can't find the Reverse Slope Tactics thread

[Schoerner]

I tried the search function but couldn't find this great article (by Fionn Kelley i think) about reverse slope tactics anymore.

Can anyone help me out, please?

[JasonC]

Don't know if you are talking about the same thing, and I don't have a link for the thread. But I wrote an article called "German Infantry in the Closed Defense" about reverse slope tactics, which may be what you are thinking of. If the search function is working you might try that for keywords. I have portions of that thread that I wrote, and can just repost them, too. I will as a seperate reply, here.

[JasonC]

German infantry in the "closed" defense

Lots of CM players like the heavy German tanks, but there is much more to the German army than that. Especially on the defense, the Germany infantry forces have special methods and weapons that can have Allied attackers pulling their hair out if you use them correctly. While there are several general options for defenders, one that the Germans are especially good at is the "closed" defense, in its most common form a "reverse slope" infantry defense.

An "open", or "forward" defense, is one in which the defender sets up long-ranged weapons in locations with wide fields of fire over open areas, with the idea of shooting "early and often", and killing the attacker before they can get close. The strength of this common type of defense is the vunerability of moving attackers in open ground, compared to stationary defenders in foxholes or buildings. But the drawback of a forward defense is that those wide fields of fire work both ways, and soon the more numerous attackers have everyone shooting at you. Often the defenders just do not have enough firepower to fight this way, and trying it gets the defenders killed outright, or the defense gets pried apart after several positions have been overwhelmed by the attacker's superior firepower.

By contrast, a "closed" (or "back", or "hidden") defense does not seriously dispute the attacker's crossing wide areas of open ground. A few delaying machineguns or indirect fire missions may be added, but mostly the attacker can get pretty close to the defender without being seriously molested. But then the fun begins.

The main idea of the closed defense is to figure out where the attacker can set up bases of fire from which to out-shoot you, then locate the defenders exclusively in places that cannot be seen from those firebases. Other things flow from that idea as consequences, but the initial idea is clear enough - stay away from his (ranged) firepower.

The most "canonical" version, of which the other types are really adaptations to other settings or types of terrain, is the "reverse slope" defense. The rest of this article will deal with the reverse slope defense proper, using a ridgeline as the main terrain obstacle. At the end I will suggest some of the other cases in which some of the same ideas can be applied.

Instead of explaining all the principles involved abstractly at first, I will start with a sample set-up (from a recent QB against the AI), so you have some idea what I am talking about. I could go into all of the factors involved in elaborate detail, but to make this article more comprehensible (especially without a map), I will stick to the main points.

Instead of long-ranged weapons, all along the crestline itself is sewn a field of mines. Trying to block a road? Then the road itself gets AT mines, the rest of the fields are AP. You have the option of placing an AP mine behind (closer to you) the AT mines to plug the anti-infantry gap in the field there, or you can leave it open, purposefully, which gives him a route in and you a route out from behind your minefields, but a very narrow one.

There are several fine points about using mines in CM, and a realism-minded German defender should try to learn them. The Germans historically deployed about 21 million mines in WW II, which means they had several per Allied soldier and around 100 per allied tank - or 400 of the things for every tank of their own. Compared to their historical abundance, they are a little too expensive in CM, perhaps 50% more than their proper cost. But that is a game-design quibble.

First when deploying them, understand that single minefield markers all on their lonesome are pretty useless. They will cause 1-2 casualties when stumbled upon, then be avoided for the rest of the fight by all concerned. Instead, you want a field at least 100 yards long, meaning 5 AP mines. That is the minimum for a decent effect, and the usefulness of mines will go up with the number you have. Deploy the mines side by side, with either no gaps or narrow ones, irregularly. When putting two side by side, stagger them a little front to back, so the forward edge does not look like it was created with a ruler. This also allows a second field behind a first occasionally, if an opponent likes bringing engineers to clear your fields - you may suprise him with the "second depth" field. And it is a useful way to plug an AP layer and an AT one on the same road.

Minefields are not impenetrable barriers in CM. Engineers can remove them with time, but in addition ordinary infantry can sometimes walk clear through a single-depth AP minefield without setting one off, by pure chance. Generally they will take 1-3 casualties and be stopped and pinned in the field, but the results will vary. AT minefields can also "miss" in this fashion, but they have a good chance of immobilizing even the heaviest tank. They do not effect infantry, though, since men are too light to set them off.

The minefields on the crest are an extremely useful component of a "closed" defense. They make it difficult or impossible for the attacker to set up ordinary infantry bases of fire on the crest itself. They tend to cut off and isolate forward elements that make it through the minefields, or the gaps between them, from support by their "friends". They make withdrawl difficult. And they channel the attack toward the gaps in the mines, or the flanks of the field-line. All in all, the minefield is the "shield" of the closed defense.

A critical idea of the closed defense is to defeat small portions of the attacking force at a time, with superior local odds despite the overall numerical edge favoring the attacker. All of the attackers on the far side of the crest might as well be on Mars, from the perspective of one of the few squads already past the crest, which feel like they are facing the whole German army. You can't shoot *through* a hill. So only the men past the crest, are available to fire on the defenders on that side.

This gives the attacker only a few choices. If he limits his men in each spot of terrain to the usual amounts, then the defenders, firing from a greater depth down and behind the hill, and also in the case of the Germans having lots of MP40s at close range, are likely to win the firefight and chew through the attackers. In CM, lopsided odds in a short-range firefight result in extremely bloody losses for the locally outnumbered side, while the other side gets off comparatively lightly. Many of the less numerous local force get suppressed, aren't firing at all or frequently, while the more numerous side pours in the fire and remains unsuppressed.

If instead the attack desides to use his numbers despite the extremely limited available space, between the crest and mines and the fire-spitting defenders, he can concentrate a "big push" of bulked up attackers. Then it is time for the defenders to back off to their secondary foxholes farther down the slope, temporarily, while the defending mortars plaster the near side of the crest.

The bunched up attacker's numbers will not do them any good against mortar fire, and instead men will fall faster in proportion to how tightly they are packed into the available space. The line of SMG fire is still there, in a somewhat wider ring, holding the men into the "pocket". The mines are holding them in from the rear. The mortars come down from above. Not a nice place to go to work. After the barrage has shaken the massed intruders, the defenders counterattack rapidly, shooting still cowering men with their SMGs until they die or run.

The mortars are as essential a part of the "closed" defense as the mines and the SMGs - in fact, more so. They allow the defender to defeat attempt to concentrate numbers by merely packing the men in. They also are the defender's means of reaching "over" the ridge.

Another thing the attacker can try, is to blast a way through with the artillery. Here the defender has to use judgment and be flexible, and the secondary positions farther down the slope are essential. The hardest part of conducting a "close" defense is deciding when to stay just below the crest, and when to fall back down the slopes for cover, and how far. This is a matter of assessing the state of the attackers overall, and the danger from their artillery.

Understand, the defender does not face the same requirement to concentrate men in order to fire at the crest-line and just beyond it. His infantry firepower may be highest there, but all his MGs, light cannons, and longer-ranged infantry fire too, can sweep the whole "backside" of the ridge, from positions down in the valley or on the front of the next ridge farther back toward the defender. The defender wants to "hug" the hill high up, because that limits the space the attacker has to deploy. But he does not *have* to, and if doing so would bunch him up too much, he just backs off some.

With the Germans, another benefit of the "closed" defense is it puts the begining of enemy LOS and the effective range of a Panzerfaust in the same overall scale. This makes even ordinary infantry quite dangerous tank-killers, and avoiding getting too close will often reduce the attacker's vehicle support firepower dramatically. They just won't have LOS to targets turn after turn, and getting close enough to have one will look (and be) too dangerous. That lets the infantry vs. infantry fight progress on closer to even odds.

For longer lines of sight, like down a road or to a bald hill-top, use Panzerschrecks to suppliment the shorter-range Panzerfausts. Try to keep the range at around half the stated maximums for most effective shooting, though. Meaning, the Schreck at ~100 yards, and the fausts at 30-50 yards, or roughly the distance you can see through trees.

In addition to the essential mortars, mines, and MP40s, a fourth "M" is the supporting machineguns. These belong on the flanks of the main blocking position. If they are forward far enough, they can deliver some flanking fire on the enemy as he is approaching your ridge, but do not use all of them for that or try to keep it up very long, or you will just lose them. (Although it is a fine supplimental mission for e.g. 1 log bunker with MG).

Generally, you want the MGs farther back. The main options are wider out and lower down on the same slope as your main infantry position, or across the valley about half-way up the next ridge farther back. A poor-man's substitute for the last of those is down in th valley floors, if e.g. your map doesn't go back far enough.

Deployment on the back of the main slope has two drawbacks. One, it is generally easier for attackers to overrun you, and two, depending on the shape of your particular hill, the slopes may restrict their lines of sight. The benefits are that they can more easily reposition there after some early harassing shots on the approaching attackers, and that they will tend to hit the flanks of attackers trying to find away around your main mine-and-infantry "block" in the center of your position.

Then there is the other P.F. besides panzerfaust, this time Pak and Flak. I mean the light cannons that the German infantry will use to support and complete the defense. The rules for locating these are similar to those for machineguns. More attention has to be paid to what routes are practical for enemy vehicles, and it can also work to have 1-2 guns at the rear, outside corners of the main central infantry "block", to get some crossfire going with flanking MGs or guns, against people trying to go around instead of through, again.

How can you possible remember all of that? 4Ms and 2 PFs. (Mines, MP40s, Mortars, MGs, Panzerfausts, Pak&Flak). The German infantry system is nearly perfect for the "closed" defense, as those are some of their best weapons and they are cheap and abundant. And if the enemy manages to get through your closed defense and keeps the ridge your tried to hold? Then fall back half a kilometer and make him do it all over again.

What about the other terrain types I promised to mention, where some of the same ideas can apply? Very briefly, just hints to get your started thinking about them. It is not all the same, and there will be adaptation to the local terrain. But key ideas from the "closed defense" can still apply.

If you don't have a ridge, you might manage the same effect from a body of forest by defending inside the tree-line. Use the next clearing back as your substitute valley. It is harder to get the support of all your own heavy weapons in this version, but several aspects are the same - MP40s, mines, mortars e.g.

Or, you can use the buildings of a village as a poor-man's ridgeline, especially if there is any drop in the ground or block of woods breaking up long lines of sight, to help out. Treat the outer ring of buildings in the village as the "crest". Here the drawback is that the line-of-sight "block" is not perfect, because of the gaps between the buildings. Another item that is somewhat different in villages is that buildings are better protection against indirect artillery and mortar fire, but are more vunerable to aimed direct fire HE, and that has to be taken into account. So to break attackers that bunch up, you'll need some of that (like an assault gun, e.g.), not just mortars.

I hope this is interesting.

Addendum -

There is one aspect of using the "closed defense" in the basic, "reverse slope" fashion that I realize on review I haven't explained. I mentioned the ability of the mines to act as the defender's "shield", and went through the strength of the "block" against frontal attack, regardless of numbers. But the flexibility of the "closed" defense stems from those two things and a few other considerations, and I should have spelled that out.

When the attacker finds out how strong the front of the "block" is, he will often give up even trying to get through it. The mines urge him to "go around", and the reception the first men through ought to receive is often all the convincing the attacker needs. If he persists in frontal attacks, it is relatively easy to operate the defense as already explained and make him pay for it.

But the closed defense is not "undone" by anattacker's decision to go around. To see this, a principle from chess may halp. In chess, "overprotecting" a piece or square is a key tactics, and the idea is the mobility of each piece defending some vital spot, increases, when other pieces are available to help. They will do the job if say, this piece moves away, and therefore it can afford to.

Similarly, with a strong "block" ahead, the mobility of your infantry platoons is pretty darn good. One platoon can easily hold the block for some length of time against all but the most determined assault. So if the enemy decides to go around, the bulk of your force can manuever to counter them.

Say he comes around your left. Then the left-side platoon does a left face (gee that was hard), and the center platoon drops down the ridge and to the left, making a new "line" at 90 degrees to the original one. The right side platoon moves over to the center of the "block", which it guards well enough, while also being your little reserve.

When he comes over the crest on your left, then, he faces a full-strength infantry line from the crest to say half-way down the ridge. All your supporting heavy weapons and machineguns can open up on him from the ridge behind. If you have flanking MGs on the same ridge as your block, they will be behind him as he turns to fight your "block", when you choose to reveal them.

Another aspect of the closed defense also deserves mention in this connection. It is very hard for the attackers to keep track of where the defenders are. Unless attacking frontally and in strength, there will be little info about anything going on behind the minefields - some "infantry sounds" and such but little else.

To exploit this, the defender should shift his positions from time to time. One line of foxholes will be up by the crest, another set lower down for shelter (e.g. during your own barrages). But the men do not have to stay in the holes, either. Near them, sure. But the enemy "ID-ing" your foxholes should not mean he knows where you are.

The psychological effect you want, is that you own your side of the ridge, and can go where you like on it, and attackers than come over it get into deep trouble very fast. He can have his side. (Although, a stay-behind sharpshooter off on one flank isn't a bad idea...)

...

Sure, splitting squads to get 2 foxholes is a standard defense procedure. You can also get extra defense positions by incorporating some stone buildings into the defensive lines, without starting inside them.

For the scheme laid out, the most essential place for alternate foxholes positions is away from the crestline in the main "block". You want a second line of foxholes, farther down the slope, to shelter in when artillery is hitting the high part of the slope.

It also allows you to shift in reserves from the rear area support group, back up a weakening section of the block position, shift forces to one side or another to meet enemies trying to flank the block on one side, etc.

The PAK just hide. Choose your moment to open up manually, by coming off hide when you have an appropriate target. If you have already spotted a tank you want to kill, with other units, but it hasn't yet come into LOS of one of your PAK, then you can use an ambush marker where you expect it to move (range permitting).

Normally you want to avoid ambush markers because even infantry or light armor can spring them and reveal your heavy PAK, which then draw arty or mortar fire they can't reply to. But if you expect a "snapshot" at a full-fledged tank, briefly, then one can make sense.

If you have two companies, you can put the equivalent of one of them inside the block, while the other is spread over the support positions. Meaning, a platoon on each flank, the rest in the rear behind the block. The last then acts as your reserve for maneuver and counterattacks, and in the meantime can support the main ridge with rifles and LMGs when necessary.

There is little point in putting more than a company into a single block. If you have still more guys (e.g. a full battalion fight), do not bunch them up in one overstuffed or oversized block. That will just give the enemy a huge artillery target. You are better off duplicating the scheme side by side, with two blocks or more and sizable gaps between them.

You want your side of the ridge to include places the enemy might miss all your guys, altogether, if he drops artillery there. Remember it is hard for him to get intel about your side of the ridge. He doesn't know where you are. His few scouts only uncover pieces, and often get shot up or forced back.

If you also shift positions (e.g. close to the ridge, and farther back), the result can be that the enemy has only old reports about your location and doesn't know where to drop his arty. If you make one huge position, you will solve this problem for him, so don't. You want him probing over the ridge here and there, looking for gaps, and running into fire zones and ambushes.

If you have AFVs as well or instead of an infantry force, you can use some similar ideas, but things also change. A simple adaptation is putting Hetzers or StuGs where the PAK would be. Another idea is to put 2-4 AFVs behind the support position, with a reserve infantry platoon, and use them for counterattacks. In general, your tanks "live" either on the back ridge or just off the crest of it forward or back.

Forward, they remain hidden somewhat by the first ridge, but can fire at anything that crosses the crest. Back, and they can hunt up and down to the crest of the back ridge, to create and break LOS to the near side of the forward ridge. This can be a better reserve position at the begining, since you won't be spotted e.g. by his infantry and light armor scouts when they crest the first ridge. You only hunt up when you have a target.

The downside of the "back" position occurs when the second ridge is higher than the first. Then cresting it can expose you to enemies on high ground beyond your whole position, which is a bad thing. If the second ridge is higher, therefore, you may be better off on the forward side of the back ridge, to remain off the overall crest-line.

I hope this helps.

[Schoerner]

Thanks Jason - this is what i was looking for