Historical Tactics for the British Infantry in Africa

[Ansbach]

I'm sure some of you Grognards are familiar with British tactics and can add to this discussion, but those who aren't may find this information helpful. It was briefly mentioned in another thread and I wanted to elaborate on the topic. You may find it interesting/entertaining to try and duplicate these tactics and see what kind of success you can have with them.

Of course each situation is unique, but the British had two main plans of attack used by their Infantry Tank regiments, one for daylight attacks and one for night attacks.

Daylight attacks started with an initial barrage of artillery on the objective, followed by two waves of tanks and then infantry. Timing was critical and was practiced since before the war had started. The first wave of tanks was to arrive while the artillery barrage was falling in an effort to overrun the initial opposition. The second wave of tanks would arrive a few minutes later, hopefully just as (before) the enemy was beginning to recover from the initial attack. The infantry would arrive right behind the second wave of tanks with the task of 'mopping up' any remaining opposition. The tanks would then remain with the infantry while the position was secured and the anti-tank guns were brought up, at which point they would advance to a "Forward Rally Point" for refueling and repairs.

During night attacks the sequence was different. The infantry would lead the way, followed closely by tanks in direct support. If the objective was very far away, the infantry would ride on the tanks to a predetermined starting point and would then proceed on foot. The tanks would then once again stay with the infantry until the anti-tank guns could be brought up to form a defensive screen. This method was mainly used during the Second Battle of Alamein and was very effective - earning the respect of Rommel, who commented that "the British storming parties would work their way up to our positions, accompanied by tanks which acted as mobile artillery, and would force their way into the trenches at the point of the bayonet. Everything went methodically and according to drill."

How effective these tactics would be in CMAK is debatable, but they are fun to duplicate from a historical perspective. Let us know what kind of success you have if you try them out!

Source: British Tanks in North Africa 1940-42 by Bryan Perrett

[ February 15, 2004, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: Ansbach ]

[Mark Gallear]

I think the tactics you describe for the second battle of El Alamein were largely adopted because of the large minefields that had to be breached - the Germans were in many places able to stop the tanks breaking out of their cleared corridors through having AT-guns positioned to cover them.

Most tank battles were tank only affairs that occurred far from infantry positions. Rommel's tactic of withdrawing his armour behind a screen of AT-guns and infantry was also very successful, and enabled him to turn the tables on an unsuccessful tank encounter.

[ February 15, 2004, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[YankeeDog]

I was actually noodling with just this sort of thing the other day. . .

From what I've seen so far, one of the major limitations to using these tactics in CM is the cost of artillery. In general, artillery shows up in CM as a battery or two of support, maybe three in larger scenarios.

From what I've read, in general British offensive tactics in the desert called for large planned fires on the kind of scale you don't usually see in CM - on the typical CM-scale map, you might see the equivalent of half a dozen or more CM spotters worth of fire.

As far as daylight attacks, if you put a wave or two of tanks ahead of infantry in the typical CM battle, the tanks usually get butchered by hidden AT guns. Give yourself at least 5-6 25pdr spotters for a pre-planned barrage, though, and there's a good chance you'll manage to knock out or supress a good number of those hidden AT guns before they fire a shot. The guns that remain will manage to take out a few tanks, but will generally be overwhelmed by superior numbers.

Night attacks are a different matter. In my experience, it is possible in CM to execute the kind of night attack you describe above without the overwhelming artillery support that probably historically accompanied them. In general, I think night attacks are easier to execute in CM because of the inherent advantage the CM player has with his god-like view of the battlefield.

In night battles, it is relatively easy in CM to keep a group of tanks just behind an advancing infantry skirmish line, and rush the tanks forward to deal with any resistance point as soon as it is discovered. While the British certainly tanks used tanks in exactly this way for night attacks, in general I think the response time was slower and the degree of coordination somewhat less refined.

So at night, I think these kinds of command advantages inherent to the CM game largely compensate for the reduced level of artillery support present in most secenarios/QBs, and make the British night attack doctrine work pretty well. If you add a historically realistic level of arty support, such an attack can roll over even a very well fortified defensive line.

Cheers,

YD

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

From what I've seen so far, one of the major limitations to using these tactics in CM is the cost of artillery. In general, artillery shows up in CM as a battery or two of support, maybe three in larger scenarios.

It would be nice to have the ability to buy a "prep fire only" artillery battery at, say, 1/2 to 2/3 the price of other artillery. This would allow for the use of more historical levels of artillery in some settings while restricting their usage not only in a historicla manner, but in a manner designed to improve gameplay.

At least, that's my opinion, your may vary.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

The "typical" CM attack scenario begins AFTER the initial barrage has gone in; this has been spelled out in each of the three successive manuals. If you want to simulate the "pre-bombardment", simply have the defenders starting in various degrees of morale discomfiture, and ensure their lines are suitably marked with shellholes, destroyed and burning terrain.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The "typical" CM attack scenario begins AFTER the initial barrage has gone in; this has been spelled out in each of the three successive manuals. If you want to simulate the "pre-bombardment", simply have the defenders starting in various degrees of morale discomfiture, and ensure their lines are suitably marked with shellholes, destroyed and burning terrain.

Splendid - good answer. Though in a QB your opponent would have to agree to it. And you would know exactly how effective your barrage has been, which doesn't strike me as too realistic.

Also, regardless of what it says in the manual, most (though not all) scenarios are simply not designed this way. Including those on the CD.

Finally, removing the ability to plan your own artillery support is somewhat akin to having friendly tanks that the AI controlled totally, and writing it off as "well, this is an infantry game, and you wouldn't have control over the tanks anyway." Historically justifiable in some situations perhaps, but not very satisfying.

MrSpkr,

buy the cheapest spotters you can find in the calibre you require, making them conscript or worse (unfit, etc), with wire, etc. If you don't use them for a pre-planned bombardment, you won't be able to get much use out of them at all.

Regards

JonS

[Code13]

Whilst this is a simulation game, it is also a game.

The reason arty isnt seemingly well moddled n this situation it is simply that for QB's and the like we all have balanced points.

To realistically simulate arty barrages then the attacking side should have more points with which to buy these assets.

It was INCREADIBLY rare that two perfectly balanced forces would attack each other, and the key to good defence is perhaps assessing where to put your assets to protect them from arty?

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Code13:

Whilst this is a simulation game, it is also a game.

The reason arty isnt seemingly well moddled n this situation it is simply that for QB's and the like we all have balanced points.

To realistically simulate arty barrages then the attacking side should have more points with which to buy these assets.

It was INCREADIBLY rare that two perfectly balanced forces would attack each other, and the key to good defence is perhaps assessing where to put your assets to protect them from arty?

Second that. "Strategy is the art of not playing fair". If you attack with typical odds, it would be 3:1, not 1.7:1 as in CM.

In an umlimited game, you get pretty much arty that way.

Likely whines:

"I stood no chance... this game sucks"

"Hey, I killed all he had, captured all flags but still did not win!" (too many losses)

"Game was over after turn 1" (Defender set up near the flags)

Gruß

Joachim

[JasonC]

"Most tank battles were tank only affairs that occurred far from infantry positions"

Not only is this not true, but British doctrine that expected it would be true was thoroughly trashed by superior German doctrine precisely because the latter assumed that all arms would be relevant in fights with tanks present.

Yes the Germans withdrew behind gun lines. They also maneuvered around gun studded strongpoints. They also overran gun equipped, mined in British (and allied) "boxes". They also held escarpments and jebels with guns and infantry to get an edge in sighting, artillery direction, and intel. They also drove around batteries of field guns right behind the tanks, to set up and provide indirect fire during tank engagements, or when their own tanks had to go up against enemy guns.

Brit forces that were infantry-formation based but working with I tanks frequently outperformed the pure armor cruiser formations, because they had better combined arms and coordinated better with their artillery.

It is true that pure infantry was a comparatively minor player in desert fighting. But not because the armor fought alone. Positional and defensive fighting in the desert was primarily conducted with towed guns and minefields.

Infantry helped keep these in one's own hands, and controlled areas at night (so just parking tanks in range did not capture a place). It had offensive power only in the wake of heavy arms, whether armor or arty, or in low visibility (night, sandstorms).

[Abteilung]

More and cheaper arty? I beg to differ on that point.

Simply build your own scenario if you wish to sit and watch your arty spam the map and the opponent auto-surrender after 5 minutes.

If that's your cup of tea, it's there for you to drink. There's no need to lobby for changes to the program to make such a "battle" possible in a PvP context. I, for one, would refuse to partake in such wildly imbalanced scenarios in PvP; rather I tend to enjoy a battle of wits far more than any "beer and pretzels" scenario. Not saying that there isn't a time a place for that, just not in QB's or any venue where PvP and equity for the sake of playability are concerns.

[Ansbach]

Let's not degenerate this thread into what is basically a Historical vs. Quick Battle argument - two sides arguing two different things and both are right. The original information was for the benefit of those looking for historical accuracy in historical scenarios - any discussion of Quick Battles and 'scenario fairness' is irrelevant. As was pointed out earlier, historical battles were hardly ever fair. Not that your QB views are invalid, just keep in mind that we are discussing the duplication of historical events.

As far as tank battles are concerned, I'd like to second what JasonC said: there is a common 'romantic' image of the typical African campaign battle being a highly maneuverable, pure armor tank duel in the desert - but in reality those types of engagements were few and far between, mainly due to supply limitations. The majority of battles were combined arms engagements that took place in and between habitations along the coast. I don't know the exact historical figures and I'm sure someone can help me out here, but I'd be suprised if much more than 25% of the forces in Africa were armored...

However, that having been said - at the scale of CMAK, pure armor engagements would probably be more common than normal since they might represent a smaller subsection of a larger engagement. Besides, we all bought this game to play with the tanks, didn't we?

[ February 18, 2004, 03:28 AM: Message edited by: Ansbach ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Ansbach:

Besides, we all bought this game to play with the tanks, didn't we?

No.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Ansbach:

Besides, we all bought this game to play with the tanks, didn't we?

No.

[Ansbach]

Don't qoute me without my ' ' at the end - that was meant as sarcastic but good-natured ribbing...