Russian infantry illustrated - meeting engagement

[JasonC]

This simple example against the AI is meant to illustrate Russian infantry force tactics.

It is a 500 point infantry force type meeting engagement set around the time of Operation Mars - December 1942, central sector, with terrain of rural moderate woods gentle slopes. The weather is falling snow.

(force selection illustration)

I take a green company of 1941 pattern infantry. Each platoon is 4 squads, the 4th lacks an LMG. All have 2 SMGs. No weapons come with the company, that is the main reason I choose this type. Because I want to choose my own heavy weapons mix.

Then I take 2 heavy weapons groups, each with 2 Maxim MMGs and 1 82mm mortars - again they are green.

Last I take one 76mm mountain gun.

Looking at the map, I see one objective by a house in the woods. I have a good approach route on my right. On my left side, there is a clearing just before the house with a large wood opposite. The Germans also have good approach routes. So I expect an infantry slugging match close to the objective.

Next I examine my leaders. The company HQ has +2 command, very useful, but not much else in the way of bonuses. One platoon HQ has good combat bonuses and +1 command. The others are non-descript - +1 morale and stealth, and +1 command +2 stealth for the last. The company HQ can readily handle a large formation, and would be wasted commanding a few weapons. Instead I plan a point platoon and company main body, and two weapons platoons.

The left weapons gets the best HQ, 2 squads (with LMGs), 2 MMGs, 82mm, and the 76mm mountain gun. Their mission is to advance to the woodline on my side of the central clearing, and support from there by fire. Especially important is their ability to toss in HE from safety, insulated from infantry attack by the open ground ahead of them. Their fire should screen the whole left side of the map.

Right weapons gets a poor HQ, 1 squad (without LMG), 2 MMGs, and the other 82mm. Their mission is flank guard on my right. They are to advance to the treeline on the right front of my main avenue of advance, and cover the open ground areas visible from there. Ideally, they want to move up fast enough to pin down some of the Germans while the are still in the open.

Notice that both heavy weapons groups retain a modest amount of squad infantry. They go first to scout areas the heavy weapons are to set up in. They are faster, and can stake a claim to the positions before the weapons could. They also check for enemy, and help protect the group from close enemy approach, which is particularly important in this wooded terrain.

Three quarters of the squad infantry remain for the main body. The company HQ easily commands 5 squads, and takes the rear center position. Since it has squads borrowed from both weapons platoons, it can feed squads off to either flank if necessary. Ahead of it goes the last platoon, with +2 stealth and at full strength. The intention is, one squad on absolute "point", the rest of the point platoon half a minute behind them deployed 2 by 2, and the main body a minute behind those deployed 3 wide and 2 deep. Overall this gives a deep wedge headed straight for the objective on a narrow front.

The men move out using "move", the leading units "move to contact". The leading men rapidly reach the vicinity of the house. Notice the weapons trailing their standard squads on the flanks, and the slow 76mm mountain gun moving forward. Guns move fine even in snow, you just have to give them time, and therefore start early and know where you are going. Notice the formation of the main body is conforming to the available cover. The point platoon is bunched up, 2 wide, while the rest of the main body behind has fanned out to reach a wider scattered tree area. There is no packet movement, everyone is moving - "travelling". Because we have no reason to expect contact this soon, the trees cover us, and speed is essential to reach the objective before the Germans.

A couple more minutes and the point platoon has reached the area of the house and most have had time to go stationary there. One squad, the L one, can be seen ready to cross to the woods on the far side of the small clearing around the house, using "advance" as the move order. It has orders to hide once in position just across the clearing, with a short covered arc. They are my tripwire. The rest of the point platoon is spread out wide enough to be 25m apart from each other, all in woods or pines cover. They avoid the house itself, but their HQ heads behind it to use its "shadow" as LOS-blocking cover.

The company HQ portion of the main body hangs back. There is not yet room for them to deploy, around the house. I do not pack men in, "crowding". Instead, they remain as a reserve behind the point platoon, stationary in cover. They are to provide depth, with the point platoon shielding them from the enemy and thus allowing them freedom of movement.

The heavy weapons are still completing their moves to their assigned positions, the first of them in the process of setting up, with delays 10-40 seconds. Fields of fire for some of the MGs are shown in yellow. The overall idea is to get these weapons in place, and to have the stealthy point platoon set up right around and just past the house and stationary, at the moment of contact.

Contact is soon made. Close range fire and grenades are exchanged around the house. The tripwire platoon does quite well with both SMGs and grenades. Two of the other squads in the point platoon are pinned by well aimed grenades, one of them losing a man as well. But the Germans are getting seriously messed up in reply. Notice all the fire lines, not all of them from the front line units closest to the Germans. Notice several squads from the reserve platoon have LOS - that is because one of the German came on strongly when elements of the point platoon pinned.

That illustrates one of the strengths of a deep deployment - advances on pinned, forward men bring the advancers into LOS of additional, previously unseen and therefore unsuppressed defenders. Enemy firepower cannot suppress the deeper elements of the formation. Their fire concentrates on the "crust". This protects a platoon that would become vulnerable as it became suppressed, were it alone.

Also notice some of the heavy weapons have lines of fire into the woods area the Germans must approach the house from. Notice how the MGs on the flanks channel the attack into that one well covered path. The mountain gun and mortars then want to hit that constricted area with HE. The spotter HQs for the mortars, and the mortar positions themselves, are indicated on the map. At the moment, their 125m minumum range is a bit of a problem, the woods make ranges so low. You can see an area target line from the 76mm right into the thick of the German attack. Notice how readily it got to a useful position and set up, in time for the first engagement.

We see the aftermath of the 76mm mini-barrage - a line of fresh craters in the snow, and lots of places Germans have fled or been eliminated. Their remaining front line men in the central woods are pinned down. Fire separates most of the combatants, since units only rally and live outside of LOS of all enemies.

On the right, we can see the right side weapons interdicting the farthest right of the German approach routes. Their mortar is in the game, hitting the woods, while the MGs pin men trying to cross even a thin patch of open ground between two woods.

My point platoon is in the following state - L squad is good order but 12 ammo remaining, and on a shortened 20m covered arc because of it. The other squads are pinned with 27 ammo, cautious with 27 ammo, and OK with 29 ammo. Basically they are holding, but the L squad across the clearing is getting vulnerable.

My reserve is out of LOS of all enemies, since the ones that came forward enough for them to see were quickly outshot or sent packing by the 76mm. I decide to send one squad forward to help the "tripwire" squad, expecting some enemy on the far side of the clearing, but nothing the point platoon can't pin down while I am entering. The reinforcement uses "move" in woods, into the shadow of the house. Then it "advances" straight through the house, and out of it into the woods on the far side. This will put it in the open only briefly, on advance, with most enemies in the area hopefully suppressed. Once across they can help defend the tripwire squad with their full ammo supply.

The rest of the reserve is doing only minor repositionings - basically it is just waiting. Since the point platoon is basically OK at this point, I see no reason to try to cram forward the whole reserve yet.

The Germans on my right have been stopped by the fire of the right weapons platoon, reducing to flags and some eliminated units in the snow. The main engagement in the central woods heats back up again, after the reinforcement squad made it across. It has lost one man and is pinned, but keeps the pressure off the now "low" ammo original tripwire squad, which has lost only 2 men.

The rest of the reserve can now be seen pressing forward into LOS, using short advances. I am less concerned with crowding now, this far back, as I no longer expect serious incoming fire. Also the point platoon is getting low on ammo and needs the help. See how easily the reserve moves up despite the ongoing firefight - that is the result of depth and the "shield" the first line creates in front of them. Notice also how tightly packed the Germans are, with little room to deploy. They can only get at my men around the objective by coming through one patch of woods. (They tried to widen that to my right a couple minutes ago, but the right side weapons stopped them).

And you can see how impossible a place to "work" that patch of woods is, if you notice the two yellow fire lines - area fire from the 76mm mountain gun and from the left weapon platoon's 82mm mortar. The latter is getting tree bursts over the middle of those woods, sometimes violent enough my own men 25m and even 40m away are forced to duck. Every small arms burst hitting one of them is also suppressing all the others, because they are too close together.

Notice how much wider my own arc of deployment and fire is. The overall power of my whole company is focused on that small area of front. Some units waiting their turn to be useful it is true, but all intimately related to the critical point, like a single overprotected central square in a game of chess. Without piling on top of each other, getting in each others way, presenting great HE targets, etc. Also notice that I allow the fight to progress at its own pace, I am not pushing harder for any quick resolution or trying to take any more ground. I just keep the one spot he needs to come through hotter than hell.

Notice also that I am asking nothing from my point platoon in heavy contact except to live through the firefight, fire back as best they can, and rally. All the other components of the company help them. They themselves have as little as possible asked of them.

German resistence falters in the center. The weapons platoons have only an occasional shooter to deal with, which they gang up on one at a time. Mortar shells continue to burst in the trees. The company HQ moves into the building to command the entire area, and the reserve leads an attack by the main body. It is a matter of short movements to re-establish LOS, pushing a few squads a turn across the clearing on "assault" or "advance". The ammo state of the squads on the German side of the clearing are 40, 30, 28, 15, and LOW. The ones still on my side but ready to move up are 47, 37, and 11. 5 squads and an HQ in good order with abundant ammo are not something the smashed Germans in those woods will remotely be able to stop. Notice how depth has prevented all units from running dry at the same time, and has thereby left a platoon (and change) to exploit winning the firefight, making the result permanent.

Here we see the attack extended, mopping up the woods in a thick, double line. Nothing the Germans have left can put a dent in that much good order, full ammo infantry, advancing in good cover and at point blank range. One MG is area firing at an old contact on my right, and the left mortar tosses a few remaining rounds ahead of the advance. Notice the principle of the last reserve. It is not how rapidly you throw your reserve in that counts, but how long you can do without it - saving it to decide the day against broken remnants. That "keeps the win in hand".

(victory screen)

At this point I cease-fired them - nearly all those left alive were routed. I lost 7 men, they lost 112 with most of the remaining 48 at my mercy. The German force, incidentally, was a regular 1941 pattern company with a few veterans mixed in, with 3 HMGs and 1 flamethrower. I outnumbered them and had more HE firepower because I took greens.

[JasonC]

Here are the force selection and final victory screens - they did not fit in the original post.

[Soddball]

The 76mm sounds like an interesting purchase for a small battle. You were able to pick your terrain and you knew you could use it, but what about on a map where it's hillier?

If I'd been setting up for the same battle I'd probably have taken 1 fewer maxim and no 76, and used the points to get 5 DP LMGs. Do you think that's a sensible purchase?

[JasonC]

I'd take some form of 76mm gun on any map. The mountain gun is superior to the regimental infantry gun without costing noticably more, that is why I took it. (Note that its limited AP is about as effective as 45mm ATG for killing vanilla panzers from the side - of course it is basically an HE chucker). In a combined arms fight, I'd be more likely to take ZIS-3s to get decent AT ability - though the smaller HE load and higher price of those still makes the mountain guns attractive.

LOS lines were not very long in this fight, because rural moderate woods is a lot of woods - rural strongly increases the area covered. If it were hilly farmland, LOS cells would be created by the ridges rather than by trees, but that alone is not a large problem for guns. I'd be looking for a hill with cover on it instead of a woodline with open ahead of it. LOS blockages worth both ways, and if you have to advance to get LOS you also have dead ground to advance through.

A time hilliness can make guns ineffective is when the terrain is otherwise very open. Because then you often don't have good LOS from the areas of cover, and to get to the areas that combine LOS with cover you may need to cross open in sight of the enemy. Otherwise put, just a ridgeline is not really adequate cover for a moving gun. So if the terrain were rural open steppe moderate hills, I might want AFVs instead.

If the ground were gentle slope, though - more realistic for most steppe - long LOS lines would make guns workable again. Open and hilly is the only place they won't work (and they are fine on defense even then - take a few trenches).

As for many DPs, they can help your intel as a warning and scouting wave, all those binocs, on a much larger and more open map. But they don't hit hard enough to act as part of a real heavy weapons group. They are marginal shooters even against men in the open, and against men in cover are essentially unarmed. So I don't like them in dense woods. They are quite fragile once located. A Maxim can lose 4 men and recover in 1-2 minutes not being fired on. A DP is often KIA 2 minutes after first trigger, having put out very little firepower.

One of the points of the illustration was to show typical heavy weapons groups. 2 MMGs, a mortar, and an HQ are the minimal effective size. A sniper helps, or an FO, and as shown here 1-2 ordinary squads. If the mortars are 50mm you want 2 of them firing at the same target. I prefer the 82s because they hit much harder. People should get used to using slow heavy weapons effectively (both Russians and Germans) - that is another major point of the example.

[Panzer76]

When are you going to demonstrate tactics vs a human player, and a decent one at that? Playing vs the AI is next to useless when you are faced with a human player as the AI is predictable, and the human is not.

On that not, I seem to remember you abandoned a game you where had a running AAR going (not Dorosh). I also seem to remember that things didn't go too well on that one.

[Wartgamer]

I challenged Dorosh and he backed down. I now challenge Jason to be his 'AI'.

[Doodlebug]

May I ask the reasoning as to why you consider the mountain gun superior? Better AP performance or something more subtle?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

When are you going to demonstrate tactics vs a human player, and a decent one at that? Playing vs the AI is next to useless when you are faced with a human player as the AI is predictable, and the human is not.

On that not, I seem to remember you abandoned a game you where had a running AAR going (not Dorosh). I also seem to remember that things didn't go too well on that one.

JasonC and I played two games after a discussion in the Tactics forum - other than that we haven't done any AARs together. I believe the argument was SMG companies vs rifle companies defending in towns? Was very instructive as I recall, though in all honesty the AI would have probably put up a better fight than me.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

When are you going to demonstrate tactics vs a human player, and a decent one at that? Playing vs the AI is next to useless when you are faced with a human player as the AI is predictable, and the human is not.

On that not, I seem to remember you abandoned a game you where had a running AAR going (not Dorosh). I also seem to remember that things didn't go too well on that one.

JasonC and I played two games after a discussion in the Tactics forum - other than that we haven't done any AARs together. I believe the argument was SMG companies vs rifle companies defending in towns? Was very instructive as I recall, though in all honesty the AI would have probably put up a better fight than me. </font>

[Gpig]

Thanks Jason.

I'm always happy to be reminded about the flexibility of HQ's and squads under a company umbrella.

Also, green troops. Gives you just that little bit more.

Did the Germans have any heavy weapons besides HMG's?

Thanks,

Gpig

[Sivodsi]

"When are you going to demonstrate tactics vs a human player, and a decent one at that? Playing vs the AI is next to useless when you are faced with a human player as the AI is predictable, and the human is not" Panzer76

"This simple example against the AI is meant to illustrate Russian infantry force tactics" JasonC

To be fair it was not supposed to demonstrate how to beat human opponents, merely Russian tactics.

It is a shame that the other AAR was not finished though. Any chance of it being resurrected?

[JasonC]

"why you consider the mountain gun superior?"

"Better AP performance" is the main reason, right. Compared to the regimental infantry gun, that is.

The mountain gun gets a small AP load, which gets about 35mm penetration at 30 degrees and 500m. Which in practice is enough to hole vanilla panzers and StuGs with a reasonably flat flank shot.

At medium range, in fact, they do better than 45mm ATGs, for a few shots at least. Better behind armor effect than a 45mm, too. (The 45 is better at point blank, flat angle - but that isn't really the shot that counts with light guns).

Compared to the serious, long 76s, the mountain gun has almost twice the HE load for only 2/3rds of the cost. That is a lot of HE bang for the buck. (The IGs get that too, but have no anti-armor ability to speak of).

[Abbott]

Thanks JasonC . I found this post fun and informative.

[JasonC]

Gpig - the Germans had 12 squads, 3 HMG-42s, and 1 flamethrower. One of their HMGs did good work from a "back" position, exchanging fire with my right side weapons. But the 82mm over there pinned it twice. Another managed to set up on the edge of the center clearing, but squad and Maxim fire from across the clearing was enough to suppress them. The FT died without ever getting in range. Not an impressive contribution. But then neither was the infantry's - I only lost 7 men overall.

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"why you consider the mountain gun superior?"

"Better AP performance" is the main reason, right. Compared to the regimental infantry gun, that is.

The mountain gun gets a small AP load, which gets about 35mm penetration at 30 degrees and 500m. Which in practice is enough to hole vanilla panzers and StuGs with a reasonably flat flank shot.

At medium range, in fact, they do better than 45mm ATGs, for a few shots at least. Better behind armor effect than a 45mm, too. (The 45 is better at point blank, flat angle - but that isn't really the shot that counts with light guns).

Compared to the serious, long 76s, the mountain gun has almost twice the HE load for only 2/3rds of the cost. That is a lot of HE bang for the buck. (The IGs get that too, but have no anti-armor ability to speak of).

Interesting observations. It pays to study these stats obviously. Thanks for the answer.

[SteveP]

There's something that I've been wanting to ask JasonC many times in the past, and given the heading of this thread, now seems like a good time.

Jason, it seems that you make a practice of reorganizing your companies so that, for example, a company commander may end up leading several squads, while a platoon leader ends up delegated to leading heavy weapons or some such thing. It is clear why you do this in CM terms, but did this happen much IRL.

I have to believe that doing this IRL would be disruptive to the integrity of the chain of command and indirectly to morale. Of course, CM has simply punted on the business of giving the company (or battalion) commander a meaningful impact on the performance of the overall unit, unless you use him in the way you do. So that might be a rationale for your practice even in the context of a sim. It would be very educational, at least for me though, to know when the tactics you are recommending reflect those the combatants actually used (subject of course to the abstractions built into CM), or not as the case may be.

[Wartgamer]

Hopefully CMx2 will deal with this.

[Krautman]

Very impressive, losing only 7 men in an infantry-heavy meeting engagement. Do you think you could do that the other way round, with, say, regular or veteran german rifle 41 squads against green russian rifle 41, rifle 43 or maybe recon/motorized A squads? And possibly - smg squads?

Greetings

Krautman

[izsmolenska]

JasonC – (or anyone else) Please excuse the noobness of the question, but why did you use the 'move' and 'move to contact' commands initially and not the 'fast' command, especially in a ME? Was it so the support weapons could keep up and maintain formation/spacing?

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Sivodsi:

To be fair it was not supposed to demonstrate how to beat human opponents, merely Russian tactics.

If JasonC uses this to somehow show basic Soviet WWII Inf tactics, fine. But if this is somehow to show how remarkable this tactic is vs humans in the game, then it's pretty much worthless.

Plenty of ppl around that can talk the talk but not walk the walk.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by izsmolenska:

JasonC – (or anyone else) Please excuse the noobness of the question, but why did you use the 'move' and 'move to contact' commands initially and not the 'fast' command, especially in a ME? Was it so the support weapons could keep up and maintain formation/spacing?

Dunno why JasonC used it, he must explain that tactical choice himself. Byt, vs a human, where you can't stroll around and take your time like in this battle, you would use the fast command to move up to cover for the 1st round. As long as you could so so in relative safety. Unless you had to move through trees etc (and tire quickly).

[JasonC]

"did this happen much IRL"

Certainly. The best tactical commanders, particularly at the level of company command, led from the front. Anyone within the sound of their voice, they gave orders direct. They used their senior NCOs to extend their reach and personal "command span". They would inform their lieutenants what they expected of them, certainly.

In action, "Everybody else, on me!" was a perfectly common and intensely practical command. The captain knew exactly where he wanted to take his company as a body, and by what route, so he went there and brought them there personally.

[JasonC]

Could I do it reversed? Sure, in the proper setting and with the proper forces. It is mostly sensible command against unimaginative blundering. The point is precisely that proper handling does not merely exchange off messily against poor handling, it just flat beats it, completely, rapidly, cheaply. Even infantry only, even in tight terrain.

[JasonC]

"why did you use the 'move' and 'move to contact' commands initially and not the 'fast' command"

It was not spacing, though I did want to keep the men together more or less. The main reason is fatigue. Move is all you need when contact is not likely. Move to contact is a substitute for "advance", when contact does seem possible. Neither tires the men out.

In a large meeting engagement, it can sometimes make sense to have 1-2 lead platoons run for 1 minute at the start, to reach the middle of the board slightly sooner. But here it was snowing, with snow on the ground. It is more fatiguing to run or advance in snow (or mud).

Everyone using move, a form I call "travelling", is a fast form of movement in my terms. Slower movements are "packet" moves. Meaning, only some of the units moving at any one time, the others stationary (often on their command delay). Packet movement deals with the threat of enemy fire, but at a cost in speed.

Usually I will "travel" until I think contact likely, then have the leading formations switch to packet movement. In this case, I had the point platoon go stationary right around the house, with no Germans yet spotted. I then sent only 1 squad across the clearing, a short "advance".

That is a typical transition from "traveling" to "packet movement". The rest of the platoon was stationary because they want to remain unseen and they want to be ready to fire as soon as an enemy is seen. The side more nearly stationary at the moment of contact has a big edge, in stealth, in the first few pins, and in firepower over the first minute or two, because of it.

In fact, the reason to go fast early is to get to a decent position in time to go stationary - not to grab as much ground as possible. I only advanced to the ground past the objective after beating his attacks. Intact force are the only thing that ultimately holds or takes ground. Killing the enemy is what wins battles.

Being on an objective or having clear LOS lines to forces approaching it is valuable, because it lets you defend, tactically, especially against an opponent who focuses too much on flags (as the AI always does). Who owns what will in any case we decided by the fighting, late, not by the moving, early.

[JasonC]

Panzer76 - and you never talk, no sir.

Start your own thread and teach your own lessons, any way you like. If it is vastly superior to everything else ever offered, the forum will beat a path to your door. It is also work.

In the meantime, stop diddling in other people's wheaties and driving from the back seat - get off your tailbone, and post your own illustrations.