Calling all long- winded tacticians - reverse slope defense

[David Chapuis]

I've read in a couple AAR's how deadly a reverse slope position will be to some unfortunate infantry that come over the hill. I was hoping I could get somebody to explain exactly how/why that works so well. I have a couple of issues/questions:

1)It seems like high ground would be preferable to lower ground, but if you were on the reverse slope, you would obviously have the lower ground. So how is that better.

2)How far down the reverse slope should you be? 10m, 20m, 40m, 60m?

3)Does it only work if the crest is bare, and the reverse slope is covered, or does it still work well (all though surely not as well) if the crest is wooded, and the slope is open?

4)Do AFV's benefit also?

[Banshee]

This is a good link explaining what reverse slope is meant to acheive:

http://call.army.mil/products/ctc_bull/1-88/chpt3.htm

So a basic summary of answers since I am not the long winded type:

1) Because you are outside direct observation and therefore the enemy cant bring direct and indirect fire to bear effectively.

2) "It depends". Depends on your weapons and positions. You would place the defense far enough away to maximize your weapons systems but minimize his. In CMBB Trenches are great for reverse slope defenses. Try them out in a QB.

3) It works as long as the defender has cover (at least woods or a foxhole). It works better if the attackers has no cover, but it still doesnt negate the advantages of the defense.

4) Yes.

[Slappy]

This is the premise at its most simple: You get to attak a small portion of the attacker's force with nearly all of your own because the hill screens your force from everything except those units at/over the crest.

[HarryInk]

The best advice I can offer you on this is JasonC's article on German inf in the close defence:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000493

It works, consistently, brilliant, bloodily. Your only risk is letting your opponent flank you.

Cheers

HH

[Beta1]

the previous answers sum it up pretty well - the benefit of not having your defenders supressed by the attackers direct fire support weapons far out ways the fact your giving up the high ground.

As for the cover it works very nicely if theres no cover for the attacker but sometimes having a little cover on or just over the crest is preferable as it becomes a magnet for all those panicing squads your shooting up. You let them get past the crest, open up and they run for the nearest available cover, which ideally you will have filled with mines, have covered by a load of high calibre HE throwers and have a 150mm+ artillery strike already counting in. Of course this might be slight overkill.

[Redwolf]

The reverse slope does:

1) seperates the enemy force into portions, especially the advance units from fire support

2) lets you choose the engagement range more freely (by shifting toward or from the slop)

3) forces the attacker to either concentrate in unhealthy manner or attack piecemeal

On the other hand:

1) it is pretty obvious where you hang out even without spotting

2) long-rang AT weapons usually have to be placed further back to that they may not enjoy the protection of the slope and can come under fire from the attacker's heavy weapons. The only alternative is shoot laterally but that brings them into infantry range of the attackers coming over the slope

3) you can become pinned easily if the attacker masses enough infantry firepower, because the range is usually short and it is a pretty front thing for both

4) falling back may be impossible if you would have to move through areas of open terrain not protected by the slope

5) angles don't work in the defender's favour because the reverse slope killzone is usually shallow and wide. Even if it's not plain frontal against frontal then you still usually don't the advance of a deep killzone where you get flank shots on the majority of shot

The same trick also works for forward slopes if the attacking zone has no spot to overlook the high ground you are defending. This depends a lot on the terrain and hence the game. Quickbattle autogenerated terrain is almost always wavy enough so that this isn't possible. Hand-made maps often are. TacOps maps almost always are.

You can also use a smokescreen seperating the attacker's advance party in the same way as a forward slope.

Overall I'd say unless the terrain is extremly favourable the reverse slope defense requires at least substancial amounts of artillery, otherwise you can easily get supressed and overrun by heavily massed infantry (which would also make close defense against tanks very difficult).

[JasonC]

I will address Redwolf's comments, because I don't find several of his "drawback" comments accurate, when the whole defense is conducted correctly. If someone just naively lines up all his guys right behind a hill, without any other planning, his comments might apply. But against a properly planned reverse slope defense, they really don't.

It is not so easy to know where the defender's are. There isn't a large neon sign emblazoned over the battlefield saying "reverse slope defense in progress". When defenders are unspotted, the attacker does not know whether that is because they are out of LOS behind hills, or hiding, or have shortened arcs and are waiting for the attackers to get closer.

Also, a few half squads from the flanker mini-platoons, harassing MGs, or "stay behind" detail (LMG listening posts, snipers, etc) can engage the attacker's scouts - briefly - on the far side of the ridge. These are needed to see the attacker coming, in any event. It is not trivial to determine that these aren't part of a forward defense.

Most important, however, the attacker does not now where along the length of the ridge the main infantry "block" is located, where it begins and where it ends. The defender can concentrate behind only a portion of the ridge, holding the flanks of his position with ranged fire and MGs. Furthermore, even after the block is located, the attacker does not know from minute to minute whether the defenders are high up, hugging the rear crest, or lower down. This is a small difference but enough to make artillery - already hard to use over a crestline - miss.

As for locations for ranged AT weapons, they belong on the next ridge farther back, on its forward side but below its top. This puts them out of LOS of the distant attackers and their overwatch, but gives LOS to the crestline of the first ridge. They can also be seperated right and left, to cross their fires for flank shots. If a next ridge back is not available, you can still usually find spots in the valley behind the first ridge that can see most of its crest, unless the whole area is heavily wooded (which would stop tanks another way).

Redwolf seems to think an attacker can deal with a reverse slope by crossing it with massed infantry. A thin line of platoons strung along the entire rear crest, without other aids, that might successfully counter. But that is not how a good reverse slope defense is designed.

Instead the first order of business is constructing a "shield" ahead of the main infantry block. It is designed to shelter the bulk of the defenders from easy, close embrace by masses of attacking infantry. Typically this involves a minefield along the crestline, or small patches of cover just over the crest being mined, or a string of wire hidden by the crest. The defenders are not supposed to be easy to get at. The few locations where it is possible are planned "kill zones".

Larger areas of cover straddling the crest - natural "approach routes" for infantry, and avoided outright by putting the defense elsewhere if possible - are marked by TRPs watched by FOs. They may also be wired. Infantry guns can also target these, along with defender foxholes or trenches the attackers might succeed in taking in their first push.

TRP arty is an integral part of a reverse slope defense. But because of ammo limits, it cannot be the sole means of dealing with massed attackers. And a counterattack route into the area where arty use is planned must be provided, because the effect of arty is vastly increased if it can be followed up by a ~2 platoon counterattack.

The arty should generally be 105mm or larger. You do not want to play footsie with the attackers, and can't drop in shells all day. Instead, you want to spring the TRP on them only after a large number of attackers are made it across the crest, or to break contact. But you only need 1 module, and 1-2 TRPs. If the attackers are green and the target areas only scattered tree type cover (or worse), even 81mm mortars will serve.

The main protection against massing is provided by the obstacles and cover limits, with direct fire HE targeting the few remaining cover areas (longer term than FOs can). Good order infantry in cover - particularly trenches - can fight off vastly higher odds if the attackers are forced into open areas. This is especially true of the SMG heavy infantry favored by the reverse slope idea.

As for infantry AT vs. tanks, obviously the reverse slope idea is one of the few ways such short range weapons can ever be effective. Schrecks are going to be in range. Fausts, demo charges, FTs and such only will be just behind the crest, but the threat can still be enough to make attacking infantry go first or to force tanks to go around the block. The basic AT defense remains the PAK, which deal with AFVs individually as they crest the hill.

Retreat routes are indeed worth planning out. But often the shape of the hill, or cover on its rear side or in the valley, makes this relatively easy to do. Before the attacker has a foothold on the crestline, obviously you have covered routes from the dead ground created by the ridge itself. But even once he gets on the crest, typically the curve of the hill will leave large dead ground areas ahead of the next hill back. The "military crest" is usually beyond the actual crest. Naturally you pick the location of the block so the defenders have some form of cover. And trenches can suppliment this, connect blocks of woods, etc.

If the attacker can get clear over the first ridge line and onto the next one back, he can indeed usually get LOS over the whole valley and the backside of the initial ridge. Then the position is "turned". But just getting onto the front ridgeline usually brings all the defender's heavy weapons into the fight, without eliminating spots of dead ground hugging the front ridge, for use by the main body of infantry defenders.

As for the statement that lack of a deep engagement zone prevents flank shots, I don't find it correct. Depth provides time to fire again and again, but does not provide flank shots. It is width, not depth, that provides those. As long as the defending AT shooters are widely seperated yet see the same spots, they will get flank shots.

Loss of time to shoot at the enemy repeatedly is indeed a feature of reverse slope defenses, but if ammo limits would not allow such fire to be kept up indefinitely, it is a small loss. With squad infantry ammo supplies, particularly the ammo available to automatic heavy squad types (favored by the reverse slope defense), hitting hard but briefly is usually forced anyway.

The Germans aren't as good at the reverse slope defense against Russians as they were in CMBO against the Allies, though. The Russians have many more SMGs. The Germans need to rely more extensively on their excellent MGs with their high FP and abundant ammo. Easily infantry pins, and reduced ability to spot MGs and light guns at long range (beyond a sound contact) also makes the "open" or "up" defense more viable in CMBB than it was in CMBO.

It still remains a good idea to avoid the attacker's ranged firepower, and to avoid revealing heavy weapons gradually, in sequence, and then having them silenced one by one by enemy guns, mortars, tanks, or FOs. The danger to the main body of the attacking force from ranged heavy weapons fire is minimal. Such fire pins but does not kill, as long as the attacker doesn't press too hard and gives his overwatch time to reduce the shooters.

[David Chapuis]

Thanks, that answers most of my questions. And just to clarify, if we just considered infantry to infantry engagements, there are no advantages to being on the reverse slope? The advantage comes with the attacker not being able to suppress the defenders from heavy weapons, but rather opening oneself up to the defenders heavy weapons.

[JasonC]

The main advantage of a reverse slope is avoiding the bulk of the attacker's firepower. It "disarticulates" the attacking force, in the sense that not all of them can see the same spots. The attacker tries to "re-integrate" it, but every method he picks of doing so has a combined arms counter.

In an infantry only engagement, it would still help, by isolating the leading attackers from those farther back. It is somewhat easier to keep infantry all on line and still able to fight, and if only infantry defenders meet them there aren't large "area fire" effects to counteract bunching up.

A ridge forces the attackers either to divide themselves front to back (if a few units go first), to spread out in a thin long line (if all crest the ridge together, well spread), or to bunch up into a tight ball (if trying to crest together in the same place).

The first, a few guys sent first, pits a few attackers against all the defenders and fails. The attack occurs piecemeal and the defenders outnumber each little wave coming over the crest. The only thing they have to worry about is running out of ammo.

The second, a long thin line, gives the defenders odds and the first trigger pull and cover in the area of their dense "block", while the rest of the attackers hit air, opposite areas where there aren't any defenders on the far side of the crest. The attackers opposite the "block" die, the rest are seperated from each other, with intact defenders in between. Not a big improvement.

A dense "fist" provides a perfect TRed artillery target, and multiplies the impact of cover denying obstacles like AP mines and wire. Dangerous. If it misses the main "block" it can turn one defender's flank and perhaps succeed. Or it can run into a TRP arty trap and die horribly, as each shell hits far more men than usual.

In an infantry *force type* engagement, it works just fine. Because the infantry force type includes arty FOs, obstacles, and support weapons (MGs, guns, etc) in addition to squad infantry.

If it is just pure infantry squads vs. infantry squads, it favors the guy with more SMGs, because it reduces the range of first engagement. Rather like woods in that respect. The cover differential can be higher than inside woods at the moment of first contact, if the attackers get surprised. But any short range ambush success would have that effect.

[David Chapuis]

bump

[ June 13, 2003, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Cpl Dodge ]

[YankeeDog]

There is another advantage of reverse slope deployment that hasn't really been dealt with specifically yet: freedom to move without fear of being observed or fired upon.

Since the enemy can't see over the reverse slope until he actually crests the rise, you are free to reposition your defensive assets without fear of interdicting fire or observation until the actual cresting takes place. This can be a major advantage if used properly, as it allows you to do things like bring forward AT assets to meet approaching tanks, or withdraw same if infantry is coming first, etc.

Unfortunately for the defender, this aspect of the reverse slope cuts both ways. So long as your main defensive body is reverse slope to the attacking body, the main attacking body is also reverse slope to the defensive main body, meaning that, as previously mentioned, you have less opportunity to attritt the attacking body over its approach to your MLR. This is more of an issue in CMBB than in CMBO - if you play CMBB on EFOW, certain units, such as HMGs and smaller ATGs, can cause considerable damage to approaching enemy at moderate to long range, where the enemy is unlikely to spot them well enough to bring accurate fire to bear. Arty FOs (either spotters or HQs acting as spotter for on-board mortars) also have this advantage assuming terrain conditions allow it. Reverse slope deployment greatly reduces the opportunity to bring this type of ranged fire to bear.

This is why deploying some units, such as HMGs Arty FOs, and light ATGs 'forward' (in engagement stance, not necessarily literal location) of the reverse slope to observe, disrupt, and/or atritt the attacking force as it approaches can be a very good idea - to an extent, it lets you have your cake and eat it, too - the 'forward' elements observe, disrupt, and atritt the enemy as he approaches the reverse-sloped MLR, and then the main defensive body, safely hidden behind the MLR, deals the final destructive blow to the already disrupted and attritted attacking force.

This ties into my second point - a reverse slope deployment is not an all or nothing thing - you can base your entire defense on it, or just use it locally, with maybe a platoon and a few support weapons in a specific position. You can also begin your defense with at least some units deployed in a more forward slope position with the plan of falling back into a reverse slope position as the attacker applies pressure.

In fact, as Jason alludes, It is usually a good idea to deploy at least some units in front of a reverse slope in order to gain intel and disrupt the enemy's plan of attack. Whether it is better to post only a few OPs ahead of your reverse-sloped MLR simply to gain intel, or to actually post a more substantial skirmish line ahead of your reverse slope MLR (even to the point of thinking of having a first, forward slope MLR, followed by a second, reverse slope MLR as a fallback), depends on the specifics of force composition, terrain, your individual tactical style, etc. In fact, a really good player probably varies things enough to keep his opponents guessing.

It is also worth noting that certain terrain features, such as a long row of buildings, or a band of woods, can create opportunities very similar to the classic reverse slope situation. There are important differences (buildings, for example, can be knocked down by HE fire), but in fact any terrain feature that blocks LOS can serve to 'disarticulate' the attack so the defender can deal with it piecemeal, rather than as a single, numerically superior block.

As my opponents seem bent to prove with considerable skill, the variations and opportunities are virtually unlimited. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Barrett]

Well, I'm new to the game, but I've had a great ammount of success with a reverse-slope defense against the AI (which may explain it, but hey, I'm new!) In a 2000 pt. allied assault, I inflicted 375 casualties and 7 lost vehicles to only 50 casualties! Using 2 SS Motorized Panzergrenadier companies, 3 extra HMGs, some extra shrecks, 2 quad 20mm, a 105 FO, and a few Hetzers, this defense worked well for me.

[David Chapuis]

Well I am about to finish off an entire platoon of Vet British infantry with a half squad of Heavy SMG and a half squad of MSG (regulars). I was on a reverse slope, and sent one half squad forward, got some fire, and withdrew (thank goodness for that 'W' key) right before an unseen wasp torched the pines. I guess he thought he would finish me off, because two turns later he ran a platoon within 10m of a hidden half squad of Heavy SMG. 17 Brits on the ground in about 30 seconds. I am sending another half squad of SMG to try to finish them off (I hope he doesnt read this, although I dont think there is anything he can do to save them - poor Brits - well he does still has that wasp :eek: ).

[David Chapuis]

Well the wasp didnt get me (even though it tried), but another platoon showed up and rescued their friends. I think I have learned my lesson - if a ambush succeeds, but you dont have superior fire power, dont keep up the engagement. That makes too much sense, why didnt I think of that before I hit go.