HELP: Combined arms tactics please!!

[Stratos]

Hello.

Can someone make a resume of combined arms tactics?? Things like advance vs a position covering my infantry with tanks, and covering the tanks with infantry. I'm lost in this

Thank's

[jBrereton]

There is an anthology of useful posts that are stickied for this kind of thing, but I'll make something in a while, I guess.

[Stratos]

Thank's!

Waiting your tips!

[dieseltaylor]

Stratos,

There are probably 50 good threads you could usefully read. Search in the archive for JasonC who writes at lenggth and is normally very very good on what he writes. Occasionally he is downright wrong, and also rude.

You will find a search simply on this single forum will give you 60 hits. Happy reading

[Physim]

Jason C has also made some good scenarios for training in Russian tactics that work up to combined arms. You should find a link in the same threads to these, I've found them useful in better understanding how to more effectively use units.

[JasonC]

Combined arms is all about using the right tool for the job, and avoiding match ups that effectively let the other guy use the right tool for his job.

Bad combined arms tactics are still better than no combined arms. Bad combined arms consists of taking some of everything and throwing all of it at the enemy in a lump, hoping something "sticks". It generally gives the enemy plenty of match ups he likes, and a fair number of even exchanges, and a few he doesn't like.

An almost equally bad form of combined arms tactics is to throw parallel things at the enemy. Whenever he pulls out a tank, you pull out a tank. Whenever he sends a platoon of infantry into woods X, you send a platoon of infantry into woods X. This tends to generate a lot of even match ups that turn into bloody, brawling exchanges. I call it "mindless mashing of like on like". And that isn't a recommendation.

A slightly improve version of the previous tries to throw 2 of the same thing at each 1 of the enemy, parallel. This does slightly better than the previous until you run out of something. Then it is about as bad as any of the other dumb versions of combined arms.

Smart combined arms, in contrast, starts with looking for the lopsided match-ups in which a few special items in your bag of tricks can badly hurt specific pieces of the enemy force without suffering themselves, or without suffering anything of comparable value.

But it doesn't stop with looking for such match ups - it extends to deliberately bringing them about. By force selection, by traps and "head games" with the enemy, by maneuver and timing, by escalation ("trumping" whatever he used last), and by carefully safeguarding units not currently being used in a lopsided, favorably match up, to avoid giving the enemy one. (Rather than leaving everything open and so giving him his own "pick" of what to fight with what).

Then you analyze the enemy force to see which "legs" of his combined arms are weakest, or vulnerable to weapons you have that can get at him. You deliberately exchange off or otherwise neutralize a few key items with one set of weapons, and then as if by magic, your remaining weapons are free to go to town on the rest of his force. Because their specific "counters" are already gone.

Meanwhile you are also watching for the enemy's attempts to do the same to you, anticipating his threats, protecting the key things you need to protect, etc.

That is an overview of the idea of combined arms, and the distinction between bad, relatively mindless versions of it and the real thing.

To make it all work you have to know which match ups are favorable, in what circumstances. You need intel about the enemy, his force mix and his current positons and plans. You need to keep the enemy in the dark about your own if you can, or act in a careful manner that avoids giving him chances even if he does figure out what you are up to, or you need to surprise him with speed or audacity etc.

Well, the non technical side of that is simply commanding your units and trying things. The technical side of it is knowing the useful match ups. Some of which come from common sense and real world tactics, and some instead have to come from specifics of CM as a game, with its own quirks and costs. And there are a lot of those.

One easy way to learn a few is to beat the AI repeatedly using different sorts of weapons to do it. It gives you confidence and highlights the ability of each weapon - you learn what it can do in nearly ideal conditions. Nearly ideal because the AI is quite dumb about this stuff and will generally let you get away with using each asset in the perfect way, on its chosen prey.

Then you have to put it together trying things vs. humans, who are much tougher about it all.

What are some of the basic match ups to know?

Well, direct fire HE weapons on the map, 75mm caliber and above, are very effective against infantry in houses, and pretty effective against infantry in all kinds of cover.

Mortars and FOs are more effective against infantry in woods, or the lighter forms of vegetation cover (brush, wheat), particularly if "above ground" (meaning without any foxholes or trenches).

MGs and other light caliber, high ROF weapons are particularly effective against infantry or teams caught in open ground. At longer range, they are also "stealthy" - they give only "sound contacts" even when firing, making it very hard to hurt them back.

Tanks are particularly vulnerable to hidden towed guns that refrain from opening fire until they have a perfect "sight picture" - especially full powered antitank guns that can penetrate the target from any angle. Initial side shots by high ROF weapons or multiple weapons are a second best version of this.

Some very cheap items can kill very expensive ones when the conditions are perfect. Examples are panzerschrecks, ampulets, tank hunters, hidden AT minefields, the cheaper guns. Often these are range limited or themselves vulnerable, but stealthy "ambush" weapons (which makes them cheap). But they can kill 150+ point full tanks.

A general countermeasure to cheap but short range threats to tanks is to keep them well back, advancing only reluctantly. But that generally lets the other guy's tanks survive to hit your own infantry.

Some tanks are thick enough in front armor that they can present themselves "head on" to enemy tanks without much to fear, while being able to kill them. They are said to overmatch the vehicles faced or to be "uber" (short for "ubertank"). Well, an ubertank facing a sequence of 1 on 1s against lesser tanks is a lopsided "clean kill" match up.

Many tanks on few when both can hurt each other is another lopsided match up. This can happen with a "pack" - a full platoon all moving together engaging one enemy - or it can happen as "teamwork" between "wingmen" - two or more widely separated tanks, with the one he isn't facing engaging first, then the other after he turns to face the first. This is called "many on few".

Infantry can get lopsided matchups against other infantry in several ways. One is a cover differential - e.g you are in trenches and he is in open ground. Another is a morale differential - e.g. you are both in full woods, but most of his men are pinned or worse because an artillery barrage just ended, while your own are all "OK". Another is a weapons differential - e.g. you have SMGs and he has rifles in woods - or he has SMGs and some rifles at 200m, while you have squads with 2 LMGs each. Another is an ammo differential - he already fought a logn firefight and his men are "low" or have less than 10 ammo each, while yours are full or over 30 each.

Small scale infantry tactics can sometimes create several "many on few"s in a row, by e.g. using move to contact orders to get just to the edge of visible inside woods, or short advances, and then having a whole platoon "hose" the foremost enemy unit until it breaks. His friends can't yet see all the shooters. Watch the ammo, though - you can't afford to fire away forever at already broken men.

Guns can be countered once fully spotted by hitting with with on-map mortars, with an HQ spotting for the mortar. Since the mortar is out of sight and the HQ isn't firing, the gun can't see anything to shoot back at.

FOs can similarly call down fire without anyone knowing where it is coming from, and so give a lopsided match up. But be a bit careful here. There is another way this can fail - if you throw all your shells at too small or thin or well protected a target, you "ammo kill" your own FO, without hurting many enemy.

The "ammo kill" idea is a more general one. Think about it this way - the winner can't run out of men but can run out of ammo, but the loser runs out of men. So the winner is spending his ammo (percent, portion) only as fast as he is killing enemies, or slower - while anyone who spends half his ammo to hurt 10% of the enemy force is losing. In the same way, absorbing enemy fire without being appreciably hurt is a lopsided win - "sucking his ammo dry".

Examples of cases like that are all his antitank weapons firing at a tank they can't penetrate, or his FOs firing at men so deep in trenches they aren't much hurt by it, or his infantry firing at long range into cover, where they can do no more than pin people for a few minutes and can't keep it up.

Perhaps the simplest lopsided combined arms matchup is having tanks left facing only infantry, all the enemy heavy antitank weapons already KOed. Your tanks can fire forever with impunity.

Well, some can. Some types will run out of ammo.

Also, if they have deep cover, infantry can avoid tank fire by "skulking" - which means making short movements that break LOS entirely (back behind a crest, out behind the building in its "shadow" instead of inside, far enough back from a treeline, etc).

Skulking enemies can be dealt with by FOs or by using the fact that they can't see ahead of them anymore to close with them with your own infantry.

So, people plan out where they hope to get such match ups. A defense might plan out a whole series of them to cover its front, or the portion of them it expects to hold.

So one area is wide enough open I think, "I can get a lopside match up there by just having 2 HMGs able to cover it at range - they will pin any infantry trying to cross it". (MGs vs infantry in open match up). Another has a nice body of woods for an approach - so put a TRP on it and plan a barrage (FOs vs infantry in woods without foxholes match up). Another stretch is simply mined. Then for another, there is a good body of cover but the enemy will have to leave it to continue - so defending infantry go just opposite (cover differential match up, woods foxholes vs. moving in the open). But they might fall back to their cover and firefight from it - so perhaps an infantry gun is sighted to hit that cover (direct HE vs. proper target). To get past these infantry stoppers, he may try leading with tanks - so some routes are AT mined or have an AT weapon sited for an ambush (cheap killers of expensive match up), while others have a planned crossfire from two hidden ATGs (hidden ATGs vs. armor match up). In reserve for the whole thing there may be a main body of infantry (ready to get many on fews in the defensive cover), and perhaps a thick fronted tank initially hidden behind a crest.

See the idea? You try to weave these potential clean kill situations into a web the enemy must fall into. He tries to pick apart specific traps by using a different less vulnerable "piece" (get through the AT ambushers with infantry, or across the MG-swept field with tanks, or lure the guns to fire on a cheap armored car and then destroy them with mortars, or guess where the defending infantry reserve is and drop heavy artillery on them).

What nobody is trying to do, is "fight fair".

I hope this helps.

[Stratos]

So In map Mortars are a must??

I need them to destroy spotted AT guns

Infantry to attack other infantry and guns

Tanks to kill guns and infantry.

I need to keep my infantry with the tanks?? Or I need to make recon and only then send my tanks into a "clear" area?

For example yesterday I attacked a small village up a gentle slope, german only have one Halftrack and I a Sherman and a M3, of course his infantry can shoot from the houses, what will be the corrwect aproach in this case??

[JasonC]

"I attacked a small village up a gentle slope, german only have one Halftrack and I a Sherman and a M3, of course his infantry can shoot from the houses, what will be the corrwect approach in this case?"

A few infantry half squad scouts and see that much for you, right? So you don't really need a big recon operation (yet). First, the halftrack can't kill the Sherman and the Sherman can kill the halftrack. So you want LOS from Sherman to HT if it is easy to get. Either you kill the HT or it "skulks", hiding behind a house. That at least limits its LOS.

Next, there are infantry in houses. The perfect counter is direct fire HE 75mm or larger. Your Sherman has tons of it, a deep HE ammo load. So you blast away at the houses, "area fire". You can send a platoon forward on "advance", but short bounds, while this is happening. If/when the German infantry fires at them, they go to ground, get what cover they can, and rally. The Sherman fires at the offending house until it is gone (a minute for small ones, maybe 2 for the biggest).

As for the M3, it is just waiting in cover. The infantry does not press - no rushing.

After the Sherman has leveled several houses and the fire has slackened, the infantry resume their short advances. The Sherman stays back, at least 250m from the village, to stay out of range of panzerschrecks.

You then have to guess whether and where they may be towed guns lurking. You can risk the M3 to lure them to fire. An issue though is that HMGs can hurt it inside 400m. The alternative is just to leave the Sherman well back and advance the infantry all the way to the village.

The first squad should be significantly ahead of the rest, so you don't all get shot up at the same time. (You are avoiding the "cover differential" infantry match-up for the enemy). The leading unit will probably get shot up a few times by as yet unspotted enemy infantry. S'OK, just put the Sherman on whoever tries that and send up a new "point".

As the first infantry reach the rubbled houses, have them go stationary there to cover by fire as the rest close up. Your mission is not to reach any flag, but to eliminate the cover differential. You want your own infantry stationary in rubble cover - most of it. Then move the others gradually, 1-2 at a time. (This is called "packet movement" - most are ready to fire back immediately if a new enemy appears). Note that they will also rest back to "ready" this way. ("Advance" the whole way to the village will have tired the men out - s'ok).

The enemy halftrack may try to get locations from which it can see your infantry and your tank can't see it. You can't let that happen. If it is happening, retreat the infantry or fire smoke rounds from the Sherman (or any mortars if you have some) to cut the line of sight between the enemy HT and your men. (Avoiding armor vs. none match up).

You can also see a HT behind a house by first blowing down the house! At first you will get a big dust cloud that will block his own shots, then when it clears you should be able to see him, with the house out of the way.

Once you think you are facing only infantry remaining, you can move your M3 to a "keyhole" position able to see just one enemy unit. That means e.g. peek between 2 houses. The idea is to get an armor vs. none match up and use the M3's machineguns. But not to be visible to every possible enemy gun or HMG team. You can also use the M3 to move any slower weapons teams up to the village after your own infantry have reached it and are in the rubble. It will be faster and a lot safer than crossing the open with a slower mortar or MG team.

You want your own infantry to hold its fire at long range, saving its ammo for after it has already entered the village. I'd use "cover arcs" with a distance of 100-150 meters. Once inside the village and in cover, these can come off if you like. You can afford to fire off all your ammo from there - you just can't afford to be nearly dry when you first reach the village.

You want to put one shooter on already cowering men to prevent them from rallying. Everybody else breaks somebody by ganging up on him. The Sherman can get his own target using HE, or if that is running low, can pin somebody with his MGs (which won't ever run out, really).

Small movements after that, to take one more house or to get to grenade range from some one enemy position, with a single full squad. Done right the enemy should be breaking or broken by this point, and enemy fire on again-off again, and weak. You can push to mop up, but don't rush anybody who is still up and firing. Shoot first.

The move order is therefore HE shells first, infantry second, vehicles third.

See the idea?

[JasonC]

That was for the specific case you mentioned. Now your other more general questions.

"So In map Mortars are a must??"

They are the best counter to enemy AT guns, yes. Their secondary mission is to pin enemy machineguns in trenches or woods foxholes once those are spotted, which they will do better than infantry fire will. (They aren't good at houses though - use a flat trajectory gun or a tank for those).

"Infantry to attack other infantry and guns"

Not really. Yes infantry mostly kills other infantry. It doesn't particularly kill guns - those have too much range for them and their own fire at a gun isn't very effective from the front, at range. Guns tend to be in good cover etc.

The main strengths of infantry are it can go anywhere, it uses cover well, and it has massive firepower at close range. It is also resilent, because it rallies and there are lots of men, and it remains effective when a few have been hit. It can break, through, if too much strain is put on it all at once.

Infantry has to be "paced". It can bear a lot of pain provided it all comes at a rate it can "rally through". Pushed it too hard and they "come apart" - some breaking and running, others panicking in place or sneaking sideways trying to reach better cover, etc. So it is important to be able to pick how hard and heavy the engagement is and to "dial" it to want the men can stand (e.g. by keeping the range longer to give the men time to rally, or "skulking" out of LOS, etc).

So it holds ground well. And it scouts for everyone. Its short range firepower is always wanted to finish things off. You also can try to beat enemy infantry with it by arranging any of the specific advantages mentioned (cover, current morale state, local numbers, weapon mix and range, ammo remaining, etc).

"Tanks to kill guns and infantry."

Thick enough tanks can kill weak enough guns, and you can sometimes kill guns by barely being able to see next to them and using "area fire", or by taking on 1 with a whole bunch of tanks together. But generally tanks want to avoid guns. Guns can kill them and guns are cheaper. You would rather have your own indirect fire (mortars and FOs) kill his guns, leaving all your tanks alive for other work.

That other works includes killing infantry, yes. It also includes killing enemy light armor - his "less than tank" armored vehicles (which includes the lightest tanks, incidentally - Pz IIs and such), which your full tanks can easily take out without risk, while infantry would have a real problem with them.

And it also includes killing enemy full tanks. Your biggest on map guns and your tanks, between them, have to take out the enemy armor. Sure it is nice if your zooks and such get some, but only long ranged heavy AT weapons can seriously expect to kill tanks reliably.

You don't want those tank vs. tank fights to be straight up duels, one on one, between equals. That would count as "mindless mashing of like on like" and at best get you even exchanges with a lot of variation and risk. But if you arrange an edge, tanks do kill tanks.

Many on few, or a type that the specific enemy type can't kill from that facing and range, or "teamwork" between two tanks with one distracting him and another hitting him from the side "while he isn't looking", or just "getting the drop on him" by having one tank move into LOS from his side, while he is buttoned up - etc.

Tanks are individually the strongest "pieces" in the game, and you have to use your own strongest pieces to take his. Like "heavy wood" in chess (queens and rooks). If the best you can arrange is a straight up exchange, sometimes that is worth it because it will leave you able to use other advantages (e.g. I have halftracks or armored cars and he has none. If I trade off both sides' tanks, I will be ahead).

As for whether to move infantry and armor together, it depends on the terrain and threat, but in general no you do not need to. What you need is "firepower integration" - each of your weapons that are needed able to see their proper targets. How you get it is up to you.

Moving in a group can avoid one way firepower integration can be arranged to fail - the enemy positioned to hit only your leading edge, with your trailing units still out of sight e.g. He can't get "differential LOS" as that is called, if you are all in the same spot.

But on the other hand, if you are all in the same spot, he can put an artillery barrage on that spot and get "two for the price of one". Or, the ground might just be unfavorable for one of your two unit types (too open for your infantry e.g., or too hard to move through for your tanks, or giving short range shots to enemy infantry that could be avoided by being farther out in open ground).

You have to decide which of those issues is more important tactically. In general, though, the leading infantry units are often well ahead of the tanks, scouting for the enemy.

Defenders would like to wait to hit attackers when lots of them can be hurt badly all at once, because they are far from cover, in sight of many defenders, etc. Well, somebody has to force them to fire when they don't yet want to.

Infantry does that by threatening to walk right over their positions if they stay hidden. Because infantry firepower grows as it gets closer and reaches cover near the defenders, they can't really afford to let it waltz right up to them.

An infantry advance therefore creates a threat that the defenders must fire to stop. Firing shows stuff which the rest of the attacking force can then "chew on".

So, often you will see the lead infantry scouting ahead and drawing fire, and then all the longer range stuff shooting back and forth over them. The main body of the attacking infantry may hang back while this is happening, and make is own full attack only during or after it. Tanks often hang back to duel at range until many enemy tanks and guns are dead. Only after "his AT net is smashed" do they advance aggressively.

Charging prematurely with a lot of armor into an unscouted intact defense is a good way to get a lot of tanks KOed unnecessarily, because it lets the defender pick when to open up, and he will pick "when I can hurt them all the most, because all weapons bear". There can be exceptions, though, if the attacker correctly guesses a weakly covered route etc.

[Stratos]

WOW!!

That's a impressive and very useful compilation of how to play, now I only need how to apply all this knowledge.

Thank's a lot guys and Merry Christmas!!

[dr dill]

Thanx Jason, very helpful posts for me too.

quality advice indeed,also like your attitude to

take time helping us new players.

happy holiday

dr dill