Fionn's latest AAR at MODs & MODers:

[Fionn]

Chris,

I believe you probably need to expand your gaming beyond that one person. No matter how good someone is you will soon learn how to beat them by taking advantage of their style. Then, when you go out into the outside world you'll find yourself losing to people your original opponent always beat.

Why? Simple, you've learnt to beat one person's style of play instead of actually learning basic tactics, co-ordination and all the fundamental building blocks onto which the fancy stuff like doctrine and grand tactics fit.

As to your question re: Soviet doctrine.

Close: Ideally the first company would not only stave in the enemy FSE but would make contact with and recon the enemy MLR with fire. If things are going great then it might even pin large portions of it although this is rare... unless the 1st company is supported by lots of arty just waiting for the grid references of confirmed enemy positions.

2nd company would be tasked with the 3rd company's role.

3rd company would have the job of exploiting the break-in and creating the ground conditions for a break-through ( which would, traditionally, be carried out by the regiment's 2nd Bn... which would be sitting 2 kms or so behind the assaulting Bn). The 3rd company's job would be to either:

a) defeat the enemy mobile reserves ( enemy tank groups held back for counter-attack),

defeat any enemy 2ndary line of resistance behind the MLR. ( this is why so much American doctrine consists of trying to get the Soviets to commit the 2nd and 3rd echelons to fight the enemy FSE. If you can get a Soviet force to commit its main punch to your FSE your FSE ( being highly mobile) can withdraw and let the Soviet punch land on thin air. Then, when the Soviets advance more and hit your REAL MLR they aren't organised properly to land a really concentrated, hard push.

You can see this on a small scale in Bn-level actions on the Eastern Front and on the larger scale when the German commander opposite the central Soviet thrust in 1944 ( Bagration) wanted to hold his main force 15 to 25km back from his current front line trace so that the enemy attack, when it came, would fall on thin air and be thoroughly disorganised by the time it hit his MLR.

He judged that while he forces were weak they were strong enough to defeat a disorganised Soviet punch ( landing outside of arty range of supporting arty .. hence the distance) they weren't strong enough to defeat an organised Soviet punch which found the Germans exactly where it expected them.

If you read NATO doctrine with a view to thinking in these terms it will make a lot more sense than it sometimes does. At least that's my experience from trying to explain it to people prior to this.

Well, ideally, I'd roll the FSE back, sit still for the night, bring up my heavy weapons, probe enemy strongpoints, gain a really great idea of the enemy front line trace, infiltrate units into his rear areas along likely routes of retreat and then, when the morning came I'd have all my infantry hidden in cover and dips in the ground near his line ( they'd have snuck into these positions during the night using their own patrols as cover and maskirovka). I'd hit the enemy positions with a lot of DF HE and have my heavy weapons company open fire on portions of the enemy line to the left and right and rear of my pre-selected break-in sector.

I'd drop smoke all around the break-in sector and then assault it with 5 or 6 times the infantry defending that sector ( I'm envisioning a 2 company assault on a 1 platoon sector here) while my arty fired HE to the flanks and rear... prevent reinforcements rushing to reinforce the threatened sector... and smoke to prevent HMGs and FOs off to the flanks and rear from shooting at my assault companies.

I'd exploit the breach seeking to convince the enemy to fall back to his 2ndary defensive line since this one was proving untenable. My 3rd company would be lying in wait behind one of his flanks and as his troops retreated I'd spring an ambush on them.

With his centre broken, 1 flank in dissaray and too few troops left to hold the 2ndary line I'd call my regimental HQ and tell the CO to committ the 2nd Bn immediately. The unexpected ambushes behind his own lines would severely rattle the enemy CO and so I could begin the pursuit phase with little fear.

That would be for operations and campaigns and suchlike though. In CM on the attack I think that, if you want speed, you are better off dropping the heavy weapons company since there is no long-term timescale available and no greater context. There is only those 30 to 40 minutes. That's just my view though. Dozens will tell you everything I say is wrong so you have to decide what worth to give it yourself.

re: suitable arty support:

Depends on the army really and the role of the Bn and the time period. In 1941 a Soviet infantry Bn would be lucky to have ANY arty support with artillery. In 1944 a Bn spearheading a divisional assault could be supported by 60+ guns and hundreds of rocket rails.

Also, don't forget that since CM is a game in which units are purchased for points they have had to standardise ammo loadouts. So, a 120mm FO gets 50 rounds, 12.5 per tube. In reality instead of 4 x 120mm FOs you would often have 1 x 120mm FO ( 4 tubes) but each tube would have 50 rounds available... making a total of 200 rounds per battery.

So, it is better to talk in terms of artillery shells employed.. or, to be honest about it, better to talk in terms of total weight of shell ( with a little modifier for the non-linear increase in effect of blast as blast increases).

In a competitive game I always max out my purchases. Why gift someone an extra advantage?

I know what you are saying though. In a current challenge game against Hiram Sedai which features a 5400 point German attack against a 3600 point Allied defence (I'm the Allies) I had all the forces I felt were essential by 2000 points. So I just used the extra 1600 points to create redundancy amongst my FOs and vehicles etc.

Thomas,

Can you send it to Chris for me please? Chris, comments welcome.

Don,

THANK YOU very much. Nice comments like that are all too rare and much appreciated.

P.s. DAMN you are old time . Just checked out your "recent posts". Wow, brought back some memories Alpha AAR threads etc .

[**YK2**]

Spot the Poolers

[PawBroon]

Now that's what I call Creative BUMPing love.

First four are easy...

Next 5 Turns of that AAR to be posted this week end.

[crivaroc66]

Hi Fionn,

Thanks for the quick reply.Lots of good stuff as usual.

Would you recommend the Nafziger collection being offered now at BFC? I'm interested in the Soviet stuff, but the others as well. Already talked my wife into "the need" for the new books, so...if they are as good as the book I have from G.F. Nafziger on Napoleon's invasion of Russia...I'm sold.

Your thoughts?

Thanks

Chris

[Fionn]

My best answer is that I mention Glantz, Nafziger and Simpkin in the same breath .

IOW, yeah, very good.

FWIW I'd also create a forum thread asking for links to WW2 AARs, and "Lessons Learned" publications. Some of these deal with the Eastern Front and are very interesting...

My policy is always to recommend free sources first since I know people dont' have bottomless pockets. Still, if the free sources don't satisfy you and you DO have the money available then I would highly recommend Nafziger. He's a thorough guy who understands what he presents.

[**YK2**]

FWIW it took me at least 3mins to work out what that meant. Still trying with the IOW though.

:confused:

Still goes to show I'm not just a bumper I do read those posts....

[Fionn]

Oops.

IOW = In other words.

As re: nafziger... Yes, he's VERY good . Hope that's clearer for the less groggy amongst us

[Kallimakhos]

Naturally, this excellent topic challenges one to think how to have at least a chance to beat Fionn style Soviet doctrine attack.

Here's one theoretical suggestion. Let's suggest infantry only, battallion+ level for simplicity. What you need to do is slow down the recon screen, make the attacker commit his main body as early as possible, and most importantly make him guessing and frustrated. The way to do this could be defence in depth, getting tougher all the time.

1. Outposts for gathering intell and capable of ambushing a half squad or two. Important not to reveal strength. Keep him guessing.

2. Strongpoints that can ambush or hold platoon or even a company, close to the outposts to make flanking the outposts risky. Important not to reveal strength. Keep him guessing.

1 & 2. Surprise and slow him down. I repeat slow him down. That, if anything will make him frustrated.

3. MLR, MLR in depth or no MLR at all. Create positions crosswise to the front line to contain the breach and avert the attemps to roll your flanks. Keep a local reserve. Important not to reveal strength. Keep him guessing.

4. Reserve for immediate counterattack. Important not to reveal strength. Keep him guessing.

The most important thing is that every level and all positions can support each other, give covering fire for retreating units, avert flanking attempts etc. Nothing should be totally isolated and every level of defence should be able to cause more casualties than they suffer in every thinkable alternative.

MLR should be optional, defender could have one or not, if not just strongpoints in depth supporting each other. But the main key is the reserve. Fionn will reach your main positions where he wants to no matter what, and your best chance is that your forward positions and defence positions have attrited his troops and demoralized them and their commander enough to launch a succesfull counter attack. Try to take prisoners, he really hates that while on attack .

Thumb rule in allocating your troops should be roughly: 1/3 to forward screen and forward strongpoints; 1/3 to MLR or it's equivalent; 1/3 to reserve. Be creative and flexible. Play with his mind (utilize the huge Ego ), do the unexpected. In the end what will really count is reading the map and guessing and counter quessing your opponents plans, then forgetting all of this and creating the system that is most flexible and can react to everything you can imagine and not imagine.

As a matter of fact, this is pretty close to the Finnish tactics, which were fairly succesfull agains Russian attacks, I think is safe to say. Historically, between attacking Russians and defending Finns the decisive phase was the allways the counterattack, if that succeeded, the positions held one more day, if not, start thinking about retreating on the whole front. The importance of counterattack is shown by the fact that best men were allways reserved for the counterattack. Crack or elite if available, in practise ad hoc sturmgruppen, who ever was available not dead, wounded or panicked. When you think the time is right, don't hesitate to throw in everything you got, this is your one and only chance to turn the tide.

Last, congratulate Fionn when he beats you no matter what and learn from your defeat .

If I remember right, Fionn teaches rather similar defensive tactics in some of his AAR's. I'm not claiming to be original.

Anyway, this is how I plan to face Fionn when we get CMBB and can try Russians against Finns with the historical troops to suit dogmas. I'll delay my challenge to that date, whenever that may be. I expect not to get many chances to play the greatest, so why not to make the best of it? .

[Kallimakhos]

One trick came to mind. The historical example is large scale, but the same principles hold, and I believe this is something Fionn would love to do.

This happened in the middle phase of the Tali-Ihantala battle. The enemy has broken your lines at one point according to best Soviet tactics with three guards divisions, and is hoping and trying to manouvre deep and fast. Other parts of the front are engaged, still holding but not for long certainly, soon they face the threat of getting surrounded. What do you do? Though heavily outnumbered, you throw in your all and best reserves and do a pincer attack on the breach hole, leaving only mediocre troops to hold the enemy advance towards north.

What happened was not motti, the two arrowheads from east and west got 1km from each other but not further, so no Stalingrad here. It was very slimm chance from the beginning, attacking with very limited number of battallions against overwhelming enemy, main parts of a guards army, and at the same time as the attack was halted the Soviet divisions broke out to north, forcing the remaining Finnish troops to retreat to next MLR.

Yet it was decive for the outcome of the whole Tali-Ihantala battle. For many days the guards army was contained in a very small area, 2x5 km, packed tight and suffering heavy casualties from artillery and air attacks. More than this, it was a huge demoralizing blow to the Soviet leadership, their elite forces facing a real threat of getting surrounded by lesser forces. They were forced to remember Cannae and Suomussalmi, and were not so bold in their later attacks. Of course this is far from the whole picture, there were of course many other factors, esp. Finnish artillery, but I believe this example might be of interest for this discussion. I believe this is one very good example of psychological effects, which might very well work also on CM scale, or what do you think Fionn?

Strategically the counterattack bought time to prepare new positions, get the new reserves and especially new AT weapons from Germany to the front, when at the same time the race for Berlin was beginning and Soviet troops were soon needed elsewhere. Finland stayed independent.

[ June 16, 2002, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]

[Fionn]

" The most important thing is that every level and all positions can support each other, give covering fire for retreating units, avert flanking attempts etc. Nothing should be totally isolated and every level of defence should be able to cause more casualties than they suffer in every thinkable alternative. "

Sounds a lot like what the Soviet and German militaries on the Eastern Front often tried to teach their officers to do .

IOW, another case of CM players independently arriving at the sorts of things professionals did in real life 60-some years ago.

Your points are certainly valid but, as always, there are counters to everything and so a defensive belt set up along those lines would simply be countered differently.. It wouldn't be impregnable. Still, good thinking though.

[**YK2**]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Oops.

IOW = In other words.

As re: nafziger... Yes, he's VERY good . Hope that's clearer for the less groggy amongst us

Thanks Fionn that is now CAAB

[PawBroon]

Turns 21 to 25 are now available.

I guess after all that build up, that bigger and bloodier movies were to be expected...

[**YK2**]

*Beam me up Scotty*

[EricS.]

Seeing that bevy of m8's and four crack hellcats crest the ridge all at once with artillery support is now going to give me nightmares, and I won't sleep until I know what can be done about such a thing (short of force restrictions). AA guns? forward deployed atg's? armor reserve? in short, what mix of tactics and equipment could stop this onslaught?

And another question, why are the hellcats burning it up down the flank rather than getting hulldown on the ridge, as I would have presumed they would? to get the atg's confused and turning about uselessly from one target to the next (which did happen)? to avoid artillery hits on soft armor? to hit while on the move? I'm full of questions.

Eric

[Fionn]

EricS,

The key to a good attack is that by the time it is committed it should be unstoppable. So, what could have stopped it, a different strategy on Warren's part. And if he'd done that then I'd have attacked differently etc etc.

As to why they aren't going hull-down? Umm, I thought I was pretty clear that they are going to engage the enemy mobile reserve? THAT is your answer.

Oh and FWIW I think the search for a perfect weapons balance is illusory and a waste of time. If you have a good overall plan and some ok tactics you should be able to succeed irrespective of the weapons given.

[**YK2**]

[PawBroon]

Thanks Emma.

That's what I call a Seriously Graphic BUMP.

[Specs]

Bimp. Wait, no -- that's not right.

Bomp. Hmmm... No, but I should probably file that away for use as a sound effect next time I'm doing color commentary for a play-fight with a child or pet.

Bump. Yes, there it is. Always the last vowel you try, y'know?

Bump. Bumper-umperoo. A little thumpa-bumpa...

Any chance we're ever gonna see the end of this thing? I don't know about you, sports fans, but I'd like to see how it all came out.

[Fionn]

The end files etc are in Marcel's hands.

When he gets the time I'm sure he'll post it... OR when he gets a reminder (in case he's forgotten ).

[Caesar]

Fionn, I've just finished reading the AAR (it was very helpful by the way). Form what I read, you seem to ram home the lessons time and time again about recon and high mobility. This seems to make sence though I don't seem to be particularly good at either at the moment. However I got to thinking - How much are the changes in CMBB going to affect this style of play. Will not the increased effects of the MGs give a defender much better chances of slowing you down cheaply as well as denying you some of your recon. Does the extreme FOW and deny you alot of your recon abilities. It seems to me (and I am operating under a whole heap of assumptions here as I have not yet seen CMBB) that a couple of reasonably well placed MGs could suppress your scouting troops and arty would then have time to anhiliate them. A defence in depth (which the bigger maps should allow), I would have thought, is going to be a much tougher proposition. Finding and removing AT defences and infantry guns would seem to be a much tougher proposition as well. If I recall correctly, you are one of the beta testers, have the changes affected your style of attacking or the efficacy of it?

[**YK2**]

Because ** I Love You **

[Fionn]

Caesar,

I am a more effective CM:BB player because ALL of what I do is rooted in real-world tactics from the time period of the Second World War.

I am absolutely mystified at how people can keep asking me this question and imply that my tactics are somehow "gamey" when they are really nothing more than Tukhachevsky's ideas from 1936 writ large within the parameters of the CM game system.

IF the Purges hadn't occured in 1938 etc the Soviet Army would have gone to war using these tactics. Now, unless you want to condemn the whole Soviet Army as "gamey" I don't see how you could see my tactics as gamey...

THAT point is important since the whole gist of the issue is that CM:BB rewards more realistic play over unrealistic play ( the few tanks, hordes of close-in infantry etc combinations) and therefore it is simple common sense, IMO, to infer that while some others who rush positions with SMGs over open ground with wild abandon in an unrealistic manner will fare worse in CM:BB tactics rooted in the Red Army's 1936 doctrine review should actually gain in effectiveness.

As to whether things will be slowed down a bit etc etc. Well, in reality crossing open ground was often slowish work BUT anyone who places his HMGs forward to contest the recon battle is almost surely condemning them to death once the forward screen has to displace. HMGs find their main role in support of the MLR.

Anyways, REAL TACTICS work better in CM:BB. So, I find everything working much better for me than it does in CM:BO.

As to extreme FOW:

No, it has no such effect. If you can't put 2 and 2 together without being told it equals 4 then you shouldn't be playing CM:BB . What I mean by that is that if you run into roughly a platoon's worth of FP and you assault the position the fire is coming from and leave 6 or so enemy team unit markers dead on the ground then it doesn't take a genius to figure out you've overrun an enemy platoon. Not being able to click on an eliminated team to see that it does, indeed, contain 5 dead men isn't any barrier to intelligent deduction.

So, 1936 Soviet doctrine applies well to CM:BB ( as it should). Since that's what I demonstrated here it would apply well also.

[Caesar]

Fionn

I never doubted the reason for your effectiveness nor did I attempt to imply that you were gamey. I fact I reworded my post about three times to avoid appearing to do that and probably in so doing reduced its clarity. I think it is a little unfair to assume the worst of me when this is the first time that I have ever spoken/written/whatever to you.

In fact, I was merely trying to elicit answers to some questions that I had after reading your AAR. I currently could not be decribed as either a manouverist or attritionist or any other 'ist' that I might not of heard of. This probably explains my lack of success which I am trying to rectify.

I was interested in knowing if forward placed MGs could/would suppress and hurt the scouting attempts in CMBB - from what I've read their effects sound quite devastating.

The FOW question did not relate to not being able to tell whether the opponent is dead or not, but rather the difficulty of not being able to know the terrain as well as before and not being able to see guns fire as well as before. Does this have to result in more losses or can you do something to counter it?

Hmmm - Having just re-read my post,

...have the changes affected your style of attacking or the efficacy of it?

In hindsight this is badly worded and does not really say what I meant it to - sorry. When I wrote it I was thinking of the AAR much more specifically than general style of attacking - the question should really have reflected this i.e. would these changes in CMBB have affected your methods in this particular case or the efficacy of it in this particular case.

For future reference - I don't bother with implying things or having underlying meanings etc. If I thought something was gamey, wrong or whatever and I was motivated enough to post about it, I would state it expicitly.

[Fionn]

Caesar,

I think if you read my post I was quite clear that I was speaking in general. I assumed nothing but a little bit of naivety on your part, certainly no malice. If you wish to assume that I saw something else etc etc then that's your business.

I was speaking IN GENERAL about some very questionable assumptions and conclusions I see many people on this forum drawing ( and from your post it seemed you drew them also). Simple.

FWIW I think the whole maneouvrist/attritionist thing is the biggest load of tactical BS ever inflicted on this forum on such a large scale. It is stupid, rather meaningless and has just led to a lot of people who are closed-minded arguing the toss and defending positions ( on both sides) which are so fundamentally flawed as to be laughable. It has also led people to paint themselves and others as one or the other. This is BS.

Both are arrows. A good player should have MANY types of arrow in his quiver.A player who limits himself to one is going to be a crap player from now until the end of time. A player who not only limits himself to one type of play but actively berates all other forms ( often without understanding them or being able to apply them) is .... well, I'd get banned if I told you how utterly stupid I thought they really were.

MGs. MGs will pin infantry more now. Will this devastate the scouting effort? Nope, not if it is properly commanded. Since RL recon efforts HAD to counter HMGs which had effects very close to those in CM:BB anyone using RL recon tactics should find them working very well in CM:BB. It is all to do with increasing the realism of the series so that real tactics work even more effectively and gamey loopholes are closed.

My recon in CM:BB is still quite good so I am definitely the wrong person to ask about not seeing ATGs. In a current game I've spotted 2 x ATGs which opened fire 500+ metres away from me after their first shot. Others are finding difficulty spotting ATGs after half a dozen shots are fired. The difference, I presume my recon is better than theirs.

I would have done the exact same thing in CM:BB and would expect it to work even better since CM:BB is a superior game and my methods are more rooted in RL than they are in any attempt to optimise for a given iteration's engine. That is the best answer you're going to get from anyone IMO and is really very clear ( although it may not seem so until you get the game ).

P.s. I say what I mean and mean what I say also so I assure you that's all I read in your post first time round. When I used the word "imply" I was speaking in general, NOT specifically referring to your post.

[Caesar]

Fionn

Thankyou, I'm glad that's cleared up. There is far too much invective spoiling good topics nowadays.

Back to my MG question, how do you go about dealing with them when they are used to suppress your scouts. If you are trying to move very fast so as to maintain your shock effects, I can't see how mortars are going to keep up (at the speeds I advance at normally, this would have been my first thought). I read in one of your posts (it may even have been this AAR) that you prefer to keep your tanks hidden until you have located his AT defences so DF doesn't seem to be the answer. What are the RL methods of dealing with them? Oh and if you are wondering about my monomania with respect to MGs, I have recently got pretty badly chewed up by them in a game - and that's in CMBO!

[ July 15, 2002, 03:26 AM: Message edited by: Caesar ]