possibly gamey tactic?

[zgrose]

My brother and I have been playing CM for just a little while now. I think he may have discovered a strategy that is highly effective but strikes me as a little gamey. He has found that when armor is going against infantry, targeting the infantry is far less effective than targeting the building assuming a) the armor has a big enough gun, the building is a light building. In our latest PBEM game, Elsdorf I believe, he simply rolled his tank into LOS and starting blasting the buildings. Needless to say my casualities were high. I have always considered a building as cover rather than a "booby trap" but it seems that light buildings are just a fast way to get killed if tanks are around.

Comments? Did the WW2 armies roll through towns blasting buildings to smithereens?

[Guest KwazyDog]

There was an article posted here a few months back describing german tactics when defending a town and how they used to place troops 2 or 3 rows back becuase of this very reason. My guess is that it did happen, though they probably didnt open fire without first knowing the building were at least probably occupied.

Id try being a little more unpredicable for your brother Try avoiding buildings for a few battles and dig in between them. Also, remember that whilst he is busy keeping his tanks occupied targetting buildings it is a perfact time to hit him with you AT weapons and tanks.

[Wayne]

Not gamey at all. This is a proper and effective use of armor. Think of the tank or SP gun as artillery on wheels or tracks. There's a film of street fighting in Berlin at the end of the war where the Russians were leveling entire city blocks using tanks and SP guns.

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

Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight.

[Vanir]

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

Comments? Did the WW2 armies roll through towns blasting buildings to smithereens?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This question had come up before, and from comments made by people who know more about it than me, it seems that sometimes they really did do that.

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

Nope, most armies did not systematicly annhalate an entire town building by building except in extreme cases. But If you even thought you might loss some men, you might toss bullets, arty and direct He onto the target, be it a building or treeline, just to be on the safe side. Try keeping you men out of the buildings until they are destroyed, then move into the rubble. great cover.

[This message has been edited by Mr. Johnson-<THC>- (edited 08-17-2000).]

[chrisl]

In general, I think it's fair game to shoot at anything that infantry might be hiding in. That's why the Sherman carries so much HE.

It's also a good move if you're the defender to keep your main forces just back of where the shells are going to come, behind the house rather than in it, or 40 m back of the treeline. You then keep a half squad or so peeking out from the more forward position to spot where the enemy is actually going to come at you.

[zgrose]

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

Id try being a little more unpredicable for your brother Try avoiding buildings for a few battles and dig in between them. Also, remember that whilst he is busy keeping his tanks occupied targetting buildings it is a perfact time to hit him with you AT weapons and tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd love to be more unpredicatible but this is the second scenario we have played that had almost no choices to make in setup. In Chambois the starting zones practically hugged the units (at least for the germans) and in Elsdorf I think I had the choice of moving 1 HT. Everything else was fixed in place. With setups like these, what choice do I have? It seems the consensus would be to beat a nasty retreat from the front lines.

BTW, is there any advantage to staying in one place (a la digging in) for infantry for spotting or defense? Or should I just move guys around on a whim? I've been "conditioned" by other games to keep my infantry in one place unless advancing.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

I have always considered a building as cover rather than a "booby trap" but it seems that light buildings are just a fast way to get killed if tanks are around.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi there, welcome to the board. I think you are mistaken in that assumption. Buildings are something to stay away from, they just so attract OPFOR. I believe levelling them in a CM environment is a valid tactic. I would be interested to get vets' comments on this. I think in CM there usually are not many of them , this not being Stalingrad, so the ammo expenditure pays by reducing the losses of men and time incurred in house clearing. Hide behind or between buildings.

If you stay in one place after OPFOR knows where you are, you are begging for Death From Above™ to come and meet them. Yesterday I played a QB against the AI. Before attacking it assembled its troops in one spot. I rained 120mm mortar fire on it, walking it along a treeline on a ridge. Result was 35 casualties out of 200 attackers and all light armour (four vehicles) lost before they even started. Keep moving.

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

Andreas

[Guest grunto]

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

My brother and I have been playing CM for just a little while now. I think he may have discovered a strategy that is highly effective but strikes me as a little gamey. He has found that when armor is going against infantry, targeting the infantry is far less effective than targeting the building assuming a) the armor has a big enough gun, the building is a light building. In our latest PBEM game, Elsdorf I believe, he simply rolled his tank into LOS and starting blasting the buildings. Needless to say my casualities were high. I have always considered a building as cover rather than a "booby trap" but it seems that light buildings are just a fast way to get killed if tanks are around.

Comments? Did the WW2 armies roll through towns blasting buildings to smithereens?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I blast towns to smithereens.

Ask my opponents.

buwahahaha

=laughter=

Yes a 75mm gun is great for that in CM. Sit back with an M4 Sherman and pummel. Those M4 105s are especially 'sweet.'

My fav is the M8 HMC.

I don't know if the buildings fall down too easily or not, but in this game you want to stay out of them until they're rubble. Here's a trick... when occupying them before they're rubble try just a half-squad per building.

When you put 3 or 4 units in one of those large light (or even heavy) buildings, and the Americans see those little crosses in there, you'd better get out of there quickly.

Everyone has their favorite tactics and I love it when the opponent puts multiple units in buildings and my side has one or more guns - 20mm on up - to fire at it.

In game terms it is very rewarding to see a large building collapse with 3 or 4 enemy units in it.

Andy

[tss]

Wayne wrote:

There's a film of street fighting in Berlin at the end of the war where the Russians were leveling entire city blocks using tanks and SP guns.

And to think that only four and a half years earlier a Soviet 2nd Lieutenant was sent to Siberia because he ordered his guns to fire at a Finnish mg-nest that was positioned in a church steeple...

Funny how in such a short time firing at buildings transformed from a heinous crime against innocent workers first to an acceptable tactic and finally into the preferred tactic.

- Tommi