ratio of attacker -defender calculation

[pamak1970]

Greetings everyone.

I am new in this kind of game.I would like to ask a question knowing from the beginning that the answer is complicated

Anyway, i try to figure out about the minimum required ratio between an attacker and defender in order an attack can have reasonable chances to succeed in CMBB.

Count and compare similar units.(infantry battalion to infantry battalion for example)

Another case is when units are not similar

(tank battalion against infantry one)

Another case is when you have a group of forces against an enemy group

(infantry battalion with artillery support against opponent unit with artillery support.

I would like to ask if based on your experience you have certain norms established about ratios?

Do you have also a certain method to add the combat firepower and compare it (ratio) against the enemy one?

What about when someone is stronger in artillery byt weeker in infantry strength?

i ask cause i have found from a research i did that the US college for staff had established certain procedures to calculate fighting power of a force and compare it to a Soviet one, during cold war period.Although of course the procedure was just theory based on assumptions and was not accepted as valid from many,still it gave a guidance for commanders.

What are your assumptions about ratios,based in your experience?

[Redwolf]

Ensured success for the attacker is usually assumed to required 1:3 superiority in men and material, and of course no material unsuitable for terrain or conditions. Sometimes this is even upfactored to say it has to be one unit level up, e.g. battalion attacking company, which is substancially more than 1:3 because of support units in the higher formation.

The matter in real life is complicated by the fact that Soviet units are usually smaller than Western units and have fewer organic weapons, so one Soviet regiment defending against a Western division is usually screwed.

The CM point system is not too bad except that you have to watch what you pay for. E.g. the big points paid for a Panther cannot be used as a basis here when the defender has no armor and few AT guns. Also, the artillery in CM, and especially in CMBB, is difficult to take into account because of ammunition shortage and the absense of pre-battle fire (talking of the fire throughout of the night before or fire which continues to fire far over what a CM map is, e.g. for counterbattery).

[JasonC]

Redwolf's 3:1 or up an echelon comment is obviously drawn from real life, not from CM. In CM 3:1 point odds is a huge edge, unless facing debilitating drawbacks in other areas (like defenders with uber-armor).

At a small enough scale the game system imposes some odds effects. But the larger the scale, the more what you do with your men matters compared to just odds. The same is true for more varied forces. As force complexity rises, the opportunity to get lopsided combined arms match ups increases. That makes it possible to win with odds closer to even, with better play.

When I am considering low level tactical fights I don't want a minimum advantage. I don't send "just enough" to get something done. Sending well more than enough makes it go faster, reduces losses, and thereby increases the re-use I can get out of committed forces.

But what I assume tactically is that 1:1 odds fights in cover will stalemate - bloodily if the range is close, without serious harm if it is long. Even 3:2 odds will be won by the superior force if cover is even.

As defender cover improves and attacker cover declines, it gets next to impossible to overcome that with just odds. And I don't try to, beyond one "tier" of cover difference. I think of it this way -

top tier cover - trenches, stone buildings, woods or pines with foxholes or not

second tier cover - wood buildings, rubble, scattered trees, rough

third tier or "approach" cover - brush, wheat, shellholes, rocky, (around 50% exposed).

open ground or worse.

Trying to beat enemies two tiers better in cover by using just odds is wasteful. You generally don't have the ammo to do it from long enough range to do it safely. Trying to get too close without sufficient cover just makes the men "come apart" from being pushed too hard.

Instead I try to get twice the force into cover only one tier worse, then I shoot it out. Against best cover I want 100m range, and by the end of the fight I will close to grenade range. Against 2nd tier cvoer I want 200m range, and by the end generally close to SMG range, sometimes to grenade range. Against 3rd tier cover heavy weapons and initial rifle fire can commence at up to 500m, but decision only happens at more like 250m. If I have to fight from open or steppe, I don't close within 250m.

All of that is for small arms fighting. It is better to deal with the superior forms of cover by means besides infantry. Direct HE is the right weapon against buildings and trenches, and works against small patches of woods as well. Against large bodies of woods, indirect HE is the right weapon. For single heavy weapons like guns or HMGs, mortars or thick enough tanks are the right weapon. I don't want to take these on with just numbers, if I can help it, unless I can get into cover just as good myself.

As for the armor war, it turns more on specific abilities than on numbers. Twice as many will win cleanly in most match ups. When it is a case of an AFV you can't penetrate at all, you need more like 4 to 1 odds, up a full echelon level (then you use "hail fire" and accumulate damage rather than penetrations). These are not point odds, but absolute number of effective shooters.

A weapon that can only kill from a flank is less than half as effective as a weapon that can kill from any aspect. A weapon that needs to be close - under 500m - is about half as effective as one that works from range (in typical levels of cover - on a wide open map it would be worth far more). These are cumulative. A weapon that can't be killed itself from the front by most enemy shooters is worth easily 3 times as much as one that can be.

So e.g. I'd think nothing of challenging 6 T-34s at 1000m or more with a pair of Tigers or 80mm StuGs. I wouldn't challenge 20 - they'd kill me with "hail". If I could hit just 3 with a pair, I'd expect to kill them without loss.

All of these are tactical points. They do not refer to the overall odds in the whole engagement, but to a "firepower integrated" single firefight or duel, where everyone sees some enemy and contributes firepower continually, at appropriate ranges for their weapon and against target types they can hurt.

An overall engagement can be won without such odds by stringing together a series of tactical fights where such odds *are* achieved. This is largely a matter of command skill, exploitation of terrain, etc. But there are typically some limits to the ability to do that, against a competent opponent. Units take some losses in each of the sequence of fights, and expend ammo.

Some forces have more "wind" in this respect than others, but all have some limits. Thick fronted armor and high ammo, moveable heavy weapons (HMGs, some mortars, ATRs), in that order, have the best endurance (the second largely on defense, it is true). HE chuckers that wait until after most of the armor war is over can also have high "wind".

Thinner armor tends to "exchange down" from one successful engagement to the next. Guns tend to be KOed after doing their thing, or get out of position as the battle passes them by. Infantry tends to run out of ammo after two successful engagements. FOs can string out small missions for a while (the high calibers especially) but limit their impact when they do so. They also take time to reposition, to arrive when called, and for the big stuff to deliver the whole module.

Because of these sorts of limits, most unit types do well if they KO a force equal to themselves in value, "winding" themselves in the process but not actually dying. Occasional cheap guns, infantry AT, or thick armor can do several times better than this. But for all but thick armor, the cases of poor performance that don't reach that level are common enough to make it still true overall - except against quite poor play (like the AI).

If you add all that up, in a large fight with varied force types, you can win without any odds edge if you play well enough. It won't be a wipe out, and you will "wind" your force, but you can beat even numbers of defenders. With 2 to 1 odds you can exchange off the whole enemy force even with just competent play, provided you have time.

The only things likely to stop you at those odds are enemy uber armor (in quality or several times your point budget worth, numerically), or complete lack of cover. It is hard enough to string even best uses together without getting worn out, that defeating even the AI when it has 3:1 odds is not easy, without something like an armor edge. You might kill enough to win on points even so, but to actually stop 3 times point odds, even poorly played, isn't easy.