Misuse of Bazooka units

[DavidFields]

I mean me misusing Bazooka units--or, using them in a non-historical way.

I have played a few scenario/operations lately as the Allied, where I had a lot of infantry and was attacking a mostly infantry force.

As you all know, the Allied infantry forces have a plethora of Bazooka units. They are a bit annoying, in this case, to be moving around for no good purpose. So, I find myself using them as cheap recon units (I dislike splitting platoons, anyway), and as spotting units on my flanks.

But I can't imagine that is in anyway a historic use of them--running a bazooka unit down a road to see if it will draw fire. Or sending one up a hill as a lookout.(Gee--how about in CM2 if a unit can only spot for other units if it is radio contact of a HQ?)

Do other people find themselves doing such things? It almost makes me think that, for more realistic functional purposes, they should be stuffed into one of the infantry platoons. I am not being critical. I am just having fun thinking about the issue.

[JasonC]

Half squads are better scouts. Faster, and more likely to survive if they draw fire. I attach zooks to up front infantry platoons but generally keep them close to the platoon HQ. Sometimes I will leave 2 with a reserve platoon. They are meant to help deal with bunkers and such if any are encountered, as well as the usual armor.

If I only see infantry, I will use them for direct fire HE, at 100-150 yards. They can suppress things much like mortars can, though their blast and ammo supply are both limited. Mortars are better at targets in foxholes or in woods, but less effective against buildings (because near misses - outside - by small mortars do essentially nothing to anyone inside). Direct fire will actually hit a building with each shot, not with only 1 out of 3 - which tends to make up for the ammo load difference. I also sometimes use the to finish off a ** building damaged by artillery.

[flamingknives]

In CMBO they were also quite adept at taking out ATGs, but I've not really tried that in CMBB or CMAK.

[Mr. Tittles]

I think they should be attached to platoon/company HQ as integral personel. In other words, they stay with the HQ. Perhaps the same with AT teams. Any extras bought beyond the # of HQs are auto attached to squads.

[Jack Carr]

For me, the bazooka/schreck unit is too valuable to waste on recon. I would use half squads or sharpshooters for recon. I generally use bazooka/schreck units for armor ambush in defense and keep them in reserve behind advancing infantry in attack situations.

[DavidFields]

Thanks for the replies. JasonC, the idea of using the Bazookas against buildings is particularly clever--the Zooks could be out of sight from the enemy unit and still cause injuries.

But is there any comment from the Grognards as to whether Bazookas were used this way in practice? We are using them as though they were rocket-propelled grenades. But were the Bazooka teams trained to do anything other than shoot at tanks? Was even shooting at pillboxes--a fairly gutsy move--even in their training? My background in this area is limited, but I don't remember reading any stories about Zooks as portable HE pieces.

[YankeeDog]

Bazookas were often used against troops holed up in buildings. In fact, after Dec. 1944, when German armor became quite rare, I would wager that they were more often used against buildings and other fortified infantry positions than they were against armor.

I don't know whether or not this was part of 'official' zook training, or if it's something frontline troops figured out on their own, but it was certainly common knowledge by the time of D-Day. In particular, I can remember an interview with a former Army Ranger who fought in France about pillbox-busting techinques - they would use massed aimed rifle fire to drive the defenders away from the firing slit(s), and then someone would crawl up to point blank range with a zook and put a couple of rockets through the slit. Nowhere did he talk about trying to get around behind the pillbox and attack the rear door with the zook , or with any other weapon, for that matter.

Sneaking up to that firing slit with a zook would take a fair amount of guts, but I imagine the rocket exploding inside the enclosed space of the pillbox would be pretty effective. . .

Cheers,

YD

[JasonC]

On the issue of using sharpshooters for recon, I consider it even more of a waste than using zooks for it. The whole point of having a scope is that you don't need to get close to use it. It is range that is the scoped rifle's main asset. Stealth only works in conjunction with range. Walking up to things, close and moving, is the last thing a sharpshooter needs to be doing. They won't even fire at anything within 100m of themselves.

Send a half squad, that is what they are for. If you must use a small team instead, use an LMG - at least they are cheap and can shoot back if they find something. But a half squad is still better - if it runs into an LMG it'll kill 'em. You think you are risking less by sending fewer men? You lose more if you lose one sniper, which you are far more likely to lose completely, if the scout runs in to anything.

Sharpshooters belong back with your overwatch assets - MGs, mortars, FOs. They support by ranged fire, from hiding, 300-500 yards away. They do not shoot appreciably better by getting closer (and inside 100m they won't fire the rifle anyway, as mentioned) - they just increase their own chances of getting spotted and killed in return. It is much better to live long enough to get all 10 shots, and survive the whole fight.

[Maj. Battaglia]

YankeeDog, et. al., I have read a first person account from an infantryman who often carried the bazooka. He specifically talked about after his unit would get behind fortifications using the bazooka to blow down the door.

Sorry about not providing a link, I'm not sure which one of the many it is, of if I saved it, or if it still is current (these memoirs on GeoCities, et. al. seem to always change).

But a quick use of Google (bazooka door pillbox German) gave this example, among others: Trailblazers

Thanks of course go to our own Frenchy who is the webmaster of that site.

[YankeeDog]

Yep. I've read accounts like that too - I didn't mean to imply that zooks *weren't* used to blow open the rear door of pillboxes, just that it appeared that this one particular Ranger unit chose not to deal with the tactical problem of taking out a pillbox in that manner, and in fact apparently found success with a technique that you can't really do in CM - small arms fire has very little suppressive effect on pillbox crews in CM.

In any event, I'm sure we all agree that zooks were frequently used against targets other than armored vehicles, whatever the details of that usage.

I also agree that zooks as forward recon is generally a waste of points - on a per-man basis, zook teams are very expensive at 6.5 points/man, while US infantry squads are in the 2.5 points/man ballpark (all at regular). So a six-man infantry half-squad and a 2-man zook team cost about the same pointswise, but you're much more likely to be able so salvage part of a half-squad that trips and enemy ambush, and the half squad is also much more likely to successfully deal out some damage of its own before becoming completely incapacitated. If there's no armor around, I'd much rather keep my zooks alive and have them help out a bit with DF HE, or if I really can't find anything else for them to do, have them guard prisoners or babysit a safe VL.

Cheers,

YD

[Sardaukar]

Soviets (IIRC) used captured Panzerfausts many times in city fights to blow holes to building walls for assault.

Cheers,

M.S.

[0811]

using zooks as recon, letting them run out to see if they draw fire (besides being suicidal) and getting away with it is called "Gaming the Game". Even in WWII they had pointmen for that purpose. Theres other tactic's to use to probe an area besides wasting a zook.

0811

[DavidFields]

Yes, I am not defending my act of using Bazookas as recon, but condemning it.

But now I will feel better about using Bazookas in other non-armor busting roles. I guess for the frontline troops if they had a weapon and a target then they did not worry about what the weapon "was supposed to be used for". I also presume that the Allies, at least, did not have such a major supply problem that the Zooks had to have major fire control. Were the Germans as varied in their use of their, more expensive, Schreks?

The information about the relative costs of Bazookas and 1/2 squads is interesting, and may push me back to using 1/2 squads. I just find that if one 1/2 squad gets clobbered, the other 1/2 squad is not very useful (except also as recon). Thus my company seems significantly damaged.

I had been playing several battles were I was advancing infantry across a broad front in hedgerow country over several kilometers of distance. I think you all know the tactical problem: You have many fields to cross, or hedgerows to get through. You can not prep fire all the possible locations. When you advance your first unit, if there is something on the other side, and if that something holds its fire appropriately until your unit is at a lethal range, your unit is dead--Bazooka, 1/2 squad, whatever. (Then your overwatch kills the ambushing unit/s)

I am not sure how they did it in real life (recon by fire?), but the Bazooka units seem like a way--gamey, no doubt, to spare the platoons from bleeding too fast.

[Crank_GS]

Hmm... Gamey vs Historical; that is the question.

For me, I like the more historical aspect better. JasonC brings up some very good uses for the 'zook, too.

IRL, they would not know for certain if they were dealing with an armor threat or not, i.e. "I was attacking a mostly infantry force..." So they would not think that their bazookas were of less value.

And keeping the bazookas as part of an HQ unit is not realistic, as the bazooka unit would try to sneak to a good position to take out an armored vehicle - without bringing the CO along.

[JasonC]

"Were the Germans as varied in their use of their, more expensive, Schreks?"

The Germans issued 289,000 schrecks - with 5-10 rounds apiece - and over 4 million panzerfausts. They issued around 14,000 tank killer awards to infantrymen who successfully KOed an enemy AFV. You do the math. They certainly used their AT weapons on non-armored targets...

[Slappy]

Bottom line:

There is a wealth of evidence that AT weapons were used in a variety of non-AT roles by all forces. I would support shooting at just about anything with them including but not limited to tanks, buildings, bunkers, bridges, infantry, guns, trees, cows, (sorry I got a little carried away).

There is very little evidence that they were used for scouting by themselves. They are also, in game terms, too expensive to make that a very fruitful use of these weapons.

Blast away, but leave them behind the scouts.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Crank_GS:

Hmm... Gamey vs Historical; that is the question.

And keeping the bazookas as part of an HQ unit is not realistic, as the bazooka unit would try to sneak to a good position to take out an armored vehicle - without bringing the CO along.

I find the over-control gamey. If anything, buying these units should assign them a HQ to be under. So they arent freelancing gamily. Being out-of-command should have substantial delays. perhaps sneak being excluded from a long delay.

US use of the bazooka as infantry support weapon was widespread. After-action reports document its use, along with rifle grenades, as 'door-knockers'.

D-Day assault groups were built around BAR, Bazooka and Bangalores. The bazookas were not expecting German tanks on the beach.

I think all bazooka/schreck should try to save at least one rocket no matter what non-armor target is assigned.

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by JasonC:

On the issue of using sharpshooters for recon, I consider it even more of a waste than using zooks for it. The whole point of having a scope is that you don't need to get close to use it. It is range that is the scoped rifle's main asset. Stealth only works in conjunction with range. Walking up to things, close and moving, is the last thing a sharpshooter needs to be doing. They won't even fire at anything within 100m of themselves.

Send a half squad, that is what they are for. If you must use a small team instead, use an LMG - at least they are cheap and can shoot back if they find something. But a half squad is still better - if it runs into an LMG it'll kill 'em. You think you are risking less by sending fewer men? You lose more if you lose one sniper, which you are far more likely to lose completely, if the scout runs in to anything.

Sharpshooters belong back with your overwatch assets - MGs, mortars, FOs. They support by ranged fire, from hiding, 300-500 yards away. They do not shoot appreciably better by getting closer (and inside 100m they won't fire the rifle anyway, as mentioned) - they just increase their own chances of getting spotted and killed in return. It is much better to live long enough to get all 10 shots, and survive the whole fight.

Perhaps your right but, for what it's worth, what you are saying here is in direct contradiction to the CMBB Strategy Guide. I'm not saying that the Strategy Guide is right on everything but sharpshooter units do make good scouts.

When I use them as scouts I try not to get them mixed up in combat at all. They simply spot the enemies direction of attack and haul it back to their lines if possible. If it's not possible to get them back without getting shot up, I try to have them sit tight until it is possible. Worst case situation, find the sharpshooter a position where they can snipe at the enemy with some chance of survival. The sharpshooter unit is fast moving and stealthy compared to other scout alternatives.

The key with them and most other scouting operations is to "move to contact" and "hide". At least in CMBB and CMAK. This way, as soon as the enemy is seen, the unit drops and hides. Hopefully this occurs when they are in some type of terrain that is not open ground. Works great.

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"Were the Germans as varied in their use of their, more expensive, Schreks?"

The Germans issued 289,000 schrecks - with 5-10 rounds apiece - and over 4 million panzerfausts. They issued around 14,000 tank killer awards to infantrymen who successfully KOed an enemy AFV. You do the math. They certainly used their AT weapons on non-armored targets...

I'm certain that everyone involved in this thread has seen panzerfaust carrying squads fire them off at enemy infantry in a firefight. Not sure what the effectiveness of this is but the game has the squad do it if there doesn't seem to be any enemy armor around.

[DavidFields]

Tell me, does anyone know if Bazooka teams have radios in real life? Other than when they were setting up for an ambush, did they often stray from their platoon, or did they generally stay wihin visual contact of it?

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Rankorian:

Tell me, does anyone know if Bazooka teams have radios in real life? Other than when they were setting up for an ambush, did they often stray from their platoon, or did they generally stay wihin visual contact of it?

I doubt that there would be any communication equipment. In the game, all units have unrealistic control (especially as far as movement).

Bazooka teams are not weapon platoons. They are assigned assets. To have their movement severely restricted (long delays), while out of command control brings them back to reality.

To use them like recon away from the main force (out of LOS) is especially gamey.

The game should base delay on being in command, being out of command and being out of command AND LOS. The last case being the worse delays.

Perhaps scouts should be a unit type. Stealthy 2 man units, binos, etc.

[JasonC]

Scouts were not particularly stealthy nor equipped with binocs. They were just riflemen. Sometimes experienced, often not, just the saps whose "turn" it was. Sending a half squad ahead is the most realistic scout in CM. They recon'ed as much by getting shot at as by seeing anything. The point of sending just a couple of men was to minimize losses when they were shot at, not to hide them so well they wouldn't be. Getting the defenders to shoot was how they were typically found.

As for commo equipment, no way. A platoon leader might have a hand talkie to talk to company - if it was a mile away with a clear LOS. You could shout as far as they reliably carried. They were about as capable as kids toys. Company might have one radio to talk to battalion - but normally used runners - and an FO might have a sound powered telephone. Low level comm equipment is a much later development. Real radios only went down to 1 per platoon in Nam, which was far more than any previous war.

[ January 20, 2004, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Mr. Tittles]

I think Jason is confusing having men take point with scouting.

I would imagine a 'scout' unit to be bought so that the extra men show up in a HQ unit. The scout can be deployed by splitting that HQ unit. this represents a NCO and an additional enlisted. The scouts ability to Spot and Identify units would be a function of his stealth, binos, etc.

[Mr. Tittles]

Extract Historical Narrative & Journal, AC of S, G-3, April 1944.

First Lieutenant HAROLD C. BISHOP, 168th Infantry.

"The recommendation made in the following paper are based on

experience gained in a stable defensive position on the ANZIO Beachhead

between March and May, 1944, and to a certain extent, in a defensive

position in the vicinity of SBIBA, Africa, in March 1943.

A stable defensive position requires an entirely different type of

training and organization than is required for offensive action. Riflemen

should be trained to man machine guns as it will ordinarily be necessary

to employ more than the ordinary number of machine guns. It is also

valuable to have rifle company personnel trained in fire adjustment

methods. A larger, more comprehensive communication system is used: an

infantry battalion may well use as many as 40 telephones of various types.

This is about 10 per company. It probably includes wireless and field (wire) phones. The companies in the line may have had a larger share of these radios.

[DavidFields]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Extract Historical Narrative & Journal, AC of S, G-3, April 1944.

First Lieutenant HAROLD C. BISHOP, 168th Infantry.

"The recommendation made in the following paper are based on

experience gained in a stable defensive position on the ANZIO Beachhead

between March and May, 1944, and to a certain extent, in a defensive

position in the vicinity of SBIBA, Africa, in March 1943.

A stable defensive position requires an entirely different type of

training and organization than is required for offensive action. Riflemen

should be trained to man machine guns as it will ordinarily be necessary

to employ more than the ordinary number of machine guns. It is also

valuable to have rifle company personnel trained in fire adjustment

methods. A larger, more comprehensive communication system is used: an

infantry battalion may well use as many as 40 telephones of various types.

This is about 10 per company. It probably includes wireless and field (wire) phones. The companies in the line may have had a larger share of these radios.

:eek: It is amazing how much information I have learned here--not exactly the average gaming forum.

About the excerpt above: Were the recommendations adopted? And the recommendations regard defensive positions. I would imagine that offensive units would have a more difficult time having organized communications nets--even though they may have needed it more.