Little tactical puzzle

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Mclarke]

If you send me the turn file I'd be glad to post an AAR.

email:mclarke_pnb@yahoo.ca

Just of the top of my head, in the dark, heres what I would do..

You said you were in rural terrain, so I take it there's not many tall heavy building with good los for those HMGs that are pinning your squads. First thing I do is reposition a platoon of tanks to keyhole suspected mgs sites, IE, any buildings near the MLR. Just drop em, thats what the tanks are their for, and Sherman ammo load out lets you get away with it. Ok, so now every building that could be part of the enemy MLR is a pile of smoking rubble, what next...

The I would position my 150mm arty spotter with sight on that crucial treeline. Then I would sweep the whole treeline in 30 second splashes, repositioning every turn, pinning squads and killing ATGs.

So, now that your arty is incoming, get your mortar up to deal with the ATG you spotted. He should be with a forward section HQ of Company HG to spot.

Then Advance with your infantry, with the advance command. Shorts dashes. Your infantry will get pinned, some may get caught in the open and be really shot to hell, but so be it. You need to advance. Get within 250m-200m of the suspected enemy MLR, which I gather is a treeline that you've been shelling sporatically with 150mm.

Get close enough to Id the MGs, but far away enough to avoid the red hot kill zone. You may want to split squads to give your men more surface area, and a hell of lot more targets for the enemy MGS. Once youve Id'ed the MGs, kill them with your armour, target area to make sure they stay down. Then its a methodical push forward, trading men for ground, keeping your tanks behind your company, spotting ATG with your forward Inf, and massing tanks on them one by one, and killing them with your mortar. Once the battlefield is clear of ATGs, get your tanks up with your men, and move up and through the MLR.

-------

Some thoughts,

but without the turn file this was the equivalent of mental masturbation.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Hensworth]

If they're regular or better, tell your men to hide and soak up the mortar barrage. Even in scattered trees you shouldn't take more than the odd casualty if you're hugging the dirt.

If this freaks you out pull your men back a bit or move them sideways if possible.

Wait out the barrage, take out the spotted ATG, then exploit the hole in his AT defense.

[von Lucke]

Smoke is yr friend.

At this point, with yr mortars still being set up, and the 155mm response time (not to mention waste of limited ammo) an issue, use the Shermans direct fire capability. Two squads = 10 tubes = @7 smoke rnds ea. = 70 smoke that you can lay in to move yr armor up to support the infantry advance, or to reposition the infantry free from HMG fire.

Alternatively, use area fire from the Shermans and any MMG's of yr own to blanket the most likely enemy HMG / ATG / mortar positions.

(Though, if it had been me, I would have tried to get a Sherman 105 in the mix, for just such an occassion).

[JasonC]

The realistic options in the situation described are (1) skulk with the forward infantry, wait for the mortars and register the 155s while doing so. Ignore the early pain as unlikely to ever prove decisive and as effectively absorbing enemy ammo without lasting consequence. Requires only time and some small tactical handling of the infantry to avoid excessive "breakage" at crowded rally points and the like. Or (2) push hard and fast with the tanks leading, behind smoke to temporarily neutralize the PAK. With armor close, should get spots, and the combination of obscured LOS and tank fire should free the infantry. Which then follows up to the first tree line described.

The second option is usually premature in this sort of situation, though. It can work, but depends on details of terrain. Basically you need covered routes and smoke-able enemy keyholing, and you need places the tanks can reach if that works, that will not be under continual PAK observation.

If those are available, though, it can save time and overwhelm the enemy forward "outpost" line for little cost. By the time the smoke clears and the firefight right after dies down, mortars and FO can be in position etc.

If on the other hand you get unlucky rushing through PAK fire, you can readily wind up dueling all enemy guns "straight up" (without mortars or FOs helping), and also facing schrecks and stuff with little infantry aid (lagging the tanks). Which means all defending weapons work and your own are being used inefficiently.

Can still trade through the enemy force if he doesn't have enough heavy PAK or they don't get "hot" enough, but will usually be more expensive in lost tanks (which you said might be used again if they live).

I am tempermentally given to the slower attritionist approach. MG fire at long range into 25% cover does not scare me in the least. 81mm mortar fire used early in the approach stages often breaks most of a platoon temporarily, but only imposes delay really. First, that is a point for point trade an outnumbered defender can't sustain, and second, the platoon will mostly rally in 5 minutes or so, while the enemy's ammo will not.

So I just don't care about this sort of early harassing fire. MG fire at moving men in open ground can impose serious delay and more than pay for itself. Higher caliber arty catching men with treebursts can take away the attacker's combined arms permanently (meaning, the defending infantry left so outnumbers the remaining good order attackers, than the defenders "own" all woods interiors and the like, for the rest of the fight. Numerous direct fire guns can mess up men too concentrated in a few cover locations to avoid MG fire in the open. (E.g. 20 quad fire, or 150mm sIG fire, at your gathered infantry). Well placed PAK killing multiple tanks apiece can break your armor support edge.

Those are things to worry about, real attack-breakers. MGs at 400m plus still firing after you've reached cover, or premature 81mm mortar "sprinkles", just aren't.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[JasonC]

The attacking formation is not going to walk right through the defense without taking fire. Somebody will be in the lead. That somebody will take fire. In the normal case, that fire blows up the absolute "point" thoroughly, but not necessarily the whole lead platoon.

The reason a platoon rather than one half squad is used to scout, is the platoon can roll through some very light enemies that the half squad cannot. But only very thin outposts will be overrun by a single infantry platoon (LMG LPs, that sort of thing). Occasionally in tighter terrain the lead platoon may blow through the first (platoon or HMG) position hit on its own, but this is an exception, not the rule.

A single platoon alone cannot be expected to attack effectively, against more than a single enemy shooter of full firepower (MG, gun, or full squad). And integrated defenses generally have most routes "stopped" by something or other that can handle a platoon (continuous AP minefield, TRP, large HE direct fire weapon sighted on a limited body of cover, pair of HMGs into an open ground area, full defending platoon in cover with open ground ahead of them, or tank).

The lead platoon scouts to find the enemy, not to defeat him. The rest of the attacking force then KOs the stuff they hit, or sometimes goes around by following another platoon along a route chosen to avoid the obstacle the first hit. In the latter case, the relationship between point platoon and overwatch-main body repeats itself in the flanking operation.

But where the lead platoon "bogs down" depends on where the defense puts its blockages. It can be farther away when the defender plans an "up" defense based on firepower at range into open areas (rather than a reserve slope or stealth based defense for example).

I generally want my lead platoon to make it to 200 yards away from the enemy MLR. If it "bogs" before then, I consider it a successful enemy delay of my approach march. In the ideal case, the point platoon might avoid fire before then by using a covered route, but more often it takes fire earlier but manages to continue by using staggered short advances and all available cover. When it gets to 200 yards and has cover, I don't expect them to make it any further. That is close enough to get spots, and in the meantime they can rally a bit and fire back.

If the enemy uses arty on them, they usually have to pull back. 81mm they might partially "ride out" if in good enough cover. I consider that simply a free choice for the defender as to when he wants to "spend" his arty, which I assume he will get off sometime whatever I do.

Fire is what eventually takes stuff, not the point. But because of this relationship - scouting platoon finds MLR but can't ever beat one - I consider a reduced company the minimum infantry force that can conduct an actual attack. (Meaning 2 platoons, company HQ, and heavy weapons group).

An armor based attack can sometimes use 2 tanks and 1 platoon, with two half squads leading and the rest on line with the tanks. In point terms that is of comparable size to the previous. It can destroy a single enemy platoon position, but not a company sized MLR with gun support. It isn't very robust on the infantry side, though, and the reduced company previously described plus the tanks will work better (and includes heavy weapons to deal with guns etc).

Realistically, HMGs plus 81s were a nastier defensive pair than then are in CM, and fully capable of defending a German company or battalion at ranges of 500 yards. But in CM, infantry is pretty robust and rallies through fire pretty easily, medium mortars are underpowered (their real shrapnel radius is close to a 105mm). A few losses don't suppress CM infantry as long as it did historically etc.

But the principle that the lead platoon only finds, and the main body and overwatch actually defeat an enemy position, is entirely accurate.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i have pretty much given up scouting and instead have gone for decisiveness. it's pretty much just a classical frontal attack with smoke cover and concentration of firepower, something like this:

1) i buy lots of light offmap arty.

2) i identify the area which i need to take (e.g. the one where enemy main body is likely located).

3) i identify the best route to get there. the best being the route with LEAST cover and lots of space.

4) number 3 is more important than number 2. the point is to get the majority of my forces "at his end". once there, the rest is pretty much just execution.

5) i concentrate the great majority of my forces for this attack route. the rest of my forces are just for harassing and mind games, unless the map offers special potential for something else. i keep armour with infantry.

6) once i decide i am good to go, i fire massive amounts of smoke that cover the open advance route (with good error margin) for minutes. offmap arty (save for heavies) is pretty useless for HE fires, but it can generate serious amounts of smoke.

7) move infantry fast under the cover of smoke with slight echeloning (should not be a problem since i chose route with lots of space) and get overwatching support elements ready (since i chose the route with least cover this should not be a problem).

8) i keep 1/3 of armor close to or within the infantry main body, so that i get support fire at targets the overwatching elements may not be able to reach, and to make advancing infantry eliminate possible enemy light advance positions faster.

9) i keep 1/3 of armor in second wave, with tank riders, but not too far back so that they can still utilize the smoke cover.

10) i use the last 1/3 or less of armor (with some light infantry support elements) elsewhere on the map so that enemy can't easily relocate his forces or just to stress and confuse him.

11) it is important to wait for smoke to disappear, rather than advancing out from its cover - even if it means i am not as far forward as i perhaps could be. if possible i also try to plan the smoke fires so that i get a rolling barrage effect, so that while first enemy positions come into LOS the ones further back are still blocked by smoke.

12) anyway, once the smoke disappears the 1st wave is at good shooting range of the enemy and with my superior firepower i will win the firefight. enemy can't utilize his support weapons effectively, because i am already too close (e.g. his own cover blocks most of his support weapons' LOS), his support weapons may still be isolated by smoke and i can outfire him.

13) i advance patiently but in a determined fashion, making use of slight echeloning, and just keep pushing forward till i have overrun enemy positions. usually it doesn't take long, because i have serious superiority in firepower.

14) i launch the 2nd wave with tank riders and leap to the second objective already before 1st objective is completely in my hands. i use support mortars, guns, or tank main guns for smoke if possible.

15) this 2nd wave is important as it gives my attack width (or depth, if the front is now vertical rather than horizontal), so that enemy has to fight a front rather than just a point. it's easy to suppress a point and my attack is quite concentrated and without 2nd wave it may be difficult to spread out after initial success (especially for armour).

16) there is no need for the main attack to take place immediately. i can first advance with minor forces elsewhere for 10+ minutes if that fits the map.

17) this stuff works well when i have to attack with Soviets on a map with considerable lack of cover. it doesn't work if there's too much cover so that it's hard to concrentrate firepower, or the battle is so small you can't afford enough arty. it might not work with Allies because their arty is quite expensive, but it should work with Germans.

[ August 21, 2007, 05:15 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]

[JasonC]

It is an interesting idea. How I'd counter the "just smoke and rush" approach march -

(1) When the smoke starts boiling, everybody in the path of it hides. When LOS is fully blocked by the smoke, reposition to reverse slope deployments (behind not in buildings, back from treelines, off crests etc).

(2) The largest defending FO calls a fire mission just outside the smoke barrage limits (one adjust away from its front-and-center, if possible). The idea being to count down most of the delay during the smoke, and face only the time of one adjust to bring heavy shells down on the "point".

(3) When the smoke clears, the FO does the adjust and puts the barrage center on the cover reached by the end of the smoke.

Now, there isn't an immediate firefight with all the defenders on the route taken, if he is shy of any of their positions. They aren't firing at him. He may still have run right over some units during the smoke barrage itself, of course, and probably killed some that way. But probably less than he spent on the smoke barrage.

The idea behind my proposed counter is that the smoke-n-rush is designed to defeat an "up" defense, one that depends on stalling the attackers with long range fire over open ground areas. So he is ready for that and is spending FO points to counter it. Fine, so don't do that, switch to the alternate defense scheme. Back, reverse slope, stealthy, a defense you can't find. Use the smoked time to make small adjusts to such a back deployed defense.

And then reply to his smoke with your own HE...

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The idea behind my proposed counter is that the smoke-n-rush is designed to defeat an "up" defense, one that depends on stalling the attackers with long range fire over open ground areas.

mostly yes.

So he is ready for that and is spending FO points to counter it.

the key difference is that i take an objective by a frontal assault and then roll it. smoke just makes it possible against an opponent with superior long range firepower on a fairly open map.

maneuver follows only after the assault, when i have won the firefight and have overrun the local defenses, and i am fighting in the depth of his defences, broadening the breakthrough. at this point the front has usually realigned from horizontal to vertical.

Fine, so don't do that, switch to the alternate defense scheme. Back, reverse slope, stealthy, a defense you can't find. Use the smoked time to make small adjusts to such a back deployed defense.

And then reply to his smoke with your own HE...

yes there are ways to make it harder, but even a fallback is good enough for me because his defensive plan (e.g. keyholes, killsacks) has been rendered far less effective.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by AdamL:

If the benefit from doing that exceeds the cost - and there will be an exceeded cost over slow approach - then you have a good tactic.

it might cost a bit too much for Western Allies because of their high arty prices. possibly, i have never tried.

The Soviets would build their defensive positions in triangular patterns, pointing outward with communication between points.

i fear you are confusing outposts and actual formations, unless i misunderstood you. Soviets would prefer broad wedge, though often were forced to use line.

Any rush would get you wedged inevitably between two of those positions, often three.

wouldn't any kind of attack lead to the same situation? :confused:

[JasonC]

URD - on your reply to me, I agree, it forces an adaptation and neutralizes one kind of defense, and that is clearly useful.

On the last point you were discussing with Adam, I think the answer to your question is no, not every mode of attack would wind up inside the defender's strongpoints fighting in multiple directions. That result follows from pushing hard into his position before engaging.

An alternative is to "eat" the position one strongpoint at a time from well outside of it, picking the foremost positions apart with ranged fire cautiously, etc. Slow methodical roll instead of rapid thrust.

Adam's point is that multi-celled defenses are themselves an adaptation to defeat penetration-attempt thrusts. If you "slow roll" through them instead, you can get several many on few fights in sequence, exploiting their original dispersion to fight only a third of them at a time.

The point is that different attack forms are better against different defense forms. Fast into them, reorient laterally, and roll up, is strongest against an all-up, all on-line, linear defense. Which you can't really "slow roll" (you wind up fighting a whole prepare MLR, all vs all, etc).

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by JasonC:

On the last point you were discussing with Adam, I think the answer to your question is no, not every mode of attack would wind up inside the defender's strongpoints fighting in multiple directions. That result follows from pushing hard into his position before engaging.

An alternative is to "eat" the position one strongpoint at a time from well outside of it, picking the foremost positions apart with ranged fire cautiously, etc. Slow methodical roll instead of rapid thrust.

Adam's point is that multi-celled defenses are themselves an adaptation to defeat penetration-attempt thrusts. If you "slow roll" through them instead, you can get several many on few fights in sequence, exploiting their original dispersion to fight only a third of them at a time.

The point is that different attack forms are better against different defense forms. Fast into them, reorient laterally, and roll up, is strongest against an all-up, all on-line, linear defense. Which you can't really "slow roll" (you wind up fighting a whole prepare MLR, all vs all, etc).

i totally agree about different attack forms and such, and i see what you are talking about and i agree that such tactics are good and often even necessary.

i wholly agree that my approach will not work well in all situations and it would be just plain stupid to use my approach with certain types of forces.

i think we are picturing quite a different scenarios and that's my fault for not being more precise about force compositions and such. perhaps i wrongly read Adam's reply too much in the context of my scenario, where as he was describing a scenario that is totally different. the assault i use covers easily up to half of the whole map, so i guess we might be discussing tactics of whole different scales. i'll try to post more precise example in future when i have got more time.

i don't agree about not winding up fighting defender's strongpoits, but i don't really have time or energy to discuss it properly at present time. partly i feel like such a discussion is a bit pointless, because most likely we are picturing too different scenarios. perhaps scenarios of whole different scales. wether or not you wind up fighting defender's strongpoints is not really a matter of opinion, as it's largely dictated by the scenario setup.

nonetheless i find the subject interesting and it's always fun to debate/discuss with you (at least in the end). i'll try to find time to post something more worthwhile about the subject. i think positive aspects of frontal assaults haven't received enough attention on these forums.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request