Thin vehicle recon

[JoePrivate]

There's a section in the Handbook on German Military Forces on reconnaissance, classified by the Germans as operational, tactical and battle. Their purpose and formation is similar to the US Army. Noteworthy IMO is the section on Battle Recon which I'll paraphrase in part here, for what it's worth...

General

Battle reconnaissance as a rule is begun when the opposing forces begin to deploy... the information obtained on the organization and strength of the enemy provides the basis for the conduct of the upcoming battle. Great emphasis is placed on terrain reconnaissance, most missions include terrain reconnaissance tasks.

AC Patrols

The Panzer Division dispatches armoured reconnaissance units equipped with armoured vehicles and numerous automatic weapons. AC patrols are normally composed of 3 armoured reconnaissance cars, an artillery observer and often engineers and motorcyclists as well, to deal with road blocks and demolitions. Tasks and objectives are defined clearly, a patrol of this type usually lasts 1 or 2 days. If enemy forces are met, action is avoided unless the enemy is so weak they can be destroyed without the patrol diverting from its main task. If enemy action is anticipated, then the patrol is reinforced with SP guns and occasionally with tanks. The patrol is never split up.

While scouting a woods, a favourite ruse is to drive the leading car towards its edge, halt briefly to observe, then drive off rapidly, hoping to draw fire and reveal enemy positions. At roadblocks, the lead AC opens fire. If fire is not returned, tow ropes are attached to the road block. If necessary, the patrol dismounts and reconnoiters on foot with machine guns.

Battle Reconnaissance Patrols

An NCO with 3 or 4 men conduct reconnaissance patrols to get information on the location of enemy positions and minefields. They generally avoid contact and retreat when fired upon.

Combat Patrols

Consists of at least an NCO and 8 men, but are usually much stronger, from 15 to 20 men divided into two sections. These are raiding patrols sent to test the strength of enemy outposts and to capture prisoners.

Equipment and Support

Battle reconnaissance patrols are equipped with machine pistols and one or two light MGs. Engineers are often attached to clear a way through enemy wire or mines. Artillery support is given in the form of harassing fire put down just before the patrol reaches its objective. In other instances, pre-registered mortars and artillery will shell during the night the area to be reconnoitered. As soon as the barrage is lifted, the patrol advances under cover of MG fire.

[This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 03-13-2001).]

[Croda]

Damned Gamey Germans!

[Terence]

I take it all back:

_________________

"While scouting a woods, a favourite ruse is to drive the leading car to its edge, halt briefly to observe, then drive off rapidly, hoping to draw fire and reveal enemy positions. At roadblocks, the lead AC opens fire. If fire is not returned, tow ropes are attached to the road block. If necessary, the patrol dismounts and reconnoiters on foot with machine guns."

________________________

You hear that, Grunto? I take it all back. I was totally bass ackwards wrong, and I admit it now, in front of god and everybody.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Great Post

Very accurate and very entertaining!

This is the best line: (re: Jeep recon)

"So set up some proper fire plan that will KO the little buggers before they find out too much, and stop bawling about it."

Perfect!

That post is sure to become an ALL time classic post as I believe it is dead-on accurate!

Of course it forgets that in CM you really can't "set up some proper fire plan". You have no interlocking fields of fire from your flanking units. You know this and your opponent knows this.

Cav

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

"Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger

Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade

Founder of the CMers who like playing the Allies Club

[The_Capt]

I think the two views mentioned by Mr. Bullethead and supported by others are too simplistic.

It isn't a question of top-down or bottom up, it is a question of historical versus game play.

All of CM is "gamey" it is a game. The creators have kept this in mind by allowing players to do, whatever the hell they want. The only "rules" are those agreed upon by two opponents.

In my opinion some members of this community wish to pursue CM as a historical simulator. I think this is an empty goal and unattainable. And I can sight dozens of problems between the game and reality..BUT it doesn't make it any less fun nor negate their attempt to try.

So if you want to recreate a WWII battle down to "cap badges and weapons sights" go ahead. And try and find like minded players who are also willing to play in this frame. BUT you are not better or superior because you do. You have only decided to play the GAME a certain way.

The rest of us (and I group myself)look at CM as a game and will use everything we can in the game to win. So if it is a coy of flamethowers and your opponent is OK with it, PLAY ON!

Problems and conflict arise when one camp bumps into the other. A die-in-the wool grognard meets a half-liquored Friday night CM goon whose girlfriend/wife wants nothing to do with him (or her...well you know what I mean just switch the gender labels around for you girls...both of you). They fail to establish "ground rules" and charge into a doomed battle.

The Grognard, with his AFV posters and manuals is slaving over which Allied doctrine to try and modelling his unit purchases against WWII OOBs. "Now did Capt Johnson have a single or gold plated command rating? Well let's see how he fought at Anzio..." and so on.

The Half-Baked Goon; "OK let's see what a map with nothin but Arty FOs and freakin TRPs will do..heh,heh. Oh ya I'll throw in 12 jeeps cause they burn good....man I am hungry....and thirsty. What is taking this guy so f#$4ing long."

Now our two warriors meet. The Grognard has a perfect Bn advance as per the "Closing of the Falaise Gap"..."Now which coy actually was forward left..." The Goon sits and giggles "C'mon you pansy assed Brit Sh$t eaters...come to Fritzy....atta boy"

Boom! Arty starts dropping like bird crap at a beach wedding. The Grognard "oh my now what was the allied drill...ah yes...very good..oh my he is using it all up at once...I think vonGoosestep tried that in Italy but this is France tsk, tsk."

Goon " WOOOO-HOOO!!....(to sleeping boy/girlfriend)...you see that?! Now for the big stuff, 300mm and another beer...belch".

BOOM, KA-F$#%ing-BOOM!!!

Grognard; "Oh my, well let me see an Axis SS Division has ###long range arty assets...oh my! That doesn't seem right. My opponent will very "red-faced" when he sees his mistake, tee-hee....Oh dear there goes Stanley's Coy.."

Goon; "TAKE THAT!! AHHHH-HAHAHAHAHA. I love this freakin game, I swear I saw bodies flyin. Oh sorry dear.....And now for the jeeps."

Jeep assault onto hill 130 is carried out.

Grognard; "Now I am afraid he has gone too far...time for a stern chat message.."

Goon; "I wonder what's on Fox or wait I think that Arts channel has Euro-porn on at 11..."

Chat message:

GenAllisterMontegue: "Excuse me for saying but your force purchase seems a little excesive in the Artillery and Recon assets."

JOhnnyRottAN: "What do yu meen?"

GenAllisterMantegue: "Well if you consult "ALL THINGS AXIS" the 1998 edition, you will see that you simply do not have the amounts you are using here."

JOhnnyRottAN: "Hey pal! If it works, it anin't broken...you callin me GAMEY?!!!:{"

And we can all see hard feelings and anger which will result as the exchange degrades into....a forum thread.

So the only rules are ones you mutually decide on and in the long run it is only God you will have to answer to in the end. So happy gaming and let's just be friends.

[Kingfish]

While scouting a woods, a favourite ruse is to drive the leading car towards its edge, halt briefly to observe, then drive off rapidly, hoping to draw fire and reveal enemy positions.

What does it say about close in city fighting?

[JoePrivate]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

What does it say about close in city fighting?

It doesn't, you have to remember this sort of reconnaissance in practice was done before the battle, as CM depicts it, was even started.

The Capt said it best CM is a game for our enjoyment.

[Blackhorse]

This is an interesting discussion. Reconaissance in CM is a challenge, make no mistake about it. I've been giving the concept some thought and I believe a way to create scouts in the context of CM is to use platoon HQ units as the scouts. Mind you, I'm not talking about taking an infantry platoon's HQ, but rather having a scenario designer place independent platoon HQ units as the scout elements. These independent platoons would have no subordinates.

This concept accomplishes several things.

First, it provides a unit with its own inherent morale and would make scouts more durbale in the morale arena.

Second, it would make the scout units smaller than a half squad and would give scouts special sighting and call for fire abilities that normal infantry do not have. This would replicate the special training a scout unit receives.

Third, it allows some of the smaller vehicles to transport the scout unit and could replicate some of the vehicle crew dismounting.

Granted, it is an abstraction, but in the context of CM it just may be the way to go.

Thoughts?

[Freak]

The_Capt: Great post!

[Croda]

Originally posted by Blackhorse:

...Thoughts?

I don't see how you can accomplish this in QB be it with the AI or a human. Other than that, I guess it's no big deal, but I don't think it would feel right.

[Blackhorse]

Originally posted by Croda:

I don't see how you can accomplish this in QB be it with the AI or a human. Other than that, I guess it's no big deal, but I don't think it would feel right.

Yeah, it wouldn't be doable in a QB. It would only work in a user designed scenario/campaign, a double blind QB, or a larger multi-player op like the CMMC or Rob/1's CMMC or the Maneuver Warfare CMMC.

[Incoming]

Being the poster of the last "are zig-zagging jeeps gamey" I feel obligated to join in here.

One of the reasons I asked that question was because just about any post I read here talks about and delves into the details of the historical aspects of this game and the accuraccy of the weapons and their implementation.

Then you come to this thread and you read JasonCrawley@Ameritech, who constantly spews fact based data ad infinitum, justify a lone(read: single, solo) Jeep Zig-Zagging its way across and entire battlefield as if out on a picnic. SORRY, IT DIDNT F*CKING HAPPEN!!!

Justifying this gamey play with an example of 2 jeeps and an M8 were commonly used for recon has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with a CM player using a lone jeep zig-zagging his way across the map. By the way my infantry, support and armor units were all hidden and I dont think he found any of them.

Now, it was only a question. I dont mind it (yet) because any opponent i have played that has done that has proven to be not that good at CM. Do any good CM'ers utilize that tactic? I would assume not, which in itself should be the final answer to the question.

Another situation of possible gameyness has come up in another PBEM game I just embarked on. This opponent has 4 M10's. He stationed 2 on the top of each hill on his side of the map. Right out in the open, on overwatch. He can see most of the map I am sure, but is that a smart tactic? Historical? I might add that he has no units out in front of the M10's and his only other armor is an M8 and a couple of HT's. So basically he is using them as his front line. Anyway, they are all knocked out now, no armor losses on my side.

Gamey or ignorant? you decide.

[Ksak]

Incoming

Submit your application for the High Priests of History and the Gamey Patrol. Putting TDs (however unskillfully) where they have good observation and fields of fire is gamey?

[Incoming]

KSAK,

Putting them there out in the open when he hasnt spotted anything of mine is ignorant, Having only TD's is perhaps gamey.

Was it normal practice to deploy a platoon of TD's by themselves ahead of infantry without shermans or other tanks for infantry suppression? If so, I apologize.

[Guy w/gun]

ROFL!

Wonderful post Capt! That just about sums up the way I feel. I'd like to think that I'm more to the middle of the two camps rather than the extreme, and I guess you feel the same way about yourself.

[Terence]

Originally posted by Incoming:

KSAK,

Putting them there out in the open when he hasnt spotted anything of mine is ignorant, Having only TD's is perhaps gamey.

Was it normal practice to deploy a platoon of TD's by themselves ahead of infantry without shermans or other tanks for infantry suppression? If so, I apologize.

Personally, I have no idea.

But if I were to face someone who had chosen a platoon of tank destroyers, I wouldn't breathe a word of complaint.

It wouldn't even occur to me to ask if TDs were deployed by themselves in that manner or not.

And if it did occur to me, I wouldn't know the answer and would have to go look it up somewhere. That would probably take a long time.

And if I did find out they were not officially deployed in the way that they were being used in the game, it wouldn't bother me. I would, however, start sharpening my mortars.

In fact, its possible that if you and I were playing a game we could agree in advance not to do anything "gamey," and I would enter into the game fully intending to play as authentically as possible and still do something to bug you cause I just don't know enough about TOE and what units were deployed with what others to make my force look like a real WW2 force.

This seems like setting the bar awfully high, and perhaps conflating "gamey" with "ahistorical."

[Ksak]

Incoming

I don't know what "normal" is. I also submit that the United States Army could not define the "normal" deployment for tank destroyers from 1942 to the end of the war. I refer you to a paper published in 1985 at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College entitled "Seek, Strike, and Destroy: Tank Destroyer Doctrine in World War II." I have it saved as a PDF file so the URL is not handy.

The gist of the article is that tank destroyer doctrine formulated in 1941-1942 at the highest levels was not followed in the field and local commanders used On the Job Training to deploy them as they say fit.

My point is that the whole concept of gamey, unhistorical tactics is a red herring because there was just too much diversity in thought and practice among the 1000s of people with command authority to call anything "normal." And it goes way beyond that with CM because the Gamey Patrol is pronouncing to a certainty how specific individuals would have acted in a particular circumstance.

[Incoming]

I have never once said it shouldnt be done. I just questioned whether it was gamey. I too salivate at the opportunity it presents.

I targeted the M10's with 75mm and 81mm mortars, sorry to say they survived. My Panther took out 2 M10's and 2 HT's and my Panzer IV took out 2 M10's and an M8. Maybe I got lucky, no casualties on my part...yet.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Incoming:

Putting them there out in the open when he hasnt spotted anything of mine is ignorant, Having only TD's is perhaps gamey.

Was it normal practice to deploy a platoon of TD's by themselves ahead of infantry without shermans or other tanks for infantry suppression? If so, I apologize.

I don't see what is "gamey" at all. Placing such units doesn't take advantage of the game engine. Having all TDs doesn't seem "gamey" as the doctrine was to have the TDs massed to fight enemy armor.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by CavScout:

I don't see what is "gamey" at all. Placing such units doesn't take advantage of the game engine. Having all TDs doesn't seem "gamey" as the doctrine was to have the TDs massed to fight enemy armor.

Hey CavScout

Remember this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/010574-10.html

you posted extensively to it

so did Steve and Henri and a bunch of early gamey experimenters.

That was one helluva long thread about 22 pages I think.

An Oldie but a Goodie

-tom w

[gunnergoz]

I'm no expert, but I get the impression that the tendency to slavishly adhere to established army doctrine lasts until the more rigid officers who insist upon it are killed off by a gleeful enemy or are fragged by their own humorless surviving troops.

First-hand exerience on the battlefield seems to be the best teacher of proper "doctrine" and next to that, having new troops inculcated by recent veterans is second best.

"School solutions" may be fine in principle, and perhaps even can force one to think in desired patterns, but once there is contact with the enemy, it is the guy who thinks fastest and gets inside the enemy's decision loop, who wins.

US troops in WW2 were admired by their opponents precisely because they learned their lessons on the battlefield and adapted to circumstances faster than the enemy.

When generals and colonels insist upon some canned approach to the battlefield, soldiers quickly find the weaknesses in it and pay with their lives. Those soldiers who live on to fight another day, figure out ways to outfox the enemy without necessarily dying in the process.

This process is dynamic and must reflect the current realities of that era's battlefields, i.e. soldiers must adapt to their own and the enemy's weapons and equipment, factors which greatly vary over time. The rest is a matter of figuring out how to personally survive on the battlefield as long as one can, with leaders also striving to suffer as few friendly casualties as possible, while attempting to meet mission objectives.

Generals who lead from up front (Rommel for instance) are far more likely to adapt sucessfully on the battlefield by watching learning and acting upon new information. Generals who Hunker in the Bunker (Lucas at Anzio) will never have enough situational awareness to maximize their effectiveness against the enemy.

Surviving veterans are probably the "gameyest" people you'll ever meet because the probably tried whatever it took to get through their war. The fact that they lived, tells us that they did something right, or that they were very lucky, or probably (and most likely) both.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Hey CavScout

Remember this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/010574-10.html

you posted extensively to it

so did Steve and Henri and a bunch of early gamey experimenters.

That was one helluva long thread about 22 pages I think.

An Oldie but a Goodie

How can one forget? I just want to remind folks of the difference between "gamey" and "unusual".

[Incoming]

Perhaps we are straying a little of the intended topic here. If you were in a 1500 pt QB, medium map, moderate hill/forest, village, Nov 1944, would you pick 4 M10's, an M8, and a couple of HT's?

I wouldnt. Perhaps I am the atypical CM player. No harm, no foul.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Incoming:

Perhaps we are straying a little of the intended topic here. If you were in a 1500 pt QB, medium map, moderate hill/forest, village, Nov 1944, would you pick 4 M10's, an M8, and a couple of HT's?

I wouldnt. Perhaps I am the atypical CM player. No harm, no foul.

I wouldn't, not because of any "gamey" feeling but the lack of capability.

[Terence]

Originally posted by Incoming:

If you were in a 1500 pt QB, medium map, moderate hill/forest, village, Nov 1944, would you pick 4 M10's, an M8, and a couple of HT's?

No way. But its cause I don't like M10s. I think they are silly. I might take 4 m18s or two m18s and some shermans.

Or one m 18 one stuart, one sherman and one priest.

just to larn em.