Direct Vs. Indirect Fire

[Hawkeye]

You know, having played the TacAI for most of my CM career, I've noticed from studying the tactics of other players online that they employ Indirect Fire much more often and with greater effectiveness than I do. I'm the kind of guy who, when given the chance to purchase his troops, maxes out his points on infantry. There's something enormously satisfying to me about purchasing a company, or better yet, a battalion of men. I mean sure, I'll usually get a couple of 81 FO's and maybe some 105's, but infantry are my workhorse. Fionn Kelly, on the other hand (at least according to the AAR's I've viewed), ADORES artillery. Thus, it has only recently occurred to me the potentially (very) large differences in style that one might see between Combat Mission commanders. I, like I said, love infantry, and, therefore, I look at all other units as a means to support them.

Last night, however, I played my first 5000 point game against the TacAI (+1 xp bonus). I was the Americans attacking a randomly generated German-occupied town on a large map. I have to admit, it was a learning experience. I had a pair of rifle companies initiate the advance first with some light armor helping at point and some shermans watching the flanks. The result was this. Around turn 3 or so the first artillery barrage arrived. Around turn 5 both companies were reduced to about half, most of which had some nifty red exclamation points in their status boxes. Meanwhile, my light armor had been annihilated by hidden flak positions and I'd lost about half of my platoon of Shermans to hidden 88's. What was most frustrating, however, was that my infantry were effectively useless now--they were either too reduced in size or in morale by indirect fire. And they had never gotten a shot off.

So I guess my question is this. After having witnessed the potency of a strong indirect fire defense (or even offense potentially) and the minimal risk that is involved in its use, I am inclined to believe the most effective commanders will spend their points on artillery rather than infantry or even vehichles. I wanted, however, to consult the CM message board grogs before I began overhauling my tactics to a less direct-fire oriented style of play. I guess what I'm really wondering is whether the direct-fire oriented commander can still oust his indirect-fire oriented opponent by anything but sheer luck. Essentially, which is better? I appreciate your comments. I hope I'm not too far off in my appraisal of things here.

Hawkeye

[Croda]

One word for you, Hawkeye:

smoke

Had you laid smoke, sure you would have telegraphed your move (at least in this case), but you'd have a lot more men and equpiment in better shape when it got to its destination.

Also, if 2 companies were beaten to half strength by one arty barrage, you're men are way too close together. Consider putting a split-squad platoon out front 60-100 meters to find those flak guns, 88s, mine fields, etc before the main body does.

Indirect fire is great because you can inflict damage with little to no risk to yourself, but you're right in that infantry and will win the battle. You just need to strike a good balance between your infantry and Indirect Fire assets.

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Hawkeye:

You know, having played the TacAI for most of my CM career, I've noticed from studying the tactics of other players online that they employ Indirect Fire much more often and with greater effectiveness than I do. I'm the kind of guy who, when given the chance to purchase his troops, maxes out his points on infantry. There's something enormously satisfying to me about purchasing a company, or better yet, a battalion of men. I mean sure, I'll usually get a couple of 81 FO's and maybe some 105's, but infantry are my workhorse. Fionn Kelly, on the other hand (at least according to the AAR's I've viewed), ADORES artillery. Thus, it has only recently occurred to me the potentially (very) large differences in style that one might see between Combat Mission commanders. I, like I said, love infantry, and, therefore, I look at all other units as a means to support them.

Last night, however, I played my first 5000 point game against the TacAI (+1 xp bonus). I was the Americans attacking a randomly generated German-occupied town on a large map. I have to admit, it was a learning experience. I had a pair of rifle companies initiate the advance first with some light armor helping at point and some shermans watching the flanks. The result was this. Around turn 3 or so the first artillery barrage arrived. Around turn 5 both companies were reduced to about half, most of which had some nifty red exclamation points in their status boxes. Meanwhile, my light armor had been annihilated by hidden flak positions and I'd lost about half of my platoon of Shermans to hidden 88's. What was most frustrating, however, was that my infantry were effectively useless now--they were either too reduced in size or in morale by indirect fire. And they had never gotten a shot off.

So I guess my question is this. After having witnessed the potency of a strong indirect fire defense (or even offense potentially) and the minimal risk that is involved in its use, I am inclined to believe the most effective commanders will spend their points on artillery rather than infantry or even vehichles. I wanted, however, to consult the CM message board grogs before I began overhauling my tactics to a less direct-fire oriented style of play. I guess what I'm really wondering is whether the direct-fire oriented commander can still oust his indirect-fire oriented opponent by anything but sheer luck. Essentially, which is better? I appreciate your comments. I hope I'm not too far off in my appraisal of things here.

Hawkeye

Hmmm... Yes. Buy arty. Buy ALOT of arty. Arty can turn the tide or (my favorite) stick the knife in your opponent and stop him from wigglin'.

Also.. Croda is right about spreading guys out. But you also have to send them forward in fewer numbers at first and staggerd more.

Have your infantry make bounds and leaps to and from cover. Have them adjust their coarse and speed. You need to do this to throw off the arty barrage or to atleast minimize it effectiveness.

You should have held your Shermans back until you located the 88s. Then used arty to knock them out.

Jeff

[Kingfish]

But for God's sake don't lead off with your 251/1s!

[Hawkeye]

Perhaps I left out a few details. It was not one, but several barrages of artillery that were coming in. I myself am a great endorser of smoke, but the gun emplacements were so wide and far flung it would've required the use of too much artillery to effectively conceal my advance. I did actually have one "screen" setup, but it didn't preserve very man of my men. Furthermore, I had no clue where most of the guns were--not even sound contacts.

[Terence]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

But for God's sake don't lead off with your 251/1s!

Yes. That would be gamey.

Actually, I did exactly that today with 4 251/1s. The rest of the force was behind a hill, and the HTs had Pioneers in them.

I was going to assault a town, but wanted to move the pioneer carrying HTs closer to the VL positions and scout things out so I would know what to shell with my artillery. I bought a lot of artillery.

So, off they went on turn 1, these HTs of mine. They had to cross a little open ground but not far in front of them was a depression and a lot of tree cover. So I figured they were safe. But a crack Daimler stuck his head out from behind a building and blew 3 of them to bits in the first turn. Irritating me.

So, I think, if you feel compelled to lead with 251s, by all means do so, but have someone large and mean on overwatch.

[JoePrivate]

Yes, for all the talk of uber-tanks or uber-SMG squads, artillery can be by far the most unbalancing aspect of a CM game, so much so my regular opponents and I usually agree on some limitation. Spreading out can minimize its effects but not negate them.

[Mlapanzer]

105mm VT loves to eat infantry for lunch

Love that Arty. I usually use up all my allotment of arty points first. Thats the one aspect of ground warfare that the U.S. had over the Germans. Oh and by the way Jabo's and such are just glamourous arty. So no comments that it was the Aircorp.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Yes, try to go for a more balanced force, but one that suits your objective, the terrain, and your style of play. Just having a lot of arty won't necessarily do you a lot of good if your FOs can't get an LOS to any good targets (though I am a firm believer in having a couple batteries of 105s/155s take a few minutes to saturate any town I am about to enter).

A good place to start is a company-sized infantry force or slightly larger, a platoon of medium tanks for quick direct fire support, and two or three medium FOs for the serious hammering. Increase dosage as required.

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 03-15-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

CM tactics are paper-scissors-rock. Artillery is the scissors, and it nukes infantry which is paper. It doesn't hurt tanks (the rocks) at all. The rocks can hurt lots of things, but they can't stay too close to the infantry and the infantry can crawl through lots of places they can't go, so it can hold its own in front of them. Around we go.

The real purpose of armor is to make artillery fire ineffective. And as you saw, light armor, the half-track variety, doesn't do the trick. And sure, it is frustrating to be under fire from weapons so big they are out of range of everything on the map. That's the real deal.

When you are on the receiving end of indirect arty, you are going to lose men. You can spread out, and especially you can run like quail when the first shells land. What you can't do is ignore artillery and the threat from it.

But indirect fire has its weaknesses, especially when overused without enough support from other arms. The biggest and simplest, is that the artillery neutralizes itself as well as the enemy - by running out of ammo.

In chess terms, it is "exchanged off", rather than a free "capture". Sometimes the units it neutralizes are more valuable, and then it is a relative success. But it never pops three enemy tanks and remains intact, full strength, like a tank can do.

So it is not, incidentally, "low risk" to use. If strong artillery barrages are called down, they *must* neutralize large enemy forces, otherwise the guy who relied on them will be badly outnumbered for the rest of the fight.

The second big weakness is slow response, starting, stopping, and moving the barrages, except on TRPs. Which mean you can usually avoid some of the effects by running clear. Eventually, the shells will come down and hurt something, but how much varies widely with how good a target you present.

But it seems to me that part of the issue here may not be about artillery, but about infantry. Infantry is always going to get messed up, somewhere somehow, whenever you rely on them. They are the punching bags of WW II tactical combat. They depend on two things - depth and resilience under punishment on the one hand, and terrain and concealment on the other. (Oops that is four things, sorta).

Infantry does not just have one "wind". It is meant to recover, rally, and continue the mission, on a shoestring at times. Hit a tank and it is dead; fire off the arty rounds and they are gone. A third of the infantry down and many others broken, and they need 5 minutes to be a formation again. But if they get those five minutes, and if their leaders aren't all dead, then they will be back.

The other is concealment and terrain. Guns don't get the full benefits of it because they can't shift their positions (easily enough to matter). Vehicles can't go into cover (though they can hide behind some of it). An infantryman in the open is armored with cotton and wool, but on other occasions he is armored with brick walls or narrow holes. Towed guns firing HE are deadly at range, but dead up close from cover.

You undoubtedly know these things, since you like infantry. How do they apply to your situation? Well, the enemy should not see a company of infantry at a time. Ever, really - certainly not on approach marches, perhaps in a "mad minute" or three during a firefight.

He should see a dribble here and a dribble there, and be able to tell that was a platoon. Occasionally he may guess right and put down barrages on several good targets. Then the targets run, and some make it while others do not. Sure you will be disorganized. After he fires, his shells are so disorganized they are splinters. You can reorganize, he can't.

Artillery is most effective when its moral impact can be made lasting and its destruction deeper, by maneuver elements exploiting the five minutes of shock and chaos after its successful use. Only the heaviest kind of artillery kills outright - the 150mm kind. Middling kinds (105-120mm) leave broken half squads, and neighbors just suppressed and down 1-3 men. Light kinds panic men in the open and pin everyone, but the effects are mostly gone 3 minutes after the shells stop falling.

Incidentally, the scope of artillery fire you will encounter, goes up more than linearly with scenario size. Artillery has a great ability to concentrate on the parts of the battlefield that are critical. And larger force sizes give it more abundant targets, compared to a relatively empty battlefield in small fights, where most of the targets will not repay the cost of a heavy barrage. In a big battle, a relatively small maneuver force may succeed with lots of artillery support, used carefully to preserve that force, but in a small one the shells will simply run out.

Incidentally, the scale of real artillery some units faced in the war, far exceeds the CM standard. Those were very lopsided situations, however, and not very interesting from a gaming perspective. (Because one side had no chance, I mean). Single artillery battalions sometimes fired 3000 rounds a day (imagine 3x105mm FO with ammo to be used 10 times over), and single front-line battalions were sometimes shielded from larger attackers by up to 18 battalions.

Such concentrations were rare. But maneuver elements could not make any serious headway against such firepower, pretty much regardless of how they were equipped or employed. When the guns were able to intervene in a sufficiently lopsided fashion, the side that had that support just won, and the other side just lost. That is why artillery is call the King of Battle.

[Jasper]

"Artillery is most effective when its moral impact can be made lasting . . ."

Yea, apparently some gamers think artillery is Evil and put artificial limits on it. Personnally I think artillery is rather amoral, but that's just my opinion.

[Leonidas]

I think of maps in terms of infantry saturation. In a QB I like to generate a couple of maps with the parameters that will be used, so that I can get an idea of the tree cover that will be available. My basic rule on defense is that I won't put platoons so close together that the attacker's arty can hit them both at once. And of course, the infantry must have cover and a decent avenue of fire. Under that rule, there are only so many platoons you can fit on a given map.

Infantry is better on defense than on attack. Infantry on the attack is trickier, but the basic idea is to keep them moving or hidden until they contact the enemy.

[This message has been edited by Leonidas (edited 03-15-2001).]

[GriffinCheng+]

Hawkeye,

Many have already made good points.

No single unit type can single-handledly win a battle, not even today. Making them work well together takes a lot of understanding what they can do, what they do not (or its weakness). Planning, terrian condition, scenario objectives should be taken in account for.

Take for example. I test-played a scenario (just to keep it anonymous to avoid possible spoiler) and tried both sides.

One big VL is is located in a scattered tree zone. It was very natural for the defender to hide infantry in the area. The attacker had a 75mm FO. I had a platoon supported by an AFV + HMG.

After 2 platoons of attackers were been driven off, the mortars started falling over the defender, the effect were minimal since I had the assets to fire at anything within LOS and the FO, id as generic infantry, was fired upon.

When I played as the attacker, the defending side also placed a platoon in that area but I had 2 platoons shooting at it from two different directions with concentrated fire. And the FO directed mortar fire to that location. Most of the defender are either routed or wipped with one final charge of a platoon and losses to my side was light.

This may be what they called "synchonization".

Anyway, sorry for my long-winded post. Hawkeye, I think we can start a MIME (mechanized infantry meeting engagement) PBEM QB to test it out. Mind you, I may not be that good nor I am trying to be a tutor of any kind. but . I believe we can exchange our ideas better this way. I would try my best.

Griffin.

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

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

Come to my Combat Missing Command Post (CMCP) at http://www.angelfire.com/games3/CMCP/