German tactics: the spirit is willing but...

[jtcm]

Read yesterday an Osprey Warrior book, "German infantryman 1933-1940", fascinating on training and tactics of the "early war" infantry, of the "MG 34" vintage. Each squad built around the LMG; win firefights; NCO initiative; map reading, etc.

The section on tactics, lots of stuff on order of march, deployment, etc, ended with a pure infy scenario: plt movement to contact towards objective. Three squads abreast, hq behind middle plt, heavy weapons trailing. Once contact is made with enemy outpost plt, the quad taking fire goes into cover, supported by fires from neighbouring squad, hq group moves up, support weapons (2 HMGs and 1 mortar 81 mm) move to overwatch positions to support attack and engage enemy support weapons.-- this much even I get, and i can more or less do in CMBB.

Next stage: assault plan. One plt sent to flank enemy outpost. Middle plts: lmgs set up as bases of fire; riflemen act as assault groups, close with enemy. Under liberal cover of 50mm mortar smoke to cover manoeuver, the fire fight is won and riflmen close in with the enmy, drive him from his positions, occupy his positions while support weapons relocate and rest of company comes up.

-- I can understand this intellectually, but the actual execution usually beats me, just like i can understand Ikea furniture instructions but not quite do it. I should split up squads into lmg group and assault group ? How do i get the assult group within grenading distance without them starting to sneak towards the nearest bush under enemy fire? Im CMBO, would probably be easier to use, because of the "Banzai" style of infantry movement. Also difficult to judge infy suppression ! etc

[Joachim]

How do i get the assult group within grenading distance without them starting to sneak towards the nearest bush under enemy fire? [/QB]

a) Suppress the enemy alot - this involves superiority in numbers

Attack with many (split?) squads so the enemy can't target all at the same time. Again - the more start, the more will make it.

c) Use advance/assault instead of move or run - just for the morale bonus.

d) Have a HQ near who will shoot cowards - err... boost morale.

e) Remember that the TacAI usually selects the next target and then sticks to it, even if it runs to a nearby cover. (IE: Clearly distingusih betwwen those who draw fire early in the turn and those who shall close late in the turn. But make sure the latter have some time to throw the grenades before the turn ends.

If your up against an unsuppressed MG:

a) did not work

so

does not work

c) does not work

e) does not work

d) will need a MG themselves

Gruß

Joachim

[RSColonel_131st]

I dont think CMBB offers us a good way to simulate leaving the LMG's behind as base of fire and closing in with the riflemen.

At that point, you find the border where micromanagement no longer works.

Okay, you could use Split Squads, but I'd guess that they will get mixed up badly because they have a moral penalty as per the handbook.

But it's an interesting tactic that deserves some testing me thinks...closing in the final meters with a multitude of split squads...

Anyway, by the time you are closing in to handgranade range, the work should be done already. You ought to have the enemy squad supressed by at least one HMG, and their heavy weapons should be dead. If they are busy lieing on the ground then they won't put up much of a fight.

[JasonC]

Here is a primer on attacking infantry tactics, especially with the rifle and LMG infantry types, like the early war Germans.

First just get the leading platoon of squad infantry close enough for a full ID of the shooting defenders, as opposed to sound contacts.

Once that close, get them into any available nearby cover and halt them. Do not attempt to close further. This should be 250-175 yards.

Only once the nearest platoon is halted and in cover, and thus able to suppress defenders with its own fire, should the other platoons of the company try to close.

Heavy weapons from the entire company should be targeted enemy shooters once full IDs are made. Your heavy weapons should be ~150-200m behind your leading squad infantry, thus 300-500m from the enemy.

Enemy guns and MGs should be targeted by 81mm mortars, one minute of fire by a single mortar for each. If you have 50mm mortars instead, they should fire in pairs at a single target for 2 minutes. Do not continue to blow ammo on a target already "heads down".

Your own HMGs should do "pursuit by fire" of any enemy that break, to prevent rally. They should cover the open ground areas around firing defenders to prevent reinforcement of the position you are attacking.

Last, enemy heavy weapons that have already been pinned should be assigned 1 HMG to keep their heads down and prevent rally. Do not expect HMG fire alone to break defenders in cover at range. HMGs *keep* pins, they only create them if the target is in the open.

Squad infantry can engage in ordinary fire, AI choosing the target, to suppress the volume of enemy fire. But if you need it to pin or break a particular shooter, group select an entire platoon and have them all fire on a single enemy unit, which should be within 250 yards.

Fire by single squads is ineffective beyond about 100m against targets in decent cover, which defenders practically always have.

As the nearest platoon and your heavy weapons suppress the enemy shooters, their longer range guns and HMGs in particular, movement by your other platoons should get easier.

When these "rear" platoons maneuver, the idea is to get them within 250m of the enemy and inside cover. As close as 100m in good cover (woods, pines, stone buildings) if that is possible.

The movement itself should be accomplished using the "advance" command, in 1 minute rushes. If taking fire, halt a minute before the next rush with that unit, while somebody else moves.

If a unit shot in the open goes into "cover panic" (a sideways sneak order toward the nearest cover, often very much the wrong direction), do not attempt to replot a different, faster movement order for that unit. If the sneak will get them into cover within 10m, leave it. Otherwise, clear the order (backspace or halt), and give *no* replacement movement order. Sit a minute instead.

The purpose of the pauses is to give the enemy somebody else to shoot at. Movement draws fire. It also increases exposure and prevents facing the shooter. The morale effect of fire is increased if you are moving in the open. Sneak is also tiring.

At long range, enemy fire even into the open will only pin, if spread over all of your men. It is "rally power" that absorbs long range fire - the snap back from cautious or pinned to OK or altered, by unit after unit, turn after turn. The defender's ammo supply does not rally.

There is an exception to this rule, however. 75mm and larger HE will break your men faster than the enemy will have to worry about ammo. If heavy guns are hitting your moving men, you should give up the attempted movement, get everyone out of LOS of the HE chucker ASAP, and neutralize said chucker with ranged heavy weapons or tanks of your own. Only proceed with the squad infantry after it has been silenced. Fortunately, the larger guns have reasonably large firing signatures, so you should have more than a sound contact to reply to.

Infantry attacks are made slow by the need to use short advance orders of 50-100m, to stop for minute long pauses to rest or while under fire, halts for 2-3 minutes inside cover to fully rally or return fire, 1-2 platoons moving at once, and sometimes 2 squads out of a platoon moving at once instead of the whole group. Closing the average range by 100-200m can take 5-10 minutes.

You must limit your shooting at range, or a long approach period can easily eat up your available ammo without seriously hurting the defenders. They have rally power too. You overcome it by not just "alerting", but breaking, the units you choose to "pick on". And by preventing them from rallying, via pursuit (by fire from range using HMGs, or by maneuvering squad infantry into their old positions).

When in doubt, hold fire with your squad infantry until the range is under 150m. If the range is falling and your ammo is still high, you are winning, even if more of your men are down than of the defenders. The defenders can't kill all of you at long range without running out of ammo. And they can't withstand the full short range firepower of your superior numbers, if you haven't blown the ammo early too far away.

Plan to firefight the defenders from some body of cover 100m-200m ahead of their positions, not to run into the body of cover they occupy while they are still up and firing.

Only when you see parts of the enemy defense break - squads gone heads down, abandoning their positions, his fire visibly slackening, your own men rallying - should you think about advancing into his original positions.

Fire ascendency, not the physical presence of your men, takes ground. And rifle + LMG infantry exercises its fire ascendency best *beyond* the effective range of enemy SMGs.

When you do decide to advance into an enemy position, the approach group should match the enemy in scale. If it is a lone MG, one squad can close. If it was a platoon position, you will want to send a full platoon. Do not try to overload an intact defense with gobs of targets - that just generates gobs of broken friendlies.

Forget about using half squads for assault groups. They don't have the firepower or the morale. Under normal circumstances, the minimum unit of maneuver is a full platoon, not a half squad. A half squad can scout and draw fire, that is about it.

The assault group should halt immediately inside whatever body of cover the enemy was using. Only go far enough in to create a tiny sheltered space for your HQ and any follow on teams. Remember that LOS distances are reciprocal in close infantry fighting inside the same body of cover.

Such fighting is decided above all by which side enters the conflict up and rallied, as opposed to broken or pinned. Numbers do not appreciably help if the men are heads down. If neither side is broken, the advantage goes to the first trigger pull, so it is better to be sitting than moving.

There are other key tactics once in the final, same-cover knife fight. The biggest is differential LOS. This means creeping a whole platoon barely into LOS of only the foremost enemy unit, while the rest are still too far to see (e.g. 40m or more in woods or pines). Small advances are the way to get this effect.

Flanking is another principle. Units respond poorly to close range fire from 2 different directions. If not superior in short range weapons (like SMGs), then close to grenade or close combat range, from the new direction.

If you are superior in SMGs, close to 50m, or the limits of LOS in woods or pine, to break enemies before they can use grenades or close combat.

Assault is rarely needed. Advance is the most commonly used order. You can use it to move to within 5-10m of an enemy unit as long as that unit is already heads down. Normally if he isn't, and you are already in LOS, you are better off firing. Assault can be used when it is a question of 5-10m from a blind side, or getting into demo charge range for pioneers.

Pioneer infantry is the early war German version of assault or close combat infantry. They become deadly a little beyond 30m, making them perfect at fights in pine or woods. Use "area target use explosives" to throw demo charges up to 30m.

They do not need to get all the way to the enemy. They will pin or break everyone within a wide area as soon as they go off. The following minute the rest can wade in with small arms and flame against already cowering men. Think of the demos as "instant fire ascendency" - the "flash bangs" ahead of the "SWAT team".

When working with tanks, they take over the role of the HMGs and mortars. Their HE is used like the mortars, their MGs like foot MGs. They are more effective against buildings than mortars, while mortars are better against woods. 75mm HE and up is sufficient against any target you can see.

FOs are only necessary against large enemy infantry groups inside bodies of woods too large to see clear through with direct fire heavy weapons or tanks. Particularly when you don't have pioneers and the enemy has any appreciable number of SMGs, you do not want to fight in woods interiors against unbroken men, with just rifles.

Instead, drop 105mm or still better 150mm HE on their heads, for a minute and a half, before making the move into their cover. Do not waste arty ammo early, that just gives the enemy time to rally from its effects. Every barrage should be followed up by infantry in 1-2 minutes.

If you lack heavy FOs and must take such a position, try to break as many of the defenders at the near treeline as possible. Then push one platoon to the near edge and hold there, shooting it out with anyone left in range. By not entering far, positions that can shoot you can still be seen by your overwatching heavy weapons or tanks.

The next platoon should enter at a different angle, while the first remains stationary ready to fire if the enemy moves to re-establish LOS. Then you use the short advance, differential LOS, and flanking tactics. Two platoons are much more likely to do the job than one.

I hope this is useful.

[ April 28, 2003, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Wunsche]

JasonC,

As usual, a great help. I know y'all experts repeatedly post the same advice, but it takes idiots like me reading it at least 50 times before it sinks in not to try and close within 50 meters or to lead with armor...

Wunsche

[Nippy]

Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:

I dont think CMBB offers us a good way to simulate leaving the LMG's behind as base of fire and closing in with the riflemen.

At that point, you find the border where micromanagement no longer works.

Okay, you could use Split Squads, but I'd guess that they will get mixed up badly because they have a moral penalty as per the handbook.

How about purchasing extra LMG teams? One per squad and have them stick together with said squad.

[RSColonel_131st]

While I generally agree with you, I find this strange...

Originally posted by JasonC:

Here is a primer on attacking infantry tactics, especially with the rifle and LMG infantry types, like the early war Germans.

First just get the leading platoon of squad infantry close enough for a full ID of the shooting defenders, as opposed to sound contacts.

Once that close, get them into any available nearby cover and halt them. Do not attempt to close further. This should be 250-175 yards.

Only once the nearest platoon is halted and in cover, and thus able to suppress defenders with its own fire, should the other platoons of the company try to close.

Sounds nice in theory, but what happens in practice when you have a single platoon lead against a dug in enemy? They will get under fire from 3 or 4 enemy platoons, and not at all be able to "surpress defenders".

The idea to advance with only a few units and have them surpress the enemy/giving targeting help to heavy weapons so that the rest can move up easier sounds nice, but when you have a solid line of enemy infantry and you are in range, so are they. You dont want a single platoon out there me thinks.

Nippy, nice idea about the additional LMGs, but remember they are damned slow. Would in effect be slowing down the whole squad it's supposed to stay with. That is not a problem once in the fight, but on the advance to the target it will deny you the advantage of quicker deployment of your units.

You can of course workaround that by making your infantry motorized, but then you could as well get a HT with a built-in LMG, that would serve the same job.

[ April 29, 2003, 05:06 AM: Message edited by: RSColonel_131st ]

[jtcm]

Thanks, Jason, for the long primer. It makes good reading and good sense, at the level of detail. I've long been a fan of your tactical posts, both in CMBO and CMBB, for their comibationof historical sense and play sense (useful tip re. resting infy); though I now find it difficult to play CMBO after trying CMBB.

The Osprey book seemed to imagine a lead plt. not just locating but driving off an enemy OP plt, in a straight squad vs. squad shooting match, a toe to toe firefight. Assuming this scenario (made up by the author ?) is drawn from tactical manuals, etc, it has the feel of the 1930s thought experiment, and ideal scenario, theorizing how firefights should or might work. In that scenario, the enemy squads are WW1 style armed with rifles only, i think-- the German squads, each with their LMG, are imagined as enjoying immediate and a priori fire ascendancy. The "riflemen manoeuver within assault range", i.e. half-squads armed with rifles and 1 smg and grenades, is not my idea, but how the Osprey book summarized how the early war tactics were supposed to work. Maybe the author there got it wrong ?-- assuming CMBB works well as a realistic simulation (another story that).

I particularly like the feel for distances in your primer. Not that it'll make any difference to my lamentably sloppy infy managing, but allows me to imagine, in terms of physical, concrete relations in real life: the rifle+lmg firefight is fought out at distances of, say, 2-3 city blocks or 2-3 football (soccer) pitches-- makes me wonder about how movies portray firefights, never succeeding in conveying those distances

In real life, do you need radios to carry out this kind of tactics, or can you pull it off with whistles, hand signals, pre arranged fire patterns and movement drills ?

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by jtcm:

[snips]

The "riflemen manoeuver within assault range", i.e. half-squads armed with rifles and 1 smg and grenades, is not my idea, but how the Osprey book summarized how the early war tactics were supposed to work. Maybe the author there got it wrong ?-- assuming CMBB works well as a realistic simulation (another story that).

No, the author didn't get it wrong at all. Gun group firing, rifle group closing and assaulting was the normal pattern of section attacks in the German and British armies, and most others, as far as I'm aware. The Russians tended to use section as a single entity, with the LMG gunner(s) going in with the assault. The American Army was supposed to use something similar to the German/British pattern of fire and movement within the squad, but the "Able-Baker-Charlie" system was over-complicated and too hard for many squad leaders to use effectively. The USMC developed the more modern and effective method of fire and movement by fireteams. George Patton developed "Marching Fire", a resurrection of a WW1 French concept that has never struck me as a very good idea, and has not enjoyed widespread popularity since.

Section-level fire and movement is not well-modelled in CM, I suspect because it is rather below the level at which the game is focused; I quail at the idea of giving orders to each section in a reinforced battalion anyway, without going any lower, thanks. In any case it matters little for the Russians and Americans using marching fire, as they did not use the gun group/rifle group division of other armies.

I also think that there is a bigger gap in real life between suppression and panic flight than is shown in CM, which makes fire and movement reduce often to a mere shooting match. To some extent this can be remedied by playing with Green and Conscript trooops.

Originally posted by jtcm:

In real life, do you need radios to carry out this kind of tactics, or can you pull it off with whistles, hand signals, pre arranged fire patterns and movement drills ?

It is entirely possible to control a platoon attack by voice and hand signal, and there was really no other way available to any army during WW2. Pre-arranged signals by whistle, flare or whatever give you a few additional options; otherwise, you send messages by runner. Having seen the effect of the introduction of fireteam radios in the TA in 1978-82, I can testify that, once people had learnt to rely on them, they made platoon attacks quicker, more physically dispersed, and so better able to make use of cover. WW2-era radios were much less reliable, and infantry tactics correspondingly more rigid; radios were also less common, and many armies would not even have had platoon radios. Modelling these aspects specifically would make for a fascinating game, and clearly show one of the great advantages the Germans had over their enemies in the early-war period. IMHO, the reason German forces out-maneouvred their enemies was less because they were mechanised than because they were radio-controlled. Of course, modelling all this would turn CM into what Kip calls a Command Game, something that I think most people don't want it to become.

All the best,

John.

[jtcm]

Thanks for that, highly informative.

Originally posted by John D Salt:

[QB]

[jtcm]

In Waugh's Sword of Honour trilogy, there's a haunting quote from British Small arms manual, teaching how to recognize range from what people look like. "At six hundred yards the head are dots, the bodies taper; at three hundred yards teh faces ar blurred; at two hundred yards all parts of the body are distinctly seen"

--hunating becase Crouchback sees various friends appear, and once die, on this scale. I wonder if they still teach it in the British army ?

[JasonC]

"what happens in practice when you have a single platoon lead against a dug in enemy? They will get under fire from 3 or 4 enemy platoons"

If the enemy reveals his entire position while still at long range, the attacker is practically assured a lopsided win. He just applies his superior firepower against the defense, from range, dismantling ever piece of it in sequence with the right combined arms counter.

Killing an open defense from long range with heavy weapons is easy. The hard part is getting the spots of the defenders, forcing them to open up and reveal themselves, without getting the whole attacking force (not just scouts) killed in the process.

If the defender fires squad infantry from 3-4 platoons at 250m and upward, to break a single attacking platoon, the entire infantry portion of the defense will run low on ammo before ever engaging the bulk of the attacking infantry. They will indeed rag out the lead platoon. So what? They will die to the rest of the attacking force.

The defender's assets are stealth and cover and choice of when to open with what weapons. His biggest problem is limited total firepower, in the form of ammo limits and limited life expectancy of defenders who reveal themselves by opening fire.

The earlier the defender reveals all his positions and fires with all his weapons, against only a limited portion of the attacking force, the better off the attacker is. It reduces defender ammo and gives plenty of targets, enough to bring practically every overwatch weapon to bear on appropriate enemies.

If the defender tries it, just halt the forward platoon, withdraw it to the nearest cover, give every FO a fire mission and every tank and HE shooter gun a point target. In 5 minutes the defense will be broken in half.

[JasonC]

As for fighting an enemy OP (stands for "observation post") platoon, you have to understand what that means about the enemy deployment. An OP platoon is not a platoon sized strongpoint position. It covers a much larger area, as a thin screen, and usually expects to fall back if seriously probed.

In CM terms, a platoon strongpoint means an HQ and all its 3-4 squads in the same body of cover, or a few very closely associated with each other, all with foxholes or buildings or trenches. Perhaps with a heavy weapon or two in addition. The size is typically under 100m and sometimes half that, side to side.

A single attacking infantry platoon would not be expected to simply fight its way onto such a defensive position without help from heavy weapons, HE from FOs, guns, or tanks, or additional supporting infantry platoons.

An OP platoon, on the other hand, means ~4 half squad positions spread out across a wide front, 400m or so, "up" positions with views forward, with a small "support" position farther back, occupied by an HQ and 1-2 squads. It is the OP platoon -of- a company or larger position, the forward screen ahead of several larger strongpoints farther back.

It is meant to give advanced warning of the approach of enemy units, and to halt mere half squad scouts by fire. It is not meant to give serious battle to any large group, and typically withdraws on contact - after perhaps a short ambush of the leading attackers it is true.

Understand that when attacks are not being conducted by either side, small patrols of 5-30 men roam between each side's line of outposts. The outposts need to be strong enough to prevent such patrols from getting to the main positions without a firefight. But they are not expected to halt a determined attack.

Mostly, there just need to be eyeballs and rifles with LOS to every yard of the frontage. So OP lines are quite thin. Making them "thicker" would just provide good, easily located and IDed, valuable targets for enemy artillery.

In CM, if you scout with a few independent half squads, you can locate some enemy positions at minimal cost in units exposed. But the scouts are extremely vunerable, and can easily be halted by a single MG firing over an open ground area, or by a thin line of OPs.

If instead you scout with a leading full strength platoon, you can overrun single LMG listening posts, single half squad OPs, cross areas a single HMG covers by fire (using short "advance" orders and switching off which squads move from minute to minute). It is usually a better idea.

A scouting platoon can still have a single half squad on "point", 50-100m ahead of the rest of the platoon. The leading half squad typically uses "move to contact" orders. Once contact is made, the rest of the platoon maneuvers against it if it is small (a single infantry shooter or MG). The "point" goes to ground, gets into cover, and either rejoins its other half or the other half comes forward to rejoin it.

It sounds to me like the tactical operation that was being described is "driving in the OPs". In other words, a leading platoon heads into the enemy position. It encounters 1-2 half squads from the platoon strung out along the whole frontage. Not all of them, because it is on a narrower front itself.

The defending OPs will tend to fall back and reform into a platoon position, precisely because they can't defeat the more concentrated attacking platoon (which may also be supported, e.g. by overwatching mortars or HMGs).

[Tbone]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"If the defender fires squad infantry from 3-4 platoons at 250m and upward, to break a single attacking platoon, the entire infantry portion of the defense will run low on ammo before ever engaging the bulk of the attacking infantry. They will indeed rag out the lead platoon. So what? They will die to the rest of the attacking force.

Hello, I am fairly new to the game and tactics, however I have been registered for a while and have read the boards awhile also. I would first like to say that the info in these posts are great and have help me alot with the games and with real life understanding of tactics. As I have very limited knowledge about real world tactics I do not know what is a real tactic or a game induced tactic. So my question is with regard to the above sectioned quote. Is that a real world tactic or only an ingame tactic? Essentially the lead platoon is being sacrificed to ID and draw the enemy's fire. How would that work with real soldiers, esentially if it is your turn to be in the advance platoon you know your dying in the next battle so the follow on units can overwhelm the defenders. As I said I have no idea as to how you accomplish that task without putting someones life in danger, just seemed like that advance platoon was doomed? Again excellent information provided here and very helpful to me so far, thanks alot.

[jtcm]

Thanks, Jason, for the interesting post. Yes, I think the hypothetical scenario in the osprey book covered a plt spread out as an OP screen being driven in by a full plt moving in as aggressive recon

[Mumpfelfrumf]

I always purchase an additional LMG for every squad. (usually 4 or 5)

When one of my squads andvances, I leave the LMG behind to fire at enemy troops, which suddenly show up.

And when they conquered an important building, hill or piece of wood, the LMG becomes an "defensive stongpoint"

I´ve made good experiences with this tactic.

[RSColonel_131st]

Mumpfel...how do you manage to have your LMG's keeping up with the main infantry force? Do you player longer battles to get enough turns, or does it work in standard lenght battles?

[Mumpfelfrumf]

I usually play 25-30 turn battles.

It´s no problem for the LMG to keep up with the normal squads.

Ok, they are a few metres behind them, but that´s really no problem.

At least not for me...

[jtcm]

Mumpfel: that sounds like a recreation of the LMG-assault element tactics which the Osprey book (and John D Salt) was talking about

Jason: the idea of a scenario of aggressive patrolling between OP lines would be fun for CMBB

[JasonC]

"Is that a real world tactic or only an ingame tactic?"

It is a real world tactic. The scale is somewhat effected by the game, though. Typical probing forces could be a company strong (out of a battalion), instead of a platoon. On the other hand in tight terrain or a town, the "point" could be as little as 2 men.

"Essentially the lead platoon is being sacrificed to ID and draw the enemy's fire."

No, it is not "being sacrificed". The defenders have to decide whether they are going to commit suicide by opening up, after all. The rest of the force is protecting the "point" platoon by the threat of their fire, rather than by their physical presence alongside. That role is called "overwatch".

It is often more dangerous to the defenders than if the whole attacking force was online side by side, because the defender's firepower can't silence the whole "overwatch" force, while they might be able to rag out the whole force if it were all exposed online, simultaneously.

When the defenders pull triggers and shoot at the "point", it immediately fires back, scrambles for cover, and gets "heads down". It expects to be pinned, yes, but not killed. It is then counting on the rest of the force to "shoot them free" again.

The defender does not always, or even regularly, respond to this sort of threat by revealing every defending weapon at once trying to kill the "point" platoon. Instead they will often try to delay it with a minimum of force. Like 1-2 MGs covering a certain field, say. The rest of the defenders remain hidden, to avoid overwatch firepower.

You can get a kind of cat and mouse game of escalation. Often the defenders will look for locations that can see the point but that the overwatch can't see - e.g. the classic reverse slope.

The defenders are looking at ways to stop all the attackers without dying, not at ways to take a few with them but get killed. That is a kind of protection of the men on "point". The defenders want to bag something big, if they are going to risk revealing themselves, and the point is small.

But there is no question "point" is the most hazardous assignment in the infantry, which is the most hazardous branch. Somebody has to go first. The role is typically rotated, with the freshest sub unit assigned the point role.

In US WW II practice, at a tactical level practically every attack was conducted by a single infantry company. Another in the same battalion was supporting by fire from an adjacent position, along with battalion heavy weapons, and AFVs if any were available. The third company was in reserve. A barrage of arty was typically directed at the objective first, then the single company advanced onto it.

There wasn't any point in sending 2 battalions on line instead. That just increased losses in the event the defenders were basically intact and could survive the overwatch fires. If a single company could not take the objective, neither could a larger force. Instead of sending more at once, they'd send a flock more shells in a renewed arty barrage, increase the overwatch force with additional tanks, and the like. And then probe again with another single company.

Once a company got onto the objective, it immediately organized it for defense against counterattack. The Germans were always counterattacking with the local reserve, even a tiny single platoon force. The attackers typically had to deal with the first of these. Then they would be relieved by the reserve company.

The reward for living through the role of "point" and successfully taking the objective, was rotation to the "reserve" role. Which only had to wait, occupied a place others had already taken, and defend in place. Live through an hour of terror, get a few days of comparative safety.

The overwatch position was the "on deck circle". They support by fire, and they get to go next as "point". Giving a strong incentive to do the job well. Because if the first attack is repulsed, the on deck guys have to do it themselves, in the next attempt. If their fire helps clears the objective successfully, they are spared the role of "point" against that particular objective.

To be sure, they will still have to take point against the next. Nobody gets out of it when their turn comes up, until the war is won.

Notice also how that all winds up playing on the other side of the hill. First you get shelled, losing a few men. If you take that as your cue to get out of dodge, you don't lose anyone more. But the attackers lose nothing and take the position.

If instead you stay and fight, you get a round of direct fire from the overwatch force, and if that pins you a close assault by the attacking company if you didn't blow it away. If you retreat during that, you got in your lick, but the attackers get the objective and hit you with most of their firepower.

If you actually repulse the first attack, then you get a redoubled arty bombardment, a stronger overwatch force, and the joy of playing again tomorrow against fresh enemies, untouched so far by whatever you managed to dish out.

The harder you resist, the more metal falls on your head. The sooner you walk in a German direction, the more the brunt falls on neighboring units instead of on you and yours. They never stop, either. The shellings or the probes.

There is a reason wars aren't over in 30 minutes like CM scenarios, but instead take months or years.

[ April 30, 2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Tbone]

JasonC,

Thanks for the detailed reply. It is funny that a game/simulation can require such detailed analysis and thought to play correctly. It, in a sense, affirms the depth and accuracy of the game design that realworld tactics are required to win. I have read and am going to try and implement these tactics when playing, this is sort of a learning expereince and I can hardly wait to get some playing time to try out these concepts. Until reading these boards I had no concept of how to attack and such without the AI trashing me completely. Thanks again, these boards compound the enjoyment of the game immensely!