Jump to content

Just Some Basic Help


Recommended Posts

Hello everyone. I am a long time Combat Mission player going all the way back to Beyond Overlord. I am more or less comfortable with gameplay mechanics and everything, but I ran into a huge speed bump with Cold War. I am a GWOT veteran and grew up in an age of Javelins, TOWs, Bradleys, and all that ****. My question is this:

How in the hell does a mechanized infantry company with M113s and a couple of Dragons fend off, or attack, a motor rifle company with BMPs? I mean, the 113 is about useless in that fight so I realize it's about correct positioning of the dismounted element but how on earth is my couple of Dragon dudes supposed to carry the day in that fight? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With difficulty.

The US Mech inf company is:

image.png

1x Tank platoon
2x M113 platoons
1x M150/M901 TOW platoon
1x 60mm mortar platoon

Since the US in this period (especially 1979) are behind both in quality and quantity, you're forced into using tactics which are most similar to the Syrians in CMSF- getting the most of of this combined arms unit is the goal, and relying on a defence in depth, supported by artillery fire and close air support.

With the highly mechanised environment, the anti-tank weapons are the most obvious component of this firepower.

These come in three distinct bands. Your long ranged firepower consist of the TOWs and the M60s, which have an effective range of approximately 2km. Your medium range firepower are the Dragons, which have a 1km range, and finally the LAWs, which are sub-300m. There are (typically) enough Dragons for one per squad, and enough LAWs for one per man.

Your tank platoon is the most powerful and mobile of the company, and is really the core of your firepower - the infantry are there to define space and protect the armour, but the deployment of your tanks, supported by your TOWs are the central problem.

Shock Force teaches bad habits. In that game, an Abrams platoon can sit on a ridgeline and dominate - you really have to do something wrong to take serious Abrams losses. This isn't the case for any version of the M60, especially the earlier ones.

Cold War in particular is often about relative mass - you're talking about US tanks that don't even have laser rangefinders - you're fully on WW2 gunnery here - so getting maximum guns on target at one time is the key, but you also need to make sure that you're engaging the smallest proportion of the enemy that you can. This usually means using terrain effectively to control the enemy's position - having them advance into prepared killzones, etc.

On a broader level, Active Defence was the doctrine. This was an elastic defence, a fighting withdrawal. Typically each company team would act as an independent unit, and would withdraw to a secondary prepared position as the enemy got into medium AT range. A second company would then take up the long-range fight as the first is repositioning, and then this would repeat.

In terms of supporting fires - the company has an FO for a reason. The 60mm mortars don't have many good targets for themselves. They're good at keeping BMPs and BTRs with exposed gunners buttoned, and smoke missions can be useful to shape the terrain. When the Soviets are forced to dismount they can be useful, but they're a bit difficult to justify in general. Air-launched cluster rounds are stronger than artillery, since the shells are larger. 155mm clusters are best used as point targets with maximum duration, and with the FO adjusting their fire over the period of the mission. The best targets are forming-up points - areas where the BMPs are going to concertina before building up for an actual attack.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, domfluff said:

With difficulty.

The US Mech inf company is:

image.png

1x Tank platoon
2x M113 platoons
1x M150/M901 TOW platoon
1x 60mm mortar platoon

Since the US in this period (especially 1979) are behind both in quality and quantity, you're forced into using tactics which are most similar to the Syrians in CMSF- getting the most of of this combined arms unit is the goal, and relying on a defence in depth, supported by artillery fire and close air support.

With the highly mechanised environment, the anti-tank weapons are the most obvious component of this firepower.

These come in three distinct bands. Your long ranged firepower consist of the TOWs and the M60s, which have an effective range of approximately 2km. Your medium range firepower are the Dragons, which have a 1km range, and finally the LAWs, which are sub-300m. There are (typically) enough Dragons for one per squad, and enough LAWs for one per man.

Your tank platoon is the most powerful and mobile of the company, and is really the core of your firepower - the infantry are there to define space and protect the armour, but the deployment of your tanks, supported by your TOWs are the central problem.

Shock Force teaches bad habits. In that game, an Abrams platoon can sit on a ridgeline and dominate - you really have to do something wrong to take serious Abrams losses. This isn't the case for any version of the M60, especially the earlier ones.

Cold War in particular is often about relative mass - you're talking about US tanks that don't even have laser rangefinders - you're fully on WW2 gunnery here - so getting maximum guns on target at one time is the key, but you also need to make sure that you're engaging the smallest proportion of the enemy that you can. This usually means using terrain effectively to control the enemy's position - having them advance into prepared killzones, etc.

On a broader level, Active Defence was the doctrine. This was an elastic defence, a fighting withdrawal. Typically each company team would act as an independent unit, and would withdraw to a secondary prepared position as the enemy got into medium AT range. A second company would then take up the long-range fight as the first is repositioning, and then this would repeat.

In terms of supporting fires - the company has an FO for a reason. The 60mm mortars don't have many good targets for themselves. They're good at keeping BMPs and BTRs with exposed gunners buttoned, and smoke missions can be useful to shape the terrain. When the Soviets are forced to dismount they can be useful, but they're a bit difficult to justify in general. Air-launched cluster rounds are stronger than artillery, since the shells are larger. 155mm clusters are best used as point targets with maximum duration, and with the FO adjusting their fire over the period of the mission. The best targets are forming-up points - areas where the BMPs are going to concertina before building up for an actual attack.

 

Okay, 

So I need to be a lot more careful with movement and pay more attention to microterrain, attack or defend slices of the opfor formation, and have consideration for fallback positions after firing. 

I have also noticed some strange LOS issues. During the NTC campaign, I placed a FO at the top of the ride on the US Left. I did not have the team skyline themselves, I gave a Move command to a couple of tiles below the plane and then a Sneak + Hide and short fire arc to the top. The team was able to observe enemy movement as normal, but they were also instantly seen by the opposing force and obliterated in short order. Fine, there's no cover or anything on the ridge and that's fine; I can make a semi-reasonable argument for how a buttoned BMP was able to see a couple of dudes on a hill from it's flank. But I've also seen this in other examples: infantry teams who sneak into wooded areas and observe enemy troops or vehicles who then immediately get spotted. I haven't played since Black Sea first came out and there have been some Engine updates since then; could that be part of it? Did troops suddenly become more observant over the last few years? 

 

[quote]

For a more detailed look, this is the field manual:

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=My8-u2rYNVoC&hl

 

THE TANK AND MECHANIZED INFANTRY COMPANY TEAM (FM71-1, 1977)

Edited 6 minutes ago by domfluff[/quote]

 

That's great! Thank you. 

Edited by USASOCRanger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NTC campaign has a few unusual quirks - one of which is that the soft factors for Opfor are very high (since it's simulating the actual NTC).

The main thing with spotting is that it's a percentage game, and if you're exposing yourself to a large number of eyeballs, you're going to be seen by at least one of them. BMPs feel exactly as blind in CW as they do in the other titles, but there tend to be a lot more of them, at much higher concentrations.

As a quick example of the maths:

Imagine you have a US M60, which we will arbitrarily give a 60% chance of spotting the enemy first, and getting the first shot off. Facing this are some Soviet armour with terrible optics - we'll give them a 30% chance of spotting the US tank first. Getting the first shot off is usually enough to win a fight like this, so this is a reasonable enough fudge for a "kill".

Clearly 1 vs 1, the US armour will usually spot and kill the Soviet armour before they can do the same. The issue is that there won't be a 1vs1 - the Soviets outnumbered the US 6:1 in some cases, so you're going to be fighting outnumbered.

If there were three of those Soviet, 30% tanks coming into view doctrinally in line, the chance of any one of them getting the spot and the first shot off is 66%. Mass is absolutely the name of the game, and how you manage your resources to concentrate force in a way that benefits you (and only you) is a huge part of the deal.

Edited by domfluff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, domfluff said:

The NTC campaign has a few unusual quirks - one of which is that the soft factors for Opfor are very high (since it's simulating the actual NTC).

The main thing with spotting is that it's a percentage game, and if you're exposing yourself to a large number of eyeballs, you're going to be seen by at least one of them. BMPs feel exactly as blind in CW as they do in the other titles, but there tend to be a lot more of them, at much higher concentrations.

As a quick example of the maths:

Imagine you have a US M60, which we will arbitrarily give a 60% chance of spotting the enemy first, and getting the first shot off. Facing this are some Soviet armour with terrible optics - we'll give them a 30% chance of spotting the US tank first. Getting the first shot off is usually enough to win a fight like this, so this is a reasonable enough fudge for a "kill".

Clearly 1 vs 1, the US armour will usually spot and kill the Soviet armour before they can do the same. The issue is that there won't be a 1vs1 - the Soviets outnumbered the US 6:1 in some cases, so you're going to be fighting outnumbered.

If there were three of those Soviet, 30% tanks coming into view doctrinally in line, the chance of any one of them getting the spot and the first shot off is 66%. Mass is absolutely the name of the game, and how you manage your resources to concentrate force in a way that benefits you (and only you) is a huge part of the deal.

That is very useful, thank you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, last point - the M60's armour is much lighter than you're used to (this will also be true for Chieftain and Leopard 1, if and when they surface). The tank can be penetrated frontally by anything the Soviets have - including the RPG-7, and the 73mm HEAT round fired from main gun of the BMP-1, since that weapon was designed for that purpose - giving the motor rifle squad a medium-range AT option, inside ATGM minimum range and before the RPG can close the distance.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I noticed the vulnerability of the M60 almost immediately. I set up my tank platoon into a firing line on a short ridge in the NTC map and thought to myself "Awwww yeah, here we go. Time to bring hell to those commie bast-oh ****!" So, I should essentially protect them the same way I'm protecting the Tank Hunter platoon. Ensure they're hull down or have relatively useful cover and concealment and just totally forget they are tanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only thing I would add is :

1.  Welcome to the Cold War.

2.  The M2 on the M113s is very effective on BMPs at about 500m or less. So you you really need to sight them and use them carefully but each one is more than capable of killing a BMP at close range.

3.  Don't discount the M72, or even the 40mm.

This game is a big change from the other modern titles as the US is nowhere near able to dominate the battlefield, they are more often than not the underdogs that need to play really cagey. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, USASOCRanger said:

What are the equipment differences in the '79 and '82 campaign? 

Main difference is in major equipment:

1982:  US: M60A1s, some A3s and the M1s/M2s make an appearance. M901s and more DPICM.  Soviets are primarily T64Bs (T80s pop up) and BMP2, so that can be a tense fight.

1979: M48A5s, M60A1s and the A3s make the odd appearance, oh and M150s.  Soviets: T55s and T62s are main tanks but T64s make an appearance and BMP 1s.

Hard to say but based on feedback, 1979 is the tougher of the two.

Edited by The_Capt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A third player in the game besides Red and Blue is terrain. To beat a superior opponent you need to play the terrain like a fiddle. Lure the opponent in to a spot where he loses his numerical or firepower or tactical advantage. Refrain from engaging with him when he has the advantage. Which admittedly is difficult with a typical game scenario on a typical map.

Edited by MikeyD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of good advice here. I would add, as a former Cold Warrior myself, what was drilled into us at the time. Knowing the Soviet Army to be a very capable opponent, the mantra was :

"If you can be seen, you will be hit. If you are hit, you are dead."  

None of this M1 Abrams shrugging off multiple hits. One thing that has been discussed is creating a shoot and scoot command for movement. It's especially important here, and it's worth spending the time each turn to work on moving tanks or TOWs up to good hull down positions, pausing so they can acquire and fire, and then reverse back to cover. If you stay exposed, waiting to move until next turn, as soon as you fire, there will be (usually) multiple incoming rounds.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My go-to strategy as the US is to hide units behind buildings or some other hard cover like a hill, wait for the Soviets to pass, then shoot them in the side as they go by. This way you can eliminate their numerical advantage by shooting them one by one as they turn the corner, and at the same time avoid their tough frontal armor. Your biggest advantage as the US is that you're almost always defending, so you can set up ambushes like that frequently. 

For the first mission of the NTC campaign for example, I picked the "spoiling attack" option instead of the hasty one, allowing me to deploy behind those mountain passes. I figured it would be a bad idea to just deploy all the tanks in a line and slug it out face to face. The Soviets had to advance through those passes to win, so I put almost my entire force hidden behind the reverse slope, hugging the sides of the mountain, then shot them in the side as they went through. I ended up taking almost no losses.

I still haven't played that much of CMCW, but it's been very interesting. I had no idea just how bad the US Army was back then. I played one scenario where I was defending on good ground and still won, but took heavy losses and lost even more tanks than the Soviets did, even though I was defending. I was not expecting that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Bozowans said:

My go-to strategy as the US is to hide units behind buildings or some other hard cover like a hill, wait for the Soviets to pass, then shoot them in the side as they go by. This way you can eliminate their numerical advantage by shooting them one by one as they turn the corner, and at the same time avoid their tough frontal armor. Your biggest advantage as the US is that you're almost always defending, so you can set up ambushes like that frequently. 

For the first mission of the NTC campaign for example, I picked the "spoiling attack" option instead of the hasty one, allowing me to deploy behind those mountain passes. I figured it would be a bad idea to just deploy all the tanks in a line and slug it out face to face. The Soviets had to advance through those passes to win, so I put almost my entire force hidden behind the reverse slope, hugging the sides of the mountain, then shot them in the side as they went through. I ended up taking almost no losses.

I still haven't played that much of CMCW, but it's been very interesting. I had no idea just how bad the US Army was back then. I played one scenario where I was defending on good ground and still won, but took heavy losses and lost even more tanks than the Soviets did, even though I was defending. I was not expecting that.

That was essentially how I managed, or attempted to manage, it. I lost my TOW platoon pretty earlier on because they weren't hull down enough and I let them sit still for too long and basically sat back and hid until the rest of the company came onto line. I was able to blunt the attack but it wasn't pretty. 

 

I understand that the basic overall plan of the day was for the forces in Europe to hold and defend long enough for reinforcements and resupply to make it to the US and that the hope was that NATO Airpower would defeat Warsaw Pact armored superiority. I guess it didn't hit me as to how difficult that would have been in those years until I fired this up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, USASOCRanger said:

I understand that the basic overall plan of the day was for the forces in Europe to hold and defend long enough for reinforcements and resupply to make it to the US and that the hope was that NATO Airpower would defeat Warsaw Pact armored superiority. I guess it didn't hit me as to how difficult that would have been in those years until I fired this up. 

Yes, that's pretty much it, and we were under no illusions at the time how difficult and how costly that was going to be. For example, as a Field Artillery officer, one of the important things we were taught about the nuclear artillery shells of the day was how to completely destroy them to keep them from falling into Soviet hands as we were overrun. I don't think anyone really had any confidence that REFORGER would actually have time to work, should it happen for real. 

Dave

8 hours ago, USASOCRanger said:

I had no idea just how bad the US Army was back then.

As for this comment, the Army back then was good. We were well trained, and we would have been fighting on "home ground".  We knew every detail of the terrain and had prepared fighting positions and detailed tactics on how to use them and how to fall back and make an invader pay a price. Every inch of West Germany was well surveyed and mapped, and we trained over and over again on the course of a potential invasion. The issue is more that the Soviet Army would have been larger, and their equipment was equivalent or slightly better, with the huge advantage of a head start in passing out ATGMs like Halloween candy. They were everywhere.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If CM has expressed one single idea over the years, it's that quality is better than quantity. In 1979 at least, the US has neither.

It's partly the ATGMs, but it's also that the T-64 and later had much heavier armour than was expected (the early M60 trades well with the T-62, but suffers against the later tanks, and this armour development was why the Starship looks so anaemic - the concept wasn't so much flawed as it was built for the wrong war), but also in fundamental things like the lack of laser rangefinders on US armour of the period - the Soviet tanks were more numerous, smaller, lighter, more heavily armoured and had more powerful main guns, with a much higher muzzle velocity, which with the rangefinders will mean more accuracy.

I don't believe that the US was badly trained or motivated over this period, but they're firmly in second place technologically. They're perhaps about as far behind the curve as the US Army has ever been. This is part of the reason why choosing this period for CM:Cold War is very clever - you get to see this generational change in hardware and doctrine, and how this created an advantage that the Soviets were never able to match. 

Edited by domfluff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ultradave said:

Yes, that's pretty much it, and we were under no illusions at the time how difficult and how costly that was going to be. For example, as a Field Artillery officer, one of the important things we were taught about the nuclear artillery shells of the day was how to completely destroy them to keep them from falling into Soviet hands as we were overrun. I don't think anyone really had any confidence that REFORGER would actually have time to work, should it happen for real. 

Dave

As for this comment, the Army back then was good. We were well trained, and we would have been fighting on "home ground".  We knew every detail of the terrain and had prepared fighting positions and detailed tactics on how to use them and how to fall back and make an invader pay a price. Every inch of West Germany was well surveyed and mapped, and we trained over and over again on the course of a potential invasion. The issue is more that the Soviet Army would have been larger, and their equipment was equivalent or slightly better, with the huge advantage of a head start in passing out ATGMs like Halloween candy. They were everywhere.

Dave

Sorry, I didn't mean it the way it came out. It looks like a nightmare solution to me. Like you said: inferior numbers and either peer or inferior equipment. I suppose that the Bradley and the Abrams were huge game changers then. The advantages that your force would have had are things I do not have: knowledge of the terrain and prepared plan and all that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, USASOCRanger said:

Sorry, I didn't mean it the way it came out. It looks like a nightmare solution to me. Like you said: inferior numbers and either peer or inferior equipment. I suppose that the Bradley and the Abrams were huge game changers then. The advantages that your force would have had are things I do not have: knowledge of the terrain and prepared plan and all that. 

Another big advantage the US had, even in 1979, was better C4ISR.  The US could See and Think better than the Soviets, at least a the comparative tactical level.  The Soviets designed a system where being big, dumb and blind was an advantage.  So the US player has to kind suss out when and where it can out-see the Soviets and out-C2 them.  But as you note...still a tall order without a lot of room for error.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went into the Marines in 1980,  I still recall how all my orig. issued gear was old, outdated, warn out and not in very good shape.

Some of the jokes were it was showing the signs of use from Vietnam.

 

But in general, you could see how the military had not been treated well as to funding at the time.

I watched as it transformed with all new equipment, from personnel items to most fighting  machines. 

Food going from c rations to the MRE's. 

Battle manuals being rewritten. it was a time of many changes.

 

I remember Reagan was made President and he made major pushes to increase military spending in many areas that was lacking at the time.

Just remember being glad for the change.

It was a good thing in that it really paid off in the early 1990's.

 

But since then, I am not so sure we are not once again on a slide to stop funding on many important projects and are once again finding a military that is starting to be filled with equipment that is pushing long years of service and they are not getting the latest tech as needed to stay prepared as we should be.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, slysniper said:

I went into the Marines in 1980,  I still recall how all my orig. issued gear was old, outdated, warn out and not in very good shape.

Some of the jokes were it was showing the signs of use from Vietnam.

 

 

I remember Reagan was made President and he made major pushes to increase military spending in many areas that was lacking at the time.

Just remember being glad for the change.

It was a good thing in that it really paid off in the early 1990's.

 

When I was Artillery School, it was always a running joke that some of the Marine instructors (we all go to Artillery School at Fort Sill, OK, Army and Marines, and instructors are a mix of Army and Marines), would keep the Marine LTs after class to tell them "what of all this good $hit you just learned about we DON'T have." So I think the USMC must have been worse off than the Army at the time.

Reagan also had the good timing that he came into office when a number of the new, much higher quality weapons programs came to fruition, M1, M2, M3, B1, etc. Some had been started years before, languished and finally became production ready. William Perry as under-sec of def under Carter had much to do with that quality vs quantity push. (need enough qualitative superiority to overcome the numerical superiority). Personally, I was always grateful for Carter for the 2 very large raises we got in one calendar year. Made a huge difference in quality of life. Probably kept many good soldiers IN the military.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, USASOCRanger said:

inferior numbers and either peer or inferior equipment.

It goes back to David and Goliath. The sling and the pebble were nothing. As a shepherd he honed his skills to protect his flock against lions. He was prepared, Goliath was not even he had the backing of superior force. The Israelis applied this principle on the Golan Heights their gunnery with 105mm Shermans and 105mm Centurions was superior to the T62's of the Syrians. The Egyptians too with their Saggers against Centurions applied this principle never fight the last war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...