TRPs, defensive arty, and the Inf-HE defense

[JasonC]

In another thread, a player asked about TRP placement. He got some short responses, but I think there is much more that can be said about them. Thus this thread.

TRPs make defending artillery into one of the most powerful arms on the battlefield. Used correctly, they can be the strongest benefit of being the defender. They work with a whole defender scheme, based on "infantry-HE dominance".

If you are good at placement, you can get significant use out of just 1-2 TRPs. But it is safer to just not skimp, and buy enough to do the job right. That can mean 3-5 per heavy FO for the Americans, 2-3 for others with smaller modules. Per FO. That's right, toss that 81mm module back and spend it on TRPs for the 105s and 155s instead.

By far the best target for a TRP is a sizeable patch of woods. Infantry is the right target for artillery, not vehicles. And infantry doesn't like to stay in the open. Even if a player moves through the open, when shaken by fire his men will try to get under cover. And normally, the attacker will want cover, and want to move toward you, and want to remain unobserved if possible.

All of those make him want to use woods. While buildings can be better cover against artillery, they aren't a connected form of cover. They do not conceal moving forces, which appear in the gaps between them. Buildings are also more likely to be isolated, unable to shelter large bodies of troops, particularly on the attacker's side of the map. Lighter forms of cover, like brush and wheatfields, offer inadequate protection, and men hit while in them tend to run for something better.

Woods, on the other hand, appear to give attackers the continuous sight blocks and 15-25% exposure numbers they need to get closer without dying. But woods magnify the effect of artillery, because some shells hit the trees and go off as airbursts. Which are as effective as VT. Moreover, when you break a force in woods, the men tend to cower under the shells and get plastered more, while in the open they will scatter after the first few rounds. You can also counterattack into woods with infantry while the men are still broken, to finish them off - try doing that in a field with defender odds.

If there are important buildings the attacker might use, sight direct fire HE weapons to deal with them - and not mortars, use infantry guns or howitzers or AFVs with good HE loads. Understand that direct fire HE is dramatically more effective against buildings than off board artillery. Off board artillery gets a lot of near misses. Buildings are good cover against near misses. But direct HE gets direct hits - almost every round will hit the building. And buildings are much worse cover against direct hits (especially light-wood ones).

Use MGs and infantry platoons to cover open ground areas. Wire and mines can either deny small areas of cover, or block the routes from one body of cover to another in the open ground between them. They idea is to halt movement in a spot with poor cover, where infantry and MGs can hit the halted men.

A variation on that is also useful with TRPs. Pick a body of woods close to your own lines, at a distance good for infantry firefights. Then put wire or AP mines along its obvious "exit" routes, toward your positions. Then the cherry on top - a TRP in those woods. They come in, they cannot move forward, the artillery comes down.

The another occasional TRP location is along a road, preferably right through some trees, for a full set ambush. But the artillery portion is to get the guys who scatter into the trees.

Last, you can put a few TRPs on your own positions, and on objectives. With the idea of clobbering enemies who reach either, to seperate your force from theirs when you are retreating, or to counterattack after the barrage to regain the ground.

As you scan across the frontage, you want to see special dangers almost everywhere. You don't have to try to cover absolutely everything. But all large areas should have some nasty surprise over at least a portion of the distance. These can be TRPs set on woods, minefields, infantry ambushes, bunkers. Something that will hurt the attacker badly if he bunches up along that route.

With 1-2 TRPs, you have to guess the most likely route. A trick here is to put the FO himself in front of a secondary route, to call observed fire there if the TRP turns out to be in the wrong spot. With TRPs there are no spotting rounds earlier, to warn the attacker something is coming and thus give him a chance to "dodge".

TRP fire stays "tight" pattern even when fired out of LOS. Although the count down takes twice as long without LOS to the TRP, that still means relatively short times of 1-2 minutes, typically, because the TRP itself cuts the delivery time by a factor of 4. At set up, you can place the TRP anywhere, not just in your set up zone. You can play with the LOS tool and FO position to get observed TRPs for the fastest possible fire if you like. But do not risk the FO himself too far forward. At defender odds, you can't afford to lose the expense of the FO and the TRPs when 2 men get hit. When in doubt, put the FO somewhere safe and fire at the TRPs without direct LOS.

You can also fire at the TRPs with unmoved on-map mortars. This is useful when the forces on the TRP don't merit a full artillery fire mission. Don't telegraph the TRP locations by firing lone mortars into the middle of large woods early, though.

When firing at TRPs keep the missions to 1 - 1.5 minutes and then cancel the mission. Don't waste all your ammo on one target. Most of the men left are already broken by then. The missions are fast enough that you do not have to "walk" shells around; just cancel and start over somewhere else. A big FO (like US 105 or 155, or German 150) can get you 4-6 fire missions this way. The enemy may avoid the spot afterward; that is fine. You hurt him and denied cover.

To "spot" for TRP artillery, you need somebody close enough to the TRP to see enemy infantry moving there. Don't use the deep interior of a huge wood with none of your own men there. A full platoon ready to move into the area hit if opportunity arises is the best thing. Blind fire, where you only suspect enemy, is wasteful and defenders in particular cannot afford it. At 3-2 odds, an FO must break or kill several platoons worth of the enemy to pay for himself.

Fire is most effective at the moment of contact, especially for the smaller calibers (which suppress and break rather than kill). The most common mistake is to fire too early, rarely do people save their artillery too long. Remember that the sooner you fire, the longer the men hit have to rally before facing your own ground combat guys. Much of the effect of artillery fire is gone 5 minutes later. Save your missions for big targets, full platoons of infantry or more.

150s and up will kill the targets hit. Smaller calibers will break more than they kill, which will at least buy time and weaken the next attack. But you can make the most of the smaller calibers if you can counterattack within 2 minutes of the barrage, into the area hit. Hit anybody still cowering for 1-2 minutes, and then withdraw again back to your original positions.

The focus is always on reducing the number of effective squad infantry in the attacking force. HE fired plus you own infantry depth are one "odds game" to watch closely over the course of the battle. An attacker cannot make headway against defenders in cover with only 1-1 odds on that score. So you try to keep your squad infantry alive and reduce the numbers of his, until you have reached that magic threshold. If you can get there, he will never be able to dislodge you.

You avoid his own HE by breaking LOS to tanks via withdrawls, by staying on reserve slopes or back inside woods, by dogging when you see spotting rounds, by shifting to alternate positions when forward ones get too hot, by hiding. His infantry you try to shoot while its is in the open, while you are in good cover, or if he is not in the open, with your own HE (especially TRP arty on woods). Even if you lose the armor war, you can easily hold out with infantry depth alone, if you use your HE well enough.

To use the infantry-HE dominance type of defense, spend the majority of your points on infanrry units or large caliber FOs - at least 105mm. Fight the armor war on a shoestring, relying on a few hidden AT guns or TDs. Some obstacles (AP mines), and TRPs of course, and some infantry AT (zooks, etc). If you expect buildings, 1-2 HE direct fire assets can also help (A Priest or StuH e.g.). You want the attacker's 50% troop edge to show up as more armor, while the infantry odds are closer to even.

Then get them all the way to even by applying your HE. Stay out of long LOS lines of his armor (backside of woods, behind rises, etc), with infantry AT getting any vehicles that try to re-establish LOS by getting close. He has to send riflemen to dig out your infantry, but doesn't have odds in riflemen because your shells got them already - that is the idea.

I hope this helps.

[YankeeDog]

Thanks for the post, Jason. I have to admit I haven't played with TRPs much yet, and your post gives me some stuff to try.

One follow up: you don't really mention the use of TRPs to increase the accuracy of ATGs. In view of the value they have as targeting points for off-board arty and mortars, do you think it's worthwhile to use TRP for this most of the time, or is it also worthwhile to use one or two for armored ambush points??

Obviously, occasionally you're going to have a map with only one or two good approach routes for armor, and in a situation like this, the increased accuracy the TRP affords your ATGs would probably be worth it, and occasionally you're going to get lucky and get a TRP location that can serve both uses - like the road in the woods you mention.

Given that you're usually going to have to choose one or the other, though (i.e, TRP in open ground to use as a sighting point for ATGs, or in covered terrain to use as a targeting point for artillery), am I correct in assuming that the latter is usually more useful?

Thanks again,

YD

[General Tacticus]

Now that's an in depth post !!

Lots of good reading there.

[JasonC]

I'm not a big believer in TRPs for ATG ambushes. If there is a road passing through a forest I will sometimes put a TRP on the road, with the idea of using for both AT ambush and to hit infantry in the woods on either side of the road with indirect artillery - but only occasionally.

If I think I can predict where armor will come that exactly, I prefer putting an AT minefield there. I like to take 1-2 AT mines, hidden, in typical QB defenses. More is a significant expense with a reasonably chance they could all just miss, but just 1-2 can pay off well if they bag even one AFV. And break even, with even one piece of light armor hit.

You don't give the attacker something to kill back with an AT minefield. ATGs are useful to cover wider areas, and don't particularly need TRPs to do so reasonably well. Whereas infantry is a relatively large target, that you only need to hit approximately, and one mostly restricted to areas of cover (all of which make TRPs easier to use), AFVs are small ones that need to be hit exactly and can roam over large open ground areas.

The AI is much more predictable about where it sends armor, and is relatively easy to punish with set-piece armor ambushes. But then most things work against the AI so that isn't saying very much.

[HarryInk]

JasonC.

I have read and used your ace article on German close defence and its twin on turning that defence, which appears and reappears in the newbie posts digest.

Now you offer me A1 advice on using TRPs.

Tell me Jason, has anyone volunteered to have your babies yet? *grin*

[YankeeDog]

Thanks for answering my question, Jason. Using AT minefields to close off narrow approach lanes for armor and saving your TRPs for infantry makes a lot of sense.

Cheers,

YD

[dumrox]

Jason, I recently finished a PBEM game in which I was defending as Axis. I used the concepts from your initial post above and got a nice victory out of it.

I am curious what forces you would have purchased in the same situation. In this case, all settings were default: quick battle, Nov '44, Day, Clear, Village, Mod trees, small hills, 1500pts (for Axis defender), regular troops, combined arms, no force restriction.

What would you (or anybody else for that matter) have picked in this situation.

Thanks,

Kevin

[dieseltaylor]

Another great Jason C post - Thanks. I see an attack defense battle looming with my brother.

Of course this is a CMBO post .... now what was that about headings and CMBB

Having said that it still a valuable analysis

[Bluecoat]

Wow!

Many thanks for sharing your thoughts - good and reading .

[ September 17, 2002, 03:46 AM: Message edited by: Bluecoat ]

[Wol]

A thought on TRPs

The wonder of QB games is that you can pick TRPs at all without limit. Consider that each should be unique to one battery of OBA, but in the game, all (including on board mortars) can use it. Yet they represent pre-registered artillery fire targets. They have worked out the ballistic solutions, not moved, and fired ranging shots to determine the appropriate solution, for EACH battery intending to fire there. Perhaps TRPs should cost 10pts per unit capable of using them (automatically adjusted by the 'ole PC).

More realistically, they should be assigned to a particulary battery.

Second, no account is taken of the time needed. the more possible target solutions the longer the exercise takes.

Third As I recall, FAOs actually belonged to the batterys, and were assigned to support particular forwad units, and could sometimes call upon the fire of other batterys in the regiment. I think the US did things a bit different, and assigned FAO to units, but did not assign particular batterys to them, rather they could plead with all their parent batallion's batteries for fire, but none would be slaved to his desires. These different national ways of handling fire reslt in different rates of response to fire being called, and makes it possible that artillery will not nbe able to fire when called upon. The battery may be firing in support of another unit, relocating due to counterbattery fire, or silenced due to enemy fire or the need to rest follwing heavy activity. If the battery is under command or in direct support, it is less likely to be unavailble, especially for final protective fires , due to being used to assist someone else. Of course it might still be unavailable for one of the other reasons given above.

Finally the only fire patterns avilable in the game are concentrations of greater or lesser density. This ignores the fact that most european armies, including the russians, organised defensive barrages, for the attack rolling barrages, creeping barrages, (often including smoke) fire squalls(for the russians). These require usually at least a battalion (12min?) of guns to produce a fairly narrow band of fire, either to halt infantry attacks, protect and screen flanks, provide cover for attacking infantry. As far as I am aware the americans did not practice this kinds of fire patterns in WWII, but I would love to be educated. Barrages would be a great thing to see in the game and would be much more appropriate in Assault games for the commonwealth. Of course it might or might not be possible to cancel pre-planned fires during a game.

Finally, in the scope of CMBB, why would it take longer for a soviet FAO belonging to a regimental gun battery of the same level of experience, to bring in observed artllery fire (or blind fire) thasn his german opponent. (Of couse requests for fire by battalion or company headqaurters to artillery units anywhere in the chain might take longer because of communication/authorisation reasons in this case there is no FAO to drect such fire available), but that is another story.

cheers Wol

[JonS]

Originally posted by Wol:

[QB]The wonder of QB games is that you can pick TRPs at all without limit. Consider that each should be unique to one battery of OBA, but in the game, all (including on board mortars) can use it. Yet they represent pre-registered artillery fire targets. They have worked out the ballistic solutions, not moved, and fired ranging shots to determine the appropriate solution, for EACH battery intending to fire there. Perhaps TRPs should cost 10pts per unit capable of using them (automatically adjusted by the 'ole PC).

More realistically, they should be assigned to a particulary battery.

Firing data for TRPs was distributed amongst all units capable of engaging it. Having all FOs in CMBB and CMBO able to engage any TRP is not unrealistic. Also, generally there was/is no need to fire ranging shots at all TRPs.

Too, with good survey it is possible for artillery batterys to use TRPs after they have moved (note: this is outside the scope of CM).

Second, no account is taken of the time needed. the more possible target solutions the longer the exercise takes.

True, but not that much longer. Besides, that's what the battery and regimental command post staff are for

[national trait stuff snipped]

Mostly true, but I think BFC programmed themselves into a corner with artillery in the CM engine, and not much can be changed until the rewrite.

The other point to consider is just how good do you want the artillery aspects of CM to be? If they are too good, then it detracts from teh infantry/armour battle which is,after all, the focus of the game.

That said, I for one hope BFC considerably expands the artillery aspects after the rewrite to include the kinds of things you talk about, as well as several more.

Finally, in the scope of CMBB, why would it take longer for a Soviet FAO belonging to a regimental gun battery of the same level of experience, to bring in observed artllery fire (or blind fire) than his german opponent.

My guess is that this is meant to represent the generally more rigid Soviet command structure, and generally more primitive communications arrangements. As the war progresses both these factors were remedied, so I would expect to see the differences between Soviet and German FOs of the same experience and command level reduce to nothing by late '44.

Regards

JonS

[ October 01, 2002, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Stixx]

Do you know something about artillery do you Coll *Cough!* Jons!

[ October 01, 2002, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Stixx ]

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by JonS:

Firing data for TRPs was distributed amongst all units capable of engaging it. Having all FOs in CMBB and CMBO able to engage any TRP is not unrealistic.

Yes it is. Mortar TRPs should be separate to arty TRPs.

[JonS]

Bah - its the Labrat! Go back to lurking in your gilded members club/cage.

Let me rephrase: allowing all units in CM target any TRP is less unrealistic than only allowing one unit to do so.

Happy now?

[Wol]

A few things...

I assume that TRPs represent fully registered solutions, and that means each unit actually doing some ranging, (although possibly, if all batteries of a regiment are co-located, then perhaps each battery might not have to range seperately). That is why I think that you ought to pay the opportunity cost per battery. In practice, it is quite likely that the same TRP will be targeted by several batteries (I have no issue with that), just the costing of it.

I think that OBA and table top artillery should be at least as carefully researched and presented as AFV and inf. Red God of War is just that. It was responible for the vast majority of all inf casualties. It seems to me to me at least as interesting as the other stuff too (Yes I am still taking the medication). The national differences are particularly interesting (Imagine playing CMBO and actually being able to bring down a standard linear concentration (STONK).

It would be sad to think of all those grognards playing with mickey-mouse artillery rules whilst worrying about the light level in their Zeiss X20 Optic sight in a dusk scenario) Given the engine, this may be about as good as it can get, but I wonder what it would take to patch the engine to allow a bit more variety in the fire patterns.

cheers

Wol

[Eden Smallwood]

Wow, one can really get an education around here, eh? Fascinating, actually. We could really use a central repository for some of these ultra-informational posts...

Thanks, OP, and also it's "separate". I will surely have to read that again once my copy gets here. Alot of that is "just common sense", yet at the same time it just wouldn't occur to me. Like hindsight, or something.

I just ordered my copy today- I'm sure it will be here tomorrow...

Eden

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

Wow, one can really get an education around here, eh? Fascinating, actually. We could really use a central repository for some of these ultra-informational posts...

I just ordered my copy today- I'm sure it will be here tomorrow...

Try the Anthology of Useful Posts, I bumped it up to the top last night. Welcome to the CM community! You probably won't take the CD out of your drive for a few years...that's the least you can expect from a game that will soon replace Real Life for ya...you have been assimilated.

[Frunze]

Bump - as my experience in CMBB is that TRPs seem to be about the only way to hit anything with off-map artillery....

[Wol]

I find that careful use of pre-set concentrations to be quite efective on the offensive.

[Silvio Manuel]

Try the lighter 75mm towed guns- nasty. High ROF (8 or maybe 10/turn), cheap, stealthy while using Move To Contact, and accurate of course. Plus you can tow them w/ light veh. like Kubelwagens (I think). I don't even need to tell you about the evil German 150mm inf. gun.

[Tigrii]

I tried a QB using two TRPs and a Conscript 210mm arty spotter. There were two flags that I was defending. I put a TRP on each flag, both of which were in sizeable patches of woods, and set up my MLR behind the flags. It was a slaughter. I took out an entire company with the 210 at each flag, which broke the back of the battalion-sized attack. I then counterattacked and annihilated the last company. It was a total victory.

There are two interesting things I noticed. One, the non-TRP barrages had a time of 43 min.! Second, the first time I called in arty on a TRP, it took 1 minute, but the next time it took 3. Why is that?

[Silvio Manuel]

He might have been still re-loading? I know that in CMBO a German 240mm module requires 1 to 1.5 turns of reloading before it can fire again.

[Martin Rapier]

The TRP-HE defence works wonderfully well, I can now regularly get Total Victory in 1941 QBs (low quality Russian in vs high quality panzers).

Covering all the infantry approaches with wire obstacles, a few AP minefields to channel them and then putting TRPs on the wire with long range MG fire from a flank and one or two battalion 82mm mortar batteries strips the German infantry away very nicely, leaving the panzers to blunder into massed 45mm AT gun fire from the flank/rear.

It would be very nice indeed to see wire clearance via artillery, engineers, direct fire HE etc in v1.02 though!

Cheers

Martin

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Martin Rapier:

It would be very nice indeed to see wire clearance via artillery, engineers, direct fire HE etc in v1.02 though!

It already exists!!! Someone recently discovered that BIG craters (like 150mm, maybe as small as 122mm???) "override" the wire, such that when you're troops move thru it, they are moving on "crater" instead of wire. Realistically, you'll probably need direct fire to do this. It doesn't "destroy" the whole wire "tile" though.