The High Ground Dummy!

[Chairman7w]

Hi Guys,

just wondering if anyone else has encountered a dilemna regarding the high ground. Every military doctrine in the history of war has stressed taking of the high ground, but it games I've played, darn near every time I got the high ground, it just made my units visible to the enemy, who proceeds to pound me. The one exception is when he had already lost his armor, then my armor held the hgih ground and commanded the field. But other than that, taking the high ground has just gotten me killed. Anybody else ever notice this? Is this strategy outdated?

Ed

"Hit 'em hard, hit 'em fast, and preferably when they're not lookin!"

[Maj. Bosco]

There are situations when the high ground is desirable. For example, when the enemy no longer is able to take out your tanks or mobile artillery then it's fairly safe to park them up on a hill so they can have better LOS. Also, if there is cover on this hill like woods or tall pines then it can make be an excellent location for infantry mortars and FO's. However, simply rolling a tank onto a hill and leaving it stationary is a bad idea. Tanks are extremely vulnerable when they're stationary.

A good tactic to use with hills and tanks is to "tophat" (at least I think that's what it's called, I don't really remember). Have your tank move up the reverse slope of the hill (The one not facing your oponent) to the top and then reverse back down. That way the tank can get up to the top and have a superior LOS, take it's shot, and then back down before too much fire can be called in on it. Noting elevation can also help to get tanks into the hull down firing position but higher does not nessecarily equal better.

For infantry it's never a good idea to be in the open so just being on higher ground is not nessecarily beneficial for infantry. Currently the game doesn't model ridgelines and other macro-features of the terrain affecting cover. Infantry cover is determined by the terrain type it's in. Regardless of the relative elevations infantry in open ground, if in LOS of an enemny, is 75% covered. There is a thread on this, if you're really interested in it you can do a search on it.

I'd reccomend reading up on WWII tank tactics if you want to gain a greater understanding of how you use them. I was very quickly disabused of my original idea to park the tank at the highest point on the map and leave it there. I think that CMHQ actually has a tank manual written by a german TC who saw action on the Ostfront. You could start with that. I personally think it's very helpful.

[Guest Pillar]

"Is this strategy outdated?"

No, but your thinking is...What was the real high ground of World War 2, the hill?

Think outside the box!

"I wish I could have that kind of power in my control, just for a few moments..." -- From "A Bridge Too Far"

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maj. Bosco:

Currently the game doesn't model ridgelines and other macro-features of the terrain affecting cover. Infantry cover is determined by the terrain type it's in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The sole exception to this is direct cannon fire (tank guns, AT guns, etc.) If they are 'long', they will fly past, impact somewhere downrange and not effect the infantry.

------------------

Cats aren't clean, they're covered with cat spit.

[Terence]

Comrades,

The top of a hill -- unless there is some overpowering tactical reason to be there, or some really great cover, is a bad place for any unit, infanry, armor or vehicle to park.

Tankers are taught to avoid hill tops like the plague. For one thing it means that anyone on the map can probably see you, and secondly (and less significantly for game purposes) it silhouettes you against the sky, which means anyone at a lower elevation has a BETTER shot at you.

Reverse slopes can be interesting places to hide and ambush the bad guys for a close range knife fight, peeking over the hill can be very rewarding if you do it right. forested hills can be good places to hide... But sitting up there in the open is an invite to get splattered.

[engy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chairman7w:

...Is this strategy outdated?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Outdated? No.

The battle of Dien Bien Phu (French vs. Vietnamese) in 1954 (I think) shows both the peril of the high ground if used incorrectly and the advantage of the high ground in competent hands. It would be best to read about the battle yourself, but just to sum up, in layman's terms:

1. The French had a series of strongpoints on hills surrounding a "bowl", at the bottom of which was the fortified French garrison at Dien Bien Phu.

2. The strongpoints were individually overrun by the Vietnamese due to lack of mutual support.

3. The Vietnamese then occupied the surrounding hills, brought well-camouflaged artillery onto the hills (the French artillery commander committed suicide due to his inability to provide counter-battery fire, I believe) and shelled the very strong French force in Dien Bien Phu. AA guns on the hills closed the French airstrip, supply drops were inaccurate, and the French suffered a defeat that shocked the world.

Also, another example which just came to mind was the US Marine retreat from the Yalu river in Korea. The Chinese held the ridges on either side of the road. The retreating column could go no faster than the marines wading through deep snow on the ridgelines who were clearing the enemy from the high ground.

I'm no military historian, so please don't flame me if my facts aren't detailed down to the OOB and who pulled KP duty the night of the battle.

engy

------------------

"He who makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long."

Napoleon Bonaparte

Edited to fix grammar and a missing ")"

[This message has been edited by engy (edited 11-06-2000).]

[This message has been edited by engy (edited 11-06-2000).]

[Major Tom]

While playing against Goanna in Reisberg (Back in the day) I managed to knock out his two 88mm's with 3 60mm Mortors on the reverse slope of the large hill to the right of the town (looking out of it). He was trying to get me with his 88's, but, I was in such a position that any direct fire would impact on the hill, while my mortors could lob shells with impunity. There was very little cover on this hill as well. Although, if he did have his 81mm mortors nearby I would have been in a lot of trouble.

High ground is KEY. Especially if you are in a deeply wooded area. Place your troops defending high peaks, and your enemy will have a tough time cracking this defence.

[Diceman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by engy:

Outdated? No.

The battle of Dien Bien Phu (French vs. Vietnamese) in 1954 (I think) shows both the peril of the high ground if used incorrectly and the advantage of the high ground in competent hands...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this the battle that made famous the fraise "Go tell the Spartans"?

The taking of the high ground is more important at the operational level than the tactical level. Control of the right piece of ground can eliminate the enemies ability to attack with surprise, or even have a coordinated attack at all if enough artillery can be brought to bare on observed troop movements, amongst other advantages.

------------------

Pair-O-Dice

"Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman."

[Matt]

"3. The Vietnamese then occupied the surrounding hills, brought well-camouflaged artillery onto the hills (the French artillery commander committed suicide due to his inability to provide counter-battery fire, I believe) and shelled the very strong French force in Dien Bien Phu. AA guns on the hills closed the French airstrip, supply drops were inaccurate, and the French suffered a defeat that shocked the world."

All I have to say is that the French finding a way to lose is no shock. In fact, kind of expected.

[Pham911]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt:

"3. The Vietnamese then occupied the surrounding hills, brought well-camouflaged artillery onto the hills (the French artillery commander committed suicide due to his inability to provide counter-battery fire, I believe) and shelled the very strong French force in Dien Bien Phu. AA guns on the hills closed the French airstrip, supply drops were inaccurate, and the French suffered a defeat that shocked the world."

All I have to say is that the French finding a way to lose is no shock. In fact, kind of expected.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the French were pretty good at warfare throughout the 20th century. They held the Germans in WWI, they fought well but to no avail in WWII. WWI, they had help, sure, but then again neither the British nor the Americans(or any of the other allies) could have done it alone either IMO. In WWII they were done in by pitting thier armor doctrine against the vastly superior German doctrine along with not expecting the invasion to take place as it did. Consider, though, that the British were forced out of France at the same time. It's hardly Frances fault that they were the ones invaded and didn't have the same chance as the British to gain ground elsewhere and try again.

As for Vietnam, it's a totally different situation. It's an insurection, and not a war, and America faired exactly 0% better than France in that fiasco.

So, while France bashing is pretty common in the US(not sure where you're from, btw), it's also mostly misguided.

[Chupacabra]

The French also had some very good generals in Vietnam.

I'd suggest Vietnam, by Stanley Karnow, as a good place to start if anyone's interested. He covers the First Indochinese War in more detail than any other general history I've read.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Formerly Babra]

The "military crest" of a hill is not the top of the hill. It is just below the geographical crest, on the slope, preferably the reverse slope. That's where ya wanna be.

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade Balonium to me.

[109 Gustav]

Getting back to hills, being uphill from a target increases the slope of a tank's armor. If you have armor sloped at 50 degrees, and you are on a hilltop above an enemy tank in such a way that he must elevate his gun 10 degrees above level, then your armor is effectively sloped at 60 degrees, and is therefore effectively tougher.

Of course, the reverse is also true. If you have a Panther below a hill, and the enemy is depressing his gun at 10 degrees, your armor is a lot less effective.

------------------

No one but the enemy will tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you. -Ender's Game

[Pak40]

Chairman,

The high ground does have it's advantages but it needs to be used properly. I've also had many instances where my units on high ground were just shot up, but I eventually learned which units should sit on the top of a hill and which units should not.

Here's what I've learned:

1. Unless your tank has great frontal armor, then sitting him on top of a hill isn't a great idea.

2. If you do decide to place a tank ontop of a hill use the reverse slope a lot and only peak out every once in a while. Have a leg unit hidden ontop of the hill to do the spotting for the tank.

3. If there is some sort of cover on top of a dominating hill (trees, buildings, brush) then your artillery spotters should be there. They will be able to call fire missions down on most of the map. They wont be seen as long as you dont move them. If the hill is void of cover, then it's prbably not worth occupying execpt by a sniper (used as a scout) which brings me to #4...

4. The reason why high ground is so important is because it offers the commanders the ability to scout the battlefield, not place his big guns on top. The commander who knows where the enemy is and what he has is the one who has the biggest advantage.

5. The most common units I put on top of a dominating hill are: AT guns (Im always willing to trade one AT gun for 1 tank), Art. spotters, and some sort of scouting unit.

I almost never put infantry on top of a hill, it's too easy for them to get clobbered from a long distance by an enemy tank. Infantry are better in the valley's in cover.

A Sherman or PZ IV on top of a hill is just asking for his own death.

hope I helped