700 Pts German Combined Arms Defense: What Would You Buy?

[Redwolf]

Random thoughts:

I think the requirement of veteran or higher actually helps guns, especially larger numbers of small guns. Because 1) artillery is more expensive per shell for the attacker and 2) gun crews will not abadon the gun as likely as regular crews. Regular guns are almost always abanonded, not knocked out (same applies for vehicles, BTW).

The Hummel is quite a gamble. If the attacker bought a complete US company he will have 3 60mm mortars and at least one .50cal infantry team. A crack mortar will likely top-hit an AFV within one turn, in combination with extra-combat HQ almost certainly.

I looked at some maps generated by the Quickbattle generator for the parameters given. It is realistic to buy enough daisy-chain antitank mines to completely close the map, with mines everwhere where no woods or houses are. Very few people buy engineers on small attacks and even then you can probably supress them enough to keep from from clearing the mines. You could then deploy your forces so that they are not reachable from positions outside the mines. Buying mines is also a nice way to dodge the unit quality requirements here. Lots of HMG teams and antipersonal mines could do the rest, they can absorb a lot of artillery and will hold infantry in cover forever.

Many solutions proposed here are vulnerable to a gamble I once played: buy a Bofors AA gun on attack. The Bofors is an extremly effective anti-gun gun. It killed three Axis guns in the one turn I unhid it. Obviously a Bofors means certain death to Hummels and ACs/halftracks. Artillery spotters in too obviously positions are also seriously threatend. The maps I looked at would all allow me to place the Bofors in setup at attractive positions.

As nice as the Hetzer is, only the upper hull is actually strong. The lower hull is vulnerable to short 75mm and 105mm shots. The maps I looked at do not have enough nice hull-down positions, and no covered routes to travel between them without exposing side armor or taking very long zig-zag rides while exposing the lower hull.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I looked at some maps generated by the Quickbattle generator for the parameters given. It is realistic to buy enough daisy-chain antitank mines to completely close the map, with mines everwhere where no woods or houses are. Very few people buy engineers on small attacks and even then you can probably supress them enough to keep from from clearing the mines. You could then deploy your forces so that they are not reachable from positions outside the mines. Buying mines is also a nice way to dodge the unit quality requirements here. Lots of HMG teams and antipersonal mines could do the rest, they can absorb a lot of artillery and will hold infantry in cover forever.

I´d say this solution is a tad gamey. Fortunately it doesn´t work either, because you run into the Combined Arms Limit. 140pts maximum allows only 14 Mines, which is not enough to close the map for Tanks and have lots of AP Mines as well.

[FFE]

Re: Use of AA guns.

I think any battle that has not specifically been tested with AA guns ought not to include them. Case and point: Today a single regular 37mm AA gun from 600 meters was able to Gun hit a hull downed Super Pershing, Track then gun hit a 76mm Jumbo, then plink away at another Jumbo that caused it to button up, and finally nuke a Priest. For whatever reason people may play with AA guns, I find them far too unbalancing. This includes the 40mm Bofors.

[JasonC]

Yes, the Hummel is a gamble. One that can win as well as lose. Some risks must be run to defeat both the probable armor strength of the attackers and their almost certain advantage in infantry depth.

The attackers are not crack according to the parameters given, just vets, so I am not too worried about 60mm as AT weapons. They can do stuff against guns certainly. But they are not wonder weapons and their ammo is limited.

A 40mm will certainly kill light armor, but it needs LOS to that armor to do so. Nothing forces the German armor to move way forward and give LOS to the US start zone. They only need LOS to US infantry advancing to the objectives in their own area. It is rarely hard to arrange the latter without the former (e.g. angled sighting from behind any kind of obstacle, etc).

As for foot 50 cals, the PSWs can deal with them as long as they are seen, by facing them and tossing 75mm HE at them. Otherwise, the previous applies - just don't joy ride onto Mt. Olympus and give everyone on the map LOS to you from three directions.

As for uber-mines, you can't take enough. It is not "unrestricted" force type, it is "combined arms". And no, HMGs will not keep any quantity of attacking infantry out of all open ground indefinitely. Not veterans, and while being mortared and arty'ed themselves.

A few HMGs can stop a few scouts, but they are on the whole undermodeled. And vet infantry will easily jump from cover to cover successfully to close with them. Firefighting from within cover, the HMGs absorb punishment yes, but they don't dish much out. Not compared to direct HE from 75mm IG and 37mm FLAK.

[ June 14, 2002, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by FFE:

Re: Use of AA guns.

I think any battle that has not specifically been tested with AA guns ought not to include them. Case and point: Today a single regular 37mm AA gun from 600 meters was able to Gun hit a hull downed Super Pershing, Track then gun hit a 76mm Jumbo, then plink away at another Jumbo that caused it to button up, and finally nuke a Priest. For whatever reason people may play with AA guns, I find them far too unbalancing. This includes the 40mm Bofors.

Except for the 88 Flak, I haven´t much experience with AA Guns, yet, so I can´t say if they are over-modelled. As to the 88, I regularly use it in Defence, it hits and kills with nearly every shot, but that´s entirely historical. Germans used the 88 a lot for AT duty, and it was very popular with them, precisely for the same reasons it is popular with me.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Austrian Strategist:

I´d say this solution is a tad gamey. Fortunately it doesn´t work either, because you run into the Combined Arms Limit. 140pts maximum allows only 14 Mines, which is not enough to close the map for Tanks and have lots of AP Mines as well.

Hm. Good point.

Still no problem for the practicing gameyist. Just buy a flamethrower vehicle and set the uncovered terrain patches on fire

[Redwolf]

More on Flak guns:

http://thforums.com/CMBO/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=72&mode= &order=0

The 88 is not an autocannon and hence does not fall under what people name "Flak gun" in CMBO. It's model is exactly that of an AT gun.

The tons-of-mines plan is crap. While you can get barely enough daisy-chain mines to cover enough terrain to block it for all practial purposes, there is not enough cover on the map to keep your units out of range of tanks firing from behind the mine belt. I also had an attacking Cromwell running straight through the middle of a minefield without damage.

[ June 14, 2002, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Austrian Strategist]

Great article; now I understand the problem.

For the time being, this could probably be tackled by a #item limit on auto-cannons: No more than, say, two auto-cannons of any type in any given QB.

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by JasonC:

A compromise force idea that includes a bit of both of the above is also possible, but involves even higher risks in the form of one key thin-skinned AFV. That is, you can go for a minefield block, several light guns, and a strong AT defense, and still keep the big vehicle HE idea. That would look like this -

1 Crack Hummel

2 Vet SS Motorized Pz Gdr Platoons

2 Crack Puppchens

2 Vet 37mm FLAK

5 AP Minefields

I decided to give this a shot against the AI and dear lord is it effective. I played 3 games, two of which I absolutely decimated the AI (96/95 to 4/5 and forced autosurrender). The middle was a draw because I placed my equipment absolutely horribly.

I mean the first time I tried it, I suffered 1 casualty, 0 kia and caused 150+ causalitys with 53 kia.

Obviously a different story vs a human, but I think it definitely has potential

[xerxes]

Try it against an infantry heavy attack force supported by artillery. You can do it against the ai. by setting up an a.i. opponent but pick the units for the computer. To test the extreme pick all naked rifle squads giving the comp a 20% bonus. That would simulate a reasonably good attack going with groundpounders.

I suspect you'll have a difficult time.

[JasonC]

To xerxes - the force was meant for a specifically combined arms battle. The original poster said he was not interested in the force composition gambits of unrestricted force types. Obviously, if the attacker can go all infantry there is less need for a strong AT defense, and 2 crack Puppchens is overkill. All that said, the AI is so weak (with its artillery, especially, also how it handles mines) it might be beatable even with your all infantry idea.

[Redwolf]

More thoughts:

you get very few units. Not only do you have few points, and fewer points in each category, you are also required to buy the expensive veterans or better. I think it is required to choose dual-purpose units, which can shoot at infantry, and can knock Shermans out. These units are more costly and you lose the game when you lose them early. But you cannot win this game anyway if you aren't lucky. I think that decicated AT units are a bad idea, like Pak40, Hetzer, Panzerschreck. HC-shooters and 88mm Flak gun seem more appropriate.

The maps are practially all of that kind where you can see right through to the enemy setup zone. The small attack/defense maps are all very narrow, so slow-turning units are more ok than usually.

As said, there is no hope to find decent cover for infantry outside of enemy tank gun range and view on these maps.

I arrived at a very infantry-light force:

- 2x 88mm Flak

- TRPs for the Flak

- 2x 251/9

- Hummel

- one Security platoon

- buy additional support that fits your taste, like one 75mm infantry gun, several 20mm Flaks or HMGs

- fill points with antipersonal mines - far more important than AT mines here

The Flaks must score first-shot hits, so place the TRPs wisely. Luckily, the narrow map allows you to cover many positions. Place mines, infantry and HMGs/Flaks so that the guns cannot be overrun, but keep a distance from the Flaks so that artillery meant for them doesn't hurt.

Open fire ASAP.

Use the 251/9 to snipe at units targetting the Flaks after those opend fire. There will be many. When the enemy tanks are detracted by the Flaks, you have your only time windows where it is halfway safe to snipe at Shermans with halftracks. If the TRPs are placed wisely, you even have a good hit chance. Mortars are also important targets as they are dangerous to your guns.

The Hummel is best placed west/ost oriented with solid cover in front, looking over a lane that enemy infantry will use to storm the guns.

Don't forget the smoke rounds in your vehicles. If the Flaks come under heavy fire, smoke in front can give them the breathing time they need. In CMBO, smoke also causes artillery spotters to switch to the wide target pattern.

[Austrian Strategist]

I think my original plan looks still good.

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

1x Security Pl (Crack)

1x Mot Inf Pl (Crack)

1x Mg42 light (Veteran)

2x Mg42 heavy (Crack)

1x Panzerschreck (Crack)

1x Flak 88mm (Crack)

1x Artillery 75mm (Veteran)

5x AP Mines

Redwolf: I think 2 88-Flaks are overkill. Note: Attacker must use Combined Arms Limit, too. He won´t be able to afford too many Shermans. And a Crack 88 can definitely kill ~3 Tanks/Vehicles in a single turn.

[Tarquelne]

I still don't like the idea of getting a Hummel instead of a Hetzer.

The Hummel carries about 1/2 the ammo.

The Hummel has about twice the sillhouette. (Ok, only 172%.)

The Hummel's armor is much worse than the Hetzer's. A Hetzer has a decent chance of surviving a hit from Allied armor. The Hetzer is far less vulnerable to .50 cal fire, or to artillery.

Except for the © rounds a Hummel's penetration against a Sherman is iffy. And it might not get any © rounds.

Hmm... redwolf mentioned "dual purpose" units, which is certainly a very good point. What bothers me about the Hummel is that I think its worse in an anti-armor role than the Hetzer is a in an anti-infantry role.

For me, the Hummel's poor armor clinches things. The Hummel is much more of a gamble, and with only 700 pts and Veteren+ units I don't think gambling is a good idea.

Those points could be put toward units much less risking, and almost as effective.

120mm mortar FO - Excellent against infantry, and little risk involved. Like other big shell arty, the odds of an immobilizing hit on armor aren't too bad, either, if you like gambling.

StuH - Still has a blast of 77, machinegun(s), more amo, © ammo is also capable of taking out a Sherman, and much better armor.

A StuG is more expensive than a Hummel, but can still be bought. Like the Hetzer more usefull against armor, better survivability. Better than the Hetzer vrs. infantry.

Yes, blasts from the 150mm gun are awesome... but limited AT use, limited survivability... it just doesn't seem worth the risk.

Shrug I guess that while it's easy for me to imagine a Hetzer being hard pressed to help hold back the American infantry I find it even easier to picture a blasted and burning Hummel.

[ June 18, 2002, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[JasonC]

I was skeptical of the 88 Flak because of their relatively poor turn rate and their high value and vunerability. I tried a test of your idea though, against the AI. I used (all vet) -

1 Hummel

2 SPW-251/9

2 88mm Flak

2 20mm Flak

1 Security Platoon

2 TRP

4 AP minefield

A Flak position supported by assault guns.

The map did not provide much opportunity to place the infantry and mines ahead of the 88s to protect them from overrun. There was a signficant amount of woods from the middle to the right hand side, just on my side of the middle of the map. I could thus only sight to my right-front by being near the forward edge of my set up zone. On the more open left, there was a hill with some trees on the forward slope, with wide LOS over open areas. No better place behind. So I put one 88 there, and one in the middle of the right side woods on the forward edge.

The infantry and mines went in two groups, infantry right and mines left, on either side of the right 88mm. The two 20mm went on either side of that whole string, with the leftward one at the corner of the woods. So, left to right it is 88mm alone with wide LOS, 20mm on forest corner interlocking both ways, string of AP mines, 88mm, infantry, second 20mm.

There was also a small gap in the woods, 20m wide, between the right 88mm and the infantry. I put one SPW back in that "alley" in the trees, sighted across toward my left. It could pop out in the center of that woodline when conditions warranted, therefore. The second SPW went behind the left flank hill, behind and to the left of the leftward 88mm.

The Hummel went behind a ridge between the left 88mm and the corner of the right forest, also about lined up with a tall wooden building on that ridge, to give it divided LOS sector options (i.e. hunt up onto the ridge either on this side of the "barn" or that side).

Against the AI this all worked just fine, but I am less confident about the set up against humans. The AI had only 2 tanks, both just Stuarts, alone with 4 halftracks - truly worthless M3s without 50 cals, no less. (4 50 cal HTs might actually have given my very thin armor some problems - but for the 20mm Flak that is). It also had about a company worth of infantry, including the typical waste on engineers.

Its set up put one Stuart and 2 HTs in LOS of everthing. The rightward 88mm KOed the Stuart on its second shot. The 20mms made short work of the HTs. The second Stuart hunted into marginal LOS with the rightward 88mm, looking through trees at at first only a "light armor?" contact. It's 37mm with high ROF was more accurate on that marginal LOS than the 88mm, and so that gun was rapidly silenced.

The SPWs hunted forward at this point. All guns were shooting up infantry. One more HT exposed itself and was rapidly KOed, and the leftward SPW hunting over the hill beat the distracted Stuart in their gun duel (HEAT round, 2nd or 3rd shot - it had 10). The last HT hide along the my right map edge behind some trees and took itself out of the battle.

In the center, though, my second SPW hunting into the "alley", after getting off a few decent HE shots, was KOed by a previously unspotted foot 50 cal. While trying to shoot up infantry, the remaining left 88mm was hit by 81mm mortar fire, and knocked out in the second full minute.

The Hummel and remaining SPW hunted forward and broke the main infantry advance in the center, which was headed for the minefields but did not reach them. The Hummel was shocked, however. Buttoned and shocked, with long reload time and poor tracking speed, it had difficulty getting off its shots against moving targets. Since the AI bunched up, though, that did not matter. When eventually delivered, even a few rounds of 150mm HE trashed the infantry attack.

The AI sent only a token force along my right board edge, at the rightmost 20mm Flak and to the right of my infantry platoon. These quickly broke that attack, and went forward to drive off the broken remainder. In the process they KOed an AT team there, and freed the remaining SPW to roam about the field at will shooting things. The Hummel and left 20mm suppressed the center but ran practically out of ammo doing it and were about at the end of their tether.

Overall, the AI lost 111 out of 160 men and 5 out of 6 vehicles. I lost 5 men, the 2 88mms, and one SPW.

Problems and possible improvements for the force - the SPWs are not robust under even HMG fire. PSW-234/4s cost only 14 points more for the pair as veterans, and are immune to frontal 50 cals.

The 88s and 20s were able to run the armor table early, but the heavier 88s were also taken out pretty easily even with quite poor play. It is not clear the investment in them (208 points) can pay off against a human (less exposed armor, better artillery direction, light mortar counterbattery while vehicles stay out of LOS, etc).

The TRPs don't seem worth it to me; perhaps I am not too good at placing them, but in the event I KOed things without their aid. Extra AP mines seem more useful in a limited infantry defense.

I definitely was on a shoestring in infantry terms, and the HE ammo load is not as deep as it may seem. The 88s cannot be expected to deliver the bulk of their HE before being KOed. If the Hummel lives to deliver its load on good infantry targets, you are very likely to win. But the HE of just one surviving PSW/SPW and a few early shots from the others, if the other HE weapons die sooner, would not be nearly enough to allow one security platoon and a few minefields to hold off a company or more of infantry.

I for one am more comfortable with 2 SS Pz Gdr platoons than with 1 Security platoon. The firepower, coverage, and depth for losses are all much higher, and the number of enemy infantry that have to survive the HE storm higher as a result. I did not have any trouble finding useful places for a second platoon of infantry. If the vehicles can mess up an attacking infantry company even half way, then the remaining attacking infantry should find it quite hard to get through 2 platoons of high quality, dug in, automatic weapon infantry.

I do like the AP mines. One 88mm is a nice idea, if you can find good ways to afford it. It may be possible to compromise on the infantry with e.g. 2 security platoons (66 pts less than 2 SS Pz Gdr, still pretty hard to overpower with remnants of a messed-up company).

I hope this AAR and analysis is useful. Obviously you can try the twin 88, one infantry platoon idea. I found it overpowered on the AT side but dangerously thin on the infantry side.

[ June 18, 2002, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[JasonC]

To Tarq - the problem with the Hetzer is it can't hold off infantry worth a darn. It gets only about a dozen HE shells with limited blast, and a close defense MG with a range of about 100 yards, weak firepower, and limited ammo. For AT stalking it is fine. But it can only neutralize the enemy armor for you, it can't neutralize his infantry. And his infantry is liable to be the problem, because a high quality few points defender just can't match what the attacker can bring, in terms of infantry depth.

A StuH is a reasonable alternative to the Hummel, though more expensive. But its HE can't kill Shermans, and it typically gets little HEAT. It is protected against 50 cal fire and 37mm from the front, which is an important plus. Short 75s kill it, though, so it must hunt after the enemy MBTs are killed, getting perhaps one final kill itself when it first comes into range (HEAT permitting), just like the Hummel.

The fire effect of 150mm delivered direct is enourmously greater than that of 105mm, particularly on higher quality infantry. 105mm breaks but 150mm kills so they don't come back. But the StuH has a decent ammo load, and combined with 75mm HTs or ACs, could be able to fufill the infantry stopping role. (Particularly with 2 strong infantry platoons). It is a lower variance "play" than the Hummel.

You'd use e.g. -

1 Vet StuH (late)

2 Vet PSW-234/4

2 SS Mot. Pz Gdr Platoon

2 Puppchen, 1 Crack 1 Vet

4 AP minefield

Again you rely on the Puppchens against the enemy MBTs. The vehicles can finish off the last ones, with the StuH able to do light armor from the front and the PSWs able to handle MG armed things the same way. Again you try to mess up his infantry enough with all the HE in the vehicles, that the rest can't hurt the SS Pz Gdrs behind their mines.

I suppose if Puppchens are banned, you might need a Hetzer to deal with enemy armor. Your HE-infantry defense will be a lot weaker in that case, however.

As for the statement that 120mm are a safe buy, I don't think so in this sort of fight. Yes, it comes down fast and with a TRP can definitely hurt something. But it is 2 minutes of fire that will rag out a single platoon, unless the attacker bunches up horribly. And you have to pay for a veteran one (with adds little in capability but costs substantially more). At the point odds faced, it has to deal with about a platoon and a half permanently. It is too easy for the shelled men to rally for that to literally come true.

Whereas a Hetzer or Puppchen can easily pay off 2-4 to one, and a Hummel or StuH can potentially pay off 2-3 to 1, the 120mm FO idea is going to be struggling to pay off 1 to 1. It will do something, no question. But the upside for the price (as a veteran FO against attacker odds) is relatively limited.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by JasonC:

[QB]To Tarq - the problem with the Hetzer is it can't hold off infantry worth a darn. It gets only about a dozen HE shells with limited blast, and a close defense MG with a range of about 100 yards, weak firepower, and limited ammo.

For AT stalking it is fine. But it can only neutralize the enemy armor for you, it can't neutralize his infantry.

Actually, 12 HE shells is the _lowest_ I've seen for a Hetzer. 18-20 seems much more common. Its blast if 34 is equal to many tanks... not much compared to the Hummel's 200, sure. But it still far less vulnerable to infantry, and its MG and blast will really slow them down, if not kill 'em. And I think thats all you need for the scenario.

And his infantry is liable to be the problem, because a high quality few points defender just can't match what the attacker can bring, in terms of infantry depth.

I dunno... in this scenario the attacker can only bring in 4 platoons of infantry, maxium. If any platoons are Vet. then the max is 3 platoons.

The defender can afford a whole company for anti-inf work and "depth". And that's just what I'd do, if I bought a Hetzer.

A StuH is a reasonable alternative to the Hummel, though more expensive.

Early is actually cheaper. A Crack late StuH is only 3 points more expensive than a Hummel.

But its HE can't kill Shermans, and it typically gets little HEAT.

True about the HE, but ten early StuHs had an average of 1.5 HEAT. As good as the Hummel's figure, I think. Of course, the StuH does _need_ HEAT to kill a Sherman... but the Hummel isn't guaranteed a kill against a Sherman with HE either.

It sounds like we're really pretty close on the Hummel vrs. Hetzer or StuH... You yourself stated that the Hummel is a gamble. I just think it's too much of a gamble, for the return. I don't think either of us can come up with anything really conclusive here... quite possibly you've had better expereinces using Hummel's than I have, and I've had better luck with Hetzers. Or we just have different tolerances for risk (or different attitudes - I'd rather risk not having enough offensive punch than risk loosing lots of "punch" in one open vehicle.)

As for the statement that 120mm are a safe buy, I don't think so in this sort of fight.

What I was trying to get at is that there's little "risk" involved with loosing the unit - Any AFV might get whacked without fireing a shot, but FO's generally survive to deliver their "payload."

At the point odds faced, it has to deal with about a platoon and a half permanently. It is too easy for the shelled men to rally for that to literally come true.

[JasonC]

To Tarq - Fair enough. I can see the "win the infantr war, depend on a Hetzer for AT" approach. The downside would be an attacker with heavy artillery and plenty of infantry. One point of the vehicle-HE approach is that an enemy FO can't break the defense.

As for the anti-infantry abilities of Hetzers, I will tell you a story. I was going on about what great buys Hetzers are once, and someone told me they were no good against infantry. I thought "for the cost? unclear". So I set up a challenge.

An attacker with 3 Hetzers as his armor against a pure infantry defender. The attacker also had 2 platoons of Mot Pz Gdrs and a 120mm FO, a schrek and an HMG - if I recall. The US defenders were thin on the ground - an infantry platoon, heavy weapons platoon, and a few useless mines and such. The defense force was based on something the AI handed me once in a tiny auto-pick game, and was meant to be decidedly suboptimal. I offered this match up to anyone who thought Hetzers sucked against infantry.

I got three takers, one with a twist. One guy said the set up was so stacked he could win it as the Germans even without the Hetzers. Brave fellow. We played that one and the Germans did better than you might expect but in the end lost. To hold out, I had to deceive him successfully about the location of my infantry main body. His 120s ragged out some assorted teams.

The other two took the offer straight up. One played poorly and I walked over him. The Hetzers did decent overwatch, and the artillery fell in the right spots more or less. The main cause, though, was that he played very "tight", trying to wait to open up only when I entered the same buildings, that kind of thing. His only action against my creeping approach was to use up his 60mm ammo, without much result. So I got almost everybody close and pretty easily outshot him. The Hetzers helped some, on buildings especially.

The third guy played well and held me to a draw. And I was very happy to eek out the draw, because things looked awfully bad for a lot of it. He got unlucky in his bazooka shots, and decent breaks could easily have won it for him. In this case the low ammo load of the Hetzers was front and center. I was crawling them down to 60m trying to use their MGs by the end of it - lol. They just didn't break things. I needed them to because he did a good job of hurting my infantry (pins leading to continued fire ascendency, etc) the moment the firefight became general.

That was with three of them, full ammo loads, against defenders numbering only ~80 men. With one against an attacker numbering more like twice that, the amount of anti-infantry effect you'd get would be small indeed. Anyway, that was my anti-infantry experiment with Hetzers, for whatever it is worth.

On Hummel vs. StuH, you are right about the price being essentially the same, of course. On their AT characteristics, I haven't seen much difference in HEAT round numbers. The difference is the few rounds of it the Hummel gets kill Churchills while the HE can kill Shermans. Yes they are a lot thinner. The real threat there is 50 cals or 37mm from the front. (Does need upper hull but that is easy).

I have had good experiences with them, yes. I am quite used to driving US TDs against German armor and I treat the Hummel about as gingerly. It is obviously meant to come out after the armor table has been "run", and before that to only use restricted LOS lines. I've used them offensively, kept well behind the infantry line and sneaking keyhole LOS to foremost defense strongpoints. 150mm HE is mean even in off-map form, but direct fire is lands close too. It is nasty stuff when it works.

We aren't really disagreeing, though, about the StuH being a safer bet. I do gamble on defense, and the reason I do is I think variance is the defender's friend. He wants curve balls, because attacker odds can make safe play a safe route to defeat by superior numbers.

As for the enemy force, I'd be expected something like -

Infantry heavy version -

US Rifle Company

4th Platoon

155mm FO

1 Jackson TD

2-3 MG

1-2 Zook

HE Vehicle version -

US Rifle Company

155mm FO

1 Jackson TD

3 M8HMC

AT Version -

US Rifle Company

4.2 inch FO

2 Jackson TD

1 Greyhound

1 M3A1 halftrack

So on the anti-infantry front, you could easily be facing 225 men with 155mm support to thin your defenders. On the anti-armor front, you could easily be facing 4 armored vehicles, 1-2 deadly even to Hetzers from the front and 3-4 deadly to Hetzers from the side.

The idea of the twin puppchen AT defense is that 2 hidden AT shooters can conceivably "run the table", though it is more likely they bag 2-3. With 2-3 defending vehicles then ready to hunt forward.

Good stuff. I hope this is interesting.

[Tarquelne]

One point of the vehicle-HE approach is that an enemy FO can't break the defense.

You're more sanguine than I am about using open top/backed vehicles in the area of a (possible) 105mm FO. Point taken, though. I would indeed have my infantry posed to run.

It is obviously meant to come out after the armor table has been "run", and before that to only use restricted LOS lines.

What to you mean by "after the armor table has been "run""? After the enemy's armor has been eliminated? Or just spotted?

We aren't really disagreeing, though, about the StuH being a safer bet. I do gamble on defense, and the reason I do is I think variance is the defender's friend. He wants curve balls, because attacker odds can make safe play a safe route to defeat by superior numbers.

Hmmm... in CMBO I don't think the defender needs to "hope" that something unlikely happens to win, or that a single unit performs esp. well, which is what I'd characterize "gambling" as.

But this (my Hetzer, not your Hummel) is certainly in opposition to redwolf's "dual purpose" policy for this defense - which I think is a very good one.

Once again, I think we're just disagreeing over the little details... how _much_ a gamble the Hummel vrs. the Hetzer is.

I must say I think a Hummel is more _fun_.

155mm FO

I wouldn't expect to see the 155mm FO. I'd be _pleased_ actually. I'd be much more afraid of the continued pounding from a 105mm FO and extra points in armor. 155mm's are certainly bad news on a small map, but I think they're still too chancy. I believe the 105mm's 7 extra points are well worth it. I consider the 155mm FO a "special purpose" unit, and don't think they're appropriate for a QB attack against 700 pts. of German combined armed. (When I see a spotting 155mm shell land I tend to run. Maybe lay smoke and run, hopefully run behind cover - but run. It's seldom that a particualar place on the map is worth waiting for the other shells to arrive.)

I wouldn't expect to see less than 2 AFVs on the American side, btw, even with 4 platoons of infantry.

As the American I'd know the Germans couldn't afford more than 1 unit of "serious" armor, and I'd try to gain "vehicular superiority." and invoke that "last tank standing" phenomena that's so often the bane of low-point games. (The Americans could actually bring 2 full 76 Shermans and still afford a company of infantry and a 105mm spotter.)

You mentioned the Jackson a few times. Did you mean an M10? I don't think Jackson's are available in July '44. Effectively the same, though. Both will take out any German armor.

Whoops. I just checked. A (t)less M10 (AFAIK, all of them in July '44) has difficulty with the Hetzer's sloped armor. Chalk up a point for the Hetzer.

Priests are a worry, too. 105mm for Anti-infantry work, and often enough © to menance a Hetzer. It's certain to have the HE to take out a Hummel, though.

On the anti-armor front, you could easily be facing 4 armored vehicles, 1-2 deadly even to Hetzers from the front and 3-4 deadly to Hetzers from the side.

Good point. ("Deadly even to Hetzers." Though called into question a bit because of the M10/M36 issue.) I'd still rather have the Hetzer, for the lower silloute, and the ability to reveal itself/move more safely. (For example, a .50 cal in LOS wouldn't worry me.)

And really, _any_ 76mm gun needs a bit of luck vrs. a front on Hetzer. 60 at 60 degrees is tough for 76mm, even at 100m. The lower hull is, IIRC, 60mm at 45 degrees. At 100m I think an American 76mm can penetrate... I don't know about longer range...

Personally, I wouldn't worry about side hits much. Not with the relatively mobile Hetzer, not with the maps I saw. I certinly didn't exhaustivly sample maps, though.

The idea of the twin puppchen AT defense

Puppchen are indeed very nice... though I am one of those people who avoid them outside of scenarios. You you still get the Hummel if you weren't allowed Puppies?

[ June 19, 2002, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Redwolf]

Regarding my high-firepower approach: I playtested against the AI with maximum advantage (300% force size and +3 experience). Of course, that leads to desire highly effective units. The Hetzer costs too many points for such a weak anti-infantry unit. And in playtesting I had one Hetzer shot dead by a 75mm Sherman while rushing from one position to another, exposing the lower hull which is no problem for the 75mm to penetrate.

I found that surviving against this force is practially impossible, but I came closest with the 2x88 / Hummel, 2x 251/9 force (I agree that the 234/3 is better, though). The 88 do not fire long, but they do a lot of damage in the few turns they do.

The 120mm mortar is not a good idea. It doesn't really kill. The effect of the mortar is pretty lame if you cannot follow up into the area of the barrage, which you can't in this game unless you are Fionn.

If I have some spare time today evening (yeah, right...), I will try maxing out in 75mm infantry guns. But it is problematic because you don't find enough positions for them on this kind of map, at least if you want to avoid bunching them where one shell can hurt several.

[Tarquelne]

[QB]Regarding my high-firepower approach: I playtested against the AI with maximum advantage (300% force size and +3 experience). Of course, that leads to desire highly effective units.

Yeah, there's often a big difference between 3000 pts of AI Eleite troops and 1000 pts. of Human Regulars... can be hard to compare.

What I'd like to see is Austrian Strategist try out his force. (I'd offer, but I'm not allowed to play outside my LAN group. If one of us does that he tends to get much better, very quickly... and I'm the only one with the time and inclination to do so. )

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by JasonC:

AT Version -

US Rifle Company

4.2 inch FO

2 Jackson TD

1 Greyhound

1 M3A1 halftrack

If only it were that simple.

Jackson is not available in July. Your best Tank Destroyer is the M10. Otherwise, some great ideas and analysis, as usual, in your posts.

[ June 19, 2002, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Austrian Strategist ]

[Austrian Strategist]

This leads to another interesting question:

What should the American player buy, really?

Originally posted by Austrian Strategist:

Both sides use Combined Arms limits.

Americans have Regulars and/or Veterans.

Small map, July44, 20 turns, clear day, agricultural terrain, moderate amount of trees, small hills.

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

[Redwolf]

OK, I'm fed up, I want to play this. We've driven this stuff to a point where we sound like, well, armchair generals. Err, whatever...

Who wants to play? This is a fairly small battle, so it shouldn't take overly long, especially for the defender. Please post if you want and which side you want. Maybe we can have the same player doing one side all the time to get more comparable results. I'll update the list below.

Redwolf: Allied Attacker.

Additional rules: One map reject for attacker, two for defender. Empty setup mailed first to prevent needless setup before other side sees map. Reject may not be used to purchase different units next time. Otherwise everything goes, except SdKfz 7/1 and 7/2 and whining. Remember this is not about winning but to test forces, so choose what you like, not what you think is stronger.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Who wants to play?

Not just now; tourny has started, and is occupying most of my CM thought.