THH149 said:

The consistent description I have for these kinds of vehicles - whether Marders, Bradleys, LAV, et al - is that they drop infantry 100-300 metres from battle zone and then let infantry advance with the vehicles providing fire 100-300 metres behind infantry both to suppress and destroy strongpoints etc to help speed the infantry along in their mission.  They also have option of dropping infantry closer to objective, on the objective (very dangerous/aggressive), or past the objective, as well as forming a kind of battle group of AFVs (eg bronegruppa) to perform specific tasks including fire group onto the enemy from a different angle or relocate to a different part of the battle zone.   

The US and NATO vehicles seem to be able to be used more variably/aggressively as they have ERA which helps protect against RPGs.

The combat power of their weapons doesn't require them to be point blank to have an effect, a hull down position 200metres behind the infantry is fine if it has LOS.

The BMP is a little different as it has a low silhouette and has difficulties using reverse slopes to get hull down as the gun depression angle is just 6 degrees. BMP1 and 2 is more exposed to fire and has to find other cover or a greater distance behind infantry, and doesnt have ERA.  The BMP3 seems more comparable to modern western vehicles.

 

The last feature where you can hide to debus your infantry. The infantry needs the vehicle to weather an artillery or chemical attack. Three hundred meters is a long way to run in 38 C in full battle gear. The debussed infantry provides the protection against RPG attacks etc. IFV have taken the place of the infantry support tank in WW 2. IFV's and APC's in real life have been used to breach housing walls by driving right through it. You bring it as close, as necessary. I rather lose an IFV with 3 crew members than a squad. I just have a different opinion, the 300 meters you better off to debus infantry as their personal equipment is inside effective range. They protect each other by staying in proximity and maintain communications. You communicate at times by firing tracer at the spot where you want the IFV to fire. Best done in proximity of the vehicle. The .50 Cal of an APC fires traces where they want a nearby MBT to fire. It is all teamwork using the German saying Klotzen, nicht Kleckern , don't use one finger to knock use your fist. Roughly translated. Your keyword is LOS often AFV's don't have it, see or the squad keeps their IFV updated with their contacts by passing on the contact icons. If you don't have it, you risk that you see on screen no LOS and all the previous plotting doesn't work and is the cause of frustrations. 

[chuckdyke]

On 12/12/2020 at 2:53 AM, Aurelius said:

@Chibot Mk IX Great illustration. One major flaw - it took you five minutes to transmit that data throughout your units. As I play H2H only, it is of no use to me.

I tried doing something similar on several occasions and the results were spotty - hence my doubt.

I had a reserve militia battalion HQ (highest HQ of the formation) and special forces company HQ (highest HQ of the formation) in the same building. Next to the building was the tank company HQ (highest HQ of the formation) that was unbuttoned. They shared exactly 0 spotting contacts.

The Syrian C2 system is sketchy at the best.

Check the C2 structure yes different structures don't communicate with each other except on the higher levels. It can be protocol. 

[DMS]

On 1/3/2021 at 11:35 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That's good to know as that is usually how I find my BMP Bronegruppa crewed in both CM:SF & CM:BS.....I suspect that's neither accidental nor a coincidence. 

Ukrainian MR platoon has correct organisation in CMBS, 1 of 3 BMPs has undismountable (sorry for my English ) commander. Like in Soviet TO&E. Russian and Syrian not for some reason... So player has to use snipers or scout teams. Syrian BMPs haven't radio communications with infantry. It's a nightmare, to properly organise "red" motor rifles, so units would share intel and stay in command chain.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On 1/16/2021 at 6:53 PM, DMS said:

It's a nightmare, to properly organise "red" motor rifles, so units would share intel and stay in command chain.

Amen to that.....Even Syrian SoF are hopeless!