Infantry Attacks across open ground.

[JasonC]

Um, a Tiger tank and an MG 42 are not the same thing. Advancing across open ground covered by a Tiger tank with nothing that can hurt it available is indeed suicide. If they bring a Tiger you bring something serious yourself - an M10 at least. Advancing across open ground covered by an MG 42 is not suicide, it is a routine drill that everybody has to be able to do, or they'd never get anywhere.

A Pz II is not a Tiger, but fighting one 600m away over open ground with nothing but bazookas is not exactly easy. The US airborne example is just awful random force selection.

You had zooks, mortars, and 50 cals on thin vehicles. Zooks as AT might work in a forest, maybe in a town. Otherwise they are a suppliment but not a main AT method. Mortars are good heavy weapons against an enemy in woods and against MGs. They suck against buildings and against armor - you want direct fire guns for that, not indirect. 50 cals can restrict enemy light armor - they are the US version of Russian ATRs in that respect. But they need to operate from cover, not set up in the open 500m in front of an autocannon.

If you want to explore tiny 400 point battles, try all infantry ones (infantry force type - allows guns of course). With combined arms, random selection might give reasonably balanced forces most of the time at the 800 point level and above. But when the forces are tiny and armor is allowed, the random force selector is the random winner selector, and what's the point?

[coe]

infantry attack across open ground? eeek....

A nice rolling artillery barrage might work somewhat

[manchildstein (ii)]

sometimes you might just have to call for a cease-fire.. if you don't have the means to close... one thing is to explore every route of advance with at least a token force, in the hopes that you can 'envelop' the open ground and by the time units are crossing that area.. you have supporting fire from the sides...

[JasonC]

Just did a quick QB with US Paras vs. the AI. Of course, it is the AI. But the idea was a similar force to the one described, but not auto-pick crippled, in an infantry only fight, with real attacker odds. Nobody ever said infantry should be able to attack with even to negative odds, with lousy support weapons, and no cover, against armor.

The fight was Italy, November 43, rural with gentle slopes, light tree cover, random weather. US airborne attack, Germany Heer defense both with infantry force type, medium quality. Size 400 points with the usual attacker odds, medium map size. As it turned out it was raining, which made it significantly harder to resolve shooters into sound contacts and those into full IDs.

I took an airborne company, a glider platoon as a fourth infantry platoon, and 2 75mm Pack Howitzers, all regulars. The computer had 2 infantry platoons, 1 50mm PAK, 2 20mm AA, 2 sharpshooters, and a 25-round 75mm FO, plus half a dozen minefields (I didn't pick this force, or know what it'd be).

My set up area had half a dozen tiles of brush, nothing else. The German side of the map had extensive bodies of woods despite the "light" setting. Also some patches of rough between them. The highest ground was in the center but not by much. It was still enough - along with tree walls around "midfield" - to break up most long LOS from my set up zone, if the enemy set up in the right spots (as about 2/3rds of them did). My overwatch could see the forward trees and limited bits of rear positions. So my 75mm could help get me into the trees, but would be of limited help after that.

I used one green platoon HQ with a +2 combat rating as head of my overwatch detachment. I gave this both 75mm and one 60mm mortar and set them up in 3 tiles of brush near my left hand edge, close to the start line. The 2 squads that normally belonged to that HQ went with the company HQ instead - it had +2 morale. The 3 squad glider platoon was green HQ but +2 morale, with the squads mixed, one each vet reg and green. These +2 morale platoons got the zooks. The other two HQs each had +1 command and one had +1 combat as well. They each got a 60mm mortar, with a mission of fire support.

The glider platoon had "point", with its green squad split, the SMG and 5 rifle half leading, along with a green zook to its left. The two mortar equipped platoons came in second line, side by side, behind them. Last came the company HQ platoon, as a third wave. With only a small amount of brush near the start line, only the "point" platoon set up in brush cover. The rest were all out in the open. They kept intervals, 20-25m side to side and back to front between waves, but the zooks didn't bother staying that far if there wasn't room - 11-15m was enough for them.

So, the leading units were a green half squad and a green zook. The second wave had 1 vet and 1 regular squad (ends), a green half squad with BAR, a green HQ (centered), and 2 regular zooks slightly trailing (just inside the full squad ends). The third wave had squad HQ+mortar squad, twice, with the mortars trailing slightly. The fourth wave had squad HQ squad, with zooks between and slightly behind the gaps. The whole formation was thus nearly 100m deep, and only slightly wider.

I first drew light cannon fire. I spotted the gun (this it turned out was the 50mm PAK) and put both a 75mm and a 60mm on it. It was KOed rapidly after only getting 1 man in a mortar unit - which halted in the open to fire back.

Next I took incoming arty fire. I thought it was 81s but it turns out it was 75s. I was already moving and the units nearest the barrage were mostly able to skirt it the following minute. One squad and a zook from the last platoon got pinned within the beaten zone. I halted the rest of that platoon, hiding in brush to the left of the barrage, while the pinned men waited it out.

It was mercifully short and only hit 6 men all told, no more than 2 in any one unit. It slowed one of the overwatch platoon by maybe one minute, if that, and the reserve platoon by 2-3 minutes. Since it had to wait for the men ahead to scout then clear the first batches of cover, this had essentially no effect on my timetable.

A sniper pinned a moving mortar on my right (this was the one that had already lost a man to the gun). Later it managed to pin this mortar again, panic it briefly, and eventually reduce it to 2 men left - though after it got off some of its ammo. It still rallied and fired off its remaining ammo eventually.

My scouts were halted occasionally while using "move to contact" as these various threats emerged. But they reached cover fairly quickly nevertheless - brush and rocky for the early part of the approach, then actual trees. After the point platoon had already made it to a body of scattered trees, one overwatch platoon coming forward on my left behind them used "move" to save time.

Which turned out to be a mistake. A single squad opening on them from their left at 200 yards or so managed to send the HQ back to his starting location pinned and panic another squad which continued forward. Then it reduced the mortar on that side to crawling. All in one minute. Had they been using "advance", the mortar might still have been vulnerable but the others would not have been. Fatigue would have been better than the delay caused by a scattered platoon.

To deal with this I put one 75mm on the shooter - I had no actually LOS but did have LOS to an area fire target a few meters from the shooter's foxhole. The remaining squad in that platoon - which had already reached cover - fired back. The mortar crept for woods where it could set up and reply. A zook or two threw some nuisance rounds at the shooter. And the point platoon in the center repositioned to bring all rifles to bear at ranges of 150 to 225 yards, from within scattered trees.

It all took only a few minutes. The point platoon settled in and burned off ammo. The shooter was quite tough - clearly fanatic - and did not go down permanently until it was eliminated. By then it had 5 squads, 2 HQs, a mortar and a 75mm firing at it. Another German squad (only 100m away, but hiding until then) joined in and drew off the point platoon's fire - but rapidly broke and ran under that fire, dying as a result. Another light gun fired at the point platoon's woods. The other 75mm area fired back and silenced it (this was the first 20mm).

Everybody got on line in cover. I was taking sniper fire only at this point. 15 minutes had elapsed and some squads were down to 40 ammo, but I'd made it to cover with modest losses, rode out the FO, dealt with 2 guns and most of the first platoon.

Then it was a matter of rolling up the position. The overwatch platoons would remain where they were ready to fire, while the +2 morale platoons went forward to the next body of cover. Whenever I picked up a shooter, half the force fired at it.

It was all over at turn 22. Attacker losses - 16 men. Defender losses - 54 men, 21 routed left on the board, 7 others had already run off. The 75mm pack howitzers got 8 men and 2 guns. The 60mms got only 1 man and 1 gun, but suppressed more than that (they lost 4 men). The zooks got 1 man and inflicted a small amount of suppression (they lost 1 man), so all told the heavy weapons got 10. One platoon - the one that scattered so it came late, but more importantly was farthest from the main defense - only accounted for 4 men. The point got 19 and the other 2 got 12 and 10.

Now is some of this just a dumb AI? How lopsided it was, sure. It didn't have the best force mix - a 75mm infantry gun would have been better than 50mm PAK e.g., and 1-2 HMGs would have helped a lot, while the mines were too far back to help. It opened piecemeal. A little bit of delaying stuff piecemeal - the snipers, one 20mm, HMGs if it had them - would make sense.

But some of it is just sound tactics. An "up" defense, revealing itself soon and meant to shoot me down in the open, would be hit by both 75s and all three 60s. My infantry was well spread. It would not close the range if under such fire. Only a small portion would be close, while a large number of my rifles would bear from farther back. A few go down if IDed. If a lot more fired at once, they would not easily outshoot the entire attacking force. Not with reasonable force selection and attacker odds. Cover can make up for small arms FP differences, but even cover is vulnerable to HE.

A "back" defense on the other hand - more nearly what it tried, with 2/3rds of its infantry and 1 20mm anyway - faced a different problem. Once I get infantry into cover, I am not going to move more than half of it, and usually only a quarter of it, at a time. The rest is going to shoot it out with whatever reveals itself. Without any significant cover edge. And half to three quarters of my infantry alone, once closed to 100-200m range, had as much or more firepower than his entire available force.

Personally I don't like the US paras very much. They are not my style of infantry (I'd rather have the Russians, or standard US with plenty of MGs and add a big FO). But if they have odds as attackers are supposed to, and make reasonable choices of supporting weapons, they can attack just like any other infantry.

If anyone wants to see what it looked like I've got saved files for turns 10, 15, 20, and the end.

[The Hapless General]

Hi JasonC,

I would be happy to see those saved files. If you caould mail them to me at yair.iny@comverse.com I would be most grateful.

Thanks

[JasonC]

Sent. Reviewing them, I realize the start and turn 5 would be more useful for the subject of the thread - by turn 10 the bulk of the force has made it to the first sets of trees. But I didn't think to start saving them until turn 10. Might still be of some interest. Next time I will try to save more detail about the approach march portion.

[cool breeze]

JasonC, I think i rembember reading a thread where you recomended nothing less than 170mm arty for attacking and 150 for defense. I was woundering if you recomend that even with the extra you pay because of rarity on QBs?

Thanks for all of the great posts you do.

[JasonC]

150mm stuff is OK on the attack too. 170 and up is better for map fire - meaning barrages you don't adjust during the game. Do I always take stuff this big? No, sometimes I will buy 120mm mortars as the Russians, and 105s as the Germans or US, e.g. Rariety and expense are reasons. In the case of Russian 120s, it is also a need for some responsive module with a livable delay. Otherwise it is all map fire, and that can be limiting.

I look for big calibers that happen to "roll" low rariety in a random rariety game. If there are some available and map fire is feasible, I will take those, buying them as greens or conscripts. Livable rariety is +20 or 30, perhaps +40 for some of the less expensive Russian guns (122 and 152). Do you want to pay +50 or +65 rariety for 170s, instead of +5-10 for divisonal 150s, as the Germans? No. But if you see the 210s at +20-30, look at least twice. And the 170s are often downright affordable, not much more expensive than regular 105s (when bought as greens or conscripts).

The main moral is that when you use map fire close has to count, so go large. And even when you need flexible reaction times, buy the biggest stuff you can reasonably afford that has livable reaction time, not the light stuff. Both big and small caliber arty can pin things, but big calibers also cut them in half permanently and rout the rest for 5-10 minutes, instead of pinning them for only 1-2.

[cool breeze]

thanks. In respect to buying i have been mostly doing what you recommend, but usual forget to buy unexperienced spotters for map fire. Is there any difference in preformence between green and conscript when doing preplanned? Do you ever use the target wide command for preplanned bombardments and with what guns is it useful?

[JasonC]

The only difference is the reload time is somewhat longer for the conscripts, so fewer rounds per minute land and the whole shoot is stretched out over a somewhat longer time. This is most noticable with the very largest calibers. Sometimes I will pay the slight premium for greens rather than conscripts because of it, if e.g. it is 203s or 210s we are talking about. With 122s or 152s, it doesn't much matter.

As for "target wide", it is usually a mistake. I wish it weren't (more on that below), but that is the in-game reality. Most areas of cover aren't large enough for it to be the right call. You need a very large body of woods or an entire village to justify it. Otherwise you get too many shells coming down in wide open ground that you know has a very small chance of having any defenders actually nearby.

When there is a large enough covered area, one long slow target wide mission from the largest caliber, deep in the enemy backfield, can make sense. It restricts repositioning movements, because even one big shell landing nearby while trying to move can be devasting. And the largest calibers can take 4-5 minutes to all come down, so it is a significant delay.

I wish that target wide was more feasible. I consider that "sheaf" but with 2-3 FOs shooting at it a much more realistic typical pattern of fire for WW II artillery. They did not usually fire single batteries on the tightest possible sheaf, as we usually do in CM. Doing so makes it feasible to dodge while the arty is actually falling. And makes extremely close intel coordination important, to catch targets the size of a single platoon.

In the real deal they'd fire a whole battalion, with a wider sheaf like you see from "target wide". That made dodging essentially impossible, and made it much less important that the enemy be minutely located. You just knew he was on that ridge or over in those woods or village, so you shelled that whole terrain feature with a whole battalion.

The reason we can't really get away with this in CM is the shells are too expensive. They are so scarce, if you don't get something like one man per shell fired with even the medium stuff you are behind the exchange curve. In the real deal one man per ten heavy shells was an acceptable trade.

The play balance point costs are based on supposed effectiveness. They were benchmarked back in CMBO days, when killing uber-infantry was critical and arty could be adjusted perfectly in seconds practically while the shells were in flight. If people had 3 times as many shells and still micromanaged them that way, they'd rule battlefields. I think the solution is cheaper full battalion FOs that only fire "wide" missions - but so far we don't have those.

Paying low responsiveness conscript or green prices is as close as CM gets to affordable big shells. But it still doesn't really repay the cost if you use "target wide" to solve your enemy locating problem. Instead you have to pick areas you think have a high likelihood they will have defenders in them, and fire ordinary sheafs, one battery at each.

One battery might miss completely, because you are just wrong about where the defenders are. Those are just the breaks, with map fire. If you plan your movements to conform to the fire plan (going into places right after the shells), at least you get the terrain yourself without loss. With big stuff, a fringe benefit is the "short" misses typically provide some cover in front of the position too, in the form of fresh shell holes.

What can you do about dodging, when using the standard narrow sheafs? You can select targets that you can pin by direct fire - at least on the sides. E.g. HMGs or on-map guns or tanks can see the right and left exits from a given woods. Then it is a good arty target. People that try to leave to the sides when they see the shells will get pinned. They may still be able to run out the back, but that is generally along the "long axis" of the fall of the shells, so they have farther to go.

[Abteilung]

JasonC's posts absolutely ROCK!! I love finding stuff he's written. So much attention to detail and patience. His suggestions are simply the non-pariel of "strategy" guides.

Despite admitting mediocre PBEM peformances on his part personally, I find that the advice is sound and works when applied properly. I guess no one really expects the coach to go out and win the superbowl by himself, but without his advice, the team would have never made it past the pre-season scrimmages.

[Little Pete]

Well said Abteilung. If we ever have to form a Battlefront army, i say JasonC goes on operational planning with some of the other strategists and the rest of us grunts get to be squad/company/battalion leaders etc

[SBS]

Jason C I think you missed the point of my last post ...being that the German Army has some very effective long range weapons.

[JasonC]

SBS you said it is suicide to cross open ground against the Germans because they have effective long range weapons, Tiger tanks and MG 42s. It is not suicide to cross open ground being shot at by an MG 42. It is suicide to cross open ground being shot at by a Tiger tank. They are not remotely comparable. And you can, must, cross long range open ground areas covered by MG 42s, to get anywhere attacking Germans. It is not suicide, it is a required ordinary "drill".

[cool breeze]

How much more, less responsive, arty do you think we should be able to buy? I am no historian but have always felt it was way to scarce/expensive.

[JasonC]

I'd like to see battalion level spotters with 3 times the tubes and twice the ammo, for about the current costs (for small and medium calibers - for big stuff it could be 33-50% more), but only able to fire "target wide" missions. I'd like to see the current costs for single battery FOs drop 20-33% - but not for the largest calibers. TRPs, on the other hand, I'd like to see go up to 25 pts apiece. And I'd like to see the arty point budget set at more like 35%, and an additional 15% for assaults.

I don't expect to see these changes, but that is what I'd prefer. I think if they were made you'd see much more realistic use of artillery as a "bludgeon" applied to entire enemy held terrain features - particularly in assaults - and much less micro-managed individual flights of shells playing "dodgeball" with targets the size of platoons, or less.

[SBS]

I said it is virtually suicidal and in some cases it is. I have played a scenario with one Tiger Tank some MG42 and standard German Infantry and they chewed up a Russian advance before the Russians got anywhere near them.

My point being that some of the German weapons are much more effective at range than comparible allied weapons. The MG 34 and 42 were regarded as the best MG's of the War.

[JasonC]

Of course you got chewed up when there was a Tiger tank there. But if you get chewed up when there isn't a Tiger tank there, only MG42s, then you don't know how to attack. Not a lesson that helps anybody else. Since you seem incapable of groking such a simple point, I'm through trying to discuss it with you.

[Abteilung]

SBS: A bullet is a bullet. Who manufactured it and who fired it and from what doesn't matter. An MG will kill infantry regardless, if they are exposed and driven into its "kill zone".

JasonC is/was kindly trying to explain to you that ther IS something you can do about ANY MG nest.

What kind of MG it is never matters much, just that it IS an MG is enough to do the job. You would use the MG's of each nation the same way wrt to classification (heavy, med, light, etc.). You would fight any model MG basically the same way (as JasonC kindly outlined for you) It doesn't matter as much as people think whether the MG can fire 800rpm or 1000+rpm, just the fact that is spitting lots of bullets out from some hard to see location is enough.

A Heavy tank (i.e. Pz.Kpfw.VI, etc.) is a totally different situation and cannot be dealt with in the same manner as an MG.

[SBS]

Yes but my point is that the "German Weapons are more effective at range".

Which means that they can hit you with more accuracy and effectiveness at range than comparible allied weapons.

It is not accurate to say all MG's are the same, a bren gun for example is in no way comparible to the MG42 in terms of rate of fire and range.

[SBS]

I think I should also mention it was me delivery the "chewing up" rather than receiving it.

[Los]

My recommendaton if facing open terrain against a well defended enemy line (w/ interlocking fields of fire) is to try and isolate one small section of the line w/ smoke if possible, to get in amongst them and then start taking the line by the flank. You can sort of see an example of this in action here:

http://www.combatmission.com/articles/grafenwohr/grafenwohr.asp

Los

[JasonC]

An Epictetus moment in re SBS. When you can't explain to someone, rather than mock and leave, feel your own incapacity. Well then, I try one more time to explain it. Tactics matter more than equipment. But saying it may not make it apparent, so I instead ran the following test.

The Russians have a rifle 41 infantry platoon, 4 11 man squads each LMG 2 SMG etc and a platoon HQ with +1 command and +1 morale. Regulars. They start 450m away from an Axis HMG in a wood building. The terrain is farmland flat open light damage, which translates to a few huts, a hedge, a fence, a small patch of rocky, a few craters. But basically wide open, and no trees on the entire map.

Cases 1-3 the Axis HMG is a green Rumanian ZB37. Case 4 it is a regular German MG42, the best HMG there is. Case 1 the Russians human wave right at the thing, completely ignoring the limited available cover, and it jams early after 3-4 shots. It unjams at 135 meters and fires for two minutes. At 65m it jams again, and one squad - the last still up at that time - runs the remaining distance to the building and KOs the thing in close combat. 15 men hit, most of the platoon scattered, succeeding only because the thing jammed. Only took about 7 minutes with that helping though.

Case 2 is a rerun in which there is no decisive jam. There are a few short ones but all recovered within about 30 seconds. The result is the entire attack fails, with 17 men down. A few reached the house but so piecemeal they died in close combat. The rest are routed or tired-pinned and leaderless, not rallying after several minutes. Even with 15 minutes elapsed, utter failure.

Case 3 the Russians use "move", in a skirmish line that maintains interval. Whenever they go into cover panic their sideways sneak is voided and a new move order is given. In they walk. The result is a thoroughly pinned platoon, first halted at 350m and decisively halted at 200m. 15 men are hit and 10 more rout off the map.

The only chance they have is if they are given 20-25 minutes and the Rumanians don't exercise any fire discipline late, but instead blast away continually at thoroughly pinned men. If the Rumanians do that they will run out of ammo eventually, 5 minutes more and the Russians will rally somewhat, and can go after the out of ammo MG. But no real chance of success other than just outlasting all the ammo, with a third of the men down and the rest scattered.

Case 4, the Russians use proper approach march tactics. Short advance and hides, staggered moves, using all available cover. They hide behind houses, use a hedge, navigate for the rocky. They try to get into a few shellholes and one house with 100-150m of the MG. Once they pick up a full ID they fire and pin the thing. They lost only 5 men getting the whole platoon to that position. No squad ever panicked, though a few were pinned. The platoon was never out of player control or unable to defend itself.

Finishing off the MG from the position of cover there were two options. Option one was to hold fire when a pin led to a flag in place of the full ID, rather than continuing with area fire at the flag marker. Then assaulting squads are sent up to the house. This saves ammo, but if the MG fires despite the pin, can lose an additional half squad, bringing total losses to one squad.

The other alternative has the whole platoon just keep firing at the last known position, with one squad sent closer to grenade range. This KOs the MG without additional loss, but expends 3 minutes of ammo from most of the platoon. Sometimes it will be better to spend the half squad and keep the ammo, sometimes the reverse. The attacking Russians can pick which to pay. The whole thing took 15 minutes, no longer than outlasting the ammo does, while relibably succeeding instead of failing.

What does this look like on the other end? Well after 4 minutes, the nearest Russians were 220m away, down from 450-500m (they moved in a 2 by 2 column or "box" with the HQ in the center, rather than a line, so they were about 50m deep). The farthest was 280m. All were just flags except one, the current target, which was prone, alerted and tiring. One of the other squads was -1 man, and one plus the HQ were also at tiring, but all were at OK morale.

In the tenth minute the nearest was 104m away and the full ID was made. The 4th and 5th men were both hit in that 10th minute, and one squad was at "cautious" after taking recent hits. The MG42 had 28 ammo left at that point. The platoon had one squad in a building 120m from the MG, and another in a shellhole at 104m. The HQ was hiding behind a building. One squad was in the open on the way to another shellhole, that last was a bit behind the rest in a patch of rocky, rallying and resting. Not a scattered mess of sideways sneakers, tired and pinned.

Tactics trump equipment. Remember this was a regular MG42 not a green ZB37. If they spent men instead of ammo, the Russians still only lost 12 men vs. 15-17 for the others. If they spend ammo instead, the losses are only a third as high. The only case that is any competition was when the defending MG repeatedly jammed - then the bum's rush still cost a few more men and a lot more disorganization, but was about twice as fast. But nothing like as certain, or as able to handle additional threats etc.

Naturally the best solution to one MG in a house at the end of a long stretch with little cover is to have a T-34 or an on-map 76mm gun blow the house to kingdom come. With an MG (foot or tank coaxial) ready to cut up survivors who try to run. You'd advance, get shot, see the sound contact, guess the house it is in, and torch said house.

But you don't need heavy weapons overwatch that powerful to advance through MG fire. And you can't always guess the shooter's real location. The same approach that got infantry to 100m and cover, thus to a full ID, could be followed up by a minute of direct HE to save squad ammo or that last half squad.

Can you conduct such an advance over similarly open ground if the shooter at the far end is not one MG but a Tiger tank? Noooo. But proper tactics will let you attack across open ground (the subject of the thread) covered by an MG - MG42 or not. Improper tactics will fail expensively at the same task - even against green Rumanians.

[ January 31, 2004, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Case 4, the Russians use proper approach march tactics. Short advance and hides, staggered moves, using all available cover. They hide behind houses, use a hedge, navigate for the rocky. They try to get into a few shellholes and one house with 100-150m of the MG. Once they pick up a full ID they fire and pin the thing. They lost only 5 men getting the whole platoon to that position. No squad ever panicked, though a few were pinned. The platoon was never out of player control or unable to defend itself.

...

Can you send/post somewhere the save files please please please. You did save them, right?

You didn't save them? Oh now! Would you be so kind enough to do it again, mail the files to me, and I will post them on a web somewhere?

Thanks!!!

GaJ.

[cool breeze]

If you saved them can you send me some from the last game too?

thanks