Infantry Attacks across open ground.

[Little Pete]

Im getting a bit downhearted when playing CMBB at the moment.I pick a scenario and there is a huge distance to cover with lots of open spaces and mainly infantry.

Even in CMBO I have problems moving infantry across open ground without getting pounded and with the more powerful suppresive effect of MG fire in CMBB its even tougher.

Help please. Hopefully I will start using JasonC type tactics soon and get more into CMBB.

[stikkypixie]

Smoke! and pray...

[Little Pete]

Well thats a fair point but if you're short on smoke dispensers??

I think i heard JasonC advocating a sort of leapfrog advance where each section gets pinned (but not broken) sequentially, allowing you to get close without many casualties but the defender uses up his ammo.

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Little Pete:

Well thats a fair point but if you're short on smoke dispensers??

I think i heard JasonC advocating a sort of leapfrog advance where each section gets pinned (but not broken) sequentially, allowing you to get close without many casualties but the defender uses up his ammo.

Well what sort of game are you playing, if it was a QB, then you should pick more smoke, etc... Halftracks are also an option, if only mg's are bothering you.

Incidently, do you know if there is a way to preview a map, before a QB.

I read somewhere that you should use your infantry to make contact with the enemy and let your armour finish it. Easier said then done though.

[SBS]

yes this is a tricky problem in the game. The only real solution I think is to try and distract the opposing enemy force.

The most effective way of doing that imo is to pound them with artillery, MG fire or maybe tank fire.

Then hope that your infantry can get across the open area before your enemy recovers.

[Panzer_Meyer]

I haven't mastered this either. But I think I am getting better each time I try to move my infantry across open ground.

What I usually do is split 2 sqauds, and send them ahead of the main group, they take fire, and get pinned. Thus the enemy reveals it's possition. You can thereafter use your artillery, tanks, MGs or support weapons to supress the enemy.

And at the same time, start moving your infantry forward. They will get pinned, but they will keep moving forward as long as you keep pushing them.

One Operation comes to mind, Festung Breslau.

My friend made the OP and me and him decided to give it a go. Me as Ruskies...

Anyway, from the start the Russian infantry has a lot of open ground to cover before reaching the town and some cover. So, I laid down a barrage of smoke and regular HE. And it was effective.

It allowed my infantry to move almost unharmed over open terrain and even a bridge. Given, they did get pinned a few times and did suffer light causalties, but they made it.

So, basicly, lot of support fire, smoke if you have it.

[JasonC]

Smoke won't do it unless LOS is limited. It is fine for masking one pillbox, or crossing one gap between two long areas of cover or dead ground. But suppressing an entire line of positions all looking over the same field does not remotely work. Each smoke shell fails to block most shooters. You can't block all the lines, nor keep it up.

Nor does the idea of pounding the enemy beforehand with unaimed area fire, and crossing the whole distance while the enemy is still recovering, work in practice. You won't have enough ammo and there will be too many places the defenders can be. It is fine to blow up a few prominent houses, or target an obvious large wood near flags, or have a platoon of tanks with a lot of HE each use up a minute or two of HE each plastering one ridge or treeline before you go in.

But you are not going to defeat the entire enemy defense with just overwatch shooting at unlocated targets. If you could, the advance wouldn't be necessary in the first place. You'd just shoot them all dead and then drive up to the wreckage with a tank or two. Attackers don't have that kind of firepower edge. If all the defenders were wide open (no fog of war e.g.), and in forward positions (not reverse slope - out of LOS), maybe. In practice, hidden and mere sound contacts even when firing, there is no way.

(Also, the whole defense revealing itself to two leading half squads is a "stupid AI trick" and won't remotely work against humans. They show one HMG sound contact and it pins the 1/2 squads. You see nothing).

You can't avoid being shot at entirely. A technique of advance must depend on surviving being shot in the open and succeeding anyway, not on avoiding it ever happening. Good overwatch can help take out the largest enemy weapons - armor, bunkers, big caliber guns that can be spotted a mile away as soon as they fire. But it is not going to suppress every MG, light AA gun, ATR, sniper, FO, or mortar. All of which "shoot stealthy" - i.e. give no signature or just a sound contact when firing at long range.

As for defending squad infantry, it will often hold its fire until you are closer, anyway. At long range it is somewhat like MGs, remaining a sound contact. At closer range it is more dangerous because the overall firepower from full platoons is significantly higher than an lone MG (or two) at long range. But in return at least you can ID the shooters.

What the advance technique needs to do is get through the pinning fire of the stealthy heavy weapons. The big stuff, tanks and bunkers and large guns - the overwatch has to deal with. The final defense line stuff - the squad infantry, and the fight to kill off the heavy weapons after they are fully IDed - the whole attacking force has to deal with, by infantry fire on top of overwatch, FOs, etc. But in between, the "approach march" from 500-1000 yards out down to 200 yards or so where full IDs appear - that is the tricky part.

That is where the method of staged short advances, halting the pinned guys and pressing on with the others, comes in. The critical thing is simply to extend the advance in time, to stretch it out instead of trying to compress it. This seems to be counterintuitive, but once you've tried both it is clear that it works better.

You are giving the men more time to *rally* throughout the approach, keeping the range relatively long, using up defender ammo, spreading the pain over more units and minutes, and reducing the portion of the force getting hurt at any given moment. That is why is works.

As for how you actually do it, I've described it many times. You just have to try it to see how it works. It works best with "broken" terrain - scraps of brush and wheat and occasional rough or small tiles of trees - rather than completely open ground. But even in continuous steppe it can be done.

Short "advances". Add "and hide" at the end of the order when still beyond full ID range, and with any kind of concealment (even just steppe). (Once in full ID range, don't "hide" unless already pinned). Cancel sideways "sneak" orders that appear due to "cover panic", and just remain stationary for a minute instead when that happens. Anyone pinned remains stationary. Anyone in yellow morale can continue to cover if it is close, but otherwise remains stationary. Keep company HQs trailing 200 yards or so initially, to rally the red morale guys that fall behind.

Move half a platoon at a time if you are taking fire. Stay spread, over 20m between units, but in command. Use 2 by 2 formations ("blobs") rather than thin lines. Use every scrap of cover (shellholes, fences). One set moves while the other is stationary due to command delay. "Tired" units rest a minute.

The combine effect you want is that only a portion are moving in the open at any given instant. They tend to draw the fire. It is a different group every minute. Ranges also keep changing, so the nearest unit switches from turn to turn. Many are in minor cover at any given moment - they avoid fire and can rally. The whole advance slows if the men don't want to go faster. No "pushing" until they are ready again.

Over 10 minutes, this will get the bulk of the force intact and rallied across the pinning range fire zone. It is critical that the whole force make it across that zone. Because what makes attacks fail is only a few units arriving at full ID range piecemeal. The defenders then unhide and outshoot those piecemeal leading units. Instead you want whole companies arriving at full ID range, rallied, with only a few men hit here and there and a few squads that panicked coming up with company HQs a few minutes behind. Then you can outshoot the defenders as soon as you can get full IDs.

Think patience and rally, not "avoiding fire" or "rushing across". "Listen" to the men - meaning react to morale states and what each individual unit needs or can do from minute to minute. When in doubt, halt and rest for a minute. It will make you stronger, not weaker.

[ January 26, 2004, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Little Pete]

Jason, you have inspired me (like usual) and i will fire up CMBB ASAP just to try these principles.

PS. On PBEM or TCP games do you thoroughly kick everyone's butt or are there other seriously in depth tacticians to match you?

[FWB]

Excluding the obvious, have you tried using vehicles as cover? Have your infantry advance behind them.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by FWB:

Excluding the obvious, have you tried using vehicles as cover? Have your infantry advance behind them.

Vehicles do not provide cover in CM - too complicated for the current game engine to handle.

[FWB]

So vehicles don't block lines of sight? Hadn't noticed. Well that needs to be addressed in the next game.

[YankeeDog]

No, vehicles do not block LOS.

It certainly would be nice to see this refinement in a future CM.

However, I think the using vehicles as cover would actually be less useful than you might think. For a squad to use a tank as cover, it has to bunch up immediately behind the tank. This makes the squad HIGHLY vulnerable to HE fire from mortars and guns, and also to small arms fire coming from another angle. In addition, the tank itself serves as a large visual reference point for enemy weapons on the battlefield, making fire direction and control easier for enemy commanders.

IRL, it's most useful when trying to get infantry across open stretches in the face of light, harrasing small arms fire that is only coming from one direction. Once mortar fire, interlocking fields of fire, and other nastys come into play, there are distinct disadvantages.

As such, if CM eventually does model it, and gets it right, it would be most useful in situations like trying to get an infantry squad across a street interdicted by a single MG. Not so useful getting an entire company across a broad expanse of open ground sited by multiple enemy gun positions.

Cheers,

YD

Cheers,

YD

[FWB]

Good point Mind you, if you could line it up you might be able to get away with not just using tanks for cover, but actually hiding inf behind them.

[stikkypixie]

What always works of course, is giving them that speech from Shakespeare's Henry V.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.

[ January 26, 2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: stikkypixie ]

[JasonC]

Glad any of it is useful. In answer to your question, no I do not routinely win PBEMs. Against players of comparable skill my WL record is just about 50-50 (not that I've ever actually kept track, or cared). There are any number of frequent players who are better than I am. Against inexperienced players my record is positive, as you would expect, and I can hold my own against good players. But no, I'm not any great shakes among experienced players.

I probably analyse things more than many of them do - and I need to. Any skill I have is intellectual not instinctual. Do I lose because I can't get infantry across open ground? No. But I can and do lose because heavy arty or guns mess my men up before (or without) my overwatch deals with them, or I lose the armor war, or I run out of time before reaching objectives, etc.

In tactics, I prefer attrition methods, and when attacking deeper column methods (wing attack in depth e.g., rather than flanking or envelopment) in part because they do not require any great tactical flair to execute successfully. They seem to be robust methods, in other words. Forgiving ones that give solid results with straightforward, careful implimentation but without any need for particular brilliance.

They can of course be defeated - they aren't magic formulas. But I find they reliably give me decent chances, that will pay off if other events break my way.

[RSColonel_131st]

The obvious...if infantry has to move over open ground, then that means you must be short on tanks. Otherwise tanks would lead.

But still, even if you have only some vehicles, they can be very usefull. A Halftrack is quite immune to that "harrasing fire".

A Scout-Car may actually be able to close in and return some fire from a good hiden spot.

Of course, mortars and HMGs on area fire may also help you to pin a few enemy squads.

[SBS]

There are some scenarios with one or two tanks and a load of infantry

[JasonC]

Light armor is actually pretty awful at leading an advance over open ground. It can do OK running from dead ground to dead ground. But in wide open terrain all kinds of enemy ranged weapons will have LOS. And even the light, stealthy ones are dangerous to light armor.

Light flak makes mincemeat of the stuff and won't give more than a sound contact back. ATRs are less likely to kill, but are still dangerous if allowed to fire for long periods, and will not be spotted. Punctured light armor doesn't rally.

Tanks at least require guns big enough that they reveal themselves when they fire. But leading with tanks, into areas covered by unspotted enemy guns, it less than optimal. Even when armor is available, it is best for infantry to go first, while heavy weapons overwatch. Not because it is so much better at it, but because tanks are valuable. Enemy guns only open up at them if they like the match up. Giving the enemy that choice is rarely good for you.

If, on the other hand, they face a threat of infantry getting close and discovering them anyway if they do not open up, then they have to do so. There really isn't a substitute for infantry advances, to scout and develop the enemy position. In part, obviously, by drawing fire.

Yes, armor is the main weapon in wide open desert and the like. Being the main weapon, infantry being secondary, does not however mean going first. It means everything depends on the success of the tanks, therefore the infantry must do what it can to help the tanks rather than the other way around, therefore infantry scouts ahead to spot enemy tanks.

Infantry goes first because it is expendable, relatively robust when rally is taken into account, and creates a threat that tends to make defenders fire, because its power grows as it closes. Not because it is invulnerable, which armor isn't, either.

Nothing is invulnerable to a proper combined arms defense. Attackers will get shot at. Attacks must succeed *despite* defenders getting to shoot at them, and with appropriate weapons for the target.

[JasonC]

In Yelna Stare, for instance, the Russians have 3 companies of infantry, 2 green and 1 conscript, and 6 T-34s. The terrain is broken. Can the T-34s just go first, to clear a way for the infantry? No. They have enourmous firepower if they overwatch. If instead they rush ahead of the infantry into the German defense, they will take losses (to PAK, tank hunters, close assault).

The Russians have numerous overwatch teams. But can they just shoot the German defense down from range? No. They have only modest amounts of 76mm FO ammo, 50mm mortars, and MMGs. These are great at suppressing fully IDed targets. As are the tanks. But against whole areas, without any located defenders, they are hopeless.

The power of the Russians lies in their infantry depth and all the firepower that implies, plus the firepower of the T-34s as overwatch. A tank infantry assault with the infantry leading works. If the infantry just charges, trying to cross the gap as rapidly as possible, pushed as hard as possible, its morale is so low it will be scattered to the winds. Even if it succeeds locally, scads of men will be pointlessly massacred.

But if the infantry advances as I have described, slowly and deliberately, using all available cover, with the tanks staying 100-200m back overwatching, then the defenders are dead meat. Whether they open early or late, attacking infantry will make it to the brush ahead of them. It will get full IDs. And whole companies of good order infantry plus half a dozen T-34s all at 200 yards, simply have far too much firepower for the defenders to stand in front of them, for more than a few minutes. Anything IDed goes down in a minute flat.

Range is cover when approaching. Firepower is cover when you've reached ID range.

[arax3]

JasonC: Thanks again for your excellent advice. Best wishes to you! A3

[The Hapless General]

Hi,

JasonC - I am continually inspired by your tactics, as they seem to be through and well though out. Just last night, I loaded up an ME QB against the AI, playing US Airborne vs. Luftwaffe Aitborne, allowing the computer to select the 400 points of troops, over a medium (800 m long) rural map.

I ended up with a green company of paratroopers, with 2 of the squads conscripts (a misrepresentation of history, to be sure, but every engine has its understandable limitations). Each platoon consists (as I am sure you know) of an HQ, two rifle squads, a bazooka squad and 60mm mortar. Also I had an MG jeep, an M2 halftrack, and a company HQ with an additional zook.

The map was completely flat allowing LOS from practically every point on the map to every other point, with a few houses next to the center flag providing any of the scant LOS blocking. My side of the map had some wheatfields for concealment while the enemy had some rough patches for concealment/cover.

The enemy appeared to have a couple of platoons, with a Panzer IIC and a halftrack with MG.

I advanced my troops, with cover arcs out to 100 m so as not to waste their ammo, spread out to avoid any massive arty damage, with the HQ in command range and the Coy HQ acting a "Free safety" picking up any panicked sqauds.

I was able, with time, and due to my best-effort usage of your tactics to advance about 200 m but my squads were constantly attrited by MG and cannon fire from the AFVs (my own halfrack was killed in the 2nd round by the Panzer). I was not able to advance beyond 150m from the flags and was not able to get any closer than 190m with my zooks to the enemy armor.

I guess, that as you said, there is no magic formula, and perhaps an infantry coy, alone cannot hope to overcome this setup.

Do you agree? how would you have approached this situation?

[RSColonel_131st]

Originally posted by The Hapless General:

I guess, that as you said, there is no magic formula, and perhaps an infantry coy, alone cannot hope to overcome this setup.

Which is pretty much what I belive...

When I have a setup that allows me only infantry and light armored vehicles, then I do not expect to run into enemy tanks or lots of heavy canons.

Would that even be historical? One would think you do just not attack when you're at a disadvantage.

Some of the situations descriped here pretty much equal all hope lost from the very start. While certain scenarios may be like that, I would not expect to find such huge differences in a normal QB Setup.

[The Hapless General]

Hi RSColonel_131st,

Thanks for your reply. The situation I described was dished out to me by the QB generator. It seems that, especially in low point encounters, on the American side, it has trouble generating any significant support for the infantry and ends up with a strong infantry presence with little support. Try it out yourself, perhaps I am doing something wrong, in which case I will be glad to correct it. Think is, I like the computer to purchase my units, as it gives me a different challenge every time. I am afraid that if I always pck my troops I will fall too deeply into a pattern.

Thanks

[SBS]

I think it is worth pointing out that in this game and in WW2 the German Army had some very effective long range weapons.

Something like a Tiger tank or a MG 42 with a good line of site can suppress and destroy infantry units or light tanks from a very long distance.

Infantry units advancing across open ground against such weapons is often virtually suidal.

[RSColonel_131st]

Originally posted by The Hapless General:

The situation I described was dished out to me by the QB generator. It seems that, especially in low point encounters, on the American side, it has trouble generating any significant support for the infantry and ends up with a strong infantry presence with little support.

Since I only have CMBB, I can't try it, but now I can understand better what the problem is...

I'm still not sure if you simple shouldn't change the map to be less open - I just can't belive that historical, if one side had totally ****ty cards (like the mentioned "infantry over open ground without armor), that someone would still have ordered an attack.

In other words...perhabs I'm making it too easy for myself, but in QMBs I always see to it that both sides have a fair chance to accomplish the mission with the equipment given...