I just HATE playing those PanzerGrenadiers…

[PEB14]

I know there are many fans of the aforementioned PanzerGrenadier, hence the topic title is deliberately provocative…

…but not untrue.

In fact, I don't like playing PzGr. Let me explain why, and please provide me with some advice…

IMHO, the problem lies in their binary structure. Two LMG, two groups: nothing to complain about. The problem is: what are you supposed to do with that kind of squad when facing close terrain like forest or buldings? With the Brits, the US, plain German infantry or even the Soviet, no problem: you split a two-man scout team and overwatch it with your remaining two teams. Fine.

But what about the two-groups PzGr squad? If you do split a 2-man scout team, the remaining 6 men get stuck into one huge, unwieldy group of 6 men, crammed together in an action tile, ripe for a lost shell or a Soviet sMG burst. And if your scout team gets killed, you're stuck with that "big blob team" FOREVER. No more fire and support. Only fire OR support. Great!!!

So what's the alternative? Using a full 4-man group as a scout team. You're 99% sure to bear more losses than with a dedicated, 2-man scout team, but at least your squad is not worthless anymore: the survivors still can manoeuver.

I've experimented both alternatives. I hate both. Whatever option I do chose, PzGr squads manpower gets consumed a lot faster than any other squads in the game, while it's supposed to be a top-notch offensive unit…

(I completely understand that the issue is a consequence of the CM game engine limitations. In RL, sending a 2-man scout teams did not reduce the remaining squad to a single group, the 2-groups structure was obviously kept as long as there were 4 remaining men in the squad to serve both LMGs; similarly, in the US and British squads, the 3-groups structure wasn't altered by scouting…)

I'm curious to learn what are the advice of the PzGr fans on the forum…

[Brille]

"top-notch offensive unit". That depends on where you use them. Usually they are with their tanks that they should guard. That means they are in tank favored environment/ more open ground.

That´s where they will be superior to other infantry formations.

If you want to clear out a forest, supposedly filled with smg, well....just don´t... or call for the specialists like the "Sturm" squads.

They are just the opposite of the soviet SMG squads: Those like to close up and fight in knife fights, while Panzergrenadiers are best for fighting mid and long range. Choose your tools wisely.

 

If your really want to fight the soviet in the forest I usually go with one scoutteam cut off of one squad while the rest stays intact. This will function as a tripwire. The other squads I can either use fully deployed or cut into teams (usually I choose the second).

But against a soviet SMG Platoon the chances of winning are rather slim. Usually I go as far as the (dead) scoutteam has traveled, set the weapons to "Frieden" and area fire the MG42 to suspected enemy positions, rinse and repeat....or die at the spot. (most likely )

 

Edited April 13 by Brille

[PEB14]

Thanks, @Brille.

Given the choice I obviously won't use PzGr to clear forest or rural areas. But I must do with the tools I get… and more than once I have to do that kind of stuff with PzGren...

But even aginst the US or the Brits, the problem is the same: using scouts ruins the potential of a PzGr squad once they're gone… I've not played German tanks campaigns in the Bulge or in Normandy, but given the heavily forested/hedged terrain I know I'll have to face this kind of situationsthat I've yet been unable to solve satisfactorily in individual scenarios…

[Bulletpoint]

The Germans are a bit of a "one trick pony" in this game. Their infantry is inflexible and underpowered, most of their tanks are quite bad, and their artillery takes ages to call in. Everything hinges on those few tanks that are not bad - mostly the Panther, but of course also the other big cats if you're lucky enough to get any of those in the scenario. And of course the Panzerschreks.

But the Germans can be fun to play if you like a challlenge. And at least they are still more capable in-game than the Brits, in my opinion.

[domfluff]

The panzergrenadier squad has three elements, not two, and understanding how best to use that is critical.

They consist of two symmetric fireteams, and the halftrack, each with an MG42. All three elements need to work in concert for them to function well.

The advantage of mechanised infantry isn't in how "elite" or "top-notch" they are, it's in mobility. It means that they can cross open ground rapidly, attack from unusual positions, be an effective reserve for a larger proportion of the battlefield, and (crucially), minimise the time between when an artillery bombardment lifts and when the infantry assault.

The trade-offs for this are that you have smaller squad sizes, and they therefore cannot take as much attrition. The halftrack is also as vulnerable as it is powerful, and they are significantly more difficult to use effectively.

The propaganda-fuelled naked halftrack assaults aren't the way to do anything. Instead you need to focus on a good position for the halftrack, and how best to use their mobility to shape the engagement into your favour.

In CM QB terms, accepting how warped an environment that is, I've rarely found much used for massed mounted panzergrenadiers. What's often been extremely useful is having perhaps a single platoon or two, which will increase the available options significantly. Obviously there's operational tempo concerns that CM won't care about here.

[PEB14]

3 hours ago, domfluff said:

The panzergrenadier squad has three elements, not two, and understanding how best to use that is critical.

They consist of two symmetric fireteams, and the halftrack, each with an MG42. All three elements need to work in concert for them to function well.

I get your point, but I think you're slightly "off-doctrine" here. IIRC the halftrack is not supposed to be a weapon but only a transport mean (providing the mobility you're rightfully claiming). Nothing forbids to use the SPW as a third MG support team, but that's not what it's designed for. And I still don't know how I'm supposed to scout with those damn Panzergrenadiere…

[Bulletpoint]

33 minutes ago, PEB14 said:

And I still don't know how I'm supposed to scout with those damn Panzergrenadiere…

Slowly. Divide into two equal teams, then use bounding overwatch. This takes time but cuts down on casualties.

What they can't do well is the US tactic of sending out a screen of 2-man teams and have them run ahead to very quickly get a feel for where approx the enemy line is.

If you have Kubelwagen, they can be used as Ersatz scouts.

[Halmbarte]

35 minutes ago, PEB14 said:

I get your point, but I think you're slightly "off-doctrine" here. IIRC the halftrack is not supposed to be a weapon but only a transport mean (providing the mobility you're rightfully claiming). Nothing forbids to use the SPW as a third MG support team, but that's not what it's designed for. And I still don't know how I'm supposed to scout with those damn Panzergrenadiere…

I may not be remembering right, but I think using the mounted MG for fire support is explicitly in the period doctrine & training manuals. 

H

[domfluff]

1 hour ago, PEB14 said:

I get your point, but I think you're slightly "off-doctrine" here. IIRC the halftrack is not supposed to be a weapon but only a transport mean (providing the mobility you're rightfully claiming). Nothing forbids to use the SPW as a third MG support team, but that's not what it's designed for. And I still don't know how I'm supposed to scout with those damn Panzergrenadiere…

Definitely correct for the Panzergrenadier doctrine, the halftrack is an integral part of the squad.

That's not true for the US halftracks, but they're extremely different in role and capability.

Scouting is best done as a team of four, with the halftrack overwatching. You'd dismount with two elements (halftrack and fireteam) with LOS to the next bound, whilst one team moves forward. If they make contact, they go to ground and you have two MG42s worth of fire to extricate them from the situation.

When the team makes it to the next terrain piece safely, they can form the new base of fire, can be reinforced with the halftrack, then the other fireteam can scout to the next bound.

Now, what *is* true is that the doctrine around halftrack employment was mostly written in the early war, before effective anti-tank weapons became quite as commonplace (ATRs were the standard). Halftracks are still useful in 1943-1945, but they are far more vulnerable, and have to be used much more carefully.

Dealing with the antitank threat is one of the main roles of the panzergrenadiers, because they can advance on foot, spot, and call in mortars to deal with anti-tank guns, freeing the way for the armour.

[PEB14]

Thank you gentlemen. So no scout team for the Panzergrenadiere, only half-squads and SPW support. Up to now I hadn't much luck playing this way (true, I didn't really use the SPW as a base of fire squad), though…

 

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

If you have Kubelwagen, they can be used as Ersatz scouts.

Oh please @Bulletpoint !

I used to use my destroyed Panzer crews for scouting, but out of shame I don't do it anymore…

 

[Halmbarte]

6 minutes ago, PEB14 said:

Thank you gentlemen. So no scout team for the Panzergrenadiere, only half-squads and SPW support. Up to now I hadn't much luck playing this way (true, I didn't really use the SPW as a base of fire squad), though…

 

Oh please @Bulletpoint !

I used to use my destroyed Panzer crews for scouting, but out of shame I don't do it anymore…

 

For late  war, just round them up, give them some K98 rifles, and use them as infantry. 

H

[Anthony P.]

There's no reason not to use scout teams with Panzergrenadiers. If you're sending a single squad off to, sure, you'll have problems... but is lone squads out on their own being vulnerable really a problem unique to Panzergrenadiers?

Send a platoon instead and detach a scout team from one of its squads.

 

You mention Normandy and the other Western front scenarios being an issue: true, but I'd say "fair enough" or "realistic". The issue is that in the West and Normandy in particular, the Panzergrenadier divisions were desperately thrown into the line instead of being kept in reserve to make up for the lack of infantry divisions. This wasn't what they were intended for and they suffered in attritional warfare, because manpower wise they were smaller units intended for brief and intense offensive operations, after which they would (read: should) have gone back into reserve to refit. As you've observed, a small eight man squad doesn't cope with losses or sustained infantry on infantry fighting as well as large 10, 12 or even larger men squads do.

[Centurian52]

21 hours ago, domfluff said:

Now, what *is* true is that the doctrine around halftrack employment was mostly written in the early war, before effective anti-tank weapons became quite as commonplace (ATRs were the standard). Halftracks are still useful in 1943-1945, but they are far more vulnerable, and have to be used much more carefully.

Honestly if I'm in a halftrack I think I'd actually be more concerned about early-war ATRs than the HEAT projectors of the mid-late war. I've found that while ATRs really struggle to be effective against tanks, even in the early war, they are far more effective against halftracks. The post-penetration effects of ATRs are usually underwhelming compared to HEAT warheads and ATGs. But against a halftrack stuffed full of infantry you can't miss. Each shot can't help but inflict several casualties. Each shot may not be as lethal as a single HEAT warhead, but they come on a lot more rapidly, a lot more accurately, and at much greater range.

ATRs are still crap against tanks. But they work very well against halftracks and armored cars.

Edited April 15 by Centurian52

[George MC]

I think previous posts have covered your query in detail. This vid I made gives an overview of how the Germans viewed the SPW and panzer grenadiers being used.

though doctrine evolved through the war it’s worth noting that dismounting from the track was seen as either situation dependent eg close terrain, and that fighting from the track itself was preferred. The later does not work so well in CM and arguably in RL (I’ve read complaints from panzer commanders of grenadiers being reluctant to dismount and do their job!). 
 

Their tactical flexibility given by the vehicles was their key strength. Also assuming operating as part of battalion a pzgr SPW company had some serious mobile firepower in its heavy weapons platoon which served as the base of fire for any attack.  
 

Though for obvs reasons by late war with fuel etc at a premium and allies and Soviets having operational upper hand on both fronts the opportunities to exercise this tactical flexibility were very local and tactical in nature. 
 

 

[PEB14]

@George MC The post title was nearly a direct call at you, George...

In fact I'm right now fighting my way through your SPW and Tank lessons scenarios, trying to learn how to best use these damn PzGr squads.... Blood and tears and even more blood...

 

On 4/15/2024 at 11:48 PM, George MC said:

I think previous posts have covered your query in detail. This vid I made gives an overview of how the Germans viewed the SPW and panzer grenadiers being used.

You mean that you also recommend to scout using a full PzGr 4-men PzGr team, supported by the other team and the SPW itself? (I know the vid, I've watched all your vids carefully! )

 

On 4/15/2024 at 2:11 PM, Anthony P. said:

There's no reason not to use scout teams with Panzergrenadiers. If you're sending a single squad off to, sure, you'll have problems... but is lone squads out on their own being vulnerable really a problem unique to Panzergrenadiers?

Send a platoon instead and detach a scout team from one of its squads.

I think I miss your point. During WW2 the smallest tactical unit both in CW, US and German armies were squads, not platoons. (What you refer to is more in line with the Soviet doctrine.) So squads shall be able to manoeuver (fire/support) on their own. By mid 1944, the German units are even more flexible from that point of view, as all teams are equipped with their own LMG and may thus assume alternatively the fire support role.

IMHO the issue is that, in CM, the scout team count as a whole team, while in RL it probably didn't (the two-teams structure of the PzGr squad was probably retained, 3-men LMG teams each, while the scouts were away).

 

On 4/15/2024 at 2:11 PM, Anthony P. said:

The issue is that in the West and Normandy in particular, the Panzergrenadier divisions were desperately thrown into the line instead of being kept in reserve to make up for the lack of infantry divisions.

Well, I'm talking about offensive use of the PzGr, not defensive. So precisely the way they're supposed to be used.

[Monty's Mighty Moustache]

29 minutes ago, PEB14 said:

During WW2 the smallest tactical unit both in CW, US and German armies were squads, not platoons. (What you refer to is more in line with the Soviet doctrine.) So squads shall be able to manoeuver (fire/support) on their own.

Not if you want to maintain any kind of C2 they aren't. Unless it's a recon team with a radio (i.e. a specialist) then the smallest unit that should be assigned a task, IMHO, is the platoon. Of course the Red Army did things a bit differently as you allude to but if you send a fireteam or squad off on their own then they can and will suffer from not being effectively led.

MMM

[Anthony P.]

3 hours ago, PEB14 said:

I think I miss your point. During WW2 the smallest tactical unit both in CW, US and German armies were squads, not platoons. (What you refer to is more in line with the Soviet doctrine.) So squads shall be able to manoeuver (fire/support) on their own. By mid 1944, the German units are even more flexible from that point of view, as all teams are equipped with their own LMG and may thus assume alternatively the fire support role.

Platoons were typically the smallest unit sent off to achieve anything on its own (there's a reason that radios weren't issued until you hit platoon level) in combat. While squads (and fireteams, if we want to go lower) wouldn't always move and fight in a literal line or always physically in a set other physical formation, they wouldn't move far away from the rest of the platoon, and certainly not away on their own missions.

Squads might might have split up to fight in mutual support, but not (far) away from their platoons... especially not the Panzergrenadiers, who were meant to accompany tanks in breakthrough operations (e.g., a scenario in which tanks wouldn't have been sent off on their own either).

 

Quote

Well, I'm talking about offensive use of the PzGr, not defensive. So precisely the way they're supposed to be used.

Panzergrenadiers weren't meant for just any offensive operations, but for breakthroughs with the Panzer divisions. Hence they were quickly worn down in sustained combat, for much the same reason you're hitting upon even on this lower level: they are inherently quite small formations in regards to manpower.

Edited April 17 by Anthony P.

[domfluff]

You do, however, still need to consider the disposition of an individual squad.

It's correct to say that they wouldn't have operated in isolation, but they do operate as a unit in and of themselves first, and in context second. A platoon is an aggregation of three squads, each of which needs to move and operate correctly.

So yes, the question of how the squad patrols is important, and it's also important to understand how this squad fits into a platoon, the platoon into a company and the company into the battalion. It's equally important to discuss how one section scouts over a small rise, as it is how a mechanised company operates with respect to armour and artillery.

[Vacillator]

2 hours ago, PEB14 said:

Well, I'm talking about offensive use of the PzGr, not defensive. So precisely the way they're supposed to be used.

Just an aside, but they can make for some pretty tough defenders - I had them in a PBEM of 'A Muddy Affair' and they were absolutely badass.  Aside over...

[Centurian52]

20 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

While squads (and fireteams, if we want to go lower) wouldn't move and fight in a literal line or always physically in a set formation

The formations aren't parade-ground rigid. Intervals and alignment are flexible in order to take advantage of the terrain. But they do fight in formations, of which a literal line is one (in fact it is the default formation for engaging an enemy to your front). The best you can do to mimic squad formations in Combat Mission is to break the squad into teams and arrange those teams into a line, column, or wedge (there are never enough teams to form a diamond unfortunately). A better representation of formations is on my wishlist for future improvements to Combat Mission.

[Anthony P.]

2 hours ago, domfluff said:

A platoon is an aggregation of three squads, each of which needs to move and operate correctly.

Yes, but not out of direct support of each other. Usually the platoon would be tasked with a mission which the squads would move and fight in concert with each other to achieve, so the opening post of "Panzergrenadier squads are awkward because a squad can't scout for itself as it moves to contact" means it's handled incorrectly in my opinion.

Even if you could detach 2 man scout teams from their squads without lumping the remaining 6 men into a single team, that'd be a poor choice. 2 men scout teams are basically "there's a X% chance that those two will get rinsed by the first shots, but at least that'll give the rest of the unit time to fight back". That's a ratio which makes sense if they're scouting for a whole platoon (or larger units)... but if they're just scouting for their own squad? That means that you're putting 25% of a unit at risk of becoming casualties in the first few seconds to protect the rest of it. I'd say that that's just too large a risk to call sensible: mathematically it would be like using two entire fireteams or an entire squad bunched up in a single action square to scout for a platoon. If those two scouts become casualties and the rest of the squad survives intact (unlikely), that means you're now left with just 6 men to carry on with a mission. That's not effective.

 

Quote

So yes, the question of how the squad patrols is important, and it's also important to understand how this squad fits into a platoon, the platoon into a company and the company into the battalion. It's equally important to discuss how one section scouts over a small rise, as it is how a mechanised company operates with respect to armour and artillery.

I think my main argument is that Panzergrenadiers aren't dismounted infantry. Landsers can have scout teams moving ahead of them into the attack, but Panzergrenadiers should be attacking well established objectives mounted up (preferably alongside Panzers). If something needs scouting in that scenario it should ideally be a platoon/company commander or someone else with shiny things on his shoulder peeking up above that rise before mounting up again. That's quite different from a two man scout team marching ahead of its squad or platoon as it moves to contact and on foot.

 

@Centurian52: true, I rephrased that part to be clearer/more accurate. Ta!

Edited April 17 by Anthony P.

[George MC]

3 hours ago, PEB14 said:

@George MC The post title was nearly a direct call at you, George...

In fact I'm right now fighting my way through your SPW and Tank lessons scenarios, trying to learn how to best use these damn PzGr squads.... Blood and tears and even more blood...

 

You mean that you also recommend to scout using a full PzGr 4-men PzGr team, supported by the other team and the SPW itself? (I know the vid, I've watched all your vids carefully! )

 

I think I miss your point. During WW2 the smallest tactical unit both in CW, US and German armies were squads, not platoons. (What you refer to is more in line with the Soviet doctrine.) So squads shall be able to manoeuver (fire/support) on their own. By mid 1944, the German units are even more flexible from that point of view, as all teams are equipped with their own LMG and may thus assume alternatively the fire support role.

IMHO the issue is that, in CM, the scout team count as a whole team, while in RL it probably didn't (the two-teams structure of the PzGr squad was probably retained, 3-men LMG teams each, while the scouts were away).

 

Well, I'm talking about offensive use of the PzGr, not defensive. So precisely the way they're supposed to be used.

Thought my ears were burning!

So there are some hard wired CM game engine limitations- I highlight some of these in the designer and briefing notes. 
 

Re ‘scouting’ well as others had said there is a big depends. A platoon might be tasked to recce - could be a tactical recce or a combat recce. Within the framework of the platoon the PLT CO will also decide how best to conduct the mission. 
 

In CM terms there are lots of options. In RL sending one vehicle off on its own would be frowned upon. As if the vehicle breaks down you lose it. So principle was always two vehicles. These in turn would have two squads. The manual shows the squad and the team operating in concert even on a recce. But the squad leader may choose to scout using a small element going just ahead within sight and sound of the squad; the squad in turn would most likely be over watched by the second unit - again depending on the situation they may or may not dismount. Having em out the vehicle = more MGs as base of fire 3 vs 1.

So what size of element scouts does depend on RL and in CM. There’s no exact answer and in game as in RL it would be more a judgement call based on various factors within the context of the situation. Ie it depends.

[MikeyD]

There's a CM saying. When playing Russians send a platoon where you'd normally sent a squad, send a company where you'd normally sent a platoon, and send a battalion where you'd normally send  a company. That advice applies more generally, as well. Brit and German mech infantry both have smallish squads/sections. Individually they're not very flexible. Flexibility comes from using multiple squads in a coordinated manner. Two panzergrenadier squads equal sixteen men with four lmg Considerably more useful than a single squad. I'm reminded of those robust 13 man Marine squads in CMSF2 that nobody can stand up against.

[Anthony P.]

I think MikeyD has a point

[George MC]

Also in wider context SPW pzgr unit is s combined arms unit at company level it has mortars, HMGs and mobile 75mm cannons. At battalion level it has more of the same which can be tasked managed to support a unit. 
 

A SPW unit would work in concert with attached, be attached to, AFVs. 

An armoured SPW unit was a pretty valuable asset. They were kept for appropriate tasks where their mobility, firepower and armour could best be used. 
 

So using em well would mean deploying them to a mission where some info re enemy was most likely known about. The unit commander would then do their own tactical recce prior to their mission - check routes etc  

once committed they’d do combat recce but again likely point unit commander dismounting and peeking over next rise to see what exactly was ahead. 
 

All done with some sort of overwatch as platoon/company and battalion level.