CM2 new unit: decoy position

[Gregory Deych]

I have a suggestion - why not include a "decoy" type unit, which will be used to simulate another unit? I've read several accounts of units (especially anti-tank) setting up decoy positions which attracted enemy fire, while real positions were able to remain undetected for a time. In addition, decoys soak up enemy fire which is not spent on the real unit. Decoy should give concealment bonuses to similar units in the vicinity, because the enemy's attention is focused on the decoy unit. What do you think?

[BlueFalcon]

Reminds me of the "?" counter in Squad Leader.

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

Stay Alert!! Stay Alive!!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Gregory Deych:

I have a suggestion - why not include a "decoy" type unit, which will be used to simulate another unit? I've read several accounts of units (especially anti-tank) setting up decoy positions which attracted enemy fire, while real positions were able to remain undetected for a time. In addition, decoys soak up enemy fire which is not spent on the real unit. Decoy should give concealment bonuses to similar units in the vicinity, because the enemy's attention is focused on the decoy unit. What do you think?

That's kind of neat - I wonder if they were commonly used in tactical situations. It would require hardware and tools to do - stuff usually employed by engineers for other tasks. I know Rommel made up tanks using fabric and wood on VW chassis in the desert, and the dummy tanks before D-Day - but these weren't used in tactical situations.

I'd be interested in hearing some historical examples of said decoys if anyone knows of any.

There are other methods, of course - simply cutting foliage and piling it would work, too. The foliage would wither and die - one of the things you have to remember when camouflaging a tank or position is that withered foliage changes colour and stands out. You could do it on purpose and hope to fool sharp eyed enemy observers into thinking they have found a position. Such a decoy would be easy to do, then - I just wonder how commonly commanders did such things?

[Grisha]

Interesting idea. My understanding of decoy units was that they were used to deceive air reconnaissance as part of operational razvedka. Their use in tactical combat might have been very rare, and maybe inconsequential, since wherever decoys were that's where the Soviets were not focusing any major operations. Thus, any German actions in areas with decoys would be a Soviet maskirovka victory. In other words, the Germans had been effectively duped.

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

Best regards,

Greg Leon Guerrero

[This message has been edited by Grisha (edited 01-29-2001).]

[Guest Mikey D]

The U.S. army did have loudspeakers mounted onto M10s designed to broadcast 'troop movements' across the front lines where there were no troops. Unfortunately, it was so top-secret the commanders never knew about them and as a result never used them.

But CM could do propaganda tanks, broadcasting into German towns, calling for them to surrender ...Kind'a pointless for the game, unless you're playing a particularly weak-willed opponent!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mikey D:

The U.S. army did have loudspeakers mounted onto M10s designed to broadcast 'troop movements' across the front lines where there were no troops. Unfortunately, it was so top-secret the commanders never knew about them and as a result never used them.

But CM could do propaganda tanks, broadcasting into German towns, calling for them to surrender ...Kind'a pointless for the game, unless you're playing a particularly weak-willed opponent!

Sounds like we need a wavmeister to get us the "The Statue of Liberty is Kaput" line from SPR....

[Gregory Deych]

Here is the account that spurred me to the suggestion:

Example from experience of Great Patriotic war: In August, 1941 a battalion of heavy howitzers was attached to a rifle division, which has received a task to not allow the crossing on left bank of river Dnepr around Nizhnedneprovsk. Commander of the battery ordered leutenant Gonchapov to select, fortify and occupy a gun position in neighborhood of stations Igpen' and to be ready to open fireat 4:00 August, 27, 1941.

To the west of station Igpen' There were two small groves and between them a young garden. Lieutenant Gonchapov, having studied district and comparing it with the map decided to select a position not in groves which were available on the map but in a garden, which was not designated on it and not visible from enemy's positions. He has planned spare gun positions on southwest end settlement of a name of settlement of a name To Ìàpêñà, and in groves he constructed two false gun positions. At 5:00 August, 28 emeny under cover of artillery and mortar fire begand crossing on the bridge restored during the night. Commander of the battery opened fire on the bridge and 23 ñíàpÿäàìè again destroyed it, breaking the crossing attempt of the enemy.In night for August, 29 the enemy has brought a pontoon bridge, hiding itunder destroyed oneand at 6 August, 29, 1941 the began the 2nd crossing with infantry and tanks. As soon as the lead tank has come on middle of the bridge, commander of the battery opened fire and the tank fell , together with the bridge span, into the river. Artillery of the enemy carried out multiple strikes on false gun positions. At last in air eight Junkers bombers have appeared above trying to find our battery. However, taking false positions for the valid ones, German planes dropped their bombs on them.

[Michael Dorosh]

I wonder if you could do this in a DYO battle by placing an out-of-ammunition gun on the map? Calls for a test.

[Derfel]

You know... this is not a bad idea... it could or should of course be a "unit" limited to engineer/sapper forces but it would add greatly to the suspense of certain scenarios.

As for the reality... well, at least in the Swedish army we're taught to set up decoy positions even when preparing a defensive position for a unit as small as a platoon (or a half-battery of artillery).

How about it BTS? Is this feasible?

-Derfel

[Gregory Deych]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I wonder if you could do this in a DYO battle by placing an out-of-ammunition gun on the map? Calls for a test.

A slight problem associated with this would be that CM gives exact information about wether the unit is knocked out or not.

[Michael Dorosh]

But only after you have "spotted" it. Will it let you see an "empty" gun and not confirm its status in the same manner that it will not confirm gun type until it actually shoots at you?

Good point - still calls for a test to be sure.

[Bullethead]

Making dummy batteries is an art of long tradition. Hell, there's even a "Fort Humbug" near Shreveport, Louisiana, which was a Confederate dummy battery (real earthworks with "cannon" made of logs) that misled yankee efforts for some time just by bluff.

The deal is, what other type of unit besides artillery is amenable to such decoy measures in a WW2 tactical situation? I mean, it's pretty easy to dig a gun pit and prop menacing-looking logs up in it with organic shovels and axes, but how do you make a fake tank without some specialized or fortuitiously found materials? For instance, modern Stinger AAM units have inflatable vehicle decoys (complete with IR and radar spoofing devices) to attract enemy aircraft, but I've never seen such things in other types of units.

In CM1, there really aren't arty batteries on the map, so the decoy question really doesn't apply. However, the Russians had their famous "PAK Fronts" and used a lot of arty far forward as ATGs, so real battery-type positions would be a common feature of CM2 battlefields, you'd think. So in CM2, I think there's a good reason to include dummy batteries.

In that case, I'd have them as a type of fortification unit on the same list as mines and wire. They'd have to be able to be spotted sooner than the real (presumably camouflaged) guns. This would be tricky because they'd have to be close enough to where the shot really came from to make the enemy see what he expects to see. And unlike CM1 fortifications, they'd have to be capable of being destroyed by fire.

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Gregory Deych]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

The deal is, what other type of unit besides artillery is amenable to such decoy measures in a WW2 tactical situation? I mean, it's pretty easy to dig a gun pit and prop menacing-looking logs up in it with organic shovels and axes, but how do you make a fake tank without some specialized or fortuitiously found materials?

You could make a decent improved infantry position decoy with tubes for machine guns, trenches, bunkers etc. Tanks are probably just better off having a starting "camouflage" order, similar to the current "dug in" order, in that it cannot be applied during game time.

[CATguy]

Decoys were used by both all sides in all theatres extensivly were enemy observation was possible. The decoy was as simple as a log representing a gun to the elaborate ones used by the allies in England to confuse the actual landing zones for D-day

[Banshee]

I believe BTS has stated that trenchworks and the like will be fortifications you could purchase in CM2. So you could just add trenches in places where there are no people and it might have the same effect.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[BlueFalcon]

In my earlier post I mentioned that the "decoy position" reminded me of the "?" counter in Squad Leader, but I did not elaborate. That was because when I posted it I said "so what does it have to do with CM?" I didn't know.

Now I think what were the purpose of the "?" counter in SQL? To hide enemy positions and stregnth. This was because other wise each player was privy as to where and how much each player had on the board. Of course this was due to the limitations of the game and an answer to stealth and/ or surprize. In CM you can't see the enemies positions until you can actually "see" them, so they are unnecessary.

Now you have to ask yourself how were they used in WWII. I believe, and I may be wrong, since I have no claim to be being a WWII expert, that decoys had more of a strategic usage, making areas look better defended than they actually were (D-day forces, factories, airfields etc.)

Now what about thier tactical usage. I think when you set up a defensive position up, which is the only realistic usage this unit would have, you would be more concerened with cover and concealment followed by deceit. Now as a comander how would you want to deceive and how much time do you have. Build a fake position, consisting of sanbags and planks (minimum to make a convincable position) or make sure you have a sound, solid, and well-hidden position for all your troops?

Bottom line if BTS is able to and has the time, I have no problem with them adding a fake emplacement unit to siphon unit purchase points from people who feel they need to have the "complete" defense.

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

Stay Alert!! Stay Alive!!

[BlueFalcon]

ugh!

Note to self, spell check and proof prior to post!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by BlueFalcon:

ugh!

Note to self, spell check and proof prior to post!

Spelling errors and all, your post was right on the money.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I know Rommel made up tanks using fabric and wood on VW chassis in the desert...

I wonder if you might be conflating two different things here.

Before the shooting started for Operation Crusader, the 8th. Army moved its tanks up by camouflaging them with canvas over frames to make them look like trucks.

Six months later, Rommel used the ruse of mounting aircraft engines (with props) on light trucks. These were driven towards the part of the Gazala line that Rommel wanted the British to think he was going to attack. The trucks blew up huge clouds of dust, thus impersonating columns of vehicles.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

See Squadron Signal's book Afrika Korps in Action for a photo of a Kubelwagen done up with wood and canvas to look like a tank.