What should I have done?

[Dook]

Two regular Russian SMG squads, in command of a regular leader +2 morale, +1 for the other bonuses, advancing approximately 40 m on the back side of a hill from scattered trees across open ground into woods. They began receiving fire about 10 m. from their destination and when they were about 5 m away a German squad lobbed a grenade in between them, pinning both squads. The turn ended with both squads pinned but only 1 casualty in each squad.

I left the advance order in place for the next turn. The squads made pathetic attempts to reach their destination but were all gunned down in the open ground by the single opposing German squad (exact type unidentified).

Leaving aside the wisdom of the initial advance, should I have canceled the advance order when the squads became pinned in the hope that they would fight it out from the open ground?

[Brent Pollock]

Hmmm...I'm certainly not one to take advice from, but since they were pinned, they weren't likely to advance much of anywhere. Two options I can think of:

1. cancel movement and concentrate all fire on the squad;

2. see if you could switch the "advance" square to an "assault" for the morale bonus, possibly put in a pause for 10-30", and concentrate all fire on that pesky squad.

[Sergei]

You can't change to assault on the fly. But since there was only such short distance to better cover, it might have been better to tell them to sneak the rest. Or I don't know... were the Jerries right ahead in the woods? Also, telling one squad to stop to fire could have helped. But I don't know if in that situation I would have done any better. The men were pinned in the open, the end was nigh.

[MikeyD]

It's tough advising for units as small as a squad. One wrong step and they're all cut to pieces by a single light mg, or conversely your squad may have been supressed by nothing more than a panicky reduced team with no ammo left!

I've been using the 'withdraw' commmand more and more. Let them hot-foot it back into cover (hopefully without being shot in the back while retreating), and give them a rest while you access just what they're facing. A U.S. army term from Vietnam is "reconnaisance by fire". Stand your men off a short distance and let them area fire the offending patch of trees. With luck you will have supressed the enemy enough for your next assault to land on top of them.

[ June 03, 2004, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Bone_Vulture]

The exact date of this battle is left unrevealed, so I'm wondering how much firepower the German squad had. Also, the range to the German squad is unclear. If this range was 30 meters or less, the wisest decision would've been to let rip with both SMG squads. At that range, they'll tear any hostile infantry unit to pieces. (Since it's mentioned that the German squad throws hand grenades at the Soviets, I assume it is close).

[edgars]

I'd like to mention that it's wrong to have your squads so close that one grenade pins both of them. It also means, that single burst of fire will hit both squads.

As for the question, i think i would use sneak command for one squad (that who is targeted by gernan squad), and stand&fire for the other.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

If this range was 30 meters or less, the wisest decision would've been to let rip with both SMG squads. At that range, they'll tear any hostile infantry unit to pieces.

But they were also pinned and in the open, so I doubt they could have fired back.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Sergei:

But they were also pinned and in the open, so I doubt they could have fired back.

Ok, if it would've been possible to get the squads far apart enough so that a single enemy unit can't pin them simultaneously, then getting the +2 morale squad leader in command contact would've done the trick in the end.

Come to think of it, that really is extreme cohesion if a single hand grenade (or whatever it's supposed to present in CM) ends up shocking two separate squads.

[Falcon988]

I had something similar happen to me a few weeks ago during a battle on some Italian mountain side. We were climbing a mountain and ran into a prepared German defense on one of the slopes. Bunker machine gun started tearing into one of my platoons in the open. In those situations I recommend you withdraw into cover. That's what I did and it worked fine for the most part. One of my squads didn't make it out, but the other two did, got to cover, attacked along a concealed route, and then flanked and destroyed the German bunker thereby allowing my advance to continue.

[Bone_Vulture]

In my opinion, retreating to cover only works if your troops are engaged at the edge of the enemy unit's line of fire (like when your troops appear behind the edge of the forest, or up the hill side). This means that your troops are pinned relatively close to perfect cover (beyond the enemy's field of vision), and withdrawing will allow you to recompose your troops and develop a new plan without a fuss.

But if your troops are ambushed (MG nest's cover arc set to the middle of a grassy field, an your troops trip it), then attempting to search for cover might lead to higher casualties than attempting to silence the enemy by returning fire. it's all a question of the distance to the nearest patch of cover.

[Dook]

Although I said "leaving aside the wisdom of the initial advance" in my original post, I think that was the crux of the problem. The two squads were too close together and once they were pinned, they were too close to the enemy and too far from cover to the rear to withdraw.

In retrospect, I should have sent the one depleted squad from the platoon across the open ground and held the other two (the ones that got schwacked in the game) back to provide suppressive fire.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Dook:

In retrospect, I should have sent the one depleted squad from the platoon across the open ground and held the other two (the ones that got schwacked in the game) back to provide suppressive fire.

SMG squads aren't exactly the best choice for suppressing fire... Unless the target is less than 30 meters away.

[MikeyD]

Attacking blindly into woods is a baaaad idea! Real 'Hurtgen forest' carnage. It might be best to place your men in some cover that's close enough to exchange fire with the enemy. Especiallly when fighting in forest cover, you shouldn't try rushing them until you see 'em already crawling on their bellies. Otherwise they'll shoot you down from cover and laugh.

[ June 04, 2004, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[JasonC]

I would have halted them and ordered them to shoot. If one of them did so (the other remaining pinned by fire) they probably would have won. A single burst of full squad SMG fire at that range would have pinned the shooter.

The example also shows why the standard drill should be one half squad 20-40m ahead of the rest of the platoon, and a proper interval from side to side for the rest (greater than 25m). Then the lead half squad would have pinned and had its order canceled, and the rest, unpinned, could have halted and shot him free. (Or most fired, and one half squad closed to cover and grenade range).

When shot in the open, the critical thing is *not* to reach cover. The critical thing is to give the unit fired on time to rally, and to let other units carry the main effort for the next minute or two. If in addition you can ID the shooter, then you also want to stop the incoming by firing as much as possible yourself.

[Other Means]

Jason, i'm curious as to why you think a half squad is better.

understood that you're risking less men but are you not increasing the rally time significantly?

as they take a bigger morale hit you have a half squad not returning fire for quite a time. with a full squad, they will take the hit, pin, the rest of the platoon will return fire, the shooter returns fire & the pinned squad rebounds quicker.

this then as the closest shooter takes fire which as the enemy returns fire creates manouver opportunities for the platoon.

if these are not wanted, you still have less men not shooting for a shorter time. especially with SMG squads where the closed range is more likely to result in significant enemy loss.

ISTM.

[Other Means]

going to bump this as i'd appreciate any input.

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by Other Means:

going to bump this as i'd appreciate any input.

Can't answer for Jason of course but I have similar approaches. I agree entirely with your post and the logic of it, merely want to illuminate some on various other options within my experience in CMAK/BB.

Forward unit would depend on intention as I see it.

If merely desiring a rapid advance, a screen of halfsquads reconnoitering ahead of the main body will allow comparatively safe and rapid progress (for the rest, not themselves). I use halfsquads simply because it allows a single squad to cover a wider front (one squad can cover a company frontage, a platoon a battallion frontage etc, unless terrain is really difficult), and leaves as large a force as possible unmolested behind the screen. These halfsquads have no serious combat value I agree. After the main enemy line is detected, they fall back and reunite before being committed to any combat tasks. I do not consider them "mine-trampling units", they are precious and if possible will be kept out of harms way, but casualties suffered while detecting enemy positions must be calculated and emotionally endured. It is better than running into ambushes with entire platoons or companies, and having large bodies of troops tied down in battles not of ones choice.

In the example given by Dook it would not, in my humble opinion, have been meaningful to have both the recce halfsquad and the main body crossing the open simultaneously. The halfsquad would cross first. And then advance into the woods some, because many a CM player likes waiting a few yards in, safe from recce and preparatory fire, scrambling to positions along the edge only after you have started to move your main body across the open. Such incidents have not ended well for me.

If advancing towards an objective some distance away, and uncertain about enemy positions, it can pay to have one squad 20-50 meters forward. If you happend to run into some local resistance, only the forward squad will be immediately engaged (normally), leaving you the option of what to do with the other two. They can cover a retreat, or help assault.

In cases of advance close to objective or against positions either known or reasonably suspected to be enemy occupied, it's normally better - I find - to keep all barrels abreast pointing forward like you say in your post (not because of risk of shooting eachother obviously but to to obtain capacity of all reacting simultaneously to threats appearing) with squads some 20 meters apart at least. But even so it is normally a good idea to wait for support to arrive and take position before advancing, and suppressive fire against suspected targets has become a norm for me in CMAK/CMBB (having been repeatedly mowed down as punishment for my deprogramming of sound infantry tactics in the years with CMBO).

In CMAK/BB I find its more than ever about reaching an objective, and firepower then becomes primarily a tool for staying alive, not killing (as it was primarily about in CMO IMHO), making it attractive to spend ammunition on fire-reconnaissance (in WWII normally called "Jitter-fire" by the US I believe?) and suppressive fire. In a way quite needless in CMBO.

And I love it really.

Dook does not reveal the context of his advance, since his anguish was primarily what solutions were available to him after having ended up under fire in the open at point blank range. So no way of knowing how one would have advanced oneself, or what assets were available.

Its not as if one has never been ambushed like that oneself

Cheerio

Dandelion

[moik]

when moving the half squads ahaed of the main force: what command is best given: run, move, move to contact?

Moik

[Bonxa]

Move to contact plus hide would probably be the best option. The hide command will prevent the sneaking behaviour when the squad hits the ground.

Run is a bad idea since they then are very vulnerable. Move results in run when they come under fire, see above. Advance is an alternative if you want them to continue pushing, maybe when the distance to cross is short.

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by KarlXII:

Move to contact plus hide would probably be the best option. The hide command will prevent the sneaking behaviour when the squad hits the ground.

Run is a bad idea since they then are very vulnerable. Move results in run when they come under fire, see above. Advance is an alternative if you want them to continue pushing, maybe when the distance to cross is short.

Hear hear. Plus you want to avoid exhaustion effects of all kinds if possible.

Didn't know about the Hide command eliminating sneak behaviour when fired upon, sounds very useful indeed actually, I'll have to try that. I (used to) avoid hide with scouts as it limits spotting.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[Bone_Vulture]

Hide might keep the team better in check, but it also eliminates all attempts to return fire, unless the enemy is literally standing on them.

Sure, if your team is pinned in the middle of an open field it won't be returning any fire anyway, but it might become problematic if your opponent decides to maneuver his own forces around.

Fire supremacy is the key. Since you're the attacker, you should always have more metal than your enemy in any battle situation.

[Other Means]

hi Dandelion, cheers for the response.

i agree that the 1/2 squad covering a wider area is good, however i feel this is kind of a one shot deal.

whenever i'm trying to advance, i always try to keep the momentum up. keep them moving and the enemies time to re-position MG's, call arty strikes etc is reduced. if i ever scout with 1/2 squads i end up with an uncompressed advance. the lead squad will take fire and the time it takes to rally them means that the advance has passed them by. you are then basically scouting with the main body. if i give them time to rally & put them out in front again, everyone usually gets hit with arty.

i think we're all saying it comes down to fire supremay, we're just trying to achive it in different ways.

fire supremacy comes from non supressed units firing. IMHO split a squad & although its fp is halved, it's rally time more than doubles⁽¹⁾. therefore you are losing 1/2 fp * more time to rally as well as leaving the other 1/2 squad in a fragile position. you've got to have this close enough to re-unite (which also takes time) but if they take any fire they are also out of the game for a time.

also, the 1/2 squad has less eyes forward. therefore it's abilty to scout is lessened.

(1) i've no numbers on this, has anyone done a test to how much longer this is...i may be basing this on an incorrect observation.

[Joachim]

If you are advancing vs SMG heavy units in dense terrain, half-squads are better: They suffer less casualties (they are less people, so less can get killed and CMs model favors small teams when it comes to casualties: The same amount of incoming hits more men in a 10-men squad than in a 5-men team)

I'm glad if the men on point stay alive. If they panic - they are at least still alive.

When advancing across the open, half-squads can cover a bigger area. A squad has more eyes, but pinned squads see less than a pinned half and the other still up.

If you have trouble with rally time - have some Co HQ with morale bonus support your advance. It can pick up stragglers. If you have a point plt for a company, put two halfsquads in front. They break - no problem, let them fall back and reunite with the Co HQ. Split next squad from same plt. Repeat. After last squad did their duty, let the plt HQ fall back and hand over the squads from Co HQ.

If you have plts with 4 squads, you can use one of each for recce. Once they fall back, start to create an additional plt under Co HQ.

Once routed squads don't have much value any more in the first line. But they are still valuable as overwatch or when following a halfway successful assault.

Gruß

Joachim