SPW 251/1 leading the way

[Terence]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

Anytime you present your troops in the open, whether they are moving to and from cover, ot armored assets that are moving up in a support role they are gonna "draw fire". It may be MG fire, it might be mortar fire, it might be artillery fire, and yes folks, sometimes it's AT fire.

You speak the truth, Jeff.

I guess my point is this: Sending a unit out to draw fire (ie. drive around until something shoots at you, then hide if you are still alive ) with nothing more in mind for it than that is nearly the same as sending it out to die.

Expecting your units to draw fire as part of an plan, factoring in possible losses from that and and being able to deal with them flexibly is DIFFERENT than that.

Example 1: 10 halftracks loaded with troops race towards enemy positions behind a smoke screen as artillery rains down on enemy. The HTs are delivering troops and providing suppressive fire with their mgs. Tanks follow close behind providing overwatch. shooting at anything they see.

Example two. As most of the force hides behind hills and in trees, two halftracks zig zag in front of the enemy position, waiting for someone to shoot at them.

See the difference?

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Terence:

You speak the truth, Jeff.

I guess my point is this: Sending a unit out to draw fire (ie. drive around until something shoots at you, then hide if you are still alive ) with nothing more in mind for it than that is nearly the same as sending it out to die.

Expecting your units to draw fire as part of an plan, factoring in possible losses from that and and being able to deal with them flexibly is DIFFERENT than that.

Example 1: 10 halftracks loaded with troops race towards enemy positions behind a smoke screen as artillery rains down on enemy. The HTs are delivering troops and providing suppressive fire with their mgs. Tanks follow close behind providing overwatch. shooting at anything they see.

Example two. As most of the force hides behind hills and in trees, two halftracks zig zag in front of the enemy position, waiting for someone to shoot at them.

See the difference?

Completely.

The biggest problem with all this "gameyness" finger pointing is perspective.

For me "gameyness" in a lot of ways is like baldness. That is, it is hard to define exactly just when certain behavior becomes gamey just like it is almost impossible to define which "magic hair" a person looses before they become bald, but the fact is, when you see baldness you know it for what it is, just like gamey play.

Jeff

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

When nuclear weapons are frozen then only freezers will have nuclear weapons.

[aka_Deadline]

The art of the attack:

I have played Andy many times in battle

and he use's his equipment as they where

intended and designed for.He is a master

of the use of fast recon and forcing the

enemy to reveal themselves weather it is

an ambush or a full battalion waiting to

strike.

The idea is to fight and hopefully win a battle against an opponent that is probably

thinking the same way as you.

So if using halftracks to find and engage

the enemy then he is doing his job as a

commander.

Deadline

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

"My honor is Life both grow as one, take honor

from me and my life is done."

[Terence]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

Completely.

The biggest problem with all this "gameyness" finger pointing is perspective.

Yeah, you are right there. Its not something I really devote a any to worrying about, since nearly any tactic i've seen labeled gamey is almost always a good way to waste assets and lose faster.

I just thought I'd pass a friendly word of caution on the "HT as bait" tactic.

[Paul T. Gardner]

Interesting discussion chaps.

Lets not forget that the Germans were masters of combined arms tactics, and indeed pioneers of infatry-tank cooperation.

The coordination between tanks and Panzer Grenadiers moving into combat *on* armoured half tracks is similar to the technique employed in a purely armoured formation, since the armoured halftracks are not only troop-carrying vehicles but also *combat vehicles* - again a german innovation in this area.

It's all a matter of timing really. If jshandorf sends his SPW's out with the infantry following closely then this is pretty much as the Germans would have done.

Obviously he perceives that the time to dismount has come and that the Grenadiers must clear the way for the Panzers aided by the SPW's.

Note that I say 'pretty much what the Germans would have done' - as strictly the Grenadiers would have gone in *with* the SPW's whilst benefitting from their fire support (hence the support versions of the SPW) - not following too far behind.

If one wants to send a few vehicles on point as the Germans, then armoured cars are more suited and more historically accurate and thus perhaps less 'gamey'. Advance the armoured cars into towns or to the edges of woods, draw fire and then retreat to probe again. Classic Wehrmacht tactics and not at all gamey.

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

PTG

[Stuka]

Hi Mom!

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

Okay, listen people, here is the skinny on this.

When you use HTs, ACs, SPs, or whatever in the support of an infantry assault you are basicy saying to your opponent,

"I am am going to assualt with my infantry until I find your infantry. Then when I do my armored support units, in conjunction with my infantry will decimate your infantry. You have two choices to this: 1)Watch it happen. 2) Do something about it."

That "Do" would be to open up with AT assests and/or present you tank/TD forces. Either way, as the attacker I am forcing you to act they way I want you to, therefore I have the advantage.

Now if I go drving my HTs, Tanks, or whatver willy nilly around the board "snooping" for an ambush this a re-active position. That is, I am putting myself into the position the defender wants me to so that he can destroy me. This is BAD for the attacker, since most likely those armored assets will die without me gaining any real advantage or information.

So you see there is a difference in the application. In one application it is historical and VERY useful, and in the other it is stupid and a waste of resources.

I agree with you, Jeff, as far as attacks and assaults go. In those cases, the enemy's dispositions are fairly predictable in a general kind of way even if you have not yet spotted any of his units. That's pretty much the way I play too.

But there is one other case which has not been discussed to this point in the thread. And that is a fluid situation such as obtained during August and early September in the pursuit across France and the Low Countries. There, it may not be well known whether the enemy is fleeing pell-mell or may have dropped off a small delaying team or have finally settled into defensive lines.

So, you want to continue a rapid advance if possible, brushing aside light resistance with highly mobile and adequately armed, but not too expensive to replace units. You want something more weighty in the neighborhood to call on in case you bite down on something a little too chewy to take on with your light, speedy forces. Which weighty elements might consist of artillery and armor. Finally, if you come on determined, dug in resistance, it is then time to call in the grunts to turn the bad guys out foxhole by foxhole.

It is a pity that the QB generator in CM at the present time is not too good at depicting these more fluid situations where you do not know whether there will be an enemy to be fought and if so how determined he will be.

But perhaps some time in the future... Then finally armed reconnaisance in CM will have come into its own.

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 03-12-2001).]

[Keith]

In real life, if a commander sacrificed transport for the purpose of 'drawing fire' said commander would answer with his head. The Germans were chronically short of transport and such tactics would quickly de-mechanize the division. I am fully aware that the 250 series half tracks were designed for recon purposes. However there is a big difference between recon and sacrificial targets. Further I am quite sure the men in these vehicles would not be so willing to throw away their lives in such a manner!

[Berlichtingen]

What jshandorf has been describing is how HTs were actually used... so I guess the Germans and Americans were gamey bastards

[Goanna]

. . .yeah and what about those gamey SOB's in nam with their M113s, or those rat bastiges in the desert with their Bradleys?

[Warmaker]

Something just struck me and thought to myself,"self, how stupid you are to not know this!" Instead of sacrificing/risking any type of armor have one or two squads of infantry break up into half-squads and probe ahead on foot. Yeah, it's a little slower but if they're any decent infantry they'll pick up baddies as they advance, quite possibly drawing fire. Also, there's also another reason to use these half-squad reconnaisance units(aufklarer?). Fog of war. At a distance these numerous teams just appear as "infantry units" until they get close enough to count up the numer of men in the squad. Kind of like a bluff, which may be quite beneficial to typically numerically inferior Germans. Let them spot the targets and then bring supporting arms/artillery to suppress and destroy them. Sounds simple, but I'll experiment later. BTW, does this seem too gamey?

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

"Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima

[grunto2]

Originally posted by Keith:

In real life, if a commander sacrificed transport for the purpose of 'drawing fire' said commander would answer with his head. The Germans were chronically short of transport and such tactics would quickly de-mechanize the division. I am fully aware that the 250 series half tracks were designed for recon purposes. However there is a big difference between recon and sacrificial targets. Further I am quite sure the men in these vehicles would not be so willing to throw away their lives in such a manner!

if memory serves, even as late as the battle of the bulge, the ss were driving spw 251/1s straight into combat.

andy

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by grunto2:

Has anyone played a scenario with motorized infantry on the battalion level?

When you write "motorized" I assume you mean it the British way, right? (What's usually known as "Armoured infantry", transported in APCs that is, not "Motorised" as in truck transported.)

I can't recall having ysed more than one full company of armoured infantry. But that's still plenty!

Cheers

Olle