Mobile or static defense?

[ParaBellum]

Since I like playing defensive battles a lot, I'm still trying to find out what works better for me.

With mobile defense I mean a defense that (besides infantry and off-board arty, of course) relies on tanks, tank destroyers and self-propelled arty, while a static defense would employ AT guns, howitzers and infantry guns.

The big point for the tanks is, of course, mobility, but in many medium battles (1000-2000 points) mobility is not such a decisive factor IMO since the map is just too small for large flanking/counter attack moves. So the tanks are forced into a "mobile pillbox" role.

Second point: tanks are armoured and should survive MG and arty fire far better than stationary guns.

BUT: since the engagement ranges in CM are usually short and deadly, they can die very fast. Almost every gun can knock out almost (OK, no King Tigers, Jagdtigers, Super Pershings... I'm talking about the "normal" Stugs, Pz IV, Shermans) every tank.

So armour can be quiet vulnerable.

The big advantage for guns IMO is that they can (other than AFVs) effectively hide from their opponent and decide WHEN to engage the enemy.

Under normal circumstances I ALWAYS manage to get of two, three shots with an AT gun before the target spots the gun. So there's a very good chance that the each gun will at least destroy one tank.

If they see a target. Which can be a problem when the terrain resticts LOS over large parts of the map.

And guns are cheap!

For the cost of a regular Pz IV (119pts) I could by a 75mm Pak, a HMG 42 and a 20mm Flak. (121 pts)

Lots of firepower against armoured/unarmoured vehicles and infantry.

If you rely on static guns to defend, you REALLY have to place them good at the beginning of a battle, 'cause during the battle it's VERY difficult to move those buggers.

With mobile units I can wait for the attacker to show me his "Schwerpunkt" of attack and then concentrate my mobile assets on his forces.

So, what's your tactic?

Static guns or tanks or a mixture of both?

[Pvt. Ryan]

A lot of defensive planning depends on terrain. If the terrain is open your AT guns aren't going to last very long. I prefer a combination of fixed and mobile defenses. I keep my armor hidden until I know what is coming at me. I then use it as a mobile reserve to counter infantry concentrations or enemy armor. I also keep some infantry back off the line as a mobile reserve. When you set up static defenses you have plan ahead for the inevitable flanking manouever. If your guns are too far forward they will have to turn too much to deal with attacks from the side. Keeping your guns back means they don't have to traverse as much to deal with threats from the flanks. Of course it also depends on what types of forces you and your enemy have. If your enemy has mechanized or infantry you don't need big tanks. You would be better off with more HE and several AT guns. If you are facing armor you are going to want to have plenty of your own. There is so much more to say on the subject, but I thought I would put my two cents in.

[Chad Harrison]

i like to have both on my side. i go more for the lightly armored, heavy gun tank theory (hellcat is perfect example). they are cheaper and usually die just as fast as all the other tanks. guns hide longer, are harder to spot and hit, but have a greater deal of vulnerability. its a trade off that could be argued endlessly, i think it comes down to personal preference and whichever your better at using. for me, it take both!, it gives you more options as a defender.

[Panzer Leader]

I think you know my strategy

If I buy any mobile units, it would be a tank destroyer and an assault gun, both of the cheapest variety (like an M-10 and a priest, or a Hetzer and a Stug, for example).

More often than not, though, I would choose an all infantry force with a HEAVY dose of support. I like 20mm better than HMGs and I like the cheapness of Puppchens, though they suffer from their short range. If you buy puppchens, make SURE you also by a shcreck or two for mobility purposes.

I also think that the single most important factor to winning (or surviving!) an assault is the set-up. Every square inch must be inspected and gotten the most of.

They are my favorite too!

[ParaBellum]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

I think you know my strategy

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, yes I do.

But I think that your Püppchen/20mm defense is quite vulnerable to long range direct HE and arty.

In our recent game the low visibility restricted the use of arty and long range direct HE and maximised the advantages of Püppchens/20mm.

If you had a more mobile force you could've stopped my flanking attack cold.

[Gen-x87H]

It all depends on the terrain There have been times where I go the static route and the terrain is horrible for guns. No LOS to anything worth while and usually my guns do nothing.

Under a descent map I try to get a Pak gun, usually a 43. I will have it cover a a side of the map. Place some MG42s in front of it and have it wait in hiding. I will then get two inf guns. Usually 105s cause they pack a punch. Then my armor. I always buy my armor in pairs. So in a 1000 point game it would be 2 stugs. In a 2000 point game 2 Panthers.

Then get 4-6 250/9s so i can find the enemy and where they are coming from. And if possible run behind them and harass them to hell. And always 2 companies of SS rifle troops. Arty is usually a couple of 105s.

I always try to get the large armor with the Pak gun on its side. If the enemy fails to comeinto the Pak gun I always have my Dual tanks usually sitting in the middle of the map just waiting to move on what the 250/9s find.

Set up a couple of lines of defense. Hopefully your armor\ATG will perform and in a few short turns all the enemy will have is light vehicles and infantry. Then I proceed to drop arty on them and open up with 1 of my 105s. That will usually draw the attention of the enemies FO and they can waste alotof arty on a single 105 inf gun

And use the second 105 as I deem fit.

Eventually after they hit my first line of defense and overrun it they should be pretty worn down and I will counterattack with my Armor and a reserves. If it all goes to hell then I take it in the cheeks and fight to the last man

Gen

[ParaBellum]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen-x87H:

Set up a couple of lines of defense.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is IMO fairly difficult in battles <1500pts. If you're playing on a medium or large map there's so much terrain to cover that two or more lines of resistance will be either weak or concentrated around certain key positions which can be easily flanked by an opponet superior in numbers.

I experimented a lot with a "screening force" of one or two platoons but since obstacles like minefields and barbe wire are IMO too expensive this troops get too easily overwhelmed by the enemy.

But I agree with your overall tactics, only that I wouldn't spend points on a 8,8 Pak unless I think I'll run into Jumbos or thickly armoured Churchills.

In CM an 88mm is almost overkill. A 75mm does the same job for far less price and its smaller and thus easier to hide and more difficult to spot.

Ah, and the 250/9s are very vulnerable, too. I hate to see my HTs getting knocked out by .50 cals...

[olandt]

The trick to multiple lines of defense, even on a small map is decent ambush spots. Find a good reverse hill position, surprise them, then get the heck out. Hopefully they'll even waste some arty on a deserted position.

[PVLLVS MAXIMVS]

What little success Ive had defending on big maps which will stretch out your forces has come from having multiple defensive positions which are bunched up, but "rotatable" for protection against flank attacks, but are fairly close to each other, or have some fast units (jeep MG's, HT's, cheap tanks, ect.) in each.

The cool part is that if I get attacked by a single thrust on a flank I just re-orient the forces to the left or right, and if they split up and try and come against a position from 2 sides, I can send forces from adjacent positions to flank the flankers.

The bad things tho, are twofold.

One : It seems pretty dependent on either VL's being very close together, or there being a lot of good covered terrain I can use to move my reniforcements around when I need too.

Two : Each position is bassically its only isolated little force, which means it has to have its own recon forces, its own main line, and its own reserves, which seems to use a lot more men than operating my whole force as one unit. And its harder to keep track of everything thats going on because I could have a half dosen positions that are doing different things rather than operating my whole force with a single goal in mind.

[Andrew H.]

For me, the best defense for CM has always been the "static defense," at least in Attack/Assault type games. IMO a lot of AT guns (even 50mm or 20mm), spread out so that there is the possibility of flank shots, is a very effective defensive tactic.

The best way for the attacker to deal with these AT guns, according to doctrine, is to use artillery. This is time consuming, though, and artillery is limited. Assaulting with infantry can work, too, if the infantry can get close enough, but this distracts from the main attack, and often it is hard for infantry to get close enough to assault without getting eaten up by larger guns.

This leaves attacking the AT guns with tanks. This is not generally a great idea, as it gives the AT guns shots at their chosen targets; if the AT guns are set up properly, a hidden AT gun may be able to get a flank shot on a tank attacking another AT gun. However, this tactic does have the advantage of detracting least from the main attack, at least if the AT gun is knocked out.

It is probably true that AT guns are too easy to spot compared to actual life -- a feature of absolute spotting. Nevertheless, they are still much more difficult to spot than normal AFVs, which are often spotted before they shoot.

It is good to have a mobile infantry reserve that can plug holes or perform a limited counterattack to retake a captured area; this is particularly effective if they can be hidden in a place that won't be attacked wtih artillery.

I think that with players more skilled than I, defensive outposts can be effective (i.e., an isolated squad or HMG hidden in a foxhole in a stand of trees). I've seen a small outpost like this render a platoon sized unit combat ineffective in a couple of turns. On the other hand, *my* outposts tend to die quickly while causing few, if any, casualties. . If you've seen those screenshots in AARs that show about 50 targetting lines all leading to one unit, you can get an idea of how effective my outposts have been.