Paying The Butcher's Bill

[Thermopylae]

There is one concept that everyone accepts in a battle. This is the fact that "I will lose men". Everyone acknowledges this to themselves rationally, but very few use it as an insight. While they realize that there are certain definites when losing men is inevitable and nessecary, very few will ever seek to improvise their own situations in which scarifice is nessecary and useful.

The best example of a pre-set definite people acknowledge is reconaissance. Every one realizes that the chance of you seeing your rifle teams or other method of recon again are slim. yet this is acceppted on the basis that it is tactically valuable to you the commander and it saves you from having whole platoons destroyed bby hidden enemies. You accept the fact that soldiers will be lost for a viable maneuver. The same concept is taken and applied in the close assualt.

Very few people recognize this for what it is worth however. They stay within their pre-set ideas of what will need to happen and what losses are nessecary. A tendency to preserve men and expose them to as little danger as possible is the common trait. This line of thinking should be encouraged, but there are times when this caution must be abandoned. People see these times, and for the most poart say no, I won't take that course of action, because I'll lose men. This is often the unhinging point of a battle, allowing a small force to prevent access to a large area by threat of firepower. In reality, such a small force can be bypassed, and that critical position taken simply through bleeding for it. A platoon charging across an open field with a tank friing enfilade into them from 180m in order to turn a flank will generate casulties doubtless. But the rest of that platoon will most likely remain a reasonably coherent fighting force in their new position, and more often than not will have passed through an area the enemy considered impassable. This helps the commander significantly more than a completely intact platoon that can't be maneuvered any farther without a chnage in situation. And all for the price of half a squad of infantry or so. Knowing when to readily accept losses for position, and then acting on it, is something every CM player will be better for.

And on the major plus side, that half squad of men is only digital.

[Guest Pillar]

Hate war, but fight it like it is.

Interesting post.

[Gremlin]

I agree that you have to be willing to lose something for gain. I take most of my risks in terms of casualties not necessarily for ground but for information. If you have detailed, constantly updated intelligence on the enemy's force disposition, you're halfway to winning. That's worth some casualties.

------------------

New to Combat Mission?

Visit CM Boot Camp at Combat Missions for tips.

[Thermopylae]

I think gremlin (no offense intended BTW ) has just typfied the most common use of casualties for advantage. the gaining of information. However, the point I was trying to make is that sometimes you need to see past the casualties for any maneuver, not just ones that have been pre-established, like recon. Caution, even reasonable and rationale caution, may not be what a battlefield situation calls for. However, most people persiste in their reasonable and rational caution ALL the time, which is what may leave them solid and capable up to their particular tactical skill level, but often denies them a stroke of brilliance or audacity. (Conversely, audacity has been known to be foolish at times) NOTE: The author often suffers from this exact tenativeness, which is why i thought to pinpoint it.

[chrisl]

But sometimes you just lose the guys and don't gain the position. I just had two squads, an mmg, and a platoon HQ defending in some woods, and my opponent charged a full platoon at them. I lost the MMG and about 3 guys from one squad. He lost all but about 3 guys. He followed on the next turn with another platoon-- one (9-man) squad reduced by 7, another reduced by two, the third in LOS of the 90 mm gun and M2 of a nearby Jackson. He'll end up losing them all, either as casualties or broken. He made another similar charge at the same time as the first, on a similar position, with similar results.

Sometimes it's worth the casualties (I do this sort of thing too, having just taken a key building in a city fight that way), but sometimes they're just thrown away.

------------------

"If you can taste the difference between caviar on a cracker and ketchup on a Kit-Kat while blindfolded, you have not had enough aquavit to be ready for lutefisk." (stolen from some web page about lutefisk)

[Gremlin]

Well, the basic problem is, how well can you intuit when something is an audacious masterstroke, and when it's just a foolish gamble? My bolder, more agressive moves tend to fall into the latter sad category.

Certainly, excessive caution or fear of losing anything will prevent gains. That said, I still agree with Sun Tzu's general outlook that it's better to let the enemy defeat himself by drawing him into traps, playing on his agression or impatience, etc. There's a fine line between that and being wimpy, though

------------------

New to Combat Mission?

Visit CM Boot Camp at Combat Missions for tips.

[Thermopylae]

Chris and Gremlin both have very good points. Generally speaking you don't know if your move is an audacious master stroke or not until after its done. However, when i said be willing to lsoe the men, its a good diea to make sure thier worth losing. Suicidal chargea s described by Chris are not brilliant they are usually wasteful. This type of thing isn't what i had in mind when orignally posting. (except of course when they work and you can come back here and insult me about it It is probably seeing these possible moves, after being taught again and again that doing such casuses casualties, and still acting on them, which allows for the unexpected thrust in the middle of a battle.

Heres one example; You have a platoon of forces in some woods on your opponents flank, with a large field open in front of them. Directly to their front is a much feared MG bunker. Behind the buker are soem cattered treees and the VL. Its a fairly theres not much els eout here. There is no apparent means of knocking it out which won't detract from the main assualt, which is being hard fought, or without grave risk to your own armor. Most people will say "it is an open field, controlled by 3 MGs, we cannot pass." The insightful one says "we can pass that field and get behind the bunker, and place a effective force on this flank, for 6-10 casualties."

[chrisl]

If I'm going to charge some troops across a big open field, I try to have likely enemy positions (known or unknown) covered by both MG and rifle fire-- it makes all the difference in the world. If there are stationary units suppressing the defender (even bunkers and pillboxes can be suppressed) then it's easier to cross their fields of fire.

As for taking fire from a single tank at a hundred+ meters, that's a reasonable chance to take (especially if you can make it button first).

------------------

"If you can taste the difference between caviar on a cracker and ketchup on a Kit-Kat while blindfolded, you have not had enough aquavit to be ready for lutefisk." (stolen from some web page about lutefisk)

[Thermopylae]

How you do the move isn't all that important. If you have assets to divert to suppression, by all means use them. Its the fact that one does move and acknowledges the movement is worth the casualties, instead of being holed up and completely intact, yet useless for anything more than small amounts of applied firepower.

[Guest Pillar]

To focus back on Thermo's reference to intelligence gathering, I put these questions forth:

You wish to approach an objective and have three routes available to you. Do you pick a route based on the "map intelligence" or do you send teams down each route to confirm the enemy disposition?

You are on the defense and have an 81mm FO at your service. You suspect the enemy is in a forest adjacent your positions preparing for an assault. Do you order the barrage and hope the enemy is where you think he is? Or do you confirm his presence by sending a small team in to check it out?

Would you rather your whole force support one another "in the same boat", or can you handle sending a few men autonomously off by themselves to gather some information?

Do you feel more confortable taking casualties en masse with your whole force being involved, or are you more comfortable with smaller sections taking casualties in order for larger sections to continue unharmed?

You probably get a sense what my opinion is on this, and I'm sure these questions are a bit "package dealed" to the reader. BUT, I think the point stands:

Either be willing to suffer a few casualties now, however personalized it may be, to win. Or gamble an entire force on your guesswork, and hope you don't loose them ALL.

I think the real problem, which does not apply in CM, is for real life commanders it is easier to accept loosing a large battle of attrition, where each side is doing it's "best", than to send a few men off to gather intelligence KNOWING they stand a good risk of perishing.

The fact that the casualties are going to occur is a given in my opinion. Those men in the scout platoon are going to be at risk just as easily (I might argue even more so) on the "all together now" battlefield as they will scouting, however, one way is more conducive to victory.

If you look at total casualties in the end, often a few small sacrifices pay off by saving hundreds of other men who otherwise would have died. Likewise, I think it's equally silly to assume sending someone to recon a route seals their deaths. Often they loose a few and fall back.

Anyhow, I'm rambling now.. But I just wanted to expand on Thermopylae's point.

Have I got your drift right Thermo?

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 02-13-2001).]

[Thermopylae]

Pillar I believe you have encapsulated the basic ideas I was pointing out as more or less mandatory and acceppted. no one would hesiate to use them. The few deaths, small expedition lost for the better of the force type of loss. Anyone reading this section of the forums, and probably the overwhelming majority of CM players understand these concepts.If I was merely containing my post to that, there would be no point in having posted in the first place. Wow, that sounded arrogant didn't it? I don't mean to, honest.

However my true point (which is being ever condensed to cope with my own failures in communications) is that you must look beyond this type of acceptable casualty. That sometimes new situations will arise that will require acceptable casualties and people will not use it because they don't think said casualties are acceptable. The large open field crossing being an example people can easily understand. Casualties in this are inherent, but sometimes its worth it. So maybe it didn't get condensed..oh well...

[Guest Pillar]

That's interesting, your experience is directly the opposite of mine.

See, for me, most players I meet who are "casualty reluctant" are VERY suspetable to doing things like running across open fields and so forth. The "inherent" casualties, I find, most people accept quite readily -- sometimes without even considering other options.

Some times people are willing to take immense casualties simply in the name of keep to their plan and terrain analysis -- i.e. they will pursue an attack into the strength of an enemy defense.

In any case, I would really disagree with your proposition that:

The few deaths, small expedition lost for the better of the force type of loss. Anyone reading this section of the forums, and probably the overwhelming majority of CM players understand these concepts.

O'Contrare I think only a handful of people really understand that. It's RARE that I meet a player using "small expedition for the better of the force".

Like I said, we have had *completely* opposite experiences. You must be playing better players than I

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 02-13-2001).]

[Brian Rock]

There is also the diversionary attack, drawing a defender's reserves towards a small force while the main body hits somewhere else.

I haven't played a lot of PBEM so don't know if this is used much by CM players.

[Henri]

Originally posted by Brian Rock:

There is also the diversionary attack, drawing a defender's reserves towards a small force while the main body hits somewhere else.

I haven't played a lot of PBEM so don't know if this is used much by CM players.

Unfortunately this type of strategy is extremely rare in CM, due to the nature of the battles (flag objectives and limited time).

The closest I have come to this is the underestimated value of waiting. Amateurs do not like unclear situations, and will often take rash action just to get rid of the uncertainty. I find that sometimes just waiting a turn or two to see what the enemy will do can yield dividends.

For example, let us say that the enemy has a strong defensive position somewhere and you are about to attack it. If you wait two or three turns, an unexperienced opponent will sometimes crack under the stress of waiting and start to think that you are going to flank him or something and start moving his units to counter the imaginary threat.Of course one can amplify this with a feint.

Henri

[Thermopylae]

Hmmm...interesting Pillar...never really thought about that...most players I meet who are willing to suicidally charge across fields without considering the options are not exactly casualty reluctant I actually find that such players tend to make minor gains at the expense of their entire fighting force, but do make these gains. (albeit in RL the soon following counterattack would inevitably destroy them) This is an ideal example of how agression can FORCE a point. The deadliest weapon tho, is someone who acts with good tactical sense in acasualty reluctant way, but if the cause is sufficient, is willing to pay the price for such a forcing

of a point if that is what is needed.

Diversionary attacks may or may not fall into this category dependant. There may be times when a charging platoon is exactly what is needed to shift the enmies main fires away form your true inetent. A platoon sitting in the woods just doens't have the same threat level to a defender.