Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Defense Tutorial

ScoutPL

By ScoutPL
in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

 Share

Recommended Posts

GriffinCheng+ Senior Member

GriffinCheng+

Posted
Posted

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

I just finished the tutorial and mailed it to Deanco (http://mapage.cybercable.

fr/deanco/) and Mina (combat-mission.com). It should be available soon. If you absolutely cant wait, let me know and as long as I dont get swamped with requests I'll mail it out on an individual basis. Thanks for all the support!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sri,

Please send me a copy. Thanks a million!

Griffin.

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

"+" is just the beginning. Expect to see "GriffinCheng76", "GriffinCheng(105)" or "GriffinChengA3E8" more should Forum problems occur again :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snake Eyes Senior Member

Snake Eyes

Posted
Posted

ScoutPL,

I thoroughly enjoyed your previous dissertation 'Infantry in the Attack'. I've added it to my personal reference book on tactics. I also gleaned a lot of good advice from your posts, as well as others, concerning recon/scouting. I'm looking forward to your new treatise. Thanks! smile.gif

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

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Armdchair Senior Member

Armdchair

Posted
Posted

Scout PL, liked your tutorial on" Infantry On the Attack" and I look forward to seeing your tutorial on Defense. I've waited patiently for it to materialize on Deanco's and Mina's sites. Since it hasn't, I'd greatly appreciate it if you send a copy my way. Thanks and keep up the great work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Triumvir Senior Member

Triumvir

Posted
Posted

Scout,

I've read your infantry attack primer with great interest. It's covered the basics of infantry manoeuvre very well, and I especially liked your column guide. The play-by-play description of your assault was even more valuable.

On reading through it, two issues came to mind.

First, I don't know that in CM there's ever much scope for moving in column. Columnar movement should only, as you say, take place when no enemy contact is expected. But since CM simulates the FEBA, enemy contact is always expected, especially in a defence scenario.

The best defence is a mobile and active defence that relies on quick spoiling counter-attacks that disrupt the attacker. For a good CM example, see Fionn's AAR against Wild Bil. By normal accounts, Fionn should have been utterly, painfully crushed; and he acknowledges that if he'd just stayed still and waited for Wild Bil to come, that's what would have happened.

The only scope I'd see for columnar movement is when you're moving parallel to the enemy's MLR and don't expect him to ever be in front of you. Any counterattack then is easily enveloped.

Which brings me to my second point; I'm not sure that your choice of creating a static firebase and a breaching force was the best possible. Obviously it works well... but I wonder if a twin armed envelopment might have done better.

I understand your rationale for committing to a breaching attack. As you said, there's a lot of open ground to the south. But to the north of your firebase, there's a wood that leads directly up to the village, right into the back of the enemy's position. Assuming that their focus is set on covering the MWO, that is. If this is the case, that's excellent; you roll him up from behind. If it's not, at the very least you'll probably draw his reserves out, which makes the breaching element's job easier.

As I'd see it, I'd divide my forces into two arms (since I know that the enemy has half my strength, I can be sure that I've got at worst parity with his defending forces on one side, and complete superiority on the other, which lets me roll up easily. At best, he evenly divides his force against both attackers, reducing it to a straight two-to-one assault, which can usually be carried out well.

I wish I could use pictures to annotate...

My force mix would be: on the breaching side, the engineer platoon and one infantry platoon. On the forest entry force, I'd have the remaining two platoons. As my mobile reserve, I'd keep the tank platoon in the middle to commit to whichever side is meeting the least resistance. I'd also keep the FOs out of the way and call them in blind. You pay a penalty in speed, but that's made up for by the safety of the FOs, who are usually bullet magnets.

From the screenshots, I actually find that the forest position is after all the best defended. This would mean that I'd commit my tanks through the breach position, because there is never any point in reinforcing failure. If the forest force meets heavy resistance, then that's less enemy for my tanks to deal with.

I recognise that I'm probably doing too much Monday-morning quarterbacking. I also realise that I've become a Deutsche weenie, with all this emphasis on envelopment and indirect approaches. But these tactics _are_ effective and might lead to a substantially different outcome.

Do you see any flaws in my argument? I'd like to discuss this a bit more, if you're willing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Pillar

Guest Pillar

Posted
Posted

Triumvir,

Before you start with ScoutPL, you should read the discussions we had a while ago on the topic.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/012238.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/012477.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/012511.html

Read in order given above. He gives answers to some of your questions there. Aside from the unfortunate tone some of those posts took, there was a lot of productive discussion going on at the time. Now it seems to have cooled off frown.gif

I don't agree with ScoutPL's methods (at least what I've seen thus far), but I look forward to more of his contributions! Keep up the good work Todd!

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 12-08-2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CaSCa Senior Member

CaSCa

Posted
Posted

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

Why's that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the plan is not always obvious, the routes are not always apparent, the logistics are sometimes overwhelming, and luck can run bad.

Or as the old saying goes, it is easier said than done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Pillar

Guest Pillar

Posted
Posted

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

Because the plan is not always obvious, the routes are not always apparent, the logistics are sometimes overwhelming, and luck can run bad.

Or as the old saying goes, it is easier said than done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's precisely what tactics are for though smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ScoutPL Senior Member

ScoutPL

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Triumvir,

Most of the posts Pillar referred you to dealt with our differences of opinion on using scouts to recon the last few hundred meters of a battle which, as you pointed out is what CM covers. As you could probably tell we never really reached a concensus and just agreed to disagree. But let me answer some of your questions directly, so that we can clear some things up and help out those on the board who just arent blessed with the tactical prowess that you, Pillar and myself possess. (THAT was a cynical, sarcastic statement, fellows, please dont take it to heart! ;-] )

When selecting a movement formation (not to be mistaken for movement techniques) a couple things have to be taken in to account. You are right, one of them is the enemy situation. A few more are mass, economy of force, surprise, and most of the other principles of war. The company in my tutorial had a very good idea of the enemy disposition and of the ground. The commander knew exactly where he wanted to hit the enemy. In order to do this he chose a column formation. Here's why. The column offers the best control, flexibility and force protection to the commander. It offers control because everyone is playing follow the leader so it is very hard for units to get lost or disoriented on the battlefield. Which can happen very easily and often, take my word for it. With a column the commander knows exactly where his subordinate units are and what they're doing. It offers flexibility because the commander will be making contact with the smallest element possible. In this case his lead platoon. That gives him the two trail platoons with which to maneuver against the enemy with, if he sees fit. At the same time it protects those two follow on platoons for the actual business at hand which is the seizing of the objective. I cant rely on my engineer platoon to make a breach if they get slaughtered fighting through a couple machinegun nests just trying to get to the objective. Yes, it would be haphazard for the lead platoon in this terrain to use column movement. Since they are definately the most likely to make contact they use a wedge or V, depending on their platoon leaders analysis. Their lead elements would actually probably move using a bounding overwatch technique that close to the objective. But in order to get the mass of combat power on the objective at one time the company commander should opt for a formation that offers the benefits I described above.

And here we hit the crux of the matter. Ranger Instructors at the US Army Ranger school have a favorite saying. Whenever some Ranger student comes up with some Machiavellian/Sun Tzu/George Patton plan for raiding an enemy supply cache they just look him in the eye and go "Thats a technique." At the end of the patrol, if the student is successful and his patrol gets to eat enemy rations that night then it was a good technique. If the attack fails, then his technique sucked and everybody starves for another night. Ranger instructors are more concerned about the students grasping the principles of a Raid then they are about technique or even tactics. You dont get a passing grade on how wonderful your tactics were, just whether or not you stand on ground once held by the enemy at the end of the day. (Sounds a lot like combat doesnt it?) The point being that we could each come up with a way to attack the little village in my tutorial. And given the right amount of luck they would all have probably suceeded to one degree or another.

That said here are a few comments on your proposed "technique." I quote:

"I'm not sure that your choice of creating a static firebase and a breaching force was the best possible. Obviously it works well... but I wonder if a twin armed envelopment might have done better."

First off I wanted to do a breach just to offer a technique for conducting a breach. Something I think alot of us wil be doing in the future since the cost of obstacles has been significantly lowered in ver. 1.1. But take another look at my force structure. Its almost 50/50 anyway, not counting the engineers, who really dont count after the breach since breaches are some of the biggest manpower eaters in war. Now, I've split the company in half. Half to assault with, half to suppress with. I came out with a major victory and minimal casualties. Really think you could do that if both forces were attacking from opposite sides? Reliant on themselves for suppressive fires and overwatch? That reduces your actual assault elements down to a couple squads rather then a couple platoons. Now a couple squads was probably all it would have taken to take out the three enemy squads in the ville. But did we know there were only three at the beginning of the battle? What if there had been four or five squads with machineguns in support? Would two weak pincers done a better job then one hammer and anvil? I dont think so. Not to mention that fire control and fratricide would have been major problems in a two prong attack. With a "static" support by fire position I can adjust or cutoff those fires as needed. Not so easy to do when you have aggressive infantry trying to clear the same town from opposite ends.

The sweep to the rear. This brings up another controversial point for me when it comes to CM. What I like to call, "Playing the edges." I wish I could produce a mod so that anytime a unit comes within 10 meters of the edge of the map it disappears. The problem being that real world, those edges dont exist and commanders have to plan in a 360 degree battlefield. If this were a deliberate attack against an enemy position in their MLR then they would be tied in to units on their left and right. Units that would make a sweep to the rear of that ville very difficult if not impossible. Unfortunately due to the limits of the game most defences have to be 360 degree strongpoint defences just to protect a player against the tactics you advocate, which in my opinion detracts from the game.

As far as Fionns "defend while moving" I cant say too much since I havent read it. But if you get a chance check out my defense tutorial for a definately different perspective.

I hope you dont take this as an attack on you personally. There has been way too much of that in the past, myself included. After all, "Thats a technique."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimF Junior Member

JimF

Posted
Posted

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

I just finished the tutorial and mailed it to Deanco (http://mapage.cybercable.

fr/deanco/) and Mina (combat-mission.com). It should be available soon. If you absolutely cant wait, let me know and as long as I dont get swamped with requests I'll mail it out on an individual basis. Thanks for all the support!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would appreciate a copy.

Thanks,

JIMF

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...