Crack & Elite... supermen?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I'm wondering what other players experience has been when playing against Crack & Elite troops? I've recently been engaged in a couple of games where I have three times caught out crack/elite full squads (once) and half squads (twice) running in the open and being fired on by my (admittedly) half squads at less than 40 metres range and not even a scratch!

The classic situation was when my American half squad was moving through scattered trees and less than 30 metres away a German crack half squad was running pretty much paralell to mine. My squad finished its movement & then unfortunately the turn finished. Next turn my veteran half squad turns to fire at the Geman half squad caught in the open at under 30 metres & misses completely. To add insult to injury the German unit in its one burst kils one of my guys, runs back to where some woods are 20 metres away & proceeds to decimate the Americans. Whoa boy... these Crack & Elite squads seem impervious to fire when caught in the open & its happened 3 times now.

Anybody else noticed this behaviour either when firing at or using crack or elite squads themselves?

Regards

Jim R.

[Jarmo]

My experience has been the opposite. I was expecting to get a bit better mileage out of "the best of the best".

Never had too much trouble facing elites with regulars or even greens.

You might have something with the "in the open" thing. Don't remember if I've ever fired at elites in the open.

----

edit. yes I remember, my ambushing greens wiped out a bunch of elites attacking over open space.

[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Jarmo ]

[The Commissar]

Ive had vastly varrying experiences with units caught in the open no matter what experience they are. Sometimes it seems the bastards can run through a wall of bullets without so much as a scratch! Other times, you see multiple guys pierced with lead in a single volley.

Ive always pictured this to be an account from a book called "Phase Line Green" about the Vietnam war, specifically the fighting for Hue city.

There was one part where a nearly blind GI rushed across a street in full view of enemy fire 2 whole times without a scratch, while others guys were shot to hell and back doing the same. It's mostly freakish luck the way I see it. You never know what you're going to get.

[chrisl]

I've had some mixed experiences with Crack and Elite troops too. They don't break (or even cower), so they put out a huge amounts of fire, which is good. But if you run them at a position and it turns out to be defended with way more than you though, they will get cut to pieces trying to make it there, where regular or vets would be smart enough to run away and try something else.

[Slapdragon]

This all is not that unusual, although I would have to call crack and elite units rare groups of men in elite organizations.

A combination of training and experience can create a state where the battlefield seems to slow down, and where all but the most deadly attack can be ignored unless more important things are at hand. Since the vast majority of bullets are fired just to force an enemy's head down, they will thus have little effect on a person whose head never goes down, except the 1 in 10,000 which find there mark.

That is not to say that death or wounding of a key team member or some other issue wont break them, just that the ordinary "combat" pressures are very distant compared to their sense of mission.

[argie]

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

I've had some mixed experiences with Crack and Elite troops too. They don't break (or even cower), so they put out a huge amounts of fire, which is good. But if you run them at a position and it turns out to be defended with way more than you though, they will get cut to pieces trying to make it there, where regular or vets would be smart enough to run away and try something else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you remember that old times game, you attacking with Elites and Cracks against my Conscripts and Greens, through an open terrain? Which was the final score? 96/4 or 94/6?

[chrisl]

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

Do you remember that old times game, you attacking with Elites and Cracks against my Conscripts and Greens, through an open terrain? Which was the final score? 96/4 or 94/6?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All too well. That's what I was referring to, in fact. Those guys just kept running straight into close range fire, and when they run they don't fire much to suppress the defenders. They were cut to pieces. My stupid Hellcat wouldn't shoot either.

[Warmaker]

I've generally had good experience with crack/elite troops. No, they're definitely not invincible but a much, much more reliable and effective group of men. Don't be stupid with them and you'll get good mileage out of them.

If there is one bad trait for such costly troops is that they're expensive. Battles of attrition are something you should devoutly avoid when using crack/elite heavy forces.

A mixed group dominated by regular infantry with a smaller crack/elite infantry unit is becoming one of my favorite experience mixes. Send the "super/ubermen" to take on those tough objectives or to hold on tenaciously to that vital objective.

[Pzman]

If you get snipers...there the best. Tank crews react faster...most of time. Supermen...no...very well experanced in Combat yes.

[PiggDogg]

In a computer troop selection, all infantry, USA assault scenario against a good player in thick fog, I attacked with a mere 3 elite US rifle platoons & 1-105 spotter against, as it turns out, 8 conscript german rifle platoons plus log pillboxes.

I advanced carefully through the 80 meter LOS fog into a portion of the German line. My elites got chopped up with about 40% casulaties & the 105 spotter dead. I thought that I had lost the game.

I looped all my remaining men to my far right and formed into an almost Napoleonic style combat column. Low & behold, I broke into the German line & swept down it. My elite GIs literally herded the conscript Germans like cattle. Every time my guys fired at the conscripts, the conscripts fled. After my rawhide type herding down the German line, the game ended as a draw after my stupidity had gotten my guys nearly annihilated.

I have a friend defending against the AI in an attack scenario with his elites against AI conscripts. I understand the elites slaughtered scads of conscripts but the elites simply ran out of ammo and were overwhelmed by warm conscript bodies.

The long and short for elites/cracks is to treat these infantry quite carefully like you would treat all your forces (infantry & vehicles). Don't let them get caught in the open by any fire or in cover by arty. They can advance or hold against substantial odds. However, if possible, one must let them take on even numbers. If that occurs, they will probably prevail, unless the queen of battle (arty) makes a mess of them.

No Cheers right now because of the recent disaster, Richard

[CMplayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Cuccia, the PiggDogg:

the queen of battle (arty)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very interesting post. I just have a minor niggle: Infantry is the queen of battle. Arty is the king. An' thass a fact.

[PiggDogg]

CM Player, I have always had the impression that arty was the "Queen Of Battle". However, I could be wrong. I would be interested in your sources. I actually do not have any sources that I can put my hands on & present.

I would doubt that a dogface on the ground would feel like the "King Of Battle" when they are the most numerous, most vulnerable, most targeted, and suffer the most casualties. However, I would 'guess' that infantry is the King Of Battle.

Here is a thought! In order to hold ground, dogfaces must occupy the ground. Everything else (arty, armor, air, blah, blah) 'supports' the dogfaces to hold the ground. Logically, everyone supports the king (infantry). Thus, infantry is the "King Of Battle'! Ta Da!! (Impecable logic, eh? )

Jason C, come in here & give us your sources & knowledge & settle this 'important' (really, it is not important at all) subject.

Indeed, in light of the recent tragedy, this is the first time that I have smiled in almost a week.

No Cheers, I am sad and angry :mad: , Richard

[CMplayer]

(for starters, with thx to F.S. Trenchknife for the link)

[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[CMplayer]

Or try reading this and also this.

regards,

--Rett

[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[CMplayer]

And if the above two exhibits don't convince you, let's look at the logic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

In order to hold ground, dogfaces must occupy the ground. Everything else (arty, armor, air, blah, blah) 'supports' the dogfaces to hold the ground. Logically, everyone supports the king (infantry). Thus, infantry is the "King Of Battle'! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about: Cannons are phallic, rest on thrones and belch fire like Kings. Infantry do the sh*twork, like women often are expected to do. Ergo, presto, logically you are refuted...

[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[Joerg]

Would anyone like to play a PBEM vs. me - one side gets inf only, the other only armor ? Not sure about the outcome, but maybe this could settle the debate

Jörg :confused:

[Slapdragon]

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

Would anyone like to play a PBEM vs. me - one side gets inf only, the other only armor ? Not sure about the outcome, but maybe this could settle the debate

Jörg :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We fought actions just like these some time ago about this same argument. We found that infantry in defense were king if they just kept there heads down and made the tanks come to them. The Infantry were the only branch which could fight unsupported. Armor alone did not have the ability to dislogde determined infantry especially in close terrain, while a lot of artillery of course never could do the job alone either.

On the other hand, infantry had a great deal of difficulty developing an attack of any sort unless the ground was completely rugged.

[PiggDogg]

CMPlayer,

My head is bowed & I am sufficiently chastised.

However, you do not have any sources that support my position ????? You just gotta have just one, huh?

No cheers yet, Richard

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

We fought actions just like these some time ago about this same argument. We found that infantry in defense were king if they just kept there heads down and made the tanks come to them. The Infantry were the only branch which could fight unsupported. Armor alone did not have the ability to dislogde determined infantry especially in close terrain, while a lot of artillery of course never could do the job alone either..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And in real life.

Look to the first attacks by the DAK against the Tobruk perimeter in 1941.

Infantry held their ground, armour (and that is how it is spelt too ;)over ran the positions and advanced in the then conventional idea of paralysing the enemies rear areas. Supporting infantry was stopped by the "over run" troops while the armour was stopped and destroyed by anti-tank and tank forces.

It depended on the morale of the troops holding the front lines to be successful.

Contrast against similar actions against the perimeter in 1942. Troop morale failed (or was it in reality their commanders morale ?) and the port fell.

On the other hand, infantry had a great deal of difficulty developing an attack of any sort unless the ground was completely rugged.

Interesting...

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> On the other hand, infantry had a great deal of difficulty developing an attack of any sort unless the ground was completely rugged.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite natural. On attack, it is essential to suppress enemy "strongpoints"

before assaulting them. Plain rifle&MG fire can do it, but not without running out of ammo, and then the attack is over. Infantry would also have great difficulties attacking tanks.