Fighting MGs, infantry in trenches etc

[JasonC]

In the "mounted infantry" thread a fellow wondered about the effectiveness of 81-82mm mortars against men in trenches. Since it is of more general interest, I thought I'd reply in a thread of its own.

81-82mm mortars are very effective against men in trenches, or wooded foxholes. HMGs especially, since they are small teams and single targets. The difficulty is just getting someone close enough for an ID.

Take HMGs in trenches at range, a common problem. You get only a generalized sound contact until someone gets about 175m away. Then you can see the trench, but have only a sound contact with the MG itself, still. You have to get to more like 125m to see the exact location, assuming the MG is still firing.

Before you've IDed the trench, area fire is not going to do anything. Squad infantry can't afford it, neither can mortars. Even with HMGs or tanks it is very wasteful and unlikely to do anything more than an occasional "alerted" if you guess right about where the actual contact is.

Once you ID the trench, HMGs can area fire at the trench itself. But the cover is so good, the range typically long, and you still don't have the exact position. Even with 2 HMGs firing minute after minute, you will only get "alerted".

They will help -keep- an enemy HMG into whatever lower morale state you manage to drive it to - those constant "alerteds" are about the "rate of rally" of a lone team. But they won't drive it lower on their own. (An occasional "shaken" or "cautious" maybe, but back to "alerted" right away).

Incidentally, lighter, 50mm mortars are similar in this respect. They don't hit hard enough to break guys in good cover, but they can keep them at whatever pin state other things drive them to. With a full ID and several 50s, you can pin single MGs or guns, but don't expect to fully KO them at range. Whereas the more powerful 81s-82s can, without blowing their whole ammo load on one target either.

Sharpshooters can get "cautious" results, but only after you have the full location IDed - which means squad infantry has already made it to 125m. A sharpshooter plus 2 HMGs might pin somebody - the sharpshooter driving him to lower morale momentarily, the HMGs keeping him from coming right back. But this is an expensive way to get a relatively low level of pin effect. And you have squads within 125m by then anyway.

Once you are that close, a platoon's firepower can pin an HMG in a trench. It will mostly live in "pinned", with occasional "shakens" and "panics" - but will suck out a lot of ordinary squad ammo. To actually break it, you have to get even closer - platoon firepower at under 80 yards, or a squad to grenade range (under 40).

All of which is rough on the ordinary infantry. A lone MG is about all a platoon can handle, without getting messed up pretty bad. If their morale is good and you properly use "advance", by short bounds, or have cover, you can pin one, firefight it at close range, and get a squad in for a grenade breakage. Once they break they are easy to finish off.

But with an 81mm or 82mm mortar on overwatch, it is so much faster and more efficient. As soon as you ID the trench you can begin "area fire" at it. About 1/3 rounds will land close enough to have some effect, and the nearest hits will hit men. Even area fire HMGs will keep the lowest state the mortaring manages to achieve. As a result, you can pin the HMG even at 175m.

If you see more than one trench or otherwise can't easily ID the "area fire" aim point for the mortar, you can certainly hit them once you have full ID - meaning someone at 125m. The mortar will pin or break the MG, with men down, in a minute of fire. The squad infantry can then close without huge ammo expenditure, or a lot of getting ragged out at ~100m.

When it is a wooded foxhole rather than a trench, you spot them considerably farther away. And you get tree bursts, making the nearest mortar rounds considerably more effective.

An HMG in a building is harder - though light wooden ones a mortar can still hurt, in a pinch. The problem is that near misses do much less. The direct hits still hurt if the building is wood, but rarely hurt a stone building. Direct fire HE from a flat trajectory gun is a much better weapon for those. Wood buildings aren't trench quality cover, though, and all your overwatch weapons will work OK against them, while 81-82mm mortar ammo is scarce.

Now whole platoons in trenches are somewhat harder. Because they aren't a point target that 1/3rd of the shells land next to, and you can't pile on the small arms shooters to stop them from rallying from whatever the nearest round pushes them down to. There are too many targets and too much "rally resilience" going on.

But squad infantry has a different Achilles heal - limited ammo. The way to handle it is just to get your ordinary infantry into some form of decent cover nearby, and draw their "ammo teeth" by absorbing their firepower and rallying. You can suppress them back once you are within about 100m, though to actually finish them off you will want to get closer than that.

At ranges over 250m, they can't wipe you out even in poor cover (wheat e.g.) or moderate length advances across open ground. You just pin, they run low on ammo, you rally, their ammo does not grow back. To prevent this they have to start holding their fire, and you can thus maneuver for whatever cover you can find 150m or so away.

Never try to firefight a platoon in trenches from the open or wheat quality cover. At long range those are fine, but you should not be shooting back, since it is just a waste of ammo. Scattered trees or better, you can survive at ~150 yards, and woods or buildings you can firefight them even close and expect to win due to odds. It does help if you've already drawn much of their ammo before getting close.

The trick to getting men close enough for the IDs, incidentally, is the "advance" command, and short halts using it. Your bounds should start and stop in the same minute, to avoid tiring - 50m is a good distance. Then take turns, to avoid having a platoon break and scatter because all are hit in the open at the same time.

Other forms of movement aren't robust enough in the open ground gaps between areas of cover, and turn into "cover panic" "sneaks" in the wrong direction. Inside cover (scattered trees or better) you can "move" to avoid tiring. HQs with morale bonuses also help - or veterans.

You can use "advance to contact" for a leading half-squad, as "point". But once you know the whole platoon needs to cross an open ground area under fire, only "advance" will do the job. Low quality Russians can use "human wave" to the next bit of cover instead, but expect to pick up half of them with a higher HQ afterwards.

The other efficient way of dealing with trenches or wooded foxholes, besides an 81-82mm mortar, is a medium tank or HE chucking vehicle, 75mm main armament or larger. You will need a tank and a minute or two per infantry shooter, and will only suppress them. Infantry will still have to close to finish them off. Giant HE, delivered direct or indirect (the large assault guns, 150mm+ FOs) will also do it, and break rather than just suppress - but of course that is expensive.

I hope this helps.

[Flenser]

The fellow in the previous thread thanks you.

The situation that I tend to run into more isn't the lone HMG in a trench, but a few squads in one trench covered by a HMG in another.

HE chucking will eventually drive the squads out, but then the Germans don't have a whole lot of HE (compared to the sovs) in their tanks. They might be able to clear one trench, but won't have much leftover for any future encounters.

Surpressing the MG with an 81/82 is a fine idea, though, applicable to all sorts of situations, though have an ammo problems (for the Germans anyway) of their own... ah well.

[JasonC]

Sure. You don't try to deal with dug in defenders at negative odds, though. A mortar and one platoon can do the drill against the MG, while another platoon approaches the infantry trench position. If you have the mortar, a platoon, and a tank that can also work - the mortar deals with the MG and the tank suppresses the squad infantry, while your platoon approaches whichever is easier to tackle first. Just one platoon and a mortar against a platoon plus HMG in trenches is negative odds, and not surprisingly not a very promising attack.

If the infantry trench position shoots at you at long range, take your time and stick to cover mostly, and you will draw their ammo. If only the MG is firing at range, then you can get one platoon close enough to ID it for the mortar. Mortar breaks the HMG. Now the squad infantry either lets you get close or it runs out of ammo at range.

If the infantry trench is "on the way" to the MG. and you can't get an ID to the MG because of it, then you have to deal with the infantry first. Less than optimal, but can't be helped sometimes. The same basic logic applies - infantry has to "advance" to some sort of cover near the squad infantry position, and rally there. It is just harder because the HMG keeps pinning you, from too far away to ID it.

As for running out of ammo shooting at infantry in trenches, you have to make that work both ways. Force the defenders to shoot. Fire discipline is the biggest problem defenders have. If they hold their fire waiting for close ranges and open ground, then use efficient HE to break some of them, and high ammo HMGs and vehicle MGs to keep them from rallying, while moving squad infantry closer.

Don't expect to kill them from range, only to pin them. One squad left heads-up and with ammo can't firefight a whole platoon at 80-100 yards, even with a trench. The finisher is almost always going to be the squad infantry (takes very heavy HE otherwise, 150mm stuff), but the defenders can be pinned, low ammo, some panicking, etc.

If you don't manage these things, just stop when you take fire and shoot until you don't see any reply, trenches will suck all of your ammo away and the men in them will still rally from the suppression you managed to achieve. If on the other hand you just push as hard as possible to get closer, without preparation, the defenders will shoot off all their ammo at close open ground ranges, and easily break your attack. You have to use the right weapons only, and in the case of the regular infantry expend most of its ammo from close by.

[Flenser]

JasonC: If you don't write books, you should.

Thanks for all the tips. I think the underlying message in all this is that I need to be more methodical in my approach. Trenches assaults can't be "rushed". I like a more freewheeling style of offense, but when encountering trenches that all has go out the window. Not a big deal, if the defender is mostly static, he isn't likely going to do much to surprise you.

Must....learn....patience....

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by Flenser:

Trenche assaults can't be "rushed". I like a more freewheeling style of offense, but when encountering trenches that all has go out the window.

And would you believe, people championed CMBO for making the "rush" attack as worthless as it would be in reality? CMBB managed to give this a whole new meaning.

There is really nothing to add here. Jason C has it, and well said at that.

Having read Jason C's tactics in this thread and the last, it brings to mind that we really need a thread/room/ or some place to discuss advanced tactics. It seems everyone has their own *special* way of attacking/defending. The glory of CMBB, is that there are an infinite variety of ways to be effective (and ineffective of course).

But the problem with this type of discussion in the forum is that threads are often hijacked by newbies, wise-asses, or people with a bit of experience that would like to me more helpful than they can be (egos won't allow many people to stay quiet).

Anyway, it is always easy to point out a problem, but very difficult to find a solution, and I have none for this particular gripe of mine so I'll have to live with it for now. But I must say, I have taken a very different approach to attacking trenches, and using halftracks, etc, and I have been very successful. But incorperating the bits and pieces of Jason C's tactics that suit my way of assualting have surely enhanced my game! So thank you for the well-written tactics Jason.

We should have a match!

Regards, Walpurgis

[Franko]

informative post. thanks.

[PiggDogg]

Walpurgis,

As is obvious from Jason's posts here, Jason is explaining how to defeat men in trenches with the minimum and barest amount of force, that is, on a shoestring.

There are other ways to accomplish that task. Such as, if one has lots of direct fire HE, preferably somewhat bigger direct fire HE (105s & larger) or some other overwhelming firepower advantage, the job will be easier to pry well entrenched guys out of their WWI and late American Civil War engineering necessities.

As far as halfies, Jason has a recent post (with which I agree) on the most efficient point-wise use of those expensive modes of transport. Look it up. Personally, I don't purchase halfies because they are quite expensive for some so vulnerable. However, they can be used if they are very carefully and very cautiously handled. Indeed, if halfies are forced upon one, one should use them properly and most efficiently as Jason pointed out.

Jason,

You are quite appreciated, at least me and probably by many others. Take some time off and have a good dark Guinness.

Cheers, Richard

[walpurgis nacht]

Piggdogg,

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I posted in both threads (the one on HTs) and am certainly not being critical of Jason??

[JasonC]

Glad any of it is helpful. I'd also love to hear anyone else's experiences of what works in CMBB, better or differently than in CMBO.

[xerxes]

I regularly blast trenches with direct fire HE, works quite well if you are targeting with a platoon of T34s. I also regularly cover my trenches with a ATs gun since trenches and bunkers are big tank magnets.

A really nasty situation is where a trench is in covered terrain where no direct fire HE can reach it. Add a little well placed wire and you can pretty much write off taking the position.

[JasonC]

Xerxes, would you like to demonstrate that proposition against me? I can think of plenty of ways of trying to deal with a trench position in terrain too tight for tanks to get at it, with wire cover. Provided of course the attackers get odds. Have you seen the scenario "Forest Strongpoint", by any chance? If you prefer a QB to the right specs instead, that would also serve. Short and small, PBEM. I might learn something, we might have fun...

[PiggDogg]

Walpurgis,

Goodness, I was not implying that you were critical of Jason.

In the context of the thread, I was simply saying that halfies are quite fragile and because of that they are of limited use. Additionally, because of their limited use, they are quite expensive pointwise. I just don't purchase them in a human choose troops games.

HTs can be used, but one must be exceedingly careful with them.

Xerxes & Jason,

You both are right. Trenches with wire in direct HE fire protected terrain will be real tough nuts to crack. Of course, the defender's skill will be in not allowing the attacker to get "odds".

If you all play, keep the unwashed masses and rabble apprised of the game's progress. This will be a learning experience.

Cheers, Richard

[JasonC]

"Trenches with wire in direct HE fire protected terrain will be real tough nuts to crack."

Well, call me silly but I was thinking that the terrain that might make it impossible for a tank to get at the trench, will also tend to make it easier for infantry to get close to the trench.

To me one of the biggest advantages of trenches is how hard they are to spot from far away, even with men in them firing. Tanks can hurt them, but somebody needs to get close first, and to me that seems to be the hard part - when the terrain is relatively open rather than relatively closed.

It is the assymmetry involved that makes it so hard. An HMG in a trench can fire without being fired upon, even with wide open LOS lines, because nobody is close enough to spot it yet.

If on the other hand the terrain is closed, then I would expect infantry to be able to get pretty close without a whole lot of trouble - from the men actually in the trenches, anyway. LOS lines work both ways, and if a tank can't spot a trench from range, an HMG in said trench can't fire at approaching infantry at range, either.

Similarly, wire might stop you from running onto the trench proper. But wire is a useless minor delay unless actually in LOS of defenders. So it has to be placed close enough to see, and if by hypothesis no tanks can get at the defenders, I'd expect that to be pretty close. Meaning, again, that infantry gets close (though not into) the trenches, wire or not.

Terrain closed enough to block long LOS lines is also pretty good cover - woods or pines for instance. I suppose scattered trees aren't so hot, but the cover differential of a trench vs trees is only about 3:1, and of woods or pines to a trench only about 3:2. That is good cover certainly, but nothing local odds and standard attacker's tactics can't handle - especially with mortars and such to help out.

I'm quite willing to be proven wrong. Maybe they are just so resilient if you don't have tank HE that they will hold out forever. But to my mind, unlocated HMGs in trenches with wide, interlocking fields of fire are a much tougher problem than trenches so deep in woods there is no LOS in or out. I'd worry about treebursts from TRP arty in such places, certainly - but that would be true whether there were trenches present or not.

Which, it seems to me, it should often be possible to just ignore, and when that can't be done it will be possible to concentrate on select bits, approach by covered routes, bring up even slow support weapons patiently, etc.

But perhaps something else was meant by "direct HE protected terrain" than "deep in woods". Certainly trenches on otherwise open reverse slopes can be very effective.

[ February 16, 2003, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]