Long distance armour advance over open terrain

[kunstler]

I've been intrigued by several scenarios where you have to advance over a vast distance with armour troops in relatively open terrain.

I know the maxim that one should lead with infantry and keep the tanks back, but in cases like these you can't march the infantry to the other side in the time limit. Infantry are also extremely difficult to march over terrain that has no cover while under fire.

I'm wondering about how others approach this problem. You have only limited artillery support, sometimes air support, but that's not enough.

I'm advancing with scout vehicles out front (if I have them, less experienced armour if not). Spotting anti-tank guns has proven to be one of the hardest parts. I can lose several vehicles and troops before I can zero in on them enough to call an artillery bombardment and even then the locations are usually qualified by a ?. And there are usually more guns to deal with than I have artillery. Smart defenders spread them out far enough that no more than one is encompassed by an arty barrage.

In playing one SP scenario, I couldn't spot some enemy guns across a river, even with several hundred troops in view of them. I wound up rushing and driving three half tracks parallel through the scattered trees they were in, even then they didn't spot them until 12m away (after passing the gun!). Very gamey but it worked. I can't see anyone in real life being quite so reckless.

Anti-tank guns can be really hard to spot. Anti-tank rifles are even worse.

If there are anti-tank rifles, you can't rush up half-tracks scouts, they'll get blasted. Infantry in the open get pinned and flee by ATRs unless the infantry outnumbers the ATRs by a large number. If I bring forward heavier tanks to take out the ATRs, I can lose them to waiting ATGs. And I don't want to waste all my arty on ATRs, especially when I don't have any fix on their location and I'm just hitting any outcrop of trees or rock. Meanwhile they might be in foxholes in open terrain.

At this point I've found that the best tactic is to push forward with everything I've got after a light scout to overwhelm the enemy. Popping up and sniping winds up favouring the outnumbered defenders who attrition my vehicles bit by bit if I let him. And this is something that, in the real world, could lead to total disaster, and can in the game vs human opponents: a canny enemy will open fire with only a few assets, lull you in, you rush, and then blam, all hell breaks loose and the landscape is littered with the burning remains of your once mighty army. I usually err on the side of caution and fail to reach the end of the map and exit troops or take the final victory locations.

How do you know when to rush and when not to? In the game we know the enemy defenses are limited; in real life there's no set point ratio. The defender could have anything. What do really good players/commanders base their decision on? Do you bleed slow, cutting down the time you have to reach the end of the map each turn, or rush, and risk losing it all? Do you clump your armour or spread them out?

Baffled minds wanna know . . .

cheers,

kunstler

[YankeeDog]

I started to write a post about this and realized that the variations are simply too numerous to cover anything in detail. It depends on factors like:

1) Max LOS due to weather and/or light conditions

2) AFVs I have to work with, and specifically attributes like armor thickness, turret or lack thereof, speed, HE blast of main gun, etc.

3) Most likely enemy anti-armor assets, their penetration ability and range at which they are likely to score a hit.

4) How much there is in the way of hills/rises, buildings, and stands of trees to break LOS on the maps

5) How much there is in the way of 'good cover' for ATGs and AT teams on the map - i.e., stands of trees, broken ground, etc. Also factored into this is just how dug in the AT assets will be - non-dug in guns are a LOT easier to deal with than guns in trenches.

6) What assets other than armor I have to work with, especially artillery and on-board mortars.

All of these factors interact, so the permutations are almost endless. The way I handle an armored breakthrough effort on the open steppe with T-34s against likely PAK43s is radically different than the way I advance on a road through forested ground with Tigers when I'm pretty sure I'm looking at only infantry team opposition.

In general, assuming we're talking an all-armor or nearly all-armor force, the more 'close' the terrain and/or shorter the LOS conditions, the more I concentrate my armor and 'rush' as one large group to gain local superiority against ATGs as they pop up - at the ranges these types of conditions present, you will likely see an ATG almost as soon as it opens up. The goal, then is bring as much accurate fire as possible on the ATG as soon as it opens up and destroy it.

The longer the LOS conditions and the more open the map, the more likely I am to use overwatch, with most of the armor hanging back in good overwatch postions with one group at a time dashing foward to the next defilade, and eventually into a new overwatch postition. The goal here is to force my opponent to take low hit percentage shots at fast-moving AFVs. Eventually, my forward moving groups get close enough that the gun is spotted and if I've positioned my overwatch correctly, the ATG gets creamed before it can take out more than one tank (and if I'm really lucky, none).

These are generalizations, though, and details of armor vs. gun matchup, or other support units available like on-board mortar etc., can totally change things as far as my tactical approach.

Anyway, that's my $.02. I'm sure others have better tips.

Cheers,

YD

[ August 12, 2003, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[gibsonm]

Beware of maxims. However as a guide:

"Infantry lead" where the terrain is close or at night. This takes advantage of Infantry's strengths and helps mitigate armour's weaknesses.

"Tanks lead" when terrain is open and lends itself to armour's ability to cover ground at speed and engage targets at range. Bring the infantry along one bound to the rear so they can be brought forward when required to clear some close country or hold an objective.

I'd suggest you lead with your more experienced crews. They will spot targets faster than the inexperienced ones and you should lose less vehicles that way.

Lastly employ correct armoured tactics. Mass your armour and move with one "foot on the ground" (yanks call it "overwatch" and "bounding overwatch", we in Aust call it "caterpillar" and "leap frog").

Say you have 2 Troop (platoon) groups. One Troop stays firm on a feature with covered arcs covering the ground to the next feature (likely enemy positions etc.). The 2nd Troop moves forward (also with covered arcs) but relying on the static Troop to engage any targets that reveal themselves due to the moving Troop's advance. Once the moving Troop reaches their destination, the rear Troop catches up and the process starts all over again. In Leap Frog the process is the same but the rear Troop moves beyond (leap frogs) the lead Troop to another position.

Of course if you have indirect fire assets move an FO with each group so you can help with the suppression if required.

If contact is likely move your troop's using Hunt so they will stop and engage targets. If contact is unlikely use Move.

Don't move unsupported, individual vehicles (unless you have to) as this just invites the enemy to conduct a range practice (with you at the wrong end).

Hope that helps.

[DavidFields]

Your analysis is excellent.

Which is why I like scenarios with covering terrain. And I tend to like scenarios which are not mostly armor.

CMAK is going to have to be creative in designing scenarios. I still remember playing ASL (I think) and being very unhappy with the desert tank scenarios--since flat, featureless desert seems to require tank rushes.

For what it is worth, I tend to concentrate and rush. As you mentioned, recon is hard to do unless the opponent is somehow forced to be in the open (rare--except for a pillbox or trench). And I hate losing recon armor needlessly.

But, if one has no idea what one is fighting, that means betting the whole game on that rush. Of course, to improve the odds, I try to pick a very narrow area, and likely a map edge. Ideally, one would blindly pound some likely cover areas with artillery, and perhaps use area fire with the AFVS while moving forward (though that burns a lot of ammo). Nevertheless, if the opponent has flanking AT fire with enough range, the results are likely to be not good.

Fortunately, unlike real life, one tends to know in these scenarios who is supposed to be the attacker and who is defender (or you know it is going to be a meeting engagement). That minimizes the chance that you will have a complete disaster by being lured into attacking a superior force. The attacker in the scenarios can usually assume he has more forces than the defender, concentrate the attack power geographically, and make an ugly blast forward.

[Tank Ace]

I know the maxim that one should lead with infantry and keep the tanks back

Scratch that when with open terrain, have ur tanks do a Hunt and move ur troops forward with tanks. Tanks should lead in open terrain with inf close behind.

[ August 12, 2003, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: TANK ACE ]

[kunstler]

Thanks for the responses guys!

I've tried the overwatch position thing, rolling up my tanks to a ridge line and using 'seek hull down'. The unfortunate thing here I've found is that the enemy AT guns pick off my tanks as they peek over the ridge top, and I cannot spot them in return. The more tanks I move up to the ridge, the more I lose without even seeing the enemy. It's turned me off the overwatch thing. I guess I have to time it better, sending over the scouts and rolling up with the overwatch simultaneously.

Mostly the advance type I'm experimenting with is over open terrain, small to moderate hills, steppe, long maps, small shacks. Maybe a few forests widely spaced. I've made some custom maps to get more custom terrain. Goal is to advance fast but not lose lots.

One other problem is that each time you get stuck by enemy resistence you have to dismount troops and shift around to deal with'em, then reembark and that takes time. If you space out ATRs on suicide mission every couple hundred meters, it'll finish off the scouts before half way, and break the pace of the advance. Once you get used to it just being a few ATRs and advance anyway, it'll be the spot they have 8 ATGs.

I guess mechanized advance characterizes it better than strictly armour. Half tracks for Jerry, plus scout vehicles. For Soviet, just scout vehicles, troops riding the tanks.

As early war German, the 45 ATG is pretty effective, and a 76 really deadly. Flak guns I've found impossible to spot and make mince meat of half tracks and light armour cars. 45s are a bit easier. ATRs can take out the cars, or tracks.

The difficulty of spotting is the real sticking point for me right now. I can send out scouts, have ten tanks in overwatch, 200-300 troops along a ridge or in some light woods, and they can't spot the enemy guns. As in shots hitting, I get those messages, but see no puffs, no '?' guns, nothin. Not always that bad, but when that happens it can get painful with loses.

As Soviet, the long range killing power of German guns is really telling. The long range optics and 88mm gun really make a difference. They hit lots more than Soviet tanks counter firing. I can't manage to hold on in long range slug fests with 88s using any Soviet armour. The Germans hit more often. Even using shoot and scoot and spreading out, I can't match their hit/miss ratio. And the penetrating power is much higher.

As the Soviet, I'm more inclined to rush than as German. Jerry can stand off and kill at long range, no need to rush. The longer the better for the German. Gullies are my best friend as Soviet, hiding behind hills and such to get close. But that's about it for my strategy as Ruskie. Even putting T34s in overwatch aren't much use, they can't penetrate the Tigers armour at long range, ok, sometimes there are REALLY freaky shots and hits at weak points, but that only happens when I'm playing German. =)

I'm just trying to figure out how commanders in the war handled the huge open spaces with the equipment available. Since spaces got tighter the further into Europe the Soviets advanced, the Russian disadvantage diminishes. Forests, towns, hills and hiding spots are heaven. A real challenge is leading a Soviet T34 attack in open terrain against Tigers from long range and having even loses.

I wonder what the German commanders would have done had the equipment been reversed (ie they had Soviet, Soviets had German). I think they'd have higher losses then than the Russians. What kind of tactical magic could they work in the Russian circumstances?

cheers,

kunstler

[Redwolf]

Historically, artillery is what is stricktly required here, btoh for German and Soviet doctrine.

Sometimes that is not available, both in reality and in the game.

In that case, overwhelming the AT guns with HE fire is the only thing you can do. You will lose tanks. In the absense of artillery that is the best you can do.

You have optimization opportunities, though.

- In particular, you should move your armor so that they cover each other.

- You should move them so that many tanks as possible face one section of suspected gun positions at the same time, and are not threatend by other suspected gun positions. In the extreme, that can mean overrolling a gun which is in scattered trees or in trenches.

[kunstler]

Is the key keeping some tanks stationary not for shooting but for spotting? What increases chanes of spotting ATG positions?

I'm playing SP-6th army probe now; it's got some depressions but not much cover. I do have a bit of artillery, hope it's enough for his guns. Otherwise it's gonna be costly.

Approach to Sevastopol is another one that comes to mind.

k

[tabpub]

Just finished that one vs a friend and got a draw as Germans. I think you have more than "a bit" of artillery there, especially with the OB stuff. Have fun. If you are playing AI, then you could do well.

[Moon]

Stationary units spot better, yes (don't forget to keep them unbuttoned!). More specifically, their field of view is wider, meaning that they can spot units even if they are not immediately in the front arcs. Moving vehicles develop "tunnel vision" the quicker they go (applies more or less to all units on map, including infantry). But even with stationary units, it is wise to have them point at various areas of the map to make sure the entire FOV is covered.

Martin

[Code13]

If you have any arty then use it for smoke, unless it is really big stuff then just lay down fire on any likely bits of terrain they might be in.

Other than that I would also tend to rush the defences with my armour, none of this bounding overwatch (which has its place withotu a doubt) but full on high speed dashing accross country, makes it harder for you to spot, but if they arent seeing it anyway what does that matter, but more importantly it makes you harder to hit.

Try using the "cover arc" command as that will focus the attention of the crew forwards to where presumably you are being shot from, rather than 360 as usual.

[Joachim]

From what you write, it seems to me you crest hills with those tanks moving into overwatch position. While they crest the hill, they have no others in overwatch for themselves (this is the concept of the reverrse slope defence!). Try peeking around one side of a hill, exposing you to a smaller fraction of the enemy ATGs. Do not go over the top, do not even put the turret over the top.

The highest hill is the best place for a lookout - and the best place to be a target. Overwatch does not mean you have to overwatch the whole map. It does mean you can see (and hit) the places where you expect the enemy.

If the enemy can attack from all directions and you have to cover all directions - tough luck.

OTOH low ground increases the chance to bog, esp if it ain't completely dry.

If you encounter a ? marker for an ATG - blast it with area fire while setting up an armor covered arc around it. This way you make sure you blast away the whole turn and do not select other targets (including the ATG, which pops up - target acquired - hides again- target lost... Area fire with a armor CA will keep blasting that ATG). Have one or more tanks doing overwatch for the tank nailing the ATG. And make sure that tank has a limited field of view and thus can only be seen and be shoot at from a limited area!

Gruß

Joachim

[kunstler]

I wuz doing the half-a-hill overwatch in the last game, Into the Void. That one I was using the left side of the hill as protection and limiting my field of fire/exposure. As you say, the best spotting locations are also fire magnets. I always try to set up defenses with limited, overlapping fields of fire so enemy tanks can't support each other.

But it's true, often I'm heading up over the top, especially of the low rise ridges. Moving up the side of them is a very good point. Sometimes though all you have is a long, unbroken ridge line at the start of the map (to conceal your troops from immediate fire and truncate the length of the map). Here there isn't always much choice. I try to limit exposure with the ground as best I can but LOS and surety aren't always easy to achieve, sometimes I overshoot or underestimate the concealment/curve of a mound and then . . . it's bam!

The covered arc command sounds like it has more uses than I've given it credit for, I don't use it much. I'll start giving that a go too.

With the 6th scenario, no amount of artillery is enough for me. I want to flatten the whole dang map before I send my guys in. Taxpayers would not be pleased. =)

WIth default defender positions and fixed emplacements like ATGs and pillboxes, the AI can do a real bang up job. The only downside I have found is the AI rearranges the facing of pillboxes, even with locked unit placement. How do you get around that? I think I've seen it in other scenarios.

Good advice fellas, thanks!

kunstler

[ August 13, 2003, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: kunstler ]

[Redwolf]

No matter how you turn it, the key here is to shape the battlefield so that many units of yours fac as few of his as possible.

You want several tanks in a spot where they have LOS only to one (or as few as possible) suspected gun position(s).

It sometimes helps to think of tank movmement as the same as an infantryman's movement? Hang out in cover. Wait for opportunate moment, then rush to next spot of cover. Sneak around corner, shoot at enemy. Repeat.

As Joachim said, the overwatch doesn't make sense if the overwatch has too wide visibility and is vulnerable to the shooters. Overwatch only makes sense

- if the overwatch is in a spot where its LOS is limited to interesting spots

- the overwatch is invulnerable to the expected shooters

- the sooters are too busy shooting at other targets

The last point is interesting, if you go into the overwatch only when contact of the closing-in vehicles is imminent your chances are better.

It is interesting to read that the Germans in Russian tried various variations of heavy tank usage with regards to verwatch and approach. On the russian battlefield site there is an AT gunner telling that the germans had the Tigers in overwatch, bouncing off the long-range rounds (respectivly the guns didn't shoot at them) and the Mk IVs closed in to the gun positions.

Mellenthin on the other hand makes it clear that they were going in with wegde formations with the heaviest tanks in front.

The Russians always focussed on artillery for these kinds of tank approaches, from even before WW2. The tank exploration groups are supposed to have their own assigned artillery. The heavy SP guns are just a way to get artillery fire with less reaction time.

Overall, it is pretty untypical for a tank force, both Russian and German, to have to attack a prepared defense line with decent AT guns, especially without own artillery. They are supposed to go through gaps made by other forces, or failing that have hevay artillery support. If they penetrated the enemy line they would usually face less prepared opposition until they were facing enemy AT or tank reserves - in which case the attacker would usually have to reorganize. In the general case, a tank detachment after a penetration would be too weak to overwhelm a real reserve successfully thown into their way. Remember that AT reserves are highly concentrated forces with a lot of AT guns, tank destroyers or tanks. The attacker would be exhausted, low on ammo and possibly fuel, on sucky intelligence, so it would need a lot of tanks to break the blocking position.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by kunstler:

But it's true, often I'm heading up over the top, especially of the low rise ridges.

Me, too

The covered arc command sounds like it has more uses than I've given it credit for, I don't use

it much. I'll start giving that a go too.

Especially on the move or to ignore diversions this is a very good command. The trick to keep the area fire is rather an abuse, but does work well. Just make sure no target of the appropriate type enters it, and the area fire will stay on taget.

WIth default defender positions and fixed emplacements like ATGs and pillboxes, the AI can do a real bang up job. The only downside I have found is the AI rearranges the facing of pillboxes, even with locked unit placement. How do you get around that? I think I've seen it in other scenarios.

Good advice fellas, thanks!

kunstler

IIRC loading the scen into the editor or buying new stuff changes the facing. Facing the pillboxes is the very last job in a scen.

Gruß

Joachim

[kunstler]

hi Redwolf,

I can see why with the Tigers. I read they were used, like you say, in wedges at Kursk, leading in the other tanks. Of course lucky shots take some out, but carefully handled by a skilled player they're mobile fortresses.

I try to limit exposure of assets when facing the enemy as much as possible but in the open plain scenarios it can be difficult to do, and my only solution so far is to lose tanks.

Interesting about the Russians using artillery on the tank approaches. It makes sense. But I've read on the board about how slow Russian artillery was, that's why prepatory bombardment was brought into the game, because CMBO didn't cover the scale of combat at which large Russian guns would be used (ie. to slow to respond to fluid situation). I have no doubt they used the guns but how did they manage to bring them to bear fast enough against mobile assets? Until late in the war I get 7 or 8 minute waiting time for artillery a lot.

I've played a number of CM scenarios where tanks have artillery support and some with little or none, which are the most difficult. Good to know commanders weren't forced to do that often, because it's a nightmare challenge.

I was thinking that tactics are as complicated as the terrain (totally flat = tank rush, lots of gullies,hills,trees = lots of options/finesse) but that doesn't wash because the less sophisticated Soviets were outclassed in open terrain and much better in the cities. (is the German advantage at mobile warfare really in the scale of CM or a step up from that?)

To get a sense of what the fighting was like on the Ostfront, I'm experimenting with fighting in wide open terrain in various weather conditions. If it is flat for miles, how far ahead do you send recon? How far can 85mm Russian guns shoot? =) If your column is rushing to cut off Soviet troops trying to escape a pocket, you can't be too cautious or they'll all escape. Even the best commander must be forced into taking unwise, wild, tactical risks to secure larger scale tactical goals, no?

One question for those in the know:

How much artillery was used in historical situations? Is the artillery support you get in attacks in CM equal to the amount generally employed in historical advances, too heavy, or too light?

With tons of smoke, turn after turn, I could probably advance a strictly infantry force towards entrenched defenders, but on a big open map it would require on heck of a lot of 81mm smoke spotters to keep up long enough for the entire approach.

Keeping up enough of a bombardment to keep the enemies heads down would also take a lot of shrapnel.

Without artillery, tanks, or massively outnumbering the enemy, I can't see any way to do it. Even tanks need smoke/artillery support to pass ATGs without serious losses, and on the open steppe, only mechanized seems to have any offensive capability. Infantry alone are just to vulnerable and exposed. They spend all their time on their bellies.

From a game perspective, artillery has to be limited, but historically, in general, is the level of artillery support proportional?

Thanks for all the responses guys. One of these days I hope to master open terrain advance. I'll have to to play CMAK!

Joachim, thanks for the tip, I'll try that!

cheers,

kunstler

[ August 13, 2003, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: kunstler ]

[Redwolf]

From what I have seen I think that artillery is usually underrepresented in CM scenarios involving tank-heavy attacks.

An attacking tank detachment would be a priority for allotment of higher-level artillery units. In particular, there would be a lot more ammunition available.

They would usually not call in fire "life" as in calling in with new locations. For the Russians there would be a predefined "box" guarding the tank's intended way through the depths of the defense. I don't think they could do much to adjust it, but they could observe the fire as it moves up and synchronize their movement to expose themself to positions that have just be suppressed. If information about the terrain deeper in the defenses was too limited, then a walking barrage would be used. Exploration tank detachments would usually get the long-range artillery (the Russians didn't seem to practice counterbattery on a regular basis).

Of course there are strict limits on this and the tanks can easily be caught without useful artillery support. However, by that time the tanks are supposed to be through areas where the defender would have strong AT defenses set up and they could do their business until they encounter reserves.

I know less about German artillery practice in tank units, but it is a safe guess that they would rely more on life requests. The mortar carriers and later SP artillery would provide integrated artillery moving with them.

A CM battle is supposed to happen after the real artillery preparation, the turn-1 barrages we can have in CMBB are only a small part of what a real-life preparation would be. But CM scenarios often see fully intact defenders. I think areas where valuable forces attack (e.g. tank forces) should always see defenders with losses.

[xerxes]

The British in north africa in the early going against the AK thought that "tank rushes" were the tactic. Engage and destroy the panzers. The Germans didn't cooperate and almost always used an AT gun screen. The AT guns (50Ls early on) made mincemeat of the Brit armor repeatedly. The Brits did learn and moved to better combined arms after a number of painful lessons.

Tanks shouldn't attack alone.

Almost any terrain has depressions/low ridges that can hide you from parts (though often not all parts) of the battlefield. Limiting what can hit you is critical to being able to advance.

You should not leave your infantry at home. Use every scrap of terrain. If a squad gets pinned, hide them until they can recover. Don't run, use move, or Move To Contact w/ Hide. Take your time and you can often advance into spotting range.

[YankeeDog]

To support Redwolf's point about artillery being 'underrepresented' in most CMBB fights, especially for Soviet formations:

The amount of artillery support available to Soviet formations varies considerably depending on the specific formation and/or time period in question, but to give a general idea:

Assume you're Soviets assaulting a German defensive line on a battalion-level attack (a very common engagement size for CM). Here's a rough idea of the artillery assets available to support your assault, based on the December 1942 Soviet Rifle Division TOE:

The various artillery tubes (ranging from 82mm mortars to 122mm howitzers) are at various levels of command, ranging from battalion (82mm mortars) to Regimental (82mm & 120mm mortars as well as some 76mm guns) to division (76mm & 122mm guns). The total number of tubes of the various calibres at the respective command levels are as follows:

- 81 82mm mortar tubes (9/rifle battalion)

- 21 120mm mortar tubes (7/rifle regiment)

- 12 76mm Infantry Guns (4/rifle regiment, these are shorter range guns than than other 76mm guns contained in the division batteries, and therefore quite possibly often used for DF support)

- 24 76mm Field Guns (two batteries of four in each of 3 Divisional Artillery Regiments)

- 12 122mm Howitzers (one battery of four for each of 3 Divisional Artillery Regiments)

So if you just take the mortar tube assets available to the division and distribute them evenly between the battalions of the division, in CM terms you get something in the ballpark of 1 9-tube 82mm mortar spotter (or 2 4-tube spotters for more flexibility), and 1 120mm mortar spotter to support each battalion. It is likely that in an assault, mortar assets would be weighted toward the lead battalion in the assault, so this is probably best viewed as a minimum available number of mortar tubes, with assets from adjacent battalions/regiments lending support when and where possible.

In addition, among the division's 3 regiments there are the equivalent of 3 76mm spotters available to support the assault. However, these are relatively short range 76mm guns, so the adjacent regiments' batteries might not be in range to directly support the assault, and some (or all) of the the parent regiment's guns might be on-map supporting as DF assets.

The division has the CM equivalent of 6 76mm and 3 122mm spotters available. Since the main point of effort in assault is going to be the point battalion, presumably most of these assets are going to be dedicated to supporting the assault effort.

That's a lot of artillery, and we haven't even gotten into Corps or Army Level assets yet, which includes 122mm and 152mm guns, various rocket artillery assets, and possibly even larger arty assets assigned at the Front level.

There are a few qualifiers here: (1) a large number of tubes does not necessarily equate to a large number of shells available, however presumably in an assault every attempt would be made to make ammunition supplies abundant for an assault effort; (2) rifle divisions did not necessarily have the full TOE alloted Arty support at all times, but again every effort would be made to make assets available to an important assault effort; (3) some artillery (especially the longer-ranged guns) would presumably be dedicated to deeper interdictive and harrassing fire, and so would not appear on the CM map (but this should affect the amount of reinforcements arriving for the defender); and (4) there is possiblity of some assets, especially the 82mm and 120mm mortars assigned to the regiments not immediately involved in the assault being dedicated to harassing and interdicting enemy forces to the immediate right and left of the breakthough effort -- therefore these assets would not appear on the CM map.

Realistically, in any planned assault of a defensive line, Corps and Army arty assets (including generous allocations of heavy hitters like Katyushas and 152mm arty) would more than make up for any decrease in the divisional assets available, though. Corps also had DF Anti-Tank assets that could be allocated to support an assault as on-map support.

Organic Artillery support was considerably more scarce in Tank/Mechanized formations, but often it would be elements of a rifle division making the initial breakthrough, with a tank brigade/corps supporting and eventually breaking through the gap created by the rifle division. Soviet Tank/Mechanized formations, especially late war, also had a generous allocation of mobile DF HE support assets like SU/ISU-76/122/152 guns to help make up for indirect fire support. Besides, since mobile formations were presumably applied to the point of maximum effort in a breakthrough attempt, so Corps and Army level arty assets would be concentrated in front of their assault.

Draw your own conclusions. Based on the above information, though, I agree with Redwolf that most CM assault secenarios contain considerably less than a 'real life' level of artillery support for a 'typical' Soviet breakthrough effort, especially from mid-1942 on when the Soviets got their operational situation more in order and began to make credible offensive efforts.

I don't necessarily view this as a bad thing. Unless you like to play scenarios that involve the Soviet Player blowing up every piece of half decent cover on the map with arty, and then driving a tank company across the map more or less unmolested, you'll probably get more enjoyment out of playing the scenarios depicting situations with more of a 'fair fight'.

Military tactics in general is largely the art of avoiding a fair fight. For a good 'fair fight' CM scenario, it is usually assumed that the operational and strategic decisions have 'washed out' to a more or less fair fight. This isn't necessarily realistic, especially for the Soviets who late war had both numerical advantage and superior operational planning, but it makes for a much more interesting game.

Cheers,

YD

[ August 14, 2003, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[rlh1138]

Just responding to one of the questions here about real life tactics, (as opposed to what may/may not work in CMBB). I've been reading 'Panzer Aces', lots of stories from Eastern front tank fighting. Seems a lot of the German TC favored the rush, at least I'm reading a lot of stories about, '...coming up on a Russian village we encountered an AT screen of guns. We moved forward at high speed, pausing to fire'. I have no idea how this book is regarded, but it seems pretty factual to me. And of course, it's only the recollections/history of 6 or so of the more famous German TC.

FWIW

rlh138

[JasonC]

Many different related problems seem to me to be being confused. They should be seperated.

One problem is advancing against superior enemy armor, meaning so much stronger it can kill you at any range while you can't kill it at all from the front. This problem has nothing to do with spotting. It is purely technical. Wide open ground makes it harder to get close but easier to get flanks. Whether that helps depends on whether the enemy armor is thick only in front or also on sides. There is no question this is the single hardest thing to do. T-34s attacking Tigers are an entirely different thing than the general problem of armor attacks over open ground.

But just attacking against a hidden gun based defense is a different matter, and a much more tractable one. The enemy may have AFVs too, as long as they are ones you can duel more or less on an equal footing. Whether than means either can kill at range, of needs to be close or have a flank. The main problem here is spotting multiple hidden guns (and sometimes their supporting MGs).

The key to spotting is to understand the caliber to stealth trade off, and the way it interacts with armor. It is the smallest calibers that can stay unspotted even down to close range. If your armor is paper thin, like a halftrack, they can penetrate you far beyond the distance you can spot them. This means in steppe you *don't* want to scout with the *light* armor.

When the caliber is high, they can kill even a medium tank at long range. But they can also be fully IDed, not just a sound contact, when they fire. Not at infinite range, but much farther away than the ATRs, 37s, and 45s.

So the first key thing to understand is that you must present armor facings strong enough to withstand the stealthy, small caliber AT weapons in the enemy arsenal. Those may be able to fire at you all day with nothing more than sound contacts to show for it. But they will also bounce from the front of e.g. a T-34, or a Pz III J.

It is only the big stuff that can hurt your full medium tanks. It can hurt them at range, though how far varies with the era. An 88 can KO a T-34 to effectively unlimited range. It can be spotted itself when it fires out to around 1.75 km. And once spotted, it can be KOed by HE. Before that, it can kill you with impunity - but hitting at such distances is not trivial.

The key there is to use *fast move*. While in the envelope where you can't get a full ID on guns that can kill you even when they fire, you must either remain in motion or behind cover. Unless you have a covered route clear in to the enemy position, that means fast move somewhere. You may lose a tank or two to lucky hits. But only a few guns firing for only a short space of time at fast movers at long range, will mean only a few losses.

Does this mean you simply charge? No. It means you must rush through a certain range window, but not all the way down to point blank. The problem with rushing to point blank is you don't silence the enemy guns, you face the fire of all of them, and they get more and more accurate shots. You can't overrun an intact AT defense grid that way.

Where does the fast move stop, and fire tactics take over? Where you can spot shooting enemy guns *that can kill you*. You don't need to rush to 300m to fully ID the locations of 37mm PAK. You just shrug those off. You do need to rush to ~ 1-1.5 km, to get full IDs on PAK 40s or 88s.

Once close enough for full IDed, you must halt to fire. Yes it makes you more vunerable, but in a duel between 1-2 guns at a flock of tanks, the tanks will win if they have full IDs.

The other reason not to rush all the way in is to take on only some of the defending guns at any given time, if possible. Ideally, you want to be 1 km from the *nearest* PAK 40, but considerably farther from the next couple. Or out of LOS of them, if a ridge somewhere allows it (breaking up the fire integration of the defense).

See, what you want is many on fews at the limit of full ID range, to KO each gun. Then proceed against the next. You are mobile, so you choose the range. When the range isn't good for you, you shield yourself by fast moving to make yourself harder to hit, and change that range.

All of this works even with pure armor - but with full AFVs, not paper thin light stuff. There are some light tanks that are thick enough to be useful at it - e.g. the Russian T-70, as long as it maintains front armor facing, or German Panzer IIIs in 1943. Armored cars, halftracks, thin SPs - are no good at it.

Then there is the issue of use of other arms. The first thing to understand is that in open steppe when you have armor, the job of all the other arms is to help the tanks, not the other way around. The tanks are not trying to get the infantry forward onto the objective. Instead, the infantry is trying to help the tanks with their problem - which is getting full IDs of enemy PAK.

They help with that in a couple of ways. First, a foot scout should indeed go first. You may think, "there is no way this half squad can cross that 2 km wide field". Sure, but it doesn't have to. You first of all want to see enemy vehicles and bunkers before you expose your tanks to them. So you send some eyes, that is all.

Don't use light armor because light AT will kill them, dead for good, providing nothing more than a sound contact. Use a dismount instead. An MG will pin them - fine. You still see vehicles and bunkers within LOS. The first guy into LOS - e.g. up onto a crest - should be a dismount.

Second, they make some enemy open fire, when you send a whole platoon of infantry. That provides sound contacts to orient on with the rest of your force. It reveals part of the defense. Don't expect to "bite" on the enemy yet, and don't blow your ammo in area fire or FO fire missions against mere sound contact targets. Just take the pain. You buy knowledge by ducking.

In open ground for infantry, range must substitute for cover. It does so more effectively than you might think. At 500m, enemy squads can do very little even to men in open steppe. Their fp is low and their ammo is limited. Can they pin with weak shots? Sure. So what? They can't keep it up and you can rally all day long. As long as you don't press men into the enemy defense too hard, your rally will counteract his weak long range fire. Ammo doesn't rally.

MGs are tougher because their fp extends better with range and they have deeper ammo "pockets". But you can crawl through ranged MG fire (after they've opened up), if you use the right infantry movement procedures. Use the "advance" command. It stiffens morale and makes the men less likely to turn to sideways sneaking in a vain attempt to find cover. Use bounds of 100m or so, resting between them. Whenever a unit takes fire enough to pin him, halt that unit only and let somebody else continue the advance. As fire shifts to closer guys, the rear ones will rally. The whole thing caterpillars in closer. It is just slow.

Why are you trying to get infantry closer? One, to spot things. Infantry doesn't button, and lots of eyes means somebody is facing in the direction of any PAK that fires. Your AFVs must have full IDs of the guns, and for that *anybody* needs to be within 1 km of a PAK 40 or 1.5 km of an 88, etc. The tanks do not have to be the ones. The farther they are themselves, the fewer enemy guns bear on them and the lower their accuracy. Provided somebody gives them the full ID, so their own HE gets the right address and silences each gun.

Two, the infantry acts as a threat that forces the defense to unhide. Somebody. If he doesn't fire with anybody, the infantry walks right up to him - to 100-150m away, anyway, which is close enough to see all the trenches, fully ID anybody that fires, put huge infantry firepower on them when they do, etc. Defenders can't afford that, so they must pick some of their ranged assets and fire at the creeping infantry.

This is sort of a game of chicken. The closer he lets the infantry get, the more he can mess it up without huge ammo expenditure or all of them just rallying afterward. But the more likely it is they get people close enough to fully ID the shooters, and bring down overwhelming fire on them (from FOs, supporting mortars with the infantry, and especially the tanks).

Three, the infantry can bring with them some of their own ranged assets. Mainly light mortars, also snipers. Which can pin or KO any guns that open fire close enough for an ID, without needing to expose a tank in close and stationary.

Remember that all of this is just a suppliment to the main armor logic, of getting many on fews on the heavier PAK from the limit of full ID range.

So the sequence is, a dismount looks for spottable enemy first. Then the infantry moves to 1 km, expecting any fire at such long range to be ineffectual. If he wants to throw his FO fire missions at you way out there, let him. Just stay well spread and pause anybody hit to rally. He will run out of shells. Understand, this is just the approach to MG range, you aren't trying to crawl under those yet. Then the tanks do their fast move thing inside whatever range it takes to fully ID a gun that can kill them. They want to be in a spot where if it opens up, it either bounces (small) or they see the shooter (big). There they stop.

All of that is set up, not the actual attack. The defender can choose to show all his PAK during it and if he does you fight them with the tanks. (Fast move together to full ID range, then stop and shoot - if he reveals his guns that is simple). If instead he has hidden light stuff annoying the tanks, and maybe threw a bit of arty at the infantry. That is preliminary skirmishing and to be expected.

Then, assuming he stayed hidden or has light AT stuff, the infantry creeps in. From 1 km down to 500m try to just "move". After that you have to go to the "advance" drill. The tanks can actually back up, if it helps remove a potential gun threat, once infantry is closer than they are. The only reason to be close is to get a full ID and anything does that. So the tank horde can back off when the infantry is closer and can see.

The tanks are in overwatch at that point. They are meant to be particularly hard to reach and hurt. Light stuff can waste ammo at them if it likes, until the infantry crawls too close anyway. MGs can go after the infantry, which takes the pain and rallies (the "advance" procedure). Anything you actually ID gets hit by a hail of tank fire and dies rapidly.

So then the defender's dilemma is that the tanks are too far to hurt and the infantry keeps getting closer. If he tries to stop the infantry, the tanks mess him up. You can even fire at sound contacts at this stage, if terrain gives you a good idea where they are. You can certainly area fire at spotted trenches, even if you don't see anyone in them. If he keeps hiding, the infantry gets too close, sends leading half squads right up to him, and reveals each position in sequence. One against everything.

Usually the defender will pick a moment and open up with everything. His heavy stuff tries to get some of the tanks, everything else tries to not just pin the infantry but really break it. You get a mad minute and take out his heavy guns first. If that happens (i.e. the heavy AT part of the defense fails), the tanks pick apart everything else. The attacking infantry rallies once defending weapons are silenced by the tanks, and mops up.

Light armor, if not thick enough to spot light AT from the front, belong well in the rear through all of this. It should only come out, to suppliment the fire of the tanks, once the enemy AT net is basically smashed. Light tanks thick enough to bounce the hard to spot small AT from the front - like T-70s - can help by going first in the tank horde, or even running down to 500m to get full IDs themselves (before the infantry does I mean).

What goes wrong? Well, you can lose the whole duel with PAK if you don't keep your armor together, stop at the wrong range, or press in too close into accurate fire of too many of them at once. The infantry can take too long to close, pinned by annoying sound contact MGs while the clock ticks away. The light AT stuff can get lucky and accumulate gun damage and immobilizations on your tanks. You can mistakenly expose thin flanks and lose full AFVs to light AT beyond full ID range. You can shoot off your FOs and fire tank HE at sound contacts and run dry without hurting the defenders very much. (If you must area fire at sound, use the tank MGs). The enemy's mad minute can break your infantry, too badly to recover fast.

Those sorts of risks are to be expected, and with attacker odds you can generally afford them. What you can't afford is halted tanks in lethal range of enemy PAK that only have sound contacts back. Or lots of light armor charging into lethal range of unspottable light AT. Or pushing infantry too hard into an intact defense, without overwatch to clobber anything they can actually see.

You also can't afford to have 10 T-34s parked at 1.2 km from the defense, everything set up perfectly, the infantry crawling in from 500m as planned - and then watch 4 Tigers stomp out and kill everything in 3 minutes with utter impunity. But that is the superior armor problem, not the "how to attack a hidden gun defense over open steppe" problem.

[Redwolf]

Jason, all you say is true, but I have several problems with these tactics.

I think it is a sad thing that BFC chose to make the range at which various guns are spotted as binary as it is. It should be randomized so that it would vary by at least -30% to +50%. But it isn't. By calculating, "OK, I fear gun XYZ and XYZ can be spotted at 523m at this visiblity, so I move to 522m and hang out while I force the gun to fire" the player exploits that. BTW, the distance is not strickly caliber bound, e.g. the Russian 37mm AA can be spotted at longer distances than the German 37mm AA.

Secondly, I think moving in the infantry like you suggest exploits that you know that almost all FOs and most onboard mortars in CM have lousy ammo load. It is also exploiting the fact that CM shells fall north-south as if the different guns in a regular+ battery were not cabale of forming a singly more directed pattern (I would be curious to know how much, BTW, if you can tell something about it).

Last but not least it is exploiting absolute spotting. Sending in everything cheap that has binoculars plus a bunch of conscript half-squads shouldn't provide the intelligence it does. (I wonder whether mortar crews have binoculars in CMBB. Hmmm...).

None of that is your fault, of course, I just want to say I do feel uncomfortable doing an approach like you describe although it works.

The sad thing about this is that, from what I have seen, many scenario designers enforce these tactics by not creating a realistic situation. As mentioned earlier, the lack of artillery, in particular 81-82mm mortar ammunition for the defender, and the lack of 105mm+ artillery for the attacker in a major tank thrust may be realistic in some scenarios, but from what I have seen we talk about 80-90% of the scenarios. Artillery is pretty much the neglected step-child in CM, on one hand not randomized enough and giving the player too much control, on the other hand unneccesarily hard to use and often not firing realistically.

[Sgt. Schultz]

Off-topic response to redwolf,

I agree whole-heartedly on your views re: ammo loadout of artillery. The 1st thing I tweak after purchasing units for the scenarios I design is to click on the 'edit' button and give the artillery FOs what I consider a more realistic amount of shells. I have found that many scenarios send units of all types into battle with what they are given by default, and that leads to either ammo shortages or length-of-battle constraints that do not seem neccesary to me. Some folks may try to get around this by adding reinforcements along the battle's length, rather than giving units more ammo in the first place. My approach is to take the time to edit every single unit I put in a scenario to customize each one for the task I am designing it to do. Scenario design is a labour of love, and should be approached with the same amount of respect you want to get from the folks who will play them.

Back on Topic -

In the cases described above, I would have to say... use smoke to approach. Leapfrogging the fire from two light mortar FOs with oblique LOS angles will usually give one a rolling smoke screen to use on an approach march into lethal range of your armor. Pick your spot, and smoke your way in.

No.. this will not always work or even be possible, but it is a general rule of thumb I try for.

[JasonC]

Smoking your way in is if anything less realistic. In the real deal, they put HE on the defenders and counted on that keeping heads down and throwing up plenty of dust. Smoke is a game only thing, as it is used in just about every wargame I've seen, including CM.

As for Redwolf's comments, there are some aspects of it that exploit game engine limits, yes, but a lot of it is standard and realistic. The tanks did hover out at range. They did have trouble finding the ATGs, but little difficulty KOing them if they could find them.

Infantry did go in to trigger the defenders' fire, overwatched by the tanks, and to mop up late. They marked targets for the tanks by firing at them with tracer, particularly with their MGs. The gunners then put their sights there and up the mag, and can see whatever it was that got the infantry excited.

As for binary spotting ranges, there I agree a more probabilistic model would be preferable. The difficulty seems to be the frequency with which CM checks LOS for spots. It is effectively so high that as soon as spotting becomes possible it happens, just with a varying delay. That delay may matter somewhat in a duel situation, but it does not matter much for the overall choice of range issues.

But you can't just pick 522m and hang out, as you put it. Because you don't know where the gun positions are. Guns typically go a ways back in the defender's position, with the larger ones farthest, to cover more ground and to exploit their range, not needing flanks, etc. You may know beforehand you want to be 1 km from his 76s, but where are his 76s? 200m deep? 400m? So you can't in practice get false levels of discrimination about it.

After they open up, you can guess a lot better, because then you have a sound contact. But that can be off a bit, and it isn't unrealistic to choose range to a gun you hear firing at you, but haven't yet fully pinned down.

As for exploiting the limited ammo load of the defenders, that is also realistic, although attackers know too much about it I agree. Defenders faced an intense "fire discipline" dilemma. Open too early and the attackers survive and call down more fire, and you can't stop them. Open too late and they outshoot you. Only certain high ammo heavy weapon types - especially the HMGs of course - had the ammo depth to fire for long periods trying to deny areas of open ground.

What I've proposed on the ammo subject is allowing game designers to put in partial ammo resupply as a reinforcement event. Just as with those today, you could put a first turn available and a probability on it. Then level might be set at 25% of a full load. If you want them to get more, put in more chances. You could therefore change it from scenario to scenario, by side, etc.

Importantly, this would leave the defender his fire discipline dilemma, as tight as the scenario designer thinks it ought to be, but remove the attacker's *certainty* about how acute that is. When enemy do silent they might have to, or they might have just been resupplied and are only trying to sucker you in. The attacker wouldn't know which.

As for arty ammo, they certainly did throw a lot of shells over the course of whole battles, but not appreciably more than you typically see in CM in the short time scales of CM fights. Artillery had much of its effect on a much longer time scale than CM battles, by gradually bleeding dry one side or another in a given operational area. If you can ship X shells to area P, enemy strength in area P declines 5% per day or what not.

The only way this really shows up in CM is the "losses" feature, not barrages. The damage inflicted by typical real life barrages was actually quite low, in men hit per round fired. They had enough ammo to shoot missions expecting only to hit 10-15 guys, and did shoot such missions. They did not have an endless supply for short periods and blow away entire battalions to the last man with monster shells.

As for sheafs, the standard one was much wider and more circular than the CM sheafs. Those are converged fire, as you'd use for a point target like a single gun or a single building. If you use target wide, you don't get a realistic circle, you get around 3/4 still in a tight sheaf area and 1/4 scattered widely. 2-3 FOs with target wide orders set for aim points about 50m apart side to side, is about as close as you get to realistic shooting patterns with CM arty.

Part of the reason the narrow sheafs are used unrealistically in CM, though, is that players micromanaged their shell supply in tiny shoots. They fire 4 rounds, or at most a minute and change, on tight sheaf. They are trying to make each module give 4-6 fire missions. So they need each to land exactly right. While such sniping was occasionally done, it was rare and not the standard way of using arty.

The standard way would be to instead only expect at most 2 fire missions out of each FO, and then in addition to fire 3 of them at once. That is, 3 FOs with a total of 2 big shoots each lasting a few minutes, not 4-6 each. With wider, more circular sheafs. Such "bludgeon" use of arty did not have to worry about the niceties of 50m this way or that. The whole barrage was big enough that it wasn't hard to ensure some enemy were inside it. And enough shells were being fired at that enemy to ensure he'd have to get his head down, despite the fire being spread over a wider area than one sees in CM.

The reason CM players don't do this is they view their shells as too valuable for it. They have tweakable controls at their fingertips that promise Godlike fineness of control of the shells. Exploiting that (and TRPs) to the full, they expect to pin platoons with 4 105 shells or cut them in half and break them with 16. They implicit have a standard requiring several men hit per shelled fired. In the real deal, the participants thought nothing of firing 5-10 shells per man hit.

But is the solution to just up the ammo supply? I don't think so, no. Players would still try to multiply their improved supply through micromanagement, seeking and too often getting unrealistic levels of effect from the larger shell supply.

What I've suggested is cheaper battalion shoot FOs, with more rounds for the buck but only able to fire wide missions. (You can approximate some of this today by turning rarity off and using green to conscript FOs). I've also suggested requiring any barrage to last a minute and change. Spotting rounds are OK, but if the timer ever gets to "firing" you have to leave it falling for a full minute.

For what it is worth...

[ August 23, 2003, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]