Attacking Defenders

[Tigrii]

I like this tactic a lot, because 1) the opponent isn't expecting it, 2) if you attack, the main battle is fought farther from the flags, so you have more space to trade for time if you lose, and 3) you can very easily slip around an unsuspecting attackers flank and perform a rear or flank attack, especially with fast tanks such as T-34s and halftrack-mounted infantry. The problems are 1) if your flanking force misses the flank and collides head-on with the main enemy attack, it gets real messy real fast. :eek: 2)You weaken your MLR and if you're caught in the open while advancing to your forward objective(s) your toast. Does anyone else like to do this, or do you all just like to stick with the MLR-type defense?

P.S. Happy, Redwolf?

[Screeny]

I guess this tactic is only for the real professionals in this game. Not for me tried it once with the dogma " Attack is the best defence" in the back of my head......Well as in an attack/defence game the attacker has morepts/units then the defender it seems pretty hard for me to have And a attacking force AND a defending force. What if the attacker doesn't cares ^%$^& about the flank attack from the defender and remains moving his main force to the objective flags???.

I guess this would work if the attacker is a newbie as then the element of surprise would work but other wise I doubt it. (I tried it a couple of times.....) But Tigrii: I'd love to be the attacking force against you in a CMBB PBEM, just to test the theory.

gr

Screeny

[[Pvt]Darth_grandma]

I used this tactic quite well against the computer (being the stupid thing that it is). In a QB I found a road running from inside my town straight out to the end of the map, cutting the enemy forces in 2. I sent a lot of my armor and a fair amount of my infantry down this road and made 2 boxes out of enemy. I'd gotten lucky, and most of the enemy armor was in 1 box, so I concentrated all my HE and arty into there. After toasting their armor, the rest of the infantry was helpless as I closed in from 2 sides. I highly doubt this would work against all but the dumbest human opponent, but it can confuse the enemy greatly.

[Redwolf]

I think we had a thread like that last week, I listed what can and will go wrong, because I tried it in CMBO

In summary, you need thick tanks with good side armor because of all that crap that flies into your side, but then you are screwed because they are too slow, don't have enough ROF, have slow turrets and are so expensive that you end up with huge numerical disadvantages.

T-34 in 37mm doorknocker land may work, but obviously they have to leave the infantry home. And they win on the defense anyway, counterattack or not

[RSColonel_131st]

That's quite in line with the german standard doctrine...always attack, only in the worst cases build a static defense. Germany army was very agressive in that regard.

[St.Nick]

Santa thinks you should use more molten tnt!

[jjelinek]

What would General Patton do?

[Dave H]

It seems to me that to be an "Attacking Defender", you have to make your unit selections as though you are in fact the attacker, not the defender.

When I defend in QBs against attacks and assaults, I pick a great deal of static defensive units: bunkers, mines, wire, pillboxes, roadblocks, trenches, anti-tank guns. None of these will be of any potential use on the attack. Also I think for many players these are considered very BORING choices. I know some of the "unofficial" rules sets, like Fionn's, do not allow ANY fortifications.

I suspect that the players who favor being "Attacking Defenders" select lots of AFVs for their defense. They would prefer to launch a pre-emptive strike instead of waiting patiently for ambushes to develop. I wonder how an officer who has orders to defend specific locations explains having major portions of his force cut off and eliminated half a kilometer in front of his defensive line.

This tactic reminds me of John Wayne's civilian construction men in "The Fighting SeeBees", ruining an ambush by charging into the attacking Japanese. They wanted to "get at" the enemy. It also reminds me of the excellent book on the American Civil War "Attack and Die", which detailed the exorbitant Confederate casualties from continually taking the tactical offensive.