Nox Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I was wondering, what kind of tactics in perticular the Allies used against Axis tanks especailly like in late North Africa. How did shermans face tigers etc. And what is the best way to move infantry in open areas like that? Also what is the best way to analyze a map, right now I look for cover, route, recon possitions. But I was wondering what other creative ways there are... (I'm fearly new so any tactical ideas are great) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Originally posted by Nox: I was wondering, what kind of tactics in perticular the Allies used against Axis tanks especailly like in late North Africa. How did shermans face tigers etc. Dropped vast amounts of Arty fire onto them or let them come on to anti-tank guns (6pdr at close range or 17pdrs at almost any range) And what is the best way to move infantry in open areas like that? There's a recent thread on one of the forums about moving infantry in the open. Top right of the page is a search function. It's a good way to avoid looking like a total newb. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Originally posted by Nox: I was wondering, what kind of tactics in perticular the Allies used against Axis tanks especailly like in late North Africa. How did shermans face tigers etc. And what is the best way to move infantry in open areas like that? In addition to flamingknives analysis, I think aerial superiority was used to great effect as often as possible to ensure they wouldn't have to. An Army At Dawn talks about the many American tank actions that were catastrophic for them in Tunisia. However, if you look at the situation, say, after El Alamein, you can compare the number of "runners" in the Axis starting lineup vs. the British. Germany never had enough tanks, and true tank-vs-tank battles were rare overall, and limited in scope when they did happen. As pointed out also, US and British doctrine was for tanks to fight against infantry. In a "perfect" world, German tanks would be handled by anti-tank guns, or in the US case by "tank destroyers". So tactics for tank-vs-tank stuff kind of got made up as they went along... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Originally posted by Nox: Also what is the best way to analyze a map, right now I look for cover, route, recon possitions.Hard to improve on that, but I'll add that if I'm attacking I try to guess where the enemy has placed his defending infantry and supporting weapons. Then I start looking for covered approaches to close with the objective(s) and where to place my own supporting weapons, including FOs, to lay down smoke and suppressive fire on probable enemy positions. If I am defending, I take note of the most likely approaches the enemy is going to use and try to arrange my forces to make life difficult and unpleasant for him to do so. This includes arranging fields of fire to cover those lines or area denial weapons such as mines and wire, or ideally both. Whether I am defending or attacking, I try to keep a reserve of rested, unengaged troops in hand to exploit opportunities or to plug holes. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 "late North Africa. How did shermans face tigers" They didn't. You will see more Tigers in one afternoon of CM than the Americans saw in the entire Tunisian campaign. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I always thought the basic US tactics were given in their 3 rules of combat Rule 1: Never close with the enemy Rule 2: Never close with the enemy Rule 3: Never close with the enemy Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Will come as news to the TD and tank drivers who trashed more German armor than they lost in the close terrain of Normandy, in fog in Lorraine, and in both in the Bulge. Often at 200m or less. What is true is that the US in particular relied more on winning the HE and infantry war. Especially by sending shells to strip infantry off of tanks, but also by keeping infantry at range, suppressing with M-1s, BARs, and MMGs. US tanks are good at the HE war too, better than they are at the armor war. In the real deal the US armor division forces did not fight "fair". They had odds, well beyond that you see in CM "attacks", if they were attacking. The infantry division forces, on the other hand, fought the armor war on a shoestring but had tons of soft firepower. A typical US infantry combined arms force in CM at the ~1500 points level would be a company plus a 4th platoon of infantry, up to 6 additional MGs, 2-3 57mm ATGs or 105mms firing direct, a 155mm FO, and 2-3 Shermans or M10s. Maybe a jeep or three, and a 81mm mortar or two. The result is 200 rifle infantry and lots of MGs, all with abundant ammo, to hose down anything within medium range with small arms. Plus lots of HE from 60mm to 155mm, each with a definite tactical task. But an armor war conducted on a shoestring - 4 zooks, a few modest guns, a few AFVs only sometimes upgunned to the useful 76mm. If the enemy has 1 StuG that works just fine and the force can attack. If the enemy has 5 Panthers the armor force is outclassed and goes over to defense. This doesn't always mean an outright loss, though, not if there is decent terrain. The HE war stuff strips the infantry and buttons the tanks. Then the modest AT assets stalk them one at time. If such thick front AFVs don't attack, if they just stand off at range, the limited US AT isn't going to kill them. But if they themselves charge into the US defended zone, they must expose their sides and close the range to do so. They therefore become vulnerable. It worked that way in the real deal, too, but with a few twists. There was about 6 times as much arty. And any serious attack would see lots of TDs and zook teams converge on the area, unless the whole scale was so huge there weren't enough to go around (which only really happened in the Bulge). What did they do to attack when the Germans had serious armor opposite? One, they often didn't have to worry about it. The Germans didn't have much armor. And when they did, they tended to launch grandious counterattacks - which often lost half of it in a day, and always lost most of it within a month. But locally, tactically, it could still happen. Then they just didn't "fight fair". E.g. a column of 40 US AFVs - mostly Shermans, some TDs and Priests - plus 20 HTs full of infantry, find themselves momentarily halted by a reduced company of 7 StuGs astride the road they are advancing along. What did they actually do? In the case I am thinking of, they called for air support. Took 2 hours. 36 P-47s showed up. The StuGs dispersed. The column proceeded, with subcolumns along several parallel routes. The didn't lose a single vehicle and killed all the StuGs. Did they do this because 40 AFVs weren't enough to kill 7 StuGs? No. They did it because they could. And because a few hours didn't really cost anything, and even one dead tank did. At that point (it was early 1945) they knew the war was over and nobody wanted to be the last guy to die for an outcome that was obviously already set in stone. If the idiots on the other side haven't figured it out yet, get a hammer so big they can't miss it. 36 fighter bombers, or a 10 battalion time-on-target shoot by every gun in an entire corps (at one battalion in a single village), or set up a whole armored task force at 1 km and fire off 10 rounds each, direct. But that was late in the war. They didn't have that kind of edge yet in Tunisia or Italy. (In Sicily they did, because defenders were so scarce). So they used the "defend if he has lots of armor, attack if he doesn't" drill. The defense was a gun line including vehicles and on call arty. Sometimes it included naval gunfire as well. The attack was an arty barrage followed up by infantry, with their MGs and mortars etc overwatching to hose down defenders who stuck around. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nox Posted January 29, 2004 Author Share Posted January 29, 2004 wow, thanks for all the info. I have another question, what are the exact effects of night? I was attacking and it was difficult to tell at what ranges people could see, now I know there are lots of variables but in a clear area on a clear night what is the CM sight range. Also I was crawling through brush, how exposed am I really and how likely can the enemy see a sneaking squad? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Originally posted by Joachim: I always thought the basic US tactics were given in their 3 rules of combat Rule 1: Never close with the enemy Rule 2: Never close with the enemy Rule 3: Never close with the enemy Gruß Joachim This is remains a surprisingly common view of the US Army, yet somehow this Army-- working in tandem with their allies the British, Canadians, Poles, Free French, et al--managed to drive the Germans out of Tunisia, Sicily, Italy, and France, and across Germany as far as Berchtesgaden, the Elbe, and beyond. In the process, they pushed determined, experienced and well-dug-in defenders out of rocky hills and steep, jagged mountains where supplies came in by mule-back and casualties went out the same way. They crossed wide, heavily defended rivers in rubber assault boats, scaled the rocky bluffs of Omaha beach, broke through the bocage one hedgerow at a time, fought through stone-walled villages and densely packed cities, breached fortified defensive positions, knocked out lines of pillboxes one by one, fought through forests, and even captured, almost intact, a heavily defended bridge across the Rhine. In the process they accepted the surrender of hundreds of thousands of beleaguered German troops. It's hard to figure out how these US troops covered so much difficult ground in so short a period of time against such a skill and determined enemy without--somehow--closing with that enemy. A good way to clear up this still common yet unfortunate misconception would be to read Michael Doubler's "Closing with the Enemy: How GI's Fought the War in Europe, 1944-1945" (1994), which offers a detailed analysis of US infantry and combined arms tactics in World War II. It is supported by many examples and shows how the US combined arms team became such effective fighters in the ETO. Nice statement above, btw, JasonC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 What those guys said... Seriously, though, the US Army did come from a culture where the unnecessary loss of life in battle was thought to be a good thing. The US did and still does, prefer to throw shells, rather than soldiers, at a military objective. See Bolger's "On Death Ground" for a good expression of this philosophy. Not a bad philosophy, as long as you achieve your ends without too much collateral damage. The problem with it is that there are times when you must resort to old-fashioned mano-a-mano combat techniques to get the enemy out of their holes and hideaways. Your troops have to be trained, led, equipped and prepared for that. Early in WW2, US troops were not so prepared. After a while, the survivors got better at it. Needless to say, today it's not a problem that US troops can be accused of. Our guys on the ground will go face to face with anyone, anytime and will come out on top almost every time. There are times when firepower is a substitute, but it has limits and in the end, the ground is held, and taken, by the grunts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Originally posted by gunnergoz: ... there are times when you must resort to old-fashioned mano-a-mano combat techniques ... Needless to say, today it's not a problem that US troops can be accused of. Our guys on the ground will go face to face with anyone, anytime and will come out on top almost every time. There are times when firepower is a substitute, but it has limits and in the end, the ground is held, and taken, by the grunts. Heh. The only substitue for firepower is casualties. In other words, firepower isn't a substitute for anything - its the cornerstone of warfighting. As a result, I take a different interpretation of the US Army now - it's because their firepower is so suerior to everyone else's that they will go face to face. Also, taking and holding ground seems to be less important in the battles the US has fought recently. But this is off topic. Sorry. Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Originally posted by JasonC: E.g. a column of 40 US AFVs - mostly Shermans, some TDs and Priests - plus 20 HTs full of infantry, find themselves momentarily halted by a reduced company of 7 StuGs astride the road they are advancing along. What did they actually do? In the case I am thinking of, they called for air support. Took 2 hours. 36 P-47s showed up. The StuGs dispersed. The column proceeded, with subcolumns along several parallel routes. The didn't lose a single vehicle and killed all the StuGs. Did they do this because 40 AFVs weren't enough to kill 7 StuGs? No. They did it because they could. And because a few hours didn't really cost anything, and even one dead tank did. At that point (it was early 1945) they knew the war was over and nobody wanted to be the last guy to die for an outcome that was obviously already set in stone. If the idiots on the other side haven't figured it out yet, get a hammer so big they can't miss it. 36 fighter bombers, or a 10 battalion time-on-target shoot by every gun in an entire corps (at one battalion in a single village), or set up a whole armored task force at 1 km and fire off 10 rounds each, direct. Now, THERE'S an idea for a scenario, me thinks... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Originally posted by birdstrike: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Originally posted by JasonC: E.g. a column of 40 US AFVs - mostly Shermans, some TDs and Priests - plus 20 HTs full of infantry, find themselves momentarily halted by a reduced company of 7 StuGs astride the road they are advancing along. [big snip] Now, THERE'S an idea for a scenario, me thinks... </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Originally posted by CombinedArms: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Originally posted by birdstrike: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Originally posted by JasonC: E.g. a column of 40 US AFVs - mostly Shermans, some TDs and Priests - plus 20 HTs full of infantry, find themselves momentarily halted by a reduced company of 7 StuGs astride the road they are advancing along. [big snip] Now, THERE'S an idea for a scenario, me thinks... </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armdchair Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Originally posted by Nox: I was wondering, what kind of tactics in perticular the Allies used against Axis tanks especailly like in late North Africa. How did shermans face tigers etc. And what is the best way to move infantry in open areas like that? Nox, here's a link to a thread "Help with infantry": http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001181 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nox Posted February 1, 2004 Author Share Posted February 1, 2004 Oh that link is great! Thank you! JasonC sure knows a lot, thanks again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.