LMGs, snipers and scouting

[GAGA Extrem]

Hello all!

I just stepped over a player command in another board, where that player described his use of LMGs as scout troops.

Now my question is:

Are snipers better scouts than LMG groups? Both have a binocular and a testrow showed almost equal scouting ability for both of them.

Has anyone experience with LMGs as scouting troops?

Best regards: Markus "GAGA Extrem" Grebe

[Sergei]

The use of LMG's or snipers for scouting is gamey as hell, and if my opponents ever did so, I'd murder them. :mad:

Use ATR's, instead.

[Guest Mike]

Or PIATs

[GAGA Extrem]

Originally posted by Sergei:

The use of LMG's or snipers for scouting is gamey as hell, and if my opponents ever did so, I'd murder them. :mad:

Use ATR's, instead.

Excuse the dumb question, but why is it gamey to use snipers as scouts? :confused:

[Sergei]

Borg spotting. If you sent a single rifleman to scout for you, in real life you wouldn't know what he'd seen (or if he'd seen anything) until he came back to report to you.

:mad:

[Sanok]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Borg spotting. If you sent a single rifleman to scout for you, in real life you wouldn't know what he'd seen (or if he'd seen anything) until he came back to report to you.

:mad:

What would be different if you sent a half-squad?

[imported_no_one]

Only problem I have with using LMGs and ATRs as scouts is that that was not their intended use.I have no problem with sharpshooters or tank hunter teams as scouts.However,both the LMG and ATR crews are limited to move,run,or move to contact(except for the Italian ATR team...I think,which can use advance).Therefore,they are very easy to rout and kill,even from distance.

[dieseltaylor]

Snipers are very diffcult to spot therefore not only good intelligence but the possibility of killing something juicy : )

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Sanok:

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

Borg spotting. If you sent a single rifleman to scout for you, in real life you wouldn't know what he'd seen (or if he'd seen anything) until he came back to report to you.

:mad:

What would be different if you sent a half-squad? </font>

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by GAGA Extrem:

I just stepped over a player command in another board, where that player described his use of LMGs as scout troops.

Now my question is:

Are snipers better scouts than LMG groups? Both have a binocular and a testrow showed almost equal scouting ability for both of them.

Has anyone experience with LMGs as scouting troops?

While I've sacrificed LMG & ATR teams as scouts at times, especially for minefields I don't recomend using either as scouts as a matter of course. Predominately most CM gamey gamers use snipers as their scouts because they have binos and are the hardest unit for the enemy to see and kill, tank hunter teams or platoon HQ's are the better second option over split squads or full squads for obvious reasons.

Actually I like to use LMG teams for OP duty / standing patrols in concealed positions to cover flanks etc, I think I get more out of them that way than trying to use them as scouts. Personally my table of preference for scouting is sniper, Pltn HQ, Tank Hunter team, Coy HQ, & at 5 a full squad if I must!

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

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

Borg spotting. If you sent a single rifleman to scout for you, in real life you wouldn't know what he'd seen (or if he'd seen anything) until he came back to report to you.

:mad:

What would be different if you sent a half-squad? </font>

[JasonC]

I scout with half squads. Supported by the remainder of their platoon, traveling a minute or two behind them typically.

Snipers are quite valuable and I consider it a waste to toss them at the enemy for just a little intel. Their ability to avoid being spotted can be useful, though. Two ways - in a "stay behind detail", stationary on hide, letting the enemy pass them by and reporting. And moved aggressively to the flank of an enemy advance, through an area no one is expected, to get LOS from a different angle. They need to be over 100m from anything to shoot, though, so close scouting is not their job.

I use LMGs, Russian ATRs, and sometimes US bazookas as listening posts. Up front, well spread, hiding once any enemy get within about 250m. They just tell me where the enemy is and isn't coming. Only a few, because they aren't that effective in combat terms (LMGs don't hit hard enough at range, or last long enough close, and ATRs rarely manage to kill anything).

I'll advance with them only where I think I've got cover, to repositiong their sighted areas. I use "move to contact" in that case, and "sneak" if fired upon. They aren't fast or robust, but they can cover wide areas with LOS and report enemy tanks etc.

I don't scout with light armor, it is not robust enough. A full tank if armor leads - though some "light tanks" are enough e.g. T-70s. You need something thick enough that nothing *stealthy* can kill it from the front, only a full gun. That way if you do get shot you at least spot the shooter and can trade it off.

But normally, they risk getting shot at and need to be expendable, need to be able to walk right over hiding enemies, need to outshoot an LMG in close, etc. And for that, I find a half squad on move to contact or advance is the best option.

Nor is this worse in loss terms. They sometimes get wiped out but the whole squad isn't, in that case, so you've lost fewer points than a dead sniper. And frequently they lose a man or two and then pin or rout, and can rejoin the rest sometime later. With far fewer KO points awarded to the enemy.

[Mad Russian]

Cost is a relative issue Jason. The cost of a sniper vs the half squad has to measured in firepower as well.

A lot of the time I don't feel I have extra infantry to lose. That half squad is at lower morale and easier to kill than any other time during the battle too.

Just a thought.

[John_d]

Presumeably alot here depends on whether you are attacking or defending?

If attacking, I want something fairly robust so that I can get out front and draw some fire from the enemy positions, hopefully giving away what they've got and then make it back home in one piece (or at least hold the line til re-enforcements turn up). A sniper simply cannot do this- he would get shot to pieces. I will often use a whole platoon to do this, even if it means losing half of the men. I usualy only use half squads to check routes of advance before I send the rest of the platoon up behind them.

On the other hand, if defending, snipers are extremely useful. A small detachment with good LOS overlooking the main route by which you expect the enemy to advance is a mainstay of my defensive positions. Generally, I'll use a sniper and/or MGs and mortars. Anything that will a) allow me to see what the enemy has and where they are and b)harass and pin them if they attempt to regroup after an unsuccessful attack. Of course, for most of the battle they don't fire a shot, just sit and watch.

Also, I've noticed another gamey use of snipers that I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere. Basically, it involves hiding snipers around objective flags in reasonably obscure places (upstairs rooms, river banks, other places that you won't normally go into) and giving them cover arcs that will ensure that they never open fire and give their position away. Then you forget about them until the end of the game when they score you a load of points for denying the enemy control of the flag. Obviously, this is only really a problem in games that are so close that the objective flags determine the outcome, but it is still bloody annoying and its happened to me more than once :mad:

[Mad Russian]

John_D I guess I shouldn't mention here that I recommend using crews for that same purpose?

I have written an article on scoring at The Proving Grounds here:

http://the-proving-grounds.com/tactics_results.html?sku=32

That talks about people forgetting to garrison their flags. Crews/snipers/HT's, whatever it takes to help control that flag is worth it.

Much better than leaving it uncontrolled at the end of the game.

[John_d]

Good points, Panther Commander. I don't think I explained myself terribly well- I was refering more to ppl leaving them next to disputed flags or even flags they were pretty certain they were going to lose. Then at the end of the battle , you find that one or more of flags that are deep inside your own territory and rightfully yours are either uncontrolled or belong to the enemy, just b/c there is one unit hiding there who hasn't taken part in the fighting. Now that is gamey and very, very annoying

[Mad Russian]

What would you think of leaving behind artillery spotters in church towers when your own troops have withdrawn from the area? Or what about setting cover arcs to only 20 meters that will then trigger an ambush? What about leading a column of American/Russian/German tanks with a captured tank?

The Germans did leave FO's behind in Normandy. I look at your example of a company commander sending a small patrol to the objective. It's not his fault you don't take care of your own points. Everybody used whatever tactics got the job done, and that includes every nation I have ever read about using captured vehicles to try to gain an advantage when leading the way into enemy territory.

I personally, obviously by now, don't consider this a gamey tactic. If you don't want the points, and he does, what is wrong with his moving forces to the objective? How would you feel if the offending unit was a halfsquad, that still didn't take part in the fighting? Besides the obvious, that he got YOUR own points that you didn't take care of.

[John_d]

I don't have a problem with leaving small groups behind during a retreat- I often do it myself. It only becomes a problem b/c of the the scoring system in CM. What I object to is buying units and positioning them with the sole purpose of remaining hidden, not engaging the enemy at all and denying the enemy the flag. Half squads and FO aren't perhaps as much as an issue b/c they are fairly easy to find and root out, but a hidden sniper with a cover arc so small that he won't ever open fire? Chances are you'll never find him and it won't occur to you to look b/c the fog of war function will lead you to believe that you control the flag. You'll only notice when a flag that you thought was under your control appears as uncontrolled, b/c there is a sniper in a ridiculous place where you can't see him. Now, I amm sure that this kind of thing happens in war, and I do it when there are no flags involved. But surely it is gamey when the position of a single sniper who doesn't fire a shot determines the outcome of the game in a battalion sized battle?

P.S, what was that comment about the captured tanks about? I'm assuming you are refering to tactics where enemy tanks are used at the front of an armoured column to fool the enemy into thinking that the column is friendly. A similar tactic was used in situations such as the capture of the Kalach bridge near Stalingrad where Russian tanks were driven across a German held bridge without a shot being fired b/c the Russians had somehow convinced the Germans that their tanks were captured and being driven to a training school. Pretty impressive. Although as far as I'm aware, it is impossible to do anything like this on CM- so what were you refering to?

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by John_d:

I don't have a problem with leaving small groups behind during a retreat- I often do it myself. It only becomes a problem b/c of the the scoring system in CM. What I object to is buying units and positioning them with the sole purpose of remaining hidden, not engaging the enemy at all and denying the enemy the flag. Half squads and FO aren't perhaps as much as an issue b/c they are fairly easy to find and root out, but a hidden sniper with a cover arc so small that he won't ever open fire? Chances are you'll never find him and it won't occur to you to look b/c the fog of war function will lead you to believe that you control the flag. You'll only notice when a flag that you thought was under your control appears as uncontrolled, b/c there is a sniper in a ridiculous place where you can't see him. Now, I amm sure that this kind of thing happens in war, and I do it when there are no flags involved. But surely it is gamey when the position of a single sniper who doesn't fire a shot determines the outcome of the game in a battalion sized battle?

P.S, what was that comment about the captured tanks about? I'm assuming you are refering to tactics where enemy tanks are used at the front of an armoured column to fool the enemy into thinking that the column is friendly. A similar tactic was used in situations such as the capture of the Kalach bridge near Stalingrad where Russian tanks were driven across a German held bridge without a shot being fired b/c the Russians had somehow convinced the Germans that their tanks were captured and being driven to a training school. Pretty impressive. Although as far as I'm aware, it is impossible to do anything like this on CM- so what were you refering to?

But John what you are describing is almost every recon ever done in the history of warfare. You take small groups of men because they can move around virtually unseen. They sit in a place that makes them virtually undetectable. Don't think of the sniper as one guy. Think of them as a small patrol. Besides if you know your friend is going to do this to you counter it with a few snipers of your own sitting on the OB's waiting for him to arrive. One shot later and the problem is solved. Added bonus is your sniper controls the objective now.

That entire list of examples are things that would be considered "gamey" in CM. It is an example of how men in "Real Life" situations will do anything to win. ANYTHING!

The wilder and more successful it is the more they are rewarded. Read some of the citations for the Knight's Cross, Congressional Medal of Honor, Hero of the Soviet Union or Victoria Cross winners. They are full of the types of things we are talking about here.

Shameless plug here...HSG has scenarios on all of those awards.

[John_d]

I mean when you have objective flags. I don't object to leaving recon units behind to harass the enemy, but its when a player uses the way the objective flags scores are totalled up to win a cheap victory by hiding units around the flags. I do what you are talking about all of the time in operations and so forth, or when there are no objective flags about- but their presence, IMO, should be to cause difficulties at the enemies rear, rather than to exploit approximations that the game has to make.

Maybe the only way to resolve our differences is on the field of battle!

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by John_d:

Maybe the only way to resolve our differences is on the field of battle!

Ah, you want a cheap victory against an inexperienced player do you?

Send me a setup as long as it isn't too big...I only have a 1.1. Also, I no longer have CMBO. I gave it to a 14 year old boy for him to start playing wargames.

The gauntlet is thrown. Now pick it up or slink away in the night!!

[Tagwyn]

What is "HSG?" Tag

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by John_d:

But surely it is gamey when the position of a single sniper who doesn't fire a shot determines the outcome of the game in a battalion sized battle?

If a single enemy sniper manages to contest a flag, and thus the outcome of a battalion sized battle, then you have't actually secured the flag. Take the same scenario, and now move a platoon (or even a half-squad) near the flag and the sniper is no longer relevant.

P.S, what was that comment about the captured tanks about? I'm assuming you are refering to tactics where enemy tanks are used at the front of an armoured column to fool the enemy into thinking that the column is friendly. A similar tactic was used in situations such as the capture of the Kalach bridge near Stalingrad where Russian tanks were driven across a German held bridge without a shot being fired b/c the Russians had somehow convinced the Germans that their tanks were captured and being driven to a training school. Pretty impressive. Although as far as I'm aware, it is impossible to do anything like this on CM- so what were you refering to?

Feb '43, during the battle for the Kasserine pass, the British 26th armored brigade began to withdraw to lay up for the night in their laager. A Germans armored column followed a ways behind, headed by a captured Valentine. The Brits manning the perimeter thought it was another withdrawing British column, and let them enter the camp. The Germans stormed in, shot everything to hell, then withdrew in good order, leaving the badly mauled Brits to lick their wounds.

Those who played the ROW IV finals know which battle I am referring to. It isn't impossible to recreate.

[John_d]

What makes u think that I'm capable of beating you?!

I reckon we should do 315 from Jason's Russian Training Scenario Pack. I've been reading your notes on it and it would be interesting to see what happens when 2 human players go head to head. And I'd be interested to see if your claim that the Germans can never win this will hold up!

Should I send the setup to the address on your profile? We almost share a birthday, btw

[John_d]

Panther Commander,

I've just tried 315 as the Germans against the AI. Its really tough, but doable. We'd need to change a few parameters to make it worthwhile- like make the game longer cos otherwise the Germans don't stand a chance. Maybe an extra platoon for the Germans too or a 25% or 50% bonus. Let me know what you think