Panzergrenadiers

[TheDesertFox]

2) 'fighting' is meant to be 'spraying a bit of suppressive fire as you drive by quickly, leaving the enemy that you see for the dismounts that are following behind you. In other words, use the machine gun to suppress, keep driving to your objective, and dismount and fight there-dismount as late as possible (dismount=delay and thus a loss of speed on the battlefield), stick with the tanks, leave the dug in enemy and bypassed enemy for the truck mounted or marching soldiers to your rear, and roll on as long as possible.

Steve,

Exactly that is what "fighting while mounted" meant. Stay with the tanks and stay mobile as long as possible. Suppress the enemy (nothing more is possible while driving) at the maximum to keep the momentum of the tank attack.

Helge

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

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: TheDesertFox@gmx.net

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[Stephen Smith]

Desert Fox-

I think we are on the same sheet of music. I would guess that you are correct wrt the panzergrenadiers-they are expected to bypass resistance whenever possible in order to keep up with the tanks, and dismount only at the decisive point of the battle (just as modern, including American, armies are expected to). But Michael is also correct: what is being portrayed in a typical CM battle? More than likely, it IS THE DECISIVE POINT-i.e. the point when panzergrenadiers SHOULD dismount. If it weren't the decisive point, if it were an earlier stage of the battle when the panzergrenadiers are expected to stay mounted and shoot from their vehicles, then it would be a boring scenario-panzergrenadiers attack, suppress the defenders with quick machine gun fire, and drive off the far end of the map.

Thus, I think the debate is really one of the definition of 'fighting.' Panzergrenadiers are expected to 'fight' from their vehicles when possible during the early stages of a breakthrough, but in this case, 'fight' means 'spray with a machine gun, suppress, and drive around.' The enemy remains largely intact, the ground that they occupy is not the ultimate objective (and at the end of the 'fighting', they still occupy it), and there has not been a 'fight' in the sense of a CM scenario. But when panzergrenadiers DO 'fight' in the CM sense (i.e. destroy the enemy positions, occupy those positions, overrun foxholes, etc), they dismount to do it, and use the halftrack as a mobile machine gun mount.

steve

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Ollie, ... don't forget that IFVs have firing ports so the troops can fire from inside in safety) are very large ones, not to mention the doctrinal changes that have occurred since 1945.

Where are the firing ports on M113, BTR-series or Sisu?

IFVs fit the description too, but I didn't restrict doctrine to those.

As for CM: I just ran a scenario with a PzGrenadier company, supported by three 81mm spotters, attacking a French infantry platoon, supported by two Zook teams, two 60mm mortars, one 81mm spotter, one .50cal HMG and one M1919 MMG.

All units Veteran, pretty open terrain, damp ground. 240x1600m map size.

The French units had foxholes, but no other fortifications.

The German arty first shelled with HE for two turns, then switched to smoke as two platoons moved forward (mounted) at full speed across the remaining couple of hundred metres. The third platoon followed a few hundred metres behind.

The Panzergrenadiers dismounted well within 20m from the enemy, and easily moved them down with overwhelming firepower.

The German vehicle losses were one halftrack hit by 60mm mortar and a couple of halftracks bogged.

Infantry losses were one and a half squad, that were a bit too fast to reach the enemy.

I've saved this scenario if someone else would like to try it.

Cheers

Olle

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

Webmaster of Combat Mission för svensktalande, a CM site in Swedish. Norwegians, Finns, Danes and Icelanders are also welcome as members, others can still enjoy pictures and downloads.

Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight...

Detta har kånntrollerats av Majkråsofft späll-tjäcker.

[TheDesertFox]

I will also apologize if I've caused any offence

Michael,

No offence here. I guess I will have to further refine my english skills. There is always something to improve

As for CM: Personally speaking it is no show stopper for me [see: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/006571.html ]

We had a related discussion in the past. I have to admit though that I think it would be a nice feature for CM-2.

As for the scale of CM. IMHO it depends on the scenario you are playing/designing. If e.g. it is a breakthrough, latewar doctrine was to use an Infanterie Division for the break in and to use Panzerdivisions for the exploitation. I think fighting while mounted should be modelled with very limited accuracy if it is possible to code this in. As already mentioned, the main purpose was to keep the bad guys head down and it was not the purpose to hit a fly at 500 metres.

Helge

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

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: TheDesertFox@gmx.net

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[Michael Dorosh]

Ollie - an M113 isn't an IFV. It is an APC. Hence, no ports.

[Robert Mayer]

As for being safer in a halftrack than on the ground - not on your life. The armour on a halftrack is easily penetrated at combat ranges by .50 and even .30 calibre machine gun bullets. I think you presume open ground is billiard table flat - not so; a good infantryman can always find a way to hide and protect himself in seemingly "open" terrain.

That's as may be, though I'm quite aware the ground isn't billiard-table flat. From what I've seen of human nature, though, I'd suspect some troops, particularly thouse not experienced enough to have different thoughts, would assume that some steel was better than no steel. Just suggesting reasons why folks might stand and fight inside a halftrack, not saying it was the best tactic possible.

I could be wrong on this, but I understood the purpose of the BMP was to allow Warsaw Pact infantry to support armor within an NBC enviroment, not to conduct assaults on prepared positions while fully loaded.

Never said the idea was to assault a prepared position fully loaded, though I've see doctrinal stuff that suggested that even that sort of attack might be tried, at least in theory. My point was simply to show that the idea of troops firing from armored transport isn't inherently so ludicrous that no one would rationally suggest it .

I do agree though with the general thrust here that it depends on the mission, as to whether dismounted or mounted combat is called for, and with the equally general consensus that firing while mounted ain't terribly effective.

[Michael Dorosh]

Robert - good points.

[Steve McClaire]

This definitely seems to be the hot topic.

One comment on doctrine: The way an army plans to fight is not always the way it ends up having to fight. The US Army had a doctrine that said it's tanks should not be engaging enemy tanks -- that was the job of the tank destroyers. Unfortuantely, someone forgot to tell the Germans to leave the Shermans alone and go fight the Hellcats instead. US tanks had to engage enemy tanks as best they could -- all US Army doctrine did was prevent the introduction of better tank-fighting tanks.

The doctrine in the German army may have been for panzergrenadiers to go into battle mounted, but I would suspect that they didn't do this very often on the western front of 1944-45. Still, as Olle Petersson pointed out, there's nothing in CMBO that prevents you from making a mounted attack; you just lose a little bit of suppressive fire (the effectiveness of which has been doubted by more experienced posters than myself). If you want to attack while mounted, go for it -- if it fails, I think it will probably be because the enemy had adequate AT defenses or artillery, not because your mounted troops don't fire their rifles.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Ollie - an M113 isn't an IFV. It is an APC. Hence, no ports.

Exactly my point. The tactics still apply, firing ports or not. I can't recall any Swedish APC/IFV having firing ports, the soldiers are supposed to stand up and fire from the roof hatces. (Just like the BTR and M113.)

Cheers

Olle

[Paul Lakowski]

Most of what I've read supports the concept of SPW as suppressive fire assets to support the Panzers during the break through and provide a battle field taxie to closely follow those same tanks and be on hand to dismount and hold ground once won.

The second MG on the SPW was supposed to be the squad MG. Kurt Mayers has some very good examples of this employment in early 1943. The SPW bn ran through several russian Bns [ shattering them in the processs] the return fire was almost none existant as the attacks were over so fast.The impression left on the Russians was decisive.

Its clear SPW Bn were manuever weapons best used in the pursuit phase along side rampaging Panzer companies,relying on speed and suprise to catch there enemy off balance and defeat him that way.

Part of the problem here, is that there was a war before Overlord, but most people see WW-II as 1944 only .The war was over by then and the inventory stock of SPWs probably could only support a couple of companies per Panzer division.

Lets be clear here, thats 2-3 SPW companies out of 16 panzer grenadier companies per Pz Division . Thats 35-40 pz divisions out of , what 300-400 divisions, so they were as frequent as 1 to 2% of the infantry units.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Ollie - an M113 isn't an IFV. It is an APC. Hence, no ports.

You don't need ports to be an IFV, the M2 have done away with them.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by CavScout:

You don't need ports to be an IFV, the M2 have done away with them.

How is it then an IFV vice an APC?

[Stephen Smith]

Mike-

I'm not sure that there is a really good difference between IFV and APC. I know that doctrinally, the M2 has a specific role in squad tactics-that of the base of fire for the squad, so that all dismounts in the modern squad (I think 6) are the maneuver element; the crew of the M2 (3 guys) are expected to lay down the base of fire for the dismounts with their machine gun, 20mm, and, if necessary, anti-tank missile.

The M113 had a machine gun mounted on top, and I am sure that it would be used in the same way (base of fire) but I'm not sure whether doctrine called for it.

So the difference between APC and IFV? Probably IFV is 1) better armor, 2) more weapons, and 3) doctrinally intended to be used in a firefight. Because the APC could be used the same way, albeit less effectively, its really not strict difference between the two.

steve

[Robert Mayer]

It seems that the main difference between an APC and an IFV is firepower, at least in practice. AFVs tend to be "armored taxis," with maybe a MG or two, while IFVs usually have a light autocannon plus an ATGM, or something equivalent.

Besides, maybe it's easier to get funding when you tell Congress or Parliament or whomever "it's an Infantry FIGHTING Vehicle" than when you say "it's an Armored Personnel Carrier."

As for doctrine vs. reality, a very good point. What then should a game replicate? Armies are built and equipped according to doctrine, but they have to fight according to the reality on the ground; the example of the US and its antitank policies in WWII is an excellent illustration of what happens when doctrine doesn't match up with reality.

If a game assumes armies fight (for purposes of AI modeling and the like) according to doctrine, then you get weird things happening, and most likely you get an AI that gets its butt kicked, as players will learn and it won't. If you base your AI on what the armies in question should do, though, will you compromise historical accuracy?

I rather suspect you need to model it closer to what happened, rather than to what was planned, but the question is a live one.

[Guest Michael emrys]

I think it would be possible to set up a Blitzkrieg style scenario in CM, but it should be kept in mind that the Germans were pretty much out of the Blitzkrieg business after Kursk. So in CMBO it would be the Allies (and among them more likely but not exclusively the American) doing the Blitzing.

You would start off with a fairly good-sized map of fairly open terrain. It would be defended by a thin line of low-grade or demoralized troops with little or nothing in the way of anti-armor assets.

The attacker would be in two groups. The first would consist of tanks with armored infantry. The armored infantry would bring along mortars and towed AT guns and maybe a little flak. Their job would be to find a weak spot in the line, bust a hole through it, and then exit the opposite side of the map as quickly as possible.

The second attack group would follow a few turns behind the first and would consist of truck-mounted infantry with their usual accoutrements. Their job would be to clear the map of enemy units and to capture and hold important locations.

One thing needs to be made clear: The brilliant success of Blitzkrieg tactics in the early part of the war depended in no small part on its being applied against enemies who were not prepared to resist it. Rommel in his memoirs describes his penetration of the French line, firing guns in all directions on the move, not stopping to take prisoners but waving them to the rear. These French soldiers, not the best in the French army, were ready to surrender as soon as an enemy got into their rear.

Things got a bit different once the war moved into Russia. While there were some huge mass surrenders, what struck the Germans more, as detailed in Kershaw, was how often the Soviet soldiers stuck to their guns even after being surrounded, and had to be killed one by one in a terrible and tedious process. This both slowed the pace of the Blitzkrieg and caused severe attrition and exhaustion of the German forces, especially among the Panzergrenadieren.

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Stephen Smith:

The M113 had a machine gun mounted on top, and I am sure that it would be used in the same way (base of fire) but I'm not sure whether doctrine called for it.

This is wandering just a little off the theme of the thread (but then that's nothing new, is it? ), but the Israelis took the M113 and turned it into one hell of an armored cavalry vehicle in the early '70s. I think it was armed with three MGs and two 60mm mortars. They were intended to fight mounted. In fact all their armored infantry was so accustomed to fighting mounted, that they came up a little short when circumstance compelled them to fight dismounted. E.g., in the battles for the Chinese Farm, they had to send for the paratroops who were still accustomed to fighting on foot.

Michael

[Kingfish]

Michael,

I suggest you try the "Mortain" scenario (not the "drive to Mortain" Op). It is laid out exactly like as you described, with recon / armd. inf / AFVs in one wave and Mot. inf and support following behind. And the map is huge, with lots of room to try out Blitz tactics. It does involve setting waypoints for numerous vehicles, but if you can live with that then definetly try it.

I can't remember where I d/l it from. Perhaps try Madmatt's site, or e-mail me and I can zip it to you later on tonight. My address is in my profile.

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

"What do you know about surfing, major, you're from God damn New Jersey"

[Stephen Smith]

Mike-

you are right; it would be possible to set up a blitzkrieg STYLE game in CM. But to actually simulate 'blitzkrieg' at the company/bn level is a misunderstanding of the term.

However, to do what you suggest (and I think it is a great idea) requires one thing that CM doesn't provide: a bigger map. I have been clamoring for the ability to make larger maps for a while, to no avail. And for exactly the reason you suggest-to simulate operations in depth, to simulate the ability to bypass pockets of resistance, to simulate the necessity to make wise decisions with respect to reserves, etc etc (and NOT to just add bigger armies, more Tiger tanks, more explosions and stuff).

I am presently making a map of Hohenfels, the U.S. maneuver training area in Germany that allows battalion-level maneuver warfare to be simulated, and the maximum map size (3x5 km for operations) is just too small (and admittedly, this scale is more appropriate to modern armies than WWII armies). I could get most of the important areas of Hohenfels on a map about 4.5x7 km. But this is a start.

Steve

[Vanir]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Their job would be to find a weak spot in the line, bust a hole through it, and then exit the opposite side of the map as quickly as possible.

The second attack group would follow a few turns behind the first and would consist of truck-mounted infantry with their usual accoutrements. Their job would be to clear the map of enemy units and to capture and hold important locations.

Great idea. I think I now have a new item on my CM2 wishlist

This could be a new type of engagement. Instead of just attack or meeting engagement we could have a "breakthrough" type of game that you describe. I remember from my old Panzer Leader days, some of the funnest and most challenging scenarios were like this. Adding this function to QBs would be very nice.

But as pointed out, it would require the maps to have more depth than current QB maps.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 02-08-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Fighting mounted means shooting with the 'tracks MG(s), and other heavy weapons (more on those below). And keeping moving. If the morale of the occupants of individual 'tracks is raised by firing bullets at wild arcs through the air, and they have the ammo to waste, feel free, but it adds nothing.

As for how common the SPWs were, they were actually over TOE in a number of cases, which is rare for late war German weapons types. (It also, incidentally, suggests a fair amount of dismounted fighting, thus less losses in combat than planned by doctrine, etc).

For example, the TOE in late war Panzer divisions was to have just one battalion out of four in the division, mounted in SPWs, along with 1 company of engineers, and 2 companys in the recon battalion. (Which is already more than 1/4th BTW - counting engineers and recon, there are really 6 infantry-type battalion units and 1/3rd are SPW in the TOE layout).

But in reality, the armored cars for the recon guys were in very short supply, and SPWs weren't, so there are a lot more SPWs in the recon battalions in reality, than in the TOE. You see the little ones, the 250 series, there in large numbers in several cases, for example. (The 251 series, full squad size, were in higher "demand" from the PzGdrs).

Thus in Normandy one Pz Div. recon battalion was authorized to have 42 armored cars, 42 SPW 251, and one company on motorcycles. But it actually had 14 armored cars of two types, 7 captured French light tanks, 35 SPW 251 plus 2 mortar carriers, and a whopping 56 SPW 250s (which were obviously being counted as "1/2 a vehicle"). The motorcycle company was on bicycles, by the way. Now, that is 91 armored halftracks sporting MGs, in a recon battalion. You bet their "mounted" fire would matter, even as just that many MGs (let alone that times two) with nothing else added in.

I find several other formations above TOE for SPWs in Normandy. It was common for 1 battalion per regiment, instead of in the whole division, to be so mounted - one finds this in the SS formations and in 1 of the army formations. And in Panzer Lehr, probably the most over-stuffed formation in the German army in WW II (it was the "training" division), all four PzGdr battalions and all the enginners were in SPWs.

In addition, they PzGgr units have other assets besides the infantry-carrying halftracks and their MGs. A regiment had an infantry gun company that carried 6 75mm infantry howitzer, but carried them mounted on 'tracks. And 9 37mm flak likewise (earlier in the war, 20mm was more common). 150mm SiG on tracked chassis also existed in some cases, and 81mm mortars were HT mounted in many.

When they talk about the PzGdr "fighting mounted", then, they are not talking about the privates with the rifles - who the heck cares? They are talking about the MGs and the gun-armed halftracks. They are suppressing infantry and crew-served weapons with MG fire, yes. They are also dumping 81mm mortar rounds on them, calling in divisional artillery fire from 105mms or 150mms, pasting buildings with 75mm howitzer, spraying unarmored vehicles with 20mm or 37mm FLAK. In all of which, Ludwig v. Studly mit his MP 40 is a passive cheering bystander (if he can see anything, which is doubtful).

The privates matter when the fighting is dismounted and there are casualties to take. The heavy weapons, MGs and up, are the serious ranged firepower of the whole organization, and "fighting mounted" just means "use the heavy weapons only, and keep moving".

"But the training manuals..." - Don't want to tell Ludwig v. Studly what a fifth wheel he is until the time comes get killed rooting strong defenders out of cover - on the ground. But he'll find that out soon enough.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Stephen Smith:

Mike-

I'm not sure that there is a really good difference between IFV and APC. I know that doctrinally, the M2 has a specific role in squad tactics-that of the base of fire for the squad, so that all dismounts in the modern squad (I think 6) are the maneuver element; the crew of the M2 (3 guys) are expected to lay down the base of fire for the dismounts with their machine gun, 20mm, and, if necessary, anti-tank missile.

The M113 had a machine gun mounted on top, and I am sure that it would be used in the same way (base of fire) but I'm not sure whether doctrine called for it.

So the difference between APC and IFV? Probably IFV is 1) better armor, 2) more weapons, and 3) doctrinally intended to be used in a firefight. Because the APC could be used the same way, albeit less effectively, its really not strict difference between the two.

steve

Thanks for the answer - I notice some vehicles now are also called Fire Support Vehicles, to muddy the waters even further.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

When they talk about the PzGdr "fighting mounted", then, they are not talking about the privates with the rifles - who the heck cares?

Me, for one, since the entire conversation came around full circle, starting with a question about the portrayal of infantry in Combat Mission and whether or not their inability to shoot from the halftracks put them at a disadvantage.

I think we've finally concluded that "mounted fighting" was indeed standard doctrine, for large scale breakthroughs etc., but at the scale that CM portrays - the mopping up phase - the privates with rifles invariably fought dismounted while the AFVs provided fire support. In the end, the AFVs were intended to get the private with the rifle to where he was going, so he could get out and walk to the final destination, be it 20 metres away or 2000.

This is what I am bringing away from this thread, anyway.

I think your comments do lend additional credence to the conclusion that riflemen not being able to shoot from the halftracks does not make much of a difference to either the game, nor the accurate portrayal of panzergrenadier operations in the majority of actions.

[Paul Lakowski]

I think your putting the cart before the horse.

In Kursk the 1st SS division attacked as follows [ The Leibstandarte Vol-III ; Rudolf Lehmann].

Engineers cleared paths through mines under cover of night and arty harrassment fire.

July 5th 2nd SS PzGd Rgt [mot] with Tiger company in the lead , followed by 2 x infantry Battalions with the Stug Battalion in accompanyment , supported by Arty Bn + 88 battery lead off the attack towards Jakowlewo. [Fixing attack]

moving parrallel to this towards Bykowka, July 5th 1st SS PzGd Rgt [mot] with 3 x infantry bn & Marder Battalion plus 88 battery & arty Bn . [ turning the enemy flank]

1st SS Pz Rgt [ minus Tigers] plus SPW Bn & Marder Company plus Armored arty Bn , stand ready until above two positions cleared [ thus gap created] and then committed on July 6th which drove 20km to the second line, about 8-10 Km infront of Prokorvka.

The main reason Germany was unable to continue these offensives was due to the fuel supply situation, there was no surplus from that point on...atleast not in the ammounts required to mount an offensive.

[This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 02-08-2001).]