Attacking mutually supporting positions

[Flibby]

For, I suppose, reasons of simplicity, army doctrine in manuals deals with how to defeat single enemy units in one position via fire an manoeuvre. This I understand and can work through effectively.

 

Where I struggle is attacking an enemy defense including armour and infantry set up in such a way, usually in urban terrain, where one needs to enter a kill zone overwatched from multiple positions. The effectiveness of enemy fire in CMBS means one fire team can decimate a platoon in seconds.

 

It is obviously very difficult to build up or achieve fire superiority in such a situation. I usually end up using smoke and/or finding positions where I can 'snipe' eny armour without also being seen but it is a laborious process.

 

Does anyone have any tips on the mindset for attacking in more complex scenarios than the usual suppress, advance via covered routes and kick 'em in the rear, which seems to deal with an unlikely situation in CMBS.

Many thanks

 

 

[Erwin]

5 minutes ago, Flibby said:

I usually end up using smoke and/or finding positions where I can 'snipe' eny armour without also being seen but it is a laborious process.

Other than using massive firepower (if the designer has provided) to destroy walls and buildings, that's about all one can do.

[Flibby]

14 hours ago, Erwin said:

Other than using massive firepower (if the designer has provided) to destroy walls and buildings, that's about all one can do.

 

So rather than thinking about defeating the whole of the enemy, perhaps thinking of how i can destroy each little bit with as little cost as possible is the best way to think about it?

[Erwin]

Yes.  One basic tactic is to "close off,isolate" a portion or block of the town with fire along surrounding streets.  Then pound the trapped block where the enemy cannot escape nor reinforce.  Occupy the block then repeat re the next block...

[Chibot Mk IX]

If you can provide a screenshot of the mutually supporting positions that would be great. We should be able to provide a more detailed answer to a specific question.

You mentioned in Urban terrain, then the defender at each position will have their own blind spot. Put your view to the defender's position, study their FOV. When the mutually supporting positions share the same FOV, some of them could share the same blind spot at the same time. Explore those blind spot. Current CM engine do not support pixeltroopen climb through windows, so, got to study where the door is. Use demo charges or tank cannon to breach the wall and buildings to avoid death trap on the open street. 

And yes, you got to take them one by one. Just like use Hedge Shears to cut down a shrub plant. Leaves first, branch next , then trunk.  As you mentioned, it is very time consuming.  When facing a human player, such action will be a much more significant challenge. AI will not react to your move. Human player will move his troops around and eliminate his blind spots.

 

[domfluff]

Good question.

On 3/23/2022 at 11:48 PM, Flibby said:

For, I suppose, reasons of simplicity, army doctrine in manuals deals with how to defeat single enemy units in one position via fire an manoeuvre. This I understand and can work through effectively.

That's certainly true for squad and platoon level manuals, not so much for the higher level stuff. The difficulty is that the higher you go, the less practical and the more abstract the concepts inevitably get.

On 3/23/2022 at 11:48 PM, Flibby said:

Where I struggle is attacking an enemy defense including armour and infantry set up in such a way, usually in urban terrain, where one needs to enter a kill zone overwatched from multiple positions. The effectiveness of enemy fire in CMBS means one fire team can decimate a platoon in seconds.

The first point is that it's important to recognise and accept that what you're describing is a disadvantaged position. If you are literally forced to walk into a kill-zone, then you're going to suffer for it.

In the extreme case, where all other options are exhausted, the only option you'll have left is pure attrition - sending in a force which can put out overwhelming fire all at once, and just pushing through head-on, accepting the inevitable casualties.

This is obviously a worst-case scenario, so the challenge (and indeed, the point of manoeuvre warfare as a basic concept) is to do everything you can to maintain control of your options and the situation as a whole.
 

On 3/23/2022 at 11:48 PM, Flibby said:

It is obviously very difficult to build up or achieve fire superiority in such a situation. I usually end up using smoke and/or finding positions where I can 'snipe' eny armour without also being seen but it is a laborious process.

Does anyone have any tips on the mindset for attacking in more complex scenarios than the usual suppress, advance via covered routes and kick 'em in the rear, which seems to deal with an unlikely situation in CMBS.

Many thanks

 

The concept then is to use manoeuvre to gain an advantage. I'm going to sketch out something overly-simple, but that illustrates the fundamental points I'm trying to make. Your question is around Black Sea, but really the fundamentals are applicable to everything ever.

A basic killzone in a town environment. L-shaped ambush, two elements which are either obscured from the approach, or close to it, until the point is reached. Clearly if the blue forces walk up the road here they are in trouble. Scale here is intentionally fuzzy, but it's probably something like a platoon.

 

So, the application of manoeuvre: 

With this kind of approach, the terrain will mask the fire from the far element. The red forces will be unable to get both elements firing at the same point, so blue will be able to put their force against a minority of the enemy at any one time.

However, this isn't really enough. This action creates an advantage, but that's not really enough to turn that advantage into something decisive.

A basic rule of "how to win" is "Take an action that forces an enemy reaction, then ensure that this reaction cannot happen".

In this case, this might look something like this: 



In this case, the enemy should move the blocked element to a position where they can support by fire. You can't know in this instance which direction they will move in. If you can prevent this movement by application of your supporting elements (example here might be the platoon MG teams), then by manoeuvre you'll have isolated the enemy near element from any support, and can defeat it with your force.


Obviously an ideal example, but that kind of principle is the thing you're looking to achieve - working out ways to control the battlefield, to isolate portions of it and to create locally-advantaged situations.

The above example implies a close-ranged light infantry fight, but there's no reason why this would have to be the case. Equally, the above example involves squad or platoon movement, and the same principles can be applied to other elements. Artillery is a big one - if the far element was supressed with mortar fire, then the blue forces could overwhelm the near element in the exact same manner. The same thing can apply to obfuscation via smoke - smoke used in this case can create blocking terrain, and in general terms "shaping the battlefield" is one of the primary roles for artillery. Clearly suppression is a temporary and uncertain state, and smoke even more so, but these are the kind of trade-offs and decisions which are important to consider at this level.

[Erwin]

No criticism of domfluff.  But, I find these sample examples of "how to do something" to be too simplistic. One defending sniper or a 2-man MG team in one of the outlying buildings will make mincemeat of the flanking assault maneuvers depicted in the diagrams.  A good designer will do that and make the situation far more complex than what is depicted in any of the "sample tactical situation" diagrams I have ever seen.  Just my observations that most textbook tactical advice is rubbish - at least after one has become experienced enough to understand the basics. 

[domfluff]

Indeed. The point, naturally, is that this kind of thing is a building block.

It's very easy to look at a tactical problem (indeed, any problem), and to throw your hands in the air and claim it's too complex to solve. This is both very tempting, and very common. The way to counter that is to break this down into sections, get a good understanding of the fundamentals, and then apply those fundamentals to ever more complex scenarios.

To give you an excellent CM-relevant example: 

In CMCW, there are a pair of Tutorial scenarios, which are intended to teach you Soviet Doctrine. The first is a basic attack, which is intended to teach you the Soviet principles of combining mass with the support of massed fires. This exact situation is *not* one which you are likely to see, either in CMCW, or even historically in Soviet doctrine, but the principles taught are applicable to everything that follows, because they represent two of the most fundamental pillars that everything Soviet is built on.

The second then is an attack from the march (a "meeting engagement", in Soviet terms). This is necessarily a more fluid and complex scenario than the former. The fundamentals of mass and coordination with your fire plan remain identical, but the application is significantly more complex, especially as troops will be arriving in sections, and the enemy position is not known at the start of the engagement. In Soviet thinking, this kind of battle would represent the most common form of engagement, so this is teaching something that is a lot more directly applicable than the former.

Then, after you've learnt these fundamental principles, the first mission of the Soviet campaign is another meeting engagement. The structure is firmly recognisable, but the situation is more difficult still. The terrain is significantly more complex, and the enemy are a lot more active in trying to compete with you and prevent you from winning.

Jumping straight into this scenario without the grounding of the first two will mean you're missing a lot of the nuance and sophistication that the former two will bring. You have to learn the alphabet before you can spell. Without the former education, the more complex stuff is impossible to correctly parse, and it will not be possible to solve this to an acceptable degree.


 

[Pelican Pal]

 

On 3/24/2022 at 9:23 AM, Flibby said:

So rather than thinking about defeating the whole of the enemy, perhaps thinking of how i can destroy each little bit with as little cost as possible is the best way to think about it?

This is more or less the core of it.

1. Recon the enemy position and identify as much of it as you can without revealing yourself/taking losses

2. Identify the weakest link position. Any set of mutually supporting positions will have  one that is the easiest for you to kill.

3. Setup the situation needed to kill the weakest link.¹

4. Kill it.

repeat.

¹  There are a multitude of ways to do this and its going to be largely up to you to identify the best way given the tools at hand. Some quick examples though:

- keyhole position that is only exposed to the weakest link
- use smoke to isolate the weakest link
- use artillery or direct fire to suppress other positions while you kill the weakest link
- use artillery to kill the weakest link
- etc...

Against a human player you can use maneuver to threaten their mutually supporting positions and hopefully force them to react to you. Dom's example is a decent one showing that in action. But against the AI you aren't going to get them to maneuver against you in that fashion so its more puzzle like.

[Flibby]

13 hours ago, domfluff said:

Good question.

That's certainly true for squad and platoon level manuals, not so much for the higher level stuff. The difficulty is that the higher you go, the less practical and the more abstract the concepts inevitably get.

The first point is that it's important to recognise and accept that what you're describing is a disadvantaged position. If you are literally forced to walk into a kill-zone, then you're going to suffer for it.

In the extreme case, where all other options are exhausted, the only option you'll have left is pure attrition - sending in a force which can put out overwhelming fire all at once, and just pushing through head-on, accepting the inevitable casualties.

This is obviously a worst-case scenario, so the challenge (and indeed, the point of manoeuvre warfare as a basic concept) is to do everything you can to maintain control of your options and the situation as a whole.
 

 

The concept then is to use manoeuvre to gain an advantage. I'm going to sketch out something overly-simple, but that illustrates the fundamental points I'm trying to make. Your question is around Black Sea, but really the fundamentals are applicable to everything ever.

A basic killzone in a town environment. L-shaped ambush, two elements which are either obscured from the approach, or close to it, until the point is reached. Clearly if the blue forces walk up the road here they are in trouble. Scale here is intentionally fuzzy, but it's probably something like a platoon.

 

So, the application of manoeuvre: 

With this kind of approach, the terrain will mask the fire from the far element. The red forces will be unable to get both elements firing at the same point, so blue will be able to put their force against a minority of the enemy at any one time.

However, this isn't really enough. This action creates an advantage, but that's not really enough to turn that advantage into something decisive.

A basic rule of "how to win" is "Take an action that forces an enemy reaction, then ensure that this reaction cannot happen".

In this case, this might look something like this: 



In this case, the enemy should move the blocked element to a position where they can support by fire. You can't know in this instance which direction they will move in. If you can prevent this movement by application of your supporting elements (example here might be the platoon MG teams), then by manoeuvre you'll have isolated the enemy near element from any support, and can defeat it with your force.


Obviously an ideal example, but that kind of principle is the thing you're looking to achieve - working out ways to control the battlefield, to isolate portions of it and to create locally-advantaged situations.

The above example implies a close-ranged light infantry fight, but there's no reason why this would have to be the case. Equally, the above example involves squad or platoon movement, and the same principles can be applied to other elements. Artillery is a big one - if the far element was supressed with mortar fire, then the blue forces could overwhelm the near element in the exact same manner. The same thing can apply to obfuscation via smoke - smoke used in this case can create blocking terrain, and in general terms "shaping the battlefield" is one of the primary roles for artillery. Clearly suppression is a temporary and uncertain state, and smoke even more so, but these are the kind of trade-offs and decisions which are important to consider at this level.

Thanks for taking the time to do that. I like the explanation of how to match enemy reactions in particular.

[Flibby]

4 hours ago, Pelican Pal said:

 

This is more or less the core of it.

1. Recon the enemy position and identify as much of it as you can without revealing yourself/taking losses

2. Identify the weakest link position. Any set of mutually supporting positions will have  one that is the easiest for you to kill.

3. Setup the situation needed to kill the weakest link.¹

4. Kill it.

repeat.

¹  There are a multitude of ways to do this and its going to be largely up to you to identify the best way given the tools at hand. Some quick examples though:

- keyhole position that is only exposed to the weakest link
- use smoke to isolate the weakest link
- use artillery or direct fire to suppress other positions while you kill the weakest link
- use artillery to kill the weakest link
- etc...

Against a human player you can use maneuver to threaten their mutually supporting positions and hopefully force them to react to you. Dom's example is a decent one showing that in action. But against the AI you aren't going to get them to maneuver against you in that fashion so its more puzzle like.

This is what I'm finding. I dont want to put words in your mouth, but the route to success seems fairly far away from the standard battle drill platoon attack. Doing that standard attack means putting your suppression arm into harm's way, necessarily where the bad guys can also see you. This can work when I can overwhelm a unit with an mg when they are in the open. But when more than one enemy position can see you, you are really needing to isolate and destroy positions by fire one by one.

[Pelican Pal]

I'm assuming your talking about the FM?

To be honest I haven't looked at those in years and years but they generally exist to teach the basics/bare minimum. So applying them 1:1 to CM can be very hard because its super rare that a CM scenario will treat you to the basics. In addition I find that they seem to geared towards a sorta WW2/Cold War setup and that makes them even less applicable to something like Black Sea.

TL;DR: the FMs teach people how to crawl and CM is all about walking.

[BeondTheGrave]

On 3/24/2022 at 10:23 AM, Flibby said:

 

So rather than thinking about defeating the whole of the enemy, perhaps thinking of how i can destroy each little bit with as little cost as possible is the best way to think about it?

Just on this point, FM 71-2 (US CW era battalion tactical manual) emphasizes that the commander (you!, CM is ultimately based around the battalion) should focus on maximizing his force against a single platoon at a time and move forward in increments going platoon to platoon to platoon. Imagine two companies of infantry and armor approaching the same scenario as a Dom illustrated above. You double your attacking force, maximizing their opportunity to cut up the enemy. Meanwhile emplaced forces can either suppress or destroy discovered positions. Smoke or geography can isolate the enemies further. Now obviously you wont always get those favorable overwhelming match ups, but then again you often have to create those match ups through planning and concentration. 

Another tip, just because you dont see the enemy doesnt mean you cant shoot at them. You can use the cannons on BMPs and Bradleys, M2s from Humvees, or even a squad or platoon emplaced as a base of fire element. So imagine Doms example. You may not know where red is, or that youre walking into a kill zone. But if you move up into those areas while also pouring fire into some of the most threatening positions, you could get those guys to duck their heads and open up maneuver where previously none existed. 

Ultimately there is no one solution, instead you just have to play enough to get a fingerspitzengefühl for battle and your own capabilities. Every game and every era is a little different but eventually you figure it out. 

[domfluff]

Yup. Indeed, to quote the reduced-to-bullet-points part of FM71-2:

 

[domfluff]

[Erwin]

6:1 ratio for attacking??

[Grey_Fox]

5 hours ago, Erwin said:

6:1 ratio for attacking??

Enough to guarantee a breakthrough with acceptable casualties which allows the attacker to defeat and counterattack or continue into the enemy rear. That ratio can be achieved by using fire support as well, not just boots on the ground.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Grey_Fox

[Flibby]

The responses here have been really helpful.

From watching some more videos, the father away modern warfare is from my in-built belief of how infantry combat should work - mainly due to the fact that infantry, or at least infantry using rifles, are not the key players in many attacks as a rule.

It is fairly rare, from what I can see, that you are going to be able to perform an 'Assault at Brecourt Manor' type infantry assault. There is simply no need when you are trying to minimise casualties, and have access to stand off weapons. I have to try to plan along the lines of minimising exposure on the modern battlefield, picking my matchups where I can mass overwhelming or unmatched fire power, and blow everything which might even smell like an enemy soldier, to kingdom come before I get there.

[domfluff]

The fundamentals are really no different - the conceptual approach is the same no matter the period. The ranges might change a little (although not in small arms terms), and the equipment will change, but the fundamental approach and the core concepts involved are the same.

The current fighting in Ukraine has seen an awful lot of footage of light infantry combat, and those fundamentals are identical. Brecourt Manor is notable because it was an exception - an action which was necessary to perform, where the ideal resources weren't there to do it. There's no fundamental conceptual difference between the attack at Brecourt Manor in 1944 and, say, Goose Green in 1982. Both are trying to attack a fixed position with light infantry, and trying to create advantages from a position of initial disadvantage.

[Simcoe]

21 hours ago, Flibby said:

The responses here have been really helpful.

From watching some more videos, the father away modern warfare is from my in-built belief of how infantry combat should work - mainly due to the fact that infantry, or at least infantry using rifles, are not the key players in many attacks as a rule.

It is fairly rare, from what I can see, that you are going to be able to perform an 'Assault at Brecourt Manor' type infantry assault. There is simply no need when you are trying to minimise casualties, and have access to stand off weapons. I have to try to plan along the lines of minimising exposure on the modern battlefield, picking my matchups where I can mass overwhelming or unmatched fire power, and blow everything which might even smell like an enemy soldier, to kingdom come before I get there.

Firepower is just too strong for infantry to assault an objective. Infantry’s greatest strength is its ability to observe undetected.

a Russian squad in a BMP is not meant to do the fighting but to be the eyes and ears. Screening the vehicle and only engaging as a last resort against a suppressed enemy.

[Flibby]

On 4/1/2022 at 10:50 AM, domfluff said:

The fundamentals are really no different - the conceptual approach is the same no matter the period. The ranges might change a little (although not in small arms terms), and the equipment will change, but the fundamental approach and the core concepts involved are the same.

The current fighting in Ukraine has seen an awful lot of footage of light infantry combat, and those fundamentals are identical. Brecourt Manor is notable because it was an exception - an action which was necessary to perform, where the ideal resources weren't there to do it. There's no fundamental conceptual difference between the attack at Brecourt Manor in 1944 and, say, Goose Green in 1982. Both are trying to attack a fixed position with light infantry, and trying to create advantages from a position of initial disadvantage.

What I meant is that the close infantry assault seems prohibitively expensive in terms of lives when you have stand-off weapons like javelins and CAS to sit at range and cause casualties.

The fire and manoeuvre exhibited in ww2 worked because there was lower lethality in the average platoon and a lower effective range surely? If I am attacking a village occupied by baddies, and I have armour, javelins, grenade launchers or any other artillery support, why would I try to get close?

[domfluff]

Leaving aside that infantry ranges haven't really changed since WW2 (which is obviously not true for tank and anti-tank ranges), the point is that you *don't* always have armour, ATGMs, artillery or the like, and that's as true for WW2 as it is for anything modern. Why wasn't Brecourt Manor dealt with by counter-battery fire, or a tank platoon? Both would have been significantly easier than doing it with small arms, but the option just wasn't there, they had to go with what they had.

At Goose Green, the artillery was limited to three 105mm guns, and zero armour support. The British had a battalion of light infantry, who were attacking uphill over open terrain against a dug-in opponent with nearly equal numbers. Why the resources weren't available is down to a number of failings, but in terms of the tactical situation they had to go with what they had, and make the best of a bad situation - to take a disadvantaged position and turn it into an advantaged one.

[Flibby]

3 hours ago, domfluff said:

Leaving aside that infantry ranges haven't really changed since WW2 (which is obviously not true for tank and anti-tank ranges), the point is that you *don't* always have armour, ATGMs, artillery or the like, and that's as true for WW2 as it is for anything modern. Why wasn't Brecourt Manor dealt with by counter-battery fire, or a tank platoon? Both would have been significantly easier than doing it with small arms, but the option just wasn't there, they had to go with what they had.

At Goose Green, the artillery was limited to three 105mm guns, and zero armour support. The British had a battalion of light infantry, who were attacking uphill over open terrain against a dug-in opponent with nearly equal numbers. Why the resources weren't available is down to a number of failings, but in terms of the tactical situation they had to go with what they had, and make the best of a bad situation - to take a disadvantaged position and turn it into an advantaged one.

I know that this wasn't the point that you were making, but iirc the attack up goose green was a bit of a farce until some AT (Milan?) was repurposed to bring some fire down on the Argentine trenches. Less fire and manoeuvre and more suicidal frontal charges.

If I'm approaching an enemy controlled village for example, and I only have infantry, no AT no arty support, then even if known positions can be suppressed, any enemy worth their salt will have a second line of keyhole positions. An assaulting element, if they have managed to find a covered approach, then they are inevitably going to take serious fire from undiscovered positions.

Im intetested to see any light infantry combat in the Ukraine which is more than the static firefights ice seen. Not being snarky there btw. Genuinely I would be interested!