Question about night battles in CMAK

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Aaarrrgh. This kind of thinking infuriates me.

why? I'm not making this up as I go along.

Also consider this, that to a much greater degree than in any other theater, the fighting in NA was motorized.

The troops were motorised, but the fighting wasn't. Getting too close to the bad people in a truck is a good way to loose that truck.

Driving in the dark, though it was done, was usually only done far from the fighting or under severe compulsion, as in the above mentioned breakout of surrounded forces. Driving at night was a sure invitation to a higher breakdown rate.

And yet, the entire approach march for Op CRUSADER, Op COMPASS, Tebaga gap, the approach to Beda Fomm, most of the positioning for the opening night of ElAl2 and Op SUPERCHARGE, crossing Wadi Akarit, and Op ORATION were all done by night. This is only six examples, but they are by no means minor or insignificant. They also encompass some of the more important Commonwealth offensives of the desert war.

Further, tanks and AT guns were almost useless without light, and those were the backbone of the fighting in NA.

Which is why they came up (or were supposed to anyway) in time for dawn. Also, that uselessness cuts both ways - attacking at night with infantry is a good way to negate the enemies advantage in armour and AT weapons.

[/qb]So in brief, that's why most everybody tucked in at nightfall. There were exceptions, but you can't generalize from those few over whole armies.[/QB]

But I wasn't talking about exceptions, and I wasn't making generalisations. Seriously - I can't think of a single attack, larger than a single bn, that 2(NZ)Div put in throughout the war in NA that opened during daylight hours. For them, if anything, attacks during daylight were the exception, not the other way around. The Kiwis are the only ones I can speak of with much confidence, but from what I've read, the same holds pretty much true for the other CW nations.

More examples: during ElAl2, all the attacks were put in at night. In daytime they waited for the Germans to counter-attack. And during the first pahse of the ElAl line in June-July all the CW attacks went in during the night. (Oh, something just occurred to me: in both cases there were armoured thrusts in the mornings following nightime infantry attacks)

I agree that there were huge periods and huge areas where nothing much happened at night. However, I strongly disagree that during periods where there was action* that it generally happened during the day. In fact, I contend that the majority of CW infantry attacks, not a few armoured advances, and many approach marches in the desert were conducted by night.

BTW, it's possibly worth noting at this point that I'm approaching this from an infantry perspective, not an armoured one. Using an armoured POV one would possibly come to a totally different conclusion.

Regards

JonS

* And lets face it, they were few and far between. During Op COMPASS there was heavy fighting on only about 10-12 days over a period of 3 months. Then Rommel counterattacked over a few days/weeks a few months later and cut off Tobruk. Then a few months later the Brits attacked for a day (BREVITY). Then a month or so later they attacked for another day (BATTLEAXE). Then the Germans attacked for a night (MID SUMMER NIGHTS DREAM). Then a month later the Brits attacked for about 3 weeks (CRUSADER). Then a few months later Rommel counter attacked for a few days and regained the Gazala line. And so it goes on. A few days or weeks action, then a few months of nothing much.

[CMplayer]

This points out another thing which would not be entirely out of place in CMAK.

In the desert, twilight was short. Dawn and dusk were relatively sudden.

So there out to be room, within longer scenarios, for the day/night status to change, such as:

Night attack, changes to twilight, then to day.

This could reflect a very real type of fighting, as Jon S mentions, where the infantry goes in under darkness, and then the tanks, which were waiting at the start line go in as soon as they can see.

[CMplayer]

This points out another thing which would not be entirely out of place in CMAK.

In the desert, twilight was short. Dawn and dusk were relatively sudden.

So there out to be room, within longer scenarios, for the day/night status to change, such as:

Night attack, changes to twilight, then to day.

This could reflect a very real type of fighting, as Jon S mentions, where the infantry goes in under darkness, and then the tanks, which were waiting at the start line go in as soon as they can see.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Yes, the Kiwis (especially the Maories) were good at night fighting and occasionally engaged in it.

Just to be very clear, there was nothing 'occasional' about it. 2(NZ)Div was in the line from

1) Nov 17 till about 4th Dec 1941 (CRUSADER). Approach march conducted over a series of nights. All major attacks were conducted at night.

2) June-Oct 1942 (El Alamein defensive phase). During that time, all major attacks were conducted at night.

3) ElAl2 (Oct-Nov 1942). During that time all major attacks were conducted at night.

4) Left hook at El Aghelia (Dec 1942). Approach conducted by day and by night, followed by a night attack.

5) Approach to Tripoli (Jan 43) Approach marches by day and by night.

6) Medenine (March 43). Defensive.

7) Looping around the Matmata hills (Mar 43) approach marches by night (incidentally, they driove through Tatahouine, where the Star Wars scenes were filmed), followed by night attacks on the Tebaga Gap.

8) Wadi Akarit (April 43). Night attack.

9) Takrouna and subsequent operations (April 43 to the end). Inital night attack, followed by further attacks on subsequent nights.

Regards

JonS

[ October 21, 2003, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Yes, the Kiwis (especially the Maories) were good at night fighting and occasionally engaged in it.

Just to be very clear, there was nothing 'occasional' about it. 2(NZ)Div was in the line from

1) Nov 17 till about 4th Dec 1941 (CRUSADER). Approach march conducted over a series of nights. All major attacks were conducted at night.

2) June-Oct 1942 (El Alamein defensive phase). During that time, all major attacks were conducted at night.

3) ElAl2 (Oct-Nov 1942). During that time all major attacks were conducted at night.

4) Left hook at El Aghelia (Dec 1942). Approach conducted by day and by night, followed by a night attack.

5) Approach to Tripoli (Jan 43) Approach marches by day and by night.

6) Medenine (March 43). Defensive.

7) Looping around the Matmata hills (Mar 43) approach marches by night (incidentally, they driove through Tatahouine, where the Star Wars scenes were filmed), followed by night attacks on the Tebaga Gap.

8) Wadi Akarit (April 43). Night attack.

9) Takrouna and subsequent operations (April 43 to the end). Inital night attack, followed by further attacks on subsequent nights.

Regards

JonS

[ October 21, 2003, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Michael Emrys]

Jon, you are driving me to despair. Can you please forget about 2nd. NZ just for a moment? They were not the whole of Eighth Army. Even less were they the whole of all the armies in NA. To generalize from their experience is deceptive and distorting.

So some approach marches were conducted at night. What does that have to do with CM? CM is concerned with what happens after the approach march is completed, i.e., after the sun comes up. In Crusader, 7th. Armoured expected to make contact with the enemy after sunup. When the enemy didn't show up, they went swanning around looking for somebody to fight with. Sometimes they found a fight, sometimes they didn't. But in either case, when the sun went down, the fighting usually (and I emphasize that word) came to a halt. Robert Crisp, among others, is very explicit about that. Formations regrouped, laagered, rearmed, refueled, did maintainence, ate, and went to sleep because tomorrow was going to be a busy day and they hadn't slept the night before.

You're right about one thing: you're seeing it from an infantry point of view. But with some noteworthy exceptions, NA just wasn't the infantry's war. The decisive arm was armor, supported by artillery with the infantry coming in a distant third. When one side or the other ran out of tanks, they were forced to retreat no matter how much infantry they had left. And the infantry better hope to have some trucks left or they went into cages pretty quick.

Now, none of this is to say that I think infantry should be left out of AK. Not a bit of it. I don't think the things that CMPlayer began this thread by asking for will be included simply because it can't be worked out in the time BFC has budgeted to complete the game. But I'm just guessing and I would be happy to be proven wrong. But if I'm not wrong, I won't count it as a huge loss either. And what I have argued in this thread is the reason why.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Jon, you are driving me to despair. Can you please forget about 2nd. NZ just for a moment? They were not the whole of Eighth Army. Even less were they the whole of all the armies in NA. To generalize from their experience is deceptive and distorting.

So some approach marches were conducted at night. What does that have to do with CM? CM is concerned with what happens after the approach march is completed, i.e., after the sun comes up. In Crusader, 7th. Armoured expected to make contact with the enemy after sunup. When the enemy didn't show up, they went swanning around looking for somebody to fight with. Sometimes they found a fight, sometimes they didn't. But in either case, when the sun went down, the fighting usually (and I emphasize that word) came to a halt. Robert Crisp, among others, is very explicit about that. Formations regrouped, laagered, rearmed, refueled, did maintainence, ate, and went to sleep because tomorrow was going to be a busy day and they hadn't slept the night before.

You're right about one thing: you're seeing it from an infantry point of view. But with some noteworthy exceptions, NA just wasn't the infantry's war. The decisive arm was armor, supported by artillery with the infantry coming in a distant third. When one side or the other ran out of tanks, they were forced to retreat no matter how much infantry they had left. And the infantry better hope to have some trucks left or they went into cages pretty quick.

Now, none of this is to say that I think infantry should be left out of AK. Not a bit of it. I don't think the things that CMPlayer began this thread by asking for will be included simply because it can't be worked out in the time BFC has budgeted to complete the game. But I'm just guessing and I would be happy to be proven wrong. But if I'm not wrong, I won't count it as a huge loss either. And what I have argued in this thread is the reason why.

Michael

[JonS]

Michael,

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Jon, you are driving me to despair.

Hmm. I apologise for that, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to why that should be the case. I disagree with your central positions, but I'm trying to be polite about it, and am supporting my case with numerous relevant examples. What would you prefer - personal invective, or that I just roll over and say "yes Famine. Whatever you say Famine. Can I please have some calories now Famine?"

Can you please forget about 2nd. NZ just for a moment?

I thought I made it fairly clear why I was using them? I happen to know more about their travels than any other formation. So it seemed to make sense to talk about them, rather than a unit I haven't studied so much.

They were not the whole of Eighth Army. Even less were they the whole of all the armies in NA. To generalize from their experience is deceptive and distorting.[/qb]

I disagree. 8th Army was never that big, and anyway of the list above

1) was an Army level operation

2) was an Army level operation

3) was an Army level operation

4) was Divisional

5) was a Corps level operation

6) is incidental

7) was a Corps level operation

8) was a Corps level operation

9) was a Corps level operation

Based on that, other actions and battles listed previously, I would say one can generalise from the NZ experience. And that is that night attacks were the norm for 8th Army.

So some approach marches were conducted at night.

Again, it wasn't 'some'.

What does that have to do with CM?

Not much, but it has a lot to do with your blanket statement that everyone got their head down for a kip after dark, and that trucks didn't move at night.

In Crusader, 7th. Armoured expected to make contact with the enemy after sunup. When the enemy didn't show up, they went swanning around looking for somebody to fight with. Sometimes they found a fight, sometimes they didn't. But in either case, when the sun went down, the fighting usually (and I emphasize that word) came to a halt. ...

You misssed "... for them." To labour a point you made - 7th Armoured Div wasn't the whole of 8th Army. To generalise from them and their experience is deceptive and distorting. For 7th Armd, dark-time was rest- and regroup-time. For everyone else it was attack-time, march-time, or dig-in-time. (During the active periods of course. During the quiet periods it was just patrol-time, or march-time, or dig-in-time)

Robert Crisp, among others, is very explicit about that. ...

Good for him - what is his background and focus? Armour perhaps?

You're right about one thing: you're seeing it from an infantry point of view. But with some noteworthy exceptions, NA just wasn't the infantry's war. The decisive arm was armor, supported by artillery with the infantry coming in a distant third. When one side or the other ran out of tanks, they were forced to retreat no matter how much infantry they had left.

Hmm. Consider this: which arm made the decisive attacks throughout the two weeks of ElAl2? Or, what happened during CRUSADER after 7th Armd got smashed in the first couple of days, leaving 8th Army with little armour? Or, who led the attacks at Tebaga Gap, the two major Wadi crossings, and the last battles in Tunisia? (in fact who led during all the battles after the breakout at ElAl?)

Yes, I'm cherry-picking, but look at the list. That isn't "a few notable exceptions". Those are most of the major battles of the Desert Campaign, and that list isn't exhaustive by any stretch.

I don't think the things that CMPlayer began this thread by asking for will be included simply because it can't be worked out in the time BFC has budgeted to complete the game.

I agree.

But if I'm not wrong, I won't count it as a huge loss either. And what I have argued in this thread is the reason why.

Well, I mostly agree with the first bit, but I disagree with your reasoning

BTW2: In addition to saying I was looking at it from an infantry perspective, I'm also deliberately looking at it from a CW perspective. The Italo-Germans fought in a very different way (a comment I know), and to extrapolate from I-Gs, or from the armour, then say "the whole war in Africa was fought like THIS" will give a very distorted perspective. IMHO.

I know CW infantry wasn't the whole picture, but it was be no means insignificant. When one side or the other ran out of infantry, they had to withdraw. It was that simple. People seem to forget that in their romantic notions of modern-day knights tearing across the desert in their armoured steeds, with silk scarves wrapped around their faces and antennae pennants snapping in the breeze.

Regards

JonS

Numerous Edits: Spelling, layout, gammar, readability, link, etc

[ October 21, 2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JonS]

Michael,

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Jon, you are driving me to despair.

Hmm. I apologise for that, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to why that should be the case. I disagree with your central positions, but I'm trying to be polite about it, and am supporting my case with numerous relevant examples. What would you prefer - personal invective, or that I just roll over and say "yes Famine. Whatever you say Famine. Can I please have some calories now Famine?"

Can you please forget about 2nd. NZ just for a moment?

I thought I made it fairly clear why I was using them? I happen to know more about their travels than any other formation. So it seemed to make sense to talk about them, rather than a unit I haven't studied so much.

They were not the whole of Eighth Army. Even less were they the whole of all the armies in NA. To generalize from their experience is deceptive and distorting.[/qb]

I disagree. 8th Army was never that big, and anyway of the list above

1) was an Army level operation

2) was an Army level operation

3) was an Army level operation

4) was Divisional

5) was a Corps level operation

6) is incidental

7) was a Corps level operation

8) was a Corps level operation

9) was a Corps level operation

Based on that, other actions and battles listed previously, I would say one can generalise from the NZ experience. And that is that night attacks were the norm for 8th Army.

So some approach marches were conducted at night.

Again, it wasn't 'some'.

What does that have to do with CM?

Not much, but it has a lot to do with your blanket statement that everyone got their head down for a kip after dark, and that trucks didn't move at night.

In Crusader, 7th. Armoured expected to make contact with the enemy after sunup. When the enemy didn't show up, they went swanning around looking for somebody to fight with. Sometimes they found a fight, sometimes they didn't. But in either case, when the sun went down, the fighting usually (and I emphasize that word) came to a halt. ...

You misssed "... for them." To labour a point you made - 7th Armoured Div wasn't the whole of 8th Army. To generalise from them and their experience is deceptive and distorting. For 7th Armd, dark-time was rest- and regroup-time. For everyone else it was attack-time, march-time, or dig-in-time. (During the active periods of course. During the quiet periods it was just patrol-time, or march-time, or dig-in-time)

Robert Crisp, among others, is very explicit about that. ...

Good for him - what is his background and focus? Armour perhaps?

You're right about one thing: you're seeing it from an infantry point of view. But with some noteworthy exceptions, NA just wasn't the infantry's war. The decisive arm was armor, supported by artillery with the infantry coming in a distant third. When one side or the other ran out of tanks, they were forced to retreat no matter how much infantry they had left.

Hmm. Consider this: which arm made the decisive attacks throughout the two weeks of ElAl2? Or, what happened during CRUSADER after 7th Armd got smashed in the first couple of days, leaving 8th Army with little armour? Or, who led the attacks at Tebaga Gap, the two major Wadi crossings, and the last battles in Tunisia? (in fact who led during all the battles after the breakout at ElAl?)

Yes, I'm cherry-picking, but look at the list. That isn't "a few notable exceptions". Those are most of the major battles of the Desert Campaign, and that list isn't exhaustive by any stretch.

I don't think the things that CMPlayer began this thread by asking for will be included simply because it can't be worked out in the time BFC has budgeted to complete the game.

I agree.

But if I'm not wrong, I won't count it as a huge loss either. And what I have argued in this thread is the reason why.

Well, I mostly agree with the first bit, but I disagree with your reasoning

BTW2: In addition to saying I was looking at it from an infantry perspective, I'm also deliberately looking at it from a CW perspective. The Italo-Germans fought in a very different way (a comment I know), and to extrapolate from I-Gs, or from the armour, then say "the whole war in Africa was fought like THIS" will give a very distorted perspective. IMHO.

I know CW infantry wasn't the whole picture, but it was be no means insignificant. When one side or the other ran out of infantry, they had to withdraw. It was that simple. People seem to forget that in their romantic notions of modern-day knights tearing across the desert in their armoured steeds, with silk scarves wrapped around their faces and antennae pennants snapping in the breeze.

Regards

JonS

Numerous Edits: Spelling, layout, gammar, readability, link, etc

[ October 21, 2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Andreas]

Just as an aside - Soviet officers on many levels comment uniformly in their memoirs that the Germans did not like to be active in the night. That maybe an urban legend, or it may not be. It is very difficult for me to tell.

I think there is at least anecdotal support that would indicate some truth in this. Some of them mention that the Germans liked to fire flares randomly, or fire off their MGs at random. Anyone who has been behin an MG in a trench at night may understand why - happened to me in an exercise, and you end up thinking that the night is full of enemies... But I digress.

If one were to accept this anecdotal evidence, then using the night to defeat the Germans would make sense, and sensible enemy officers in the East, Africa and elsewhere would recognise this and act accordingly.

[Andreas]

Just as an aside - Soviet officers on many levels comment uniformly in their memoirs that the Germans did not like to be active in the night. That maybe an urban legend, or it may not be. It is very difficult for me to tell.

I think there is at least anecdotal support that would indicate some truth in this. Some of them mention that the Germans liked to fire flares randomly, or fire off their MGs at random. Anyone who has been behin an MG in a trench at night may understand why - happened to me in an exercise, and you end up thinking that the night is full of enemies... But I digress.

If one were to accept this anecdotal evidence, then using the night to defeat the Germans would make sense, and sensible enemy officers in the East, Africa and elsewhere would recognise this and act accordingly.

[JonS]

Andreas - yes, that would explain the Germans passivity at night.

Also, in the desert during the day, sensor range (i.e. MkI Eyeball) is generally further than weapons range, and with wide open spaces it becomes difficult to screen (using smoke, etc)from all possible angles. With the arrival of Rommel and his mates that became a big problem (better AT weapons, better MGs, etc). So, how to reverse the equation? Moving and attacking at night levels the playing field by bringing both sides sensor range (i.e. MkI Eyeball) back inside their weapons ranges.

I imagine the Russians found the same applied on the steppes on the Eastern Front?

In Italy and NWE LOS lines were generally shorter, and firesupport assets were far greater, so daylight infantry attacks again became feasible. However, even then there are many cases of nightime atacks.

Regards

JonS

[ October 21, 2003, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JonS]

Andreas - yes, that would explain the Germans passivity at night.

Also, in the desert during the day, sensor range (i.e. MkI Eyeball) is generally further than weapons range, and with wide open spaces it becomes difficult to screen (using smoke, etc)from all possible angles. With the arrival of Rommel and his mates that became a big problem (better AT weapons, better MGs, etc). So, how to reverse the equation? Moving and attacking at night levels the playing field by bringing both sides sensor range (i.e. MkI Eyeball) back inside their weapons ranges.

I imagine the Russians found the same applied on the steppes on the Eastern Front?

In Italy and NWE LOS lines were generally shorter, and firesupport assets were far greater, so daylight infantry attacks again became feasible. However, even then there are many cases of nightime atacks.

Regards

JonS

[ October 21, 2003, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]