Combined Arms?

[kb6583]

I've played "My Honor is My Loyalty" as both sides. Boy am I lost regarding tactics here. I have gone to YouTube many times to try and learn a few things about tactics and employment, particularly regarding scenarios that involve tanks and mech units, but I just can't seem to find any helpful videos in that regard. Both sides here, given this is a huge scenario after all, have hoards of British brens or German 251 halftracks to transport hoards of infantry. This is a meeting engagement, I understand that. But I just don't know how to employ them all with tanks. Smoke helps, as does regular artillery. But all it takes is one or two surviving tanks on either side to simply shred an entire attacking force of brens or halftracks. So it almost seems like one side or the other must eliminate all of the tanks of the opposing side before those hoards of brens and halftracks can really continue. Absent that, those hoards seem to be simply forced to seek cover and this scenario just seems to degenerate into a Mexican standoff.

[PEB14]

8 hours ago, kb6583 said:

I've played "My Honor is My Loyalty" as both sides. Boy am I lost regarding tactics here. I have gone to YouTube many times to try and learn a few things about tactics and employment, particularly regarding scenarios that involve tanks and mech units, but I just can't seem to find any helpful videos in that regard. Both sides here, given this is a huge scenario after all, have hoards of British brens or German 251 halftracks to transport hoards of infantry. This is a meeting engagement, I understand that. But I just don't know how to employ them all with tanks. Smoke helps, as does regular artillery. But all it takes is one or two surviving tanks on either side to simply shred an entire attacking force of brens or halftracks. So it almost seems like one side or the other must eliminate all of the tanks of the opposing side before those hoards of brens and halftracks can really continue. Absent that, those hoards seem to be simply forced to seek cover and this scenario just seems to degenerate into a Mexican standoff.

I also failed to find useful a good Tutorial regarding tanks tactics in Combat Mission. But you clearly should have a look at Bil Hardenberger's Battle Drill for basic tactics regarding tanks.

Halftrack are more transport than fighting vehicles. You shouldn't attack with them, especially if your enemy fields tanks.

[Brille]

Well I don't know the situation of the specific battle but the key to a successful encounter is always the same: Isolate enemy units from the rest of their formation and engage with a local superior force. 

How you can achieve is the difficult part. You can have the advantage of the terrain where one enemy company can't support another because there are woods, hills or buildings in the way. If you don't have that, smoke could be a viable option. Try to blind single or multiple tanks or entire formations to get your forces into proper positions. 

Note that many tanks, infantry units and of course artillery have smoke rounds with them. In strong winds it may not last that long but it can be enough that the enemy looses contact. 

Don't go for tank duels as those turn out bad very often. If the enemy has one tank at a junction, engage him with 2 or 3 of your own, while trying to stay out of sight from the others. 

Bren Carriers and halftracks are not primarily designed for an attack. They have to bring the footsoldiers as close to the front as they can and then get the hell out of there and hide. 

If you are sure that there is no enemy mid or long range anti tank threat anymore you can try and put them in support of your infantry. 

Otherwise you will have some good barbecue sites soon enough. 

A good advise for me was to get onto ground level with your camera and inspect the map. Go along you planned avenue of approach and look for terrain features like small rises and dents in the ground. Sometimes even open ground provides more cover than one might think at the first glance. 

[Centurian52]

Well, I've got a long watchlist for you. But, if you have the time, the following videos should provide a pretty good introductory course to tactics (if you become as much of a tactics nerd as me I can also recommend a few field manuals). Most videos out there cover infantry tactics, though the concept of fire and maneuver will apply equally to tank and artillery tactics as well. I haven't found much on how to use tanks and infantry together. But the personal style I developed over years of playing Combat Mission is to lead with the infantry and use the tanks as an instant-response, flat-trajectory, fire-support element. Doctrinal manuals I've found stress the importance of maintaining some distance between tanks (50 meters between tanks by German and Soviet doctrine, and 75 yards (~70 meters) by American doctrine). This reduces the chance of two tanks being destroyed by the same air dropped bomb, reduces their vulnerability to artillery (particularly cluster munitions, if you ever get around to playing CMCW), and gives them some room to maneuver. In practice, the need to mass my tanks' firepower often means I can't maintain the full doctrinal spacings, but I try to spread them out as much as practicable. Though it is harder for them, tanks should try to limit their exposure as much as possible just like the infantry. This means using hull-down (only the turret exposed) and shoot and scoot (pop out of cover, fire a shot or two, reverse back into cover) tactics wherever it is practical to do so.

As others have pointed out, you want to avoid head to head tank engagements, as those come with a 50/50 chance of your tank losing. Head to head engagements with friendly anti-tank guns (or ATGMs for the modern titles) against enemy tanks are better (anti-tank guns/ATGMs are smaller targets, so almost always have an advantage in a 1 on 1 fight with a tank (tanks are better in that they are mobile and can effectively engage both tanks and infantry, but if you are just trying to kill oncoming tanks from a static position then anti-tank guns/ATGMs are better)). Flank attacks or ambushes against enemy tanks are best. If a head-on engagement between your tanks and the enemy's tanks is unavoidable, bring more tanks than the enemy. If you have two tanks facing one enemy tank then you have an 87.5% chance of winning (75% chance of one of your tanks hitting the enemy tank first (each one has a 50% chance of spotting the enemy before the enemy spots them (1-(0.5^2)), 12.5% chance of one of your tanks getting hit first and your remaining tank then hitting the enemy tank, and a 12.5% chance of the enemy tank taking out both of your tanks (if the first tank is knocked out you are back to one on one and 50/50 odds)), opposed to only a 50% chance of winning a one on one engagement.

I think this video does a good job of explaining the general principle of fire and maneuver, which is at the core of so many tactics: 

To summarize the basic principles:

1. Fire alone cannot eliminate the enemy.

2. Maneuvers are needed to eliminate the enemy.

3. Maneuvers cannot be made under effective enemy fire.

4. Enemy fire can be made ineffective by your own fire.

5. Fire cannot eliminate the enemy, but it makes maneuvers possible that can.

I particularly love the quote "Fire without maneuver is a waste of ammunition. Maneuver without fire is a waste of lives.".

Keeping in mind that fire and maneuver is a very broad concept. The video correctly points out that tactics since at least the Napoleonic era have boiled down to some form of fire and maneuver. But the specific implementations of fire and maneuver have changed drastically as technology has changed. Something I've repeatedly found is that it is very rare for generic principles of warfare to change, but the minor details can change considerably with every new technology.

For something a little more specific to WW2 I recommend G.I. History Handbook's videos covering American squad and platoon organization and tactics: https://www.youtube.com/@G.I.HistoryHandbook/videos

His videos are cumulative, so it's best to watch them in order from oldest to newest. Though you may be able to skip his videos on squad and platoon organization since you can see the organizations for yourself when you load up a Combat Mission scenario containing American forces (keeping in mind that paratroopers are organized differently from regular infantry). You can probably mimic American platoon tactics with either British or German forces just fine, but squad tactics will require some more adjustment. The Americans rely on the massed semi-automatic rifle fire of the entire squad. So any part of the squad can pretty seamlessly transition between being a fire element and a maneuver element. The British and German infantry squads are a bit more specialized, with one team (the one with the machinegun) being well suited to being a fire element, while the other team (the one with the majority of the riflemen) is well suited to being a maneuver element.

It is impossible to mimic the squad diamond formation described by G.I. history Handbook's videos in Combat Mission, as the squad can only be broken down into a maximum of three teams. But the squad column, line, and wedge formations can all be replicated in Combat Mission. All of the platoon formations can be mimicked in Combat Mission. How much you actually want to mimic these formations is up to you, but I certainly find the general concept of having one platoon up and two back (for example, when you are moving forward and want to make contact with the smallest possible element), or two platoons up and one back (when you want the majority of your combat power forward, but also want to keep a reserve), to be fairly useful.

The basic tactical principles are:

Find 'em: Recon is the first stage in any action, from the squad's firefight to the Army Group's operation. You must find the enemy before you can decide how to deal with them.

Fix 'em: You must pin the enemy down with fire before you can maneuver to destroy them. The first step in this is winning fire superiority (get more fire going towards the enemy than they can send back at you). Once you have fire superiority, maintain it. Never attempt to advance across areas covered by enemy fire without fire superiority.

Fight 'em (or Flank 'em): Maintain fire-superiority. Work your way to a position from which you can finish them (a flank if possible).

Finish 'em: Destroy the enemy. This often means storming their position with infantry. The tricky part of this stage is getting your infantry into the enemy position while the enemy is still suppressed, without your infantry getting chewed up by whatever was providing the suppressive fire.

Fending all the while (sometimes this step is omitted, so some sources will refer to only four F's): Take actions to prevent the enemy from finding, fixing, flanking, or finishing you. Take concealed avenues of approach, avoid revealing your positions until you have to, and maintain flank protection (matters more against a human opponent than against the AI, but sometimes a scenario designer will throw in some surprises).

Artillery tactics can be the hardest to figure out, since there is so little guidance out there (either in manuals or on youtube) on how to effectively use artillery. But I've found Free Whisky's video on the subject to be the most helpful (I still refer to it to this day): 

To summarize, your use of artillery will be best if you are thinking in terms of effects. Their are four kinds of effects that artillery can have. They are:

1. Suppress: The artillery becomes the fire element in a fire and maneuver scheme. In this role it is keeping the enemy's heads down while your maneuver forces (infantry and tanks) cross the open ground that would otherwise be swept by the enemy's fire.

2. Obscure: Drop smoke to prevent the enemy from seeing you.

3. Secure: Fire on a position which isn't currently occupied by the enemy in order to prevent the enemy from occupying it. The artillery is "securing" that position.

4. Reduce: Fire specifically meant to inflict casualties on, and possibly even to destroy, an identified enemy position.

Terrain analysis is also an important skill to have for Combat Mission. I have found no better source for terrain analysis than Gordon Cooke's lecture on youtube: 

To summarize again, you are looking for:

Obstacles

Avenues of Approach

Key Terrain

Observation/Fields of Fire

Cover and Concealment (cover and concealment are two different things, though the same terrain features often provide both (cover: stops bullets, concealment: stops observation))

You are looking for those same features of the terrain in pretty much any time period. But again, the minor details change from one period to the next. For example, what counts as concealment against an enemy that does not have thermal optics or drones will be different from what counts as concealment against an enemy that does have thermal optics and drones. Dust, smoke, fog, and darkness will conceal you in WW2, when the enemy has no thermals. They will not conceal you when you are facing an enemy that does have thermals (good to remember as the Soviets in CMCW, or as anyone in CMBS). A hill may block line of sight from an enemy on the ground with no drones. But an enemy with drones providing overhead observation may be able to see you on the other side of that hill.

Also remember that what counts as cover depends on what weapons you are considering. A brick wall may provide you with cover against rifles and machineguns, but no cover against heavier caliber weapons. A linear terrain feature might provide cover against tank rounds coming in on a flat trajectory, but provide no cover against artillery shells coming in on a plunging trajectory.

And finally I think Usually Hapless's Combat Mission Basics playlist is worth a binge. The playlist covers a mix of both game engine mechanics and tactics which are useful both to new players and to veterans:

Of course even if you watch all of the videos I've listed you won't automatically become a tactical genius. Classroom instruction needs to be supplemented with practice in the field in order to be useful. Consider these videos the classroom instruction. As you play you will work out for yourself how to apply these principles in practice, and you will no doubt become a very formidable opponent.

[Centurian52]

Having reread your post I realize that you are using mechanized infantry (infantry carried in armored vehicles (Bren carriers in this case)). I don't think any of the videos I posted address mechanized infantry, so I'll do so here. You mostly use mechanized infantry the same way you would use light infantry (infantry not carried in armored vehicles), but with one additional consideration. Namely, when to keep them mounted in their armored vehicles and when to dismount them (I think your issue with this scenario may have been that you were trying to fight with your infantry mounted).

The vehicles offer far greater mobility than movement on foot. When your infantry are mounted they can move very quickly from one position to the next without getting tired. But they are extremely vulnerable in their vehicles. A single hit from any anti-tank weapon can wipe out an entire infantry squad that's mounted in their vehicles. In addition, they can't use their weapons effectively from their vehicles. In the WW2 titles infantry may fire over the side of their halftracks, and in CMCW and the modern titles infantry in BMPs may fire their weapons from the gun ports, but this fire is very inaccurate and is barely effective even at short range. Even when your infantry are in a vehicle they can theoretically fire from, this fire is only useful as an emergency measure and is not something to be relied on.

So the basic principle for using mechanized infantry is to move mounted and fight dismounted. Knowing when to dismount is the key. Dismount too early and you sacrifice mobility sooner than you needed to. Dismount too late and you are likely to suffer catastrophic casualties. In general, I find it's best to err on the side of dismounting a little too early. I think it's better for a squad to have to jog an extra hundred meters than to get wiped out in their halftrack. If I even suspect that I might be about to encounter the enemy, I dismount. I don't ever want to encounter the enemy with my infantry still mounted in their vehicles. Dismounting just in front of, or right on top of an enemy position can be a good idea if you are trying to press your attack with maximum aggression. But make sure the enemy is well suppressed before you attempt to do this.

While I've been emphasizing how vulnerable the infantry are in their vehicles, one important caveat is mortars and artillery. They are significantly less vulnerable to artillery while mounted in armored vehicles. A direct hit from a stray artillery shell might still wipe out a whole squad, but if the barrage is intense enough that a direct hit is likely then you probably would have lost the whole platoon if it had been dismounted. Moving through an artillery barrage while mounted in armored vehicles is viable, both because the armor will protect the infantry from shell fragments, and because the vehicles can make it through the barrage more quickly than infantry on foot. If you can get the timing right a good tactic can be to charge an enemy position with your infantry mounted while the position is being hammered by artillery, aiming to dismount right on top of the position the moment the artillery lifts (risky, since if you get the timing wrong this could end very poorly).

Whatever tactics you develop, the basics of mechanized infantry are:

Mounted: Fast, less vulnerable to artillery, extremely vulnerable to anti-tank weapons, unable to fight.

Dismounted: Slow, vulnerable to artillery, less vulnerable to anti-tank weapons, able to fight.