Historical battle length, time compression, resupply in combat, pauses in battle

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by tar:

I think you may be reading more into this phrase than is perhaps warranted. In any combat, there will be stops and starts, with pauses for re-organization. Just because a larger formation is engaged in combat for three hours, it doesn't mean that every subunit was likewise engaged.

Agreed. However I contend that the battle is ongoing, as long as ANY subunit of the larger formation is engaged.

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

If you read some of the US Army's official history - say the "Three small actions" volume - you can get a pretty good handle on the types of delay that occur, very few of which would add any interest to a CM game.

Is this online?

In any case, the advance you describe sounds like an unopposed advance through enemy country, which I agree, no one want to design or play as a CM scenario.

On the other hand, you have to admit this is a very different situation from a Soviet battalion breaking through a German two-line MLR. Apples and oranges.

The example of the VG taking small company held villages in the Ardennes is relevant, and indeed, they may have fallen in short 30-40 minute battles. But all WW2 engagements did not fall into this time frame.

[Los]

"The potential of running out of ammo in longer battles creates the interesting situation of having to decide which units to keep in reserve, if any."

Some tips. In designing a long battle (60+ turns) first thing I would do is boost up ammo loads to max. If you know you are going into a big fight you take as much ammo as possible. (In RL I've carried as much as 18x30 round magazines, four frags, 2 smokes, flashbangs and breaching charge, plus 9mm ammo on an operation where I knew we were going to have a huge fight)

B: You can use moving in concealed terrain, covered arcs, or hide commands to limit people popping off at targets outside of effective range. It is critical that you control unwanted shooting particularly on bigger open maps and particularly with your critical heavy weapons like HMGs and mortars.

Thirdly, normally you don't have the whole bn online fighting all at once. Pace your platoons so they hand off the fight from one to another, as is often done for real. Someone mentioend establishing phase lines corodination points, hand over, etc.

Los

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

By designing scenarios such that the 10-15 minutes before contact is simulated, the attacker has many more options available and decisions to make. He can even probe a bit before making some of these decisions.

To me CM is never boring, even after 15 turns of no contact when I'm on the defense. Why? I'm not spending any significant amount of time on that game. I'm just hitting Go and moving on to my attack scenarios. In the meantime, my opponent is having a good time smoking out possible ambushes, cautiously advancing, probing, doing a little recon by fire, etc..

Treeburst, I totally agree on both points.

I recently played a 1000 pt infantry only QB with a 90 turn time limit. I was the defender, and I had a deep defensive area, in which to set up my defense. This allowed me to set up my MLR wherever I saw fit.

As it turned out, the placement of my MLR was about 500-800 meters beyond my opponent's start line. So he was forced to move to contact. Of course, he didn't know where he would encounter my MLR.

There was no contact for at least 20 minutes. This was no great hardship for me, as all I had to do was hit GO and watch for enemy units. Not a problem.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

I recently played a 1000 pt infantry only QB with a 90 turn time limit. I was the defender, and I had a deep defensive area, in which to set up my defense. This allowed me to set up my MLR wherever I saw fit.

As it turned out, the placement of my MLR was about 500-800 meters beyond my opponent's start line. So he was forced to move to contact. Of course, he didn't know where he would encounter my MLR.

This is something that I think scenario designers need to consider more when setting up their scenarios. It is also something that the defender needs to consider, and by extension perhaps BFC need to consider.

Bah! What am I getting at?

Simply this - the combinations of victory locations, time limits, lack of context and definded edges to the map mean that the defender can put 'everything in the shop window'. In a 30 minute scenario, the defender never has to worry about what to do if a fresh enemy force arrives in 40 minutes.

The same, of course, applies to the attacker, but to a more limited extent I think, because of the nature of his task.

I think that the whole issue of reserves - from platoon level right up to battalion and beyond - and when to employ them is one of hte things that helps speed up CM battles beyond what is realistic.

Regards

JonS

[Wisbech_lad]

Plug for Andreas' "The Ridge"

45 turns, good briefing, good map, plays well vs AI. Allied are at the FUP, with realistic reasons for needing to take the objectives, initial recon done, prep barrages done. But still you are at bottom of big hill, so a long slog up it.

By addressing many of the points raised in the thread, I felt that of the CD scens this felt the most "real". And a chance for you to practise infantry fire and manouevre, I found that "two up, one back" worked well. Interesting that it isn't a historic scenario, but a generic one to try and give a flavour of the time

Now take the ridge!

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

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

Runyan is specifically asking about trying to simulate the long ramp up to the climactic battle which is typically depicted as the main event.

No. I think most people misunderstand me here.

I am arguing that the 'climactic battle' itself takes longer than 20-30 minutes. I am arguing that it will often take 60-180 minutes, of actual bullets flying, before contact is broken, units reorganize, ammo is brought up, and the advance is resumed.

I am arguing that a six hour battle, for example, to take a small town, may consist of two or three of these 'climactic battles'.

I am suggesting that a CM engine better able to encompass 60-180 minute combat periods would be more realistic than what we have now. </font>

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

The example of the VG taking small company held villages in the Ardennes is relevant, and indeed, they may have fallen in short 30-40 minute battles. But all WW2 engagements did not fall into this time frame.

Not all scenarios have 20-30 minute turn limits on them either.

Panther Commander

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

See where I am going with this? [/QB]

Yes I think I do. You want CM to be like real combat. You need to go outside and dig a hole in the back yard. Sleep out there for a few days, rain or shine, eat your meals out of a can, have the local gang come by and do drive by shootings at you, while you are in your hole. You get to shoot back by the way. :cool: In the interim you can play CM. But it has to be in the dirt or mud. We can get the wife to turn the sprinkler on you for added effect.

I for one don't want CM to represent REAL combat. I want it to simulate it. The game allows for different representations of combat.

If you don't like one kind find one you do like. There are a lot of different designers out there doing some very good work. Several of them specialize in longer more detailed scenarios. I suggest you find a couple of those and try their work. You will find most of my work to be aimed at the short brutal firefight that is over in less than 35 minutes.

Panther Commander

[Runyan99]

PANTHER Commander, not Panzer Commander. My mistake.

The battle for Mortain was the name that the Americans gave to the last German offensive in France 1944. The Germans called it Operation Luttich. Hitler ordered that Avranches be captured, to cut off Patton's 3rd Army, that was running wild in Brittany.

The German main thrust was through the village of Sainte Barthelemy. It took the Germans 6 hours to take the village.

Let me make a confession. This is all I know about your scenario.

I didn't download it. I didn't play it. I didn't read the briefings.

Based only on the above information, I was disappointed in your design choice. To create only a 25 turn scenario.

Rightly or wrongly, I did make one assumption. I assumed that your scenario compresses time. That is to say, you took a six hour battle, or some portion thereof, and compressed it into twenty five minutes.

But maybe I am wrong about your scenario. Tell you what. I'll educate myself on the battle. I'll take a look at your design choices. You took the scenario off the Proving Grounds, so please mail it to me at crunyan7@cox.net . I'll take a look at it over the weekend. I'll find out exactly what your scenario attempts to cover, I'll consult my own sources to see if I have any information on the historical engagement, and I will get back to you.

Keep in mind that I did not, and do not, intend for this thread to be about your particular scenario.

In the meantime, the historical account of the six hour battle for Sainte Barthelemy, according to your own sources, might be helpful to the overall discussion. If you please.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

PANTHER Commander, not Panzer Commander. My mistake.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

The battle for Mortain was the name that the Americans gave to the last German offensive in France 1944. The Germans called it Operation Luttich. Hitler ordered that Avranches be captured, to cut off Patton's 3rd Army, that was running wild in Brittany.

The German main thrust was through the village of Sainte Barthelemy. It took the Germans 6 hours to take the village.

Let me make a confession. This is all I know about your scenario.

I didn't download it. I didn't play it. I didn't read the briefings.

Based only on the above information, I was disappointed in your design choice. To create only a 25 turn scenario.

Rightly or wrongly, I did make one assumption. I assumed that your scenario compresses time. That is to say, you took a six hour battle, or some portion thereof, and compressed it into twenty five minutes.

But maybe I am wrong about your scenario. Tell you what. I'll educate myself on the battle. I'll take a look at your design choices. You took the scenario off the Proving Grounds, so please mail it to me at crunyan7@cox.net . I'll take a look at it over the weekend. I'll find out exactly what your scenario attempts to cover, I'll consult my own sources to see if I have any information on the historical engagement, and I will get back to you.

Keep in mind that I did not, and do not, intend for this thread to be about your particular scenario.

</font>

[Alkiviadis]

I agree with Cory's premise, but then I happen to enjoy long PBEM scenarios / ops...historical study amongst other reasons: it's my adaptation to my current adult life. Others might might solve the adult time problem by QBs.

Matter of taste.

[WWB]

The bottom line here, seems me, to be a matter of choice. If you want to play the larger scenarios play those. Don't take a designer to task, for deciding to make a scenario you don't agree with, and haven't even downloaded. Oh, I forgot, and who didn't read the briefings to know what the battle was about.

And that pretty much sums it up. We have been around this block before. Some people like to spend dozens of turns scouting positions and carefully laying the groundwork for attacks. Others are not nearly as patient. Luckily, the CM scenario editor is easy enough that just about anyone can put together a battle suited to their taste, and literally thousands of battles are avaliable for download.

Personally, if I start a battle and nothing has exploded by turn 10 or so, I have a strong inclination to set it down. Much like writing a novel--you need to hook the reader in the first paragraph, preferably in the first phrase of the first paragraph. I think Berli hit the nail on the head regarding larger engagements. One must distill it down and create smaller sections representative of the whole. It makes for much more interesting gaming.

There are some practical matters afoot here too. Steve has repeated several times that while CM is intended to be a realistic simulation, they also must keep the fun factor alive to stay in business. And, by and far, people consider smaller battles more fun. That does not even take into account the real world issues, like not having 16 hours to dedicate to one massive scenario.

So, I will keep making smaller, time-compressed battles. If you dont like that style, you are free to look elsewhere for your scenarios.

WWB

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

Plug for Andreas' "The Ridge"

45 turns, good briefing, good map, plays well vs AI. Allied are at the FUP, with realistic reasons for needing to take the objectives, initial recon done, prep barrages done. But still you are at bottom of big hill, so a long slog up it.

By addressing many of the points raised in the thread, I felt that of the CD scens this felt the most "real". And a chance for you to practise infantry fire and manouevre, I found that "two up, one back" worked well. Interesting that it isn't a historic scenario, but a generic one to try and give a flavour of the time

Now take the ridge!

And where is the review? Are you too busy trading in Mahathir Dinars to honour it with a review? I'll have to set the Komodowarans onto you.

POTENTIAL SPOILER

The two existing reviews say that it is quite easy for the British player. That is probably correct, if you do things the proper way, as it seems you have done. The idea was really to have a generic, anyday-194x battle, that should work out well if you handle your company correctly (see, I am not always an evil, attacker-hating bastich).

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Andreas:

(see, I am not always an evil, attacker-hating bastich).

Hear! Hear!

I never believed that part about you hating attackers.

[Runyan99]

Okay. I think it is time for me to refocus.

What do we have so far?

We have mounting anecdotal evidence that battles on the battalion level were fairly long. A complete engagement to take a small town, or to breach an enemy line, tended to take several hours. Five or six hours to take a town against strong resistance seems to be fairly common. There were of course exceptions.

What actually happens during that five or six hours isn't well understood by the CM community. There are lots of questions, such as:

1) How much shooting actually occured during this period of time?

2) Assuming there are lulls or pauses in the combat, when do they occur?

3) How fast did attacking/defending units consume their ammunition?

4) Not knowing how long an attack might last, were defending units under particular pressure to use their ammunition carefully?

5) How did attacking units resupply ammuntion during a 6 hour battle?

6) How did defending units resupply ammunition during a 6 hour battle?

I'll answer each, as I currently understand it.

1) Some units are probably engaged most or all of the time, except for the initial move to contact, or when contact is completely broken with the enemy. The whole battalion will not be firing at the enemy at all times, but there will always be a platoon here, or a company there that is always firing at the enemy, or that is under enemy fire.

2) Obviously this will vary based on the situation, but for broad battalion level attacks the accounts seem to indicate pauses after an hour to three hours of combat. Attacking battalions probably sustained fighting capability over this period of time by attacking en echelon, a bit at a time. Platoon after platoon, company after company. Attacking units which became low on ammuntion, or stalled, or just became 'fought out' probably stopped, or withrew, and were passed through by a fresh attacking unit. In this way, the battle continued, without a battalion-wide pause in the action.

3) Probably somewhat slower than is portrayed in CM. It isn't really clear to me. I suspect that CM isn't too far off from reality in this aspect.

4) Yes. In reality, unlike in CM, the defender has no idea how long the attacker will sustain the battle. So, they cannot burn through all their ammuntion in the first 20 minutes of contact with the enemy. They probably fired less. This can be simulated in CM, simply by opening up the time restriction.

5) It seems that attacking units which ran low/out of ammunition during attack could stop in place, or withdraw from contact, and then send for ammunition to be brought up to them. It isn't clear when this was or was not possible, or how long it might take. This is not currently simulated in CM.

6) Defending units which became low on ammunition were able to send runners or teams back to a company level ammunition source, and have it brought up or distributed to the defending units in their trenches or foxholes. Or, people from the rear would come up themselves and distribute the ammunition. Ammunition supply during combat in this way was somewhat limited, and those who brought the ammuntion risked becoming casualties in the process. Full resupply, without risk, was really not possible until the attacker broke contact. Again, this is not currently simulated in CM.

What is my point?

My point is that this is how I understand the war was actually fought. Some of the six points cannot be well simulated in CM. Some of these points are not widely appreciated by CM players.

The issue isn't simply making a choice between long and short scenarios. The issue is that short scenarios are (typically) unrealistic for several reasons, AND that longer scenarios tend not to work well in CM, due to limitations in the engine, and the convention of one minute turns. Operations in CM solve some problems, but also introduce the issues of artificial pauses in combat, and nearly unlimited reorganization between battles.

BFC seems to be commited to creating tactical level wargames which are as realistic as possible, while of course still being fun to play. I am simply trying to bring some issues to light, in the hope that CMx2 will be able to better simulate the actual pace of combat missions in WW2.

Secondly, I am tring to get as many people in the CM community to realize that they are playing unrealistic, time compressed battles, because I don't think that many players even appreciate this fact. I think there are many players who believe that CM is totally realistic.

Whew.

(Two small edits)

[ January 16, 2004, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

Okay. I think it is time for me to refocus.

What do we have so far?

We have mounting anecdotal evidence that battles on the battalion level were fairly long.

Not overwhelming.

A complete engagement to take a small town, or to breach an enemy line, tended to take several hours. Five or six hours to take a town against strong resistance seems to be fairly common. There were of course exceptions.

Which is the exception, and which is the rule? I'd be interested in knowing how big the sampling was that John Salt got his numbers from.

What actually happens during that five or six hours isn't well understood by the CM community.

Speak for yourself!

There are lots of questions, such as:

1) How much shooting actually occured during this period of time?

Good question. Haven't seen a single answer.

2) Assuming there are lulls or pauses in the combat, when do they occur?

Of course there are. Like the question above, you are not likely to find many recorded sources. I wonder if Marshall's Pork Chop Hill might not be a start (I've never read it but have meant to pick it up. The movie seemed loaded with detail).

3) How fast did attacking/defending units consume their ammunition?

Not really relevant given a steady flow of ammo forward, but would be of interest. Again, specific to the second sources won't exist, but daily ammunition expenditure records might be found in various archives. I should pose some of these questions at my own forum and see what answers I get.

4) Not knowing how long an attack might last, were defending units under particular pressure to use their ammunition carefully?

Fire orders were given quite rigidly - "2 section, enemy infantry, 200 yards, line of my arm, normal rate, Go On!" What is needed is the various doctrines regarding rates of fire, and how they were put into practice. I sincerely doubt many soldiers really thought much about saving ammo for "later" when being attacked in strength.

5) How did attacking units resupply ammuntion during a 6 hour battle?

This has been answered quite well by JonS. In the CW, the CSM brought ammo up with his carrier from the company supply dump maintained by the CQMS. The CQMS got his ammo from the battalion dump maintained by the RSM. The RSM got his ammo from a brigade level ammunition company of the RCOC or RAOC (ie Ordnance Corps).

Platoons and sections might also be rotated during an attack to replenish.

6) How did defending units resupply ammunition during a 6 hour battle?

Same thing; ammo parties in the rifle sections, or rotating units in and out of the line

I'll answer each, as I currently understand it.

1) Some units are probably engaged most or all of the time, except for the initial approach march, or when contact is completely broken with the enemy. The whole battalion will not be firing at the enemy at all times, but there will always be a platoon here, or a company there that is always firing at the enemy, or that is under enemy fire.

No.

2) Obviously this will vary based on the situation, but for broad battalion level attacks the accounts seem to indicate pauses after an hour to three hours of combat. Attacking battalions probably sustained fighting capability over this period of time by attacking en echelon, a bit at a time. Platoon after platoon, company after company. Attacking units which became low on ammuntion, or stalled, or just became 'fought out' probably stopped, or withrew, and were passed through by a fresh attacking unit. In this way, the battle continued, without a battalion-wide pause in the action.

Yes. In the CW, it was almost always "two companies up, two companies back."

3) Probably somewhat slower than is portrayed in CM. It isn't really clear to me. I suspect that CM isn't too far off from reality in this aspect.

Probably. Most riflemen probably fired their weapons but seldom. SMG armed troops even less. LMG usage seems accurate, and I see no major faults with the ammo usage modelling in CM. JasonC probably has a better handle on this, though, and I'd invite him to post his thoughts. I know he has in the past.

4) Yes. In reality, unlike in CM, the defender has no idea how long the attacker will sustain the battle. So, they cannot burn through all their ammuntion in the first 20 minutes of contact with the enemy. They probably fired less. This can be simulated in CM, simply by opening up the time restriction.

Scared men in danger of being overrun (or who perceive that danger) are not worried about sustainability, they want to kill everything they see NOW. It is the job of NCOs to keep them cool, and their training is aimed at that. How well it worked out in battle depended on experience, morale, etc. - this is reflected in CM.

5) It seems that attacking units which ran low/out of ammunition during attack could stop in place, or withdraw from contact, and then send for ammunition to be brought up to them. It isn't clear when this was or was not possible, or how long it might take. This is not currently simulated in CM.

Sometimes. Sometimes you send a runner or two back. Or send your LOBs up with extra ammo. Or the CSM comes up as far as possible in his carrier.

6) Defending units which became low on ammunition were able to send runners or teams back to a company level ammunition source, and have it brought up or distributed to the defending units in their trenches or foxholes. Or, people from the rear would come up themselves and distribute the ammunition. Ammunition supply during combat in this way was somewhat limited, and those who brought the ammuntion risked becoming casualties in the process. Full resupply, without risk, was really not possible until the attacker broke contact. Again, this is not currently simulated in CM.

Yes.

What is my point?

My point is that this is how I understand the war was actually fought. None of the six points above seem to be well simulated in CM, or widely appreciated by CM players.

Sure they are. Some of it is just abstracted. As for ammo resupply - this is another point in favour of SMALL and SHORT scenarios. It is nice we have the ability to do 15 square km maps and two hour battles. That doesn't make it a good idea, or the best use of the available resources. You could simulate a division attack like Andreas talks about. CM wasn't really designed to do that very elegantly. You can simulate the Omaha landings, but CM wasn't really designed to do that elegantly. etc.

The issue isn't simply making a choice between long and short scenarios. The issue is that short scenarios are (typically) unrealistic for several reasons, AND that longer scenarios tend not to work well in CM, due to limitations in the engine, and the convention of one minute turns.

Short scenarios are not unrealistic in the least. That is what CM was meant to portray the best.

Operations in CM solve some problems, but also introduce the issues of artificial pauses in combat, and nearly unlimited reorganization between battles.

Pauses are not artificial, but you are correct in the reorganizational problems. The entire drawing of lines and moving of forces between battles needs to be addressed.

BFC seems to be commited to creating tactical level wargames which are as realistic as possible, while of course still being fun to play. I am simply trying to bring some issues to light, in the hope that CMx2 will be able to better simulate the actual pace of combat missions in WW2.

Secondly, I am tring to get as many people in the CM community to realize that they are playing unrealistic, time compressed battles, because I don't think that many players even appreciate this fact. I think there are many players who believe that CM is totally realistic.

Whew.

Time compression isn't unrealistic, as the EFFECTS are the same in the end. Remember what John Hill did in 1977? With streets 80 metres wide? Design for Effect.

My opinion(s), anyway.

[Moon]

One word (a reminder really) about the willingess to expend the last bullet in CM: this is simulated through the "force readiness" feature, which, additional to the global morale, can lead to a forced ceasefire. When your troops run low on ammo, the ceasefire button will light up, if you want or not. When exactly this happens depends on the type of battle and if you're the attacker or defender.

IIRC the attacker is more affected by this feature than the defender, the thinking being that the defender has stocked ammo closer to his prepared defensive position, while the attacker has to haul stock from his lines.

Martin

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

1) How much shooting actually occured during this period of time?

2) Assuming there are lulls or pauses in the combat, when do they occur?

3) How fast did attacking/defending units consume their ammunition?

4) Not knowing how long an attack might last, were defending units under particular pressure to use their ammunition carefully?

Here is what I think of some of your doctinal questions. The US Army doctrine during the 70's was for 30 minutes of ammo per rifle at normal rates of fire...whatever that is. But the intention was 30 minutes worth. Veteran units would probably do better green units would certainly do worse.

While doing research on HSG W5 I read that the German Lt. in charge of the strongpoint mentioned that the STANDARD German practice in Russia was to not open fire until the Russians were within 100 meters. How often in CM do you see units engage half way across the map? Far too often. So part of the ammo problem is the player just throwing it away.

Also the Russians used the tactic of running local peasants at the German defensive lines to get them to use up their ammo on these non-military targets and then attacked behind them. I have read this in more than one source but not sure how prevalent it was overall.

Panther Commander

[Mad Russian]

Forgot to add that the German Lt. opened fire on Utah beach at 500 meters. The Americans crossed 800 meters of open beach. The Lt. wanted to wait until they were at 100 meters but he thought there were too many GI's to wait that long and opened fire at 500 meters instead.

Panther Commander

[JasonC]

Coming to this late, here are my impressions. I think the Runyan99 is correct that there is an issue, but wrong in major ways in his 6 point picture of real combat. CM is far from the tactical realities in many additional ways, not simply in time questions. Just extending combat time stresses these other dimensions, and would result in a less accurate, not a more accurate picture of typical WW II combat.

Ammo expenditure is very high in CM. Units were resupplied far less often in the field than every 30 minutes or even every 6 hours, fired their small arms in particular much less often, spent long stretches of time in fairly close promixity to major bodies of the enemy without either side molesting the other in any effective way, hit far fewer men when they did fire, risked themselves far less, coordinated their movements with other friendlies far less and far more slowly, reacted to much lower casualties by abandoning their missions and breaking off attacks or retreating - to name only the most prominent differences.

In heavy offensive fighting, attacking formations tolerated overall casualties on the order of 50 men per battalion per day. Above that they burned out rapidly and broke off entire corps scale offensives over single wrecked battalions. Average losses ran more like that much per division per day, not per battalion. Few of those losses were inflicted by small arms, most came from the rival artilleries, on each other's infantry.

A typical US division in the campaign in France expended around 50k rounds of small arms per day, most of it from MGs. A single combat load of ammo for all the riflemen and BAR men in a US infantry division is more than twice that - not counting extra bandoliers of ammo, or even the standard loads of the MGs, which were doing much of the actual firing (with BARs doing much of the rest, forward units firing more than rear ones, etc). Far from running through their loads in 20 to 30 minutes, many riflemen probably still had some of their old ammo at the end of a typical *week*.

How can this be? After all, a couple thousand men with M-1s were in combat with the enemy throughout such a typical week. Thing is, their rifles were not very effective weapons for much of the actual fighting going on. Artillery shelled the enemy out of positions that the infantry occupied afterward. Heavy weapons did much of the rest of the fighting.

When infantry did close to rifle range, their opponents sought the best possible cover against small arms, if they didn't get out of the way entirely. When actual engagement with small arms nevertheless occurred, it was a matter of edges of larger units brushing together for brief periods of time.

Infantry does not spend long periods of time under direct observation and within LOS of enemy infantry shooting at them. For the obvious reason that men so exposed get shot, and cease to take part in the battle. This does not mean infantry doesn't remain in contact with enemy infantry - it does. But it does so by each side staking out controlled territory, fully out of enemy LOS and dominated by own-side fire.

Into which the enemy mostly does not venture at all. When they do, they come in tiny groups at small portions of that area and try to convert bits of it to their own fire dominance. One or the other side backs down. Which does not end the whole combat, it just conceeds a tiny piece of the terrain.

If you look at what is being expended and who is being hit, it is quite obvious most of the shots are not taking place at clearly visible targets. It takes around 10 large caliber artillery shells to inflict one enemy casualty, and more like 10,000 rounds of small arms fire.

The achieved accuracy with rifles and machineguns is in fact only about 1/100th of what it typically ran in the Napoleonic wars, using smoothbore muskets, while 105mm and 155mm HE inflicted no more, and perhaps as little as half as many losses, as 6 and 12 lb smoothbores firing solid roundshot managed to achieve in the earlier era. The overwhelming change is of course in target density and in cover. Vastly more lethal weapons are forcing the men to spread out and to hide. As a result, losses that in the 19th century were inflicted in a day with primitive weapons, took a month to rack up with sophisticated ones.

The men were not willing to be mashed together as recklessly as we mash them together in CM. Not remotely. You can find outlier incidents of comparable lethality to CM scenarios - even just 30 minute ones - but they are the war's bloodiest fiascos, not ordinary days of combat.

If you read AARs like "small unit actions", there are long periods where all units on both sides, with only vague ideas of where the enemy is, sit in their positions waiting for something to happen, not daring to move. They don't still have nearby enemy to fire at, because anybody that close and visible has been shot already or left such positions. They do not perform intricate coordinated dances to overcome each adversary, because it takes up to a hour for an entirely misleading report to be conveyed 400 yards by runner.

Compared to CM, the confusion of real combat is indescribable. Compared to soldiers under actual lethal fire, CM conscripts are knights-errant. Compared to the amount of cover a man whose life depends on it can find from a few rocks, a CM trench is a wide open exposed position. Compared to real life, all CM units are eagle eye scouts spotting enemies in bright orange jersies.

I've read real AARs of squads, platoons, sometimes whole battalions crossed by attacking formations without ever seeing the defenders, because they went completely heads down in their holes. I've read real AARs in which a battalion staff plus a whole gaggle of artillery FOs sitting in a secure dugout 200 yards from an enemy trenchline, watched as dug in enemy MGs immediately in front of them less than 400 yards away tore their pinned down subordinate unit to shreds over the course of 2 solid hours (shooting each individual man if he moved - the battalion lost half its strength on this occasion), without ever locating a single one of the firing MGs.

An entirely accurate simulation of WW II tactical combat would not be an interesting strategy game. An interesting strategy game must let the outcome depend on the interaction of the decisions of the side commanders. The real influence side commanders at the CM scale had over combat events was tiny. Most of the time, everything they tried to do simply failed completely without the slightest effect on events. Serendipity reigns, not decision making. That, and the variables set by the fight conditions themselves (odds, terrain, force mix, etc), and the simple human reactions of the participants (do I want to be here, will I die anyway, etc).

Real tactical combat at the CM scale has more in common with a natural disaster than with a game of chess. You might as well simulate Mt St Helens erupting while trying to pretend a scientist measuring volcanic activity there was "in charge". It would be excruciating, not enjoyable.

[ January 16, 2004, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Andreas]

Here is a bit of data for four days of very heavy combat of 21. Infanteriedivision, 23-27/7/41.

Losses:

Officers (KIA/WIA/MIA) 5/19/1

NCO & OR (KIA/WIA/MIA) 90/399/21

Total 95/418/22

Ammunition expenditure (by type)

7.92mm 667,000

sMK 48,820 (steel core AT MG ammo)

9mm 64,178

Grenade (long) 1,830

Egg grenade 810

Verey 930

3,7cm AT 604

3,7cm HE 2,540 (!)

5cm AT 60

5cm HE 42

5cm mortar 1,880

8cm mortar 1,851

8cm mortar smoke 30

2cm HE 600 (AA gun)

7,5cm IG18 2,320

15cm sIG33 514

10,5cm lFH18 5,467

15cm sFH18 2,691

Total weight of ammo fired 86to infantry and 294to artillery.

[JasonC]

That is heavy ammo expenditure certainly - 2000 rounds a day from the div arty, nearly 200k bullets per day. The division took 134 casualties per day, which means 15 per battalion-day (more in the ones engaged, undoubtedly, but not all "up" each day). They might have inflicted 3 times the losses they took, given the amount they were firing, using the 10 heavy shells or 10,000 bullet rough rule of thumb.

Translate it to CM unit loads and it comes to the following -

75 150mm modules (divisional)

20 150mm modules (regimental)

90 105mm modules

45 75mm IG on map

60 37mm PAK on map

60 50mm Mtrs on map

120 platoon loads, or 80 plus HMGs

For 9 battalions (means around 80 platoons) and 12 div arty batteries over 4 days. One platoon load of small arms ammo - those 50 or so CM shots - were lasting the typical platoon about the whole period if they were at TOE - perhaps 3 days allowing for some losses (90 rounds per rifleman, 500-600 per LMG, etc). The divisional 150s fired 6 modules per battery per day, the rest of the heavy tube stuff 2-3. The lower echelon and on map stuff amounts to roughly half a load per day.

As the range drops so does the ammo expenditure measured in loads, presumably because only portions are fully engaged at any one time. Thus, the 150s probably supported every fight in the division, while the 105s and regimental 150s supported every fight in the regiment that battalion was working with. The 81mm mortars only work out to 1/3rd of a module per day.

What they weren't doing was having 80 platoons fire off 5k bullets each every 30 minutes. Or even every 3 hours, not even for just 2/3rds "up", or that and only half the time, or even that only in daylight. That would still come to 4 times what they actually fired. They simply didn't fire until dry, not with anything more than modest subunits - a company hotly engaged here, a platoon or two there.

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

Also the Russians used the tactic of running local peasants at the German defensive lines to get them to use up their ammo on these non-military targets and then attacked behind them. I have read this in more than one source but not sure how prevalent it was overall.

Gamey bastards.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

Also the Russians used the tactic of running local peasants at the German defensive lines to get them to use up their ammo on these non-military targets and then attacked behind them. I have read this in more than one source but not sure how prevalent it was overall.

I have never read this, and I have read quite a bit. Do you have a source for that?