Jump to content

Steppe terrain fighting


Recommended Posts

Normally you need a force multiplier if you are going to attack. You want a concentration of firepower that the defender cannot survive.

This is, I think, close in spirit to what Jason was saying from the beginning, at least as I read his early posts. He can speak for himself, certainly, so this is just my way of interpreting his advice.

IMO, Jason was making the observation that players in his campaign were ignoring or under-utilizing an important force multiplier, given the terrain and defensive posture: namely, their armor. He either knew or surmised that this was due to fear of AT weapons, and that the players were unnecessarily chewing up infantry forces in order to avoid putting their armor at any risk. I took it that his view was this was bad thinking, both in CM terms as well as in reference that what RL commanders would do in that situation. Just as he as previously provided us CM trainees with excellent advice on how to attack with infantry across open ground (*eating ammo*, etc.), which I've personally found to be very helpful, he's now also given us some useful advice (i.e., a *Drill*) on how to use armor in this sort of terrain/defense situation, even when there may be AT weapons to deal with.

There has been a lot of very interesting material in this thread, but I for one would like to see more comment or thoughts specific to Jason's advice about how to bring up armor in this terrain/defense situation. In particular, I'm still not clear on the best approach to recon, so that you know as soon as possible just what you are facing in the way of AT assets (both type and number). I don't think that armor has the ability to *eat ammo* the way that infantry does (or am I wrong about that?). Or perhaps, Jason is saying that it's OK to use your main AFVs to recon for this (namely to get shot at) at the same time they are doing recon/attacking the trenches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tanks can do recon work, but in force, and you may as well attack rather than pinch a tank platoon here or there into a risky situation just for intel. Attack - and if you run into trouble, back up.

I think what everyone, especially me, is trying to avoid is the *shootout at the OK corral* phenomenon (that is, the tanks move and guns start blazing away in all directions from both sides). I guess I need to study Jason's drill more to better understand how he minimizes the likelihood of that happening. Or is *backing up* in fact the specific answer to that situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this has been a very interesting thread, but if I could just pull it back onto the original subject: tactics/drills in Steppe against the dug-in situation JasonC originally described.

What I was wondering, is what the drill for moving up the back elements - overwatch, heavy weapons etc. After all, it occurs to me that in Steppe terrain, there could be problems relocating the overwatch elements due to enemy fire. Would you just stall the entire attack while you wait for the heavy weapons to get in place for the next part? Or would you split the overwatch so that half is moving up behind the assault elements, meaning you can set up again quickly.

On a related matter, what depth would achieve best results? Should the attacker attempt to keep several echelons of units, and cycle them so that the leading assault element on each stage of the attack is fresh?

Thanks guys, and please relocate all the strategic squabbling somewhere else, this is an interesting subject already:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First some comments on Adam's recent explanation, then to CFs questions about heavy weapons in all this.

The contrast QB vs operation is well put. You can fail in a QB by being too cautious with the armor, but the mode of failure is typically running out of time. Occasionally, a target you might have lopsidedly murdered slips away within the battle, because they move off safely or because other assets arrive that can defend them.

But QBs train people to ignore infantry losses, unless they are catastrophic. You get the idea you can lose half the men present to take this field - simply because it is all over at the time limit. Sure there are knock out points, but if you get the defenders and the flags you will win on those.

In a realistic operation, though, you have to stress different parts of your team in different tactical situations, to balance the stresses overall. If you put maximum stress on the infantry at all times, to protect the tanks at all times, you just end up with an all tank force. And that does not improve your chances. Otherwise put, the arm that had the biggest paper-scissors-rock edge in the local conditions, has to play forcefully to cash that advantage in. Precisely to spare the rest undo strain from battles that ought to be easy for them.

There will be plenty of others that are hard for each arm. You won't find a way to stress the tanks a little harder to relieve the infantry, if the tactical mission is seizing a dense forest or a factory complex. There is a time for protecting the tanks by e.g. letting arty or heavy weapons deal with enemy guns. But that time can't be "always", or the tanks never do any of the real work. If you don't get work out of your most powerful "pieces" in the best conditions for them, you can't expect to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CF - on heavy weapons, I think terrain dependent LOS questions wind up deciding most of it. LOS in steppe tends to be long but not all encompassing. You can see everything but the far side of this slope, or the shadow behind that island of trees, or those plus these two gullies that are too low for the terrain at the start line to overlook. Sometimes the terrain is more broken up into separate LOS "cells" than others.

Typically the overwatch gets assigned a LOS area to work in. If there is one big enough that can be covered from good positions in the start area, maybe that is the extent of the heavy weapons plan. But usually, defenders will use some sort of LOS blocks to protect at least parts of their force. Which provides some incentive to move some of the weapons closer - though they only need some targets, not to be able to see everything.

I often have multiple heavy weapons groups, typically built around a single HQ, a few MGs, at least one on map mortar, and an FO. Sometimes a lot more, that is a minimal group with enough to act as a heavy weapons force. Some start where they want to be, some plan to make short movements to a spot with better cover or better LOS or both. They move through dead ground when they can. Otherwise, they move out after infantry is moving and farther forward, to draw most enemy fire (tac AI directed stuff in the middle of a minute, at least).

Sometimes I have more ambitious heavy weapons movements planned, like first set up here, then after position X is cleared by the tanks and infantry, shift to a position half way across the map, forward - typically to get LOS over a ridge into the defender's backfield or some such. Hilly terrain favors this. In that case, the move is meant to be made after known enemy have been cleared from positions with LOS to the route. At the least, they need to be overwatched (e.g. somebody that could see the HMGs walking route might still be in woods W, but I have 2 tanks parked 150m in front of woods W).

Another thing I frequently do is mount a few heavy weapons for one of these moves, to speed it up, when the ground between in open. HMGs and HQs can ride tanks, as can radio FOs. Bigger mortars need halftracks or the like. I will reposition guns with jeeps or SPWs, too, hauling to the backside of a patch of trees or to low ground, and pushing to the front or to a crest after dismounting.

It is never a matter of moving just to get closer, while under fire. If the heavy weapon has LOS, it can shoot the thing it has LOS too - it only needs one that isn't dead or cowering. If everyone in LOS in dead or cowering, how unsafe can the move be? Only new unseen shooters are a threat. As long as you are moving after a firefight, with tanks and regular infantry well ahead to spot, chances are those have their hands full and other targets to think about, by the time you decide to reposition a few heavy weapons.

As for depth, I tend to treat companies of infantry and platoons of tanks as minimum groupings. (Less than a company of infantry can get shot, but can't defeat most things it can run into out of its own resources). The tanks go in column if mines are an issue, 2x2 otherwise. Additional platoons go behind those until they have their own mission then go do their own mission. Sometimes an infantry platoon will ride one that isn't in the lead, until drawing fire anyway. Makes a good reserve in a fight like this. The infantry of one company usually goes in side by side platoons, each 2x2, with another wave behind them either more infantry, foot heavy weapons, specialist infantry (pioneers, SMGs), etc.

You don't need a battalion in three company waves each 2 platoons deep, each 2 squads deep, if that is the question. Not when you are working with serious armor. You don't have to outlast a defense, you just need to find it, then drive up and blow the crap out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...