River crossing

[xerxes]

I've both designed and just finished playing a river crossing scenario. 1 or 2 bridges, multiple fords. Defender has infantry/AT guns/wire. Not enough wire to cover every ford, but most of them. River runs the length of the map, you can't go around it.

Attacker is a combined arms force.

What are your strategies/tactics for breeching such a river position?

[Yggdrasill]

Can you post the map?

Need to see terrain (elevations and available cover), and need to know what the defending force is like.

If I had armor/vehicles, I might focus on one spot-probably a bridge, smoke it, lay suppressive artillery MG fire nearby, and rush across. Establish a beachhead, and then widen.

[Fionn]

No defence is strong everywhere.

Find the weak points and use your overall numerical superiority ( 1.5 to 1) to achieve massive material superiority at the 2 or 3 assault locations ( on the order of 4 or 5 to 1).

Break across, withstand the enemy counter-attack and then pincer a bridge.

Send tanks across the bridge once taken and proceed as per normal for an advance through normal terrain ( since the river-line is now broken).

Details are unimportant since your small-tactics workings won't decide whether you win or lose this scenario. What WILL determine it is whether your overall plan capitalises on the advantages an attacker in a river crossing gets.

Just my opinion of course and I'm sure Cawley, Austrian Strategist and Pillar will be along soon to tell you why I'm wrong .

[xerxes]

The scenario I just finished playing is at the scenario depot:

Episode II - Sunset Ridge

A nice reinforced batttalion scenario btw. Axis is attacking with lots of infantry, mgs, arty and pzIIs. Defender is mainly polish rifle backed up a fair number of AT guns. No piats.

Fionn:

The problem with scouting to find a point of weakness is how to do this when there is a river in front of you. Any scouting across the river will be driven back without the defender revealing hardly anything about their forces. Heck, even a pair of vickers will prevent a platoon from getting across a ford.

I'm more intrigued by what you said, "What WILL determine it is whether your overall plan capitalises on the advantages an attacker in a river crossing gets." I assume you're thinking of significant material superiority and a pretty good idea of where the defender will be. I can't think of any other advantage but then I might be missing something.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by xerxes:

/snip/ Episode II - Sunset Ridge

A nice reinforced batttalion scenario btw. Axis is attacking with lots of infantry, mgs, arty and pzIIs. Defender is mainly polish rifle backed up a fair number of AT guns. No piats.

Fionn....

I'm more intrigued by what you said, "What WILL determine it is whether your overall plan capitalises on the advantages an attacker in a river crossing gets." I assume you're thinking of significant material superiority and a pretty good idea of where the defender will be. I can't think of any other advantage but then I might be missing something.

BUMP...Fionn would you be so kind as to field this river x-ing question?

[Ozzy]

Recon with two or probably more Pz to locate the ATGs, neutralize them with arty. Might let you loose the two vehicles, but you have the chance to kill the ATGs.

Then divide enemy fire by sending one Platoon per ford and a fake attack with a stronger force on one bridge. Cover with smoke to draw enemy HW and arty fire attention to this location. Cover advance with HMGs. Then send the main body all ahead with Pz support (and smoke if still available) to the second bridge to achieve the breakthrough and establish bridgehead. Cross the tanks and engage them to draw enemy fire from fake attack unit. Withdraw fake attack unit and move it to the second bridge.

Proceed as normal attack.

Btw: as CO I would not consider to cross the river during day...

Btw: under the circumstances you describe defender would have TRPs (given he has arty support)on the bridges

[ June 19, 2002, 05:14 AM: Message edited by: Ozzy ]

[JasonC]

Actually Fionn, I will be along in a few minutes to agree with you. Using mass at one of the possible crossing locations is the main basis of the attack. The main thing I'd add is that deliberate firepower methods can work better at first than trying to maneuver large forces over the river proper. Mass just as Fionn says. Then execute a firepower attack. Don't smoke and rush.

A firepower attack differs from a shock or maneuver attack, in that you don't really care about getting on top of the enemy right away. You just want LOS to his locations, with a massive overwatch group. Then small elements probe.

Something fires at them - one fellow mentioned a pair of Vickers. Fine, so a pair of Vickers stops the lead platoon. The massive overwatch proceeds to annihilate the pair of Vickers. When they are as dead as doornails, probe again. Something else will fire this time. Blow the hell out of whatever it is.

Eventually the defenders will either (1) engage with all their available firepower to avoid gradual defeat-in-detail in hopeless few-on-many firefights in sequences or (2) avoid your overwatch firepower by sulking back into the interior of woods, back side of buildings etc or (3) sit still and run out of local shooters all together.

If (1), you have your firefight, across the stream. Win it with the odds you got by Fionn's overall point. If (2), you get lead elements across. Do not press. Have them fan out near the river exit, and drop artillery on the covered areas ahead of them the defender sulked back into. Cross more men, with the barrage ahead of you preventing the enemy from counterattacking while you are still weak on the other side.

When you are strong on the other side, begin attacking, as Fionn says along the river to hit a bridge from both sides of the river. Your overwatch shifting to cover that bridge from your side, if necessary. When you have the bridge you can cross vehicles and proceed with normal attacking methods.

Things to watch out for are enemy artillery concentrations after you have crossed the river but before you have gained much ground to fan out. Also, be wary of overusing smoke. You can easily mask your own overwatch, and leave your weak forward elements to face the whole enemy strength on the other side of the river alone. You want good LOS from your overwatch positions. You can still use smoke e.g. to engage only part of the defense at a time, while masking another part (particularly useful for AT guns).

So, mass at a point of main effort as Fionn says. And then don't try to jam large masses across the river in a short period of time. Instead, just get LOS - concentrate in firepower terms rather than physical proximity - and outshoot the defenders. While crossing a little at a time. I hope this helps.

[Ozzy]

Hmmm... Jason,

interestingly your solution is quite opposite to mine. I will try to play this scenario to see which one works.

But as I am a sneaky, gamey German I always tend to use unconventional methods, which are f.x. to use smoke not as cover but to distract enemy from my real axis of advance.

[xerxes]

It would be cool if ozzy and jasonc both played this scenario and related their AARs. Heck, both techniques might work.

In the "Sunset Ridge" scenario there is only one bridge and five fordable locations.

[Hoopenfaust2]

Fionn

When you do mass your forces for maximum firepower....what if it starts raining artillery (BIG) artillery. Thats what scares me about massing troops in one area for too long.

[Fionn]

Hoops,

Well, that's why you have to be good at moving quickly and silently. My opponents' in-game comments are often littered with "that platoon on your left I had never previously seen did a good job butchering my platoon last turn" etc. You HAVE to get good at getting units into place without being seen. IF you are seen then you are just begging to be arty'ed.

Use the natural cover well and you'll be amazed at how well you can move without being seen.

Ozzy,

What if the enemy CO uses TDs which have alternate positions and relocate to those positions after each kill. Any half-way competent opponent is going to have multiple interlocking and mutually supporting fire positions for his tanks/TDs and isn't going to kill from the same spot twice in a row.

Silvio, Xerxes,

What I meant was that, IMO, far too many CM players focus on how well they command a single squad or platoon etc. I, prefer, to focus on my overall Bn plan and rely on the soundness of my over-arching plan as opposed to the brilliance of any lower-level tactics.

If your overall plan stretches the enemy, forces him to over-commit and generally lets you see where he is whilst keeping a nice big "mailed fist" in reserve then so long as you are moderately tactically competent you should be able to win when you commit that mailed fist to breach an enemy weak point.

Does that make more sense?

Advantages:

1. The defender expects to really stop you at the crossings.

2. These crossings MUST be covered with direct fire... Through experience I know that arty ( no matter how large or how well TRP'ed) simply won't fully stop a crossing.

3. This direct fire can only come from a limited number of areas.

4. These limited areas are very easy to forecast if you can read terrain well.

5. You have LOTS of BIG ARTY .

6. You pound these limited firing areas with lots of your big arty as you race across ( whilst having filtered into position without being spotted).

7. By the time the enemy reacts ( 2 turns) you should be able to get 1 company across even a single ford.

8. As that company reaches the other side 1 platoon forms a firebase, the other 2 assault enemy platoon-sized positions ( which have been shattered by your arty fire).

9. The 2 platoons form a firebase and the 3rd platoon advances to assault another enemy platoon.

10. Within 4 minutes of initiating the crossing you SHOULD be able to have established a bridgehead up to 200 metres in diameter, protected by a company of infantry and multiple FOs on the other side of the river. Not only that but the local enemy defenders should be routed.

It is ALL about making the limited avenues of attack work to your advantage and not the enemy's.

Of course there are other things you can do but there's no need for me to give away all my insight for nothing

So, is the above helpful as a sort of "sketch" of what might be done in a certain situation.

[xerxes]

Pretty darn good answer Fionn, albeit incomplete since you're probably holding out on us.

And if the defender senses your plan and pulls back, well, you're across the river. So the attacker advantage is really knowing where the defence is likely to deploy. In a river crossing you can be pretty darn sure the defender is going to try stop you at the fords.

In many ways JasonC's and Fionn's approaches are shockingly similar. Dare I say they might even agree somewhat on this issue? Naah.

Given those were good answers, now what does the defender due to counter the massed firepower/scouting attack?

My answer, and the one I used in my battle was to carefully deploy my vickers to avoid the LOS of the supporting HE throwers and mgs. Basically I wanted to force the expenditure of arty on my spread out vickers while keeping my groundpounders out of the impact zone. I only move forward to engage when they were crossing in force. I didn't move a little forward, I moved a lot spread out to minimize arty.

My opponent took the smoke route which I believe helped me more than him. If he'd hit me hard with a lot of his arty the result would've been much more unpleasant.

My AT guns died at an alarming rate due to those PzII autocannons.

[Fionn]

Xerxes,

Actually if you read Cawley's post and mine more closely you will see that we break along attritionist vs manoeuvrist lines ( as always ).

He talks about putting the minimum number of troops across the river and using your arty to beat the enemy back and maintain the bridgehead/expand it. He also cautions about putting too many troops across.

I talk about putting a lot of troops across quickly and over-running enemy defenders using speed and shock to race in right after ( or in the midst of) your own artillery barrages. In my example arty support is welcome but the dash of the infantry company you put across is central to over-running the enemy defenders.

Cawley would expect arty to do his killing. I'd expect a lot of my troops to have blood on their bayonets. We might go "in" at the same places but we'd go in in very different manners.

Cawley's is a good mathematical in-game solution (as usual) IMO whereas I think mine capitalises on the psychology of real humans more ( as usual). His stratagem would be more succesful against a computer than mine. I think mine would be more succesful against living, breathing, fearing humans who can be beaten more easily by psychological manipulation than by simple number-toting ( IMO).

P.s. Re: stopping the enemy from crossing the river... I find that killing them en masse on THEIR side of the river works quite well. Historically the BEST way to defend a river is to prevent the enemy ever reaching it. Alexander, Hannibal, Napoleon and Clausewitz all knew this to be true and you can see this in action time and again in WW2.

[Wojtek]

Fionn

Originally posted by Fionn:

Historically the BEST way to defend a river is to prevent the enemy ever reaching it.

I found this statement interesting. Not being much of a military historian myself, can you think of any examples of successful river crossing defence (at the CMBO tactical level)? Or is it historically always all up if you let them get there?

[Fionn]

Wojtek,

Oh there are thousands of cases in which, at CM's level, defences of river lines succeeded without ever contesting the "far" bank.

OTOH, historically speaking, once the enemy has been given complete control over the far bank it is only a matter of time before he finds a hidden ford, or masses overwhelming force at a given point and forces his way across.

At the CM level anything is possible BUT there is a best way of doing things in most circumstances and then there are myriad ways of doing things which may sometimes work.

I prefer to go for the best general way of doing things .

FWIW Napoleon and Clausewitz at various times made mention of the desirability of holding the far bank of a river if one wished to prevent the enemy crossing. Even back in Roman times it was recognised that once the enemy held the far bank one could pretty much guarantee that they'd find SOME way across in the not too distant future.

A great example of this occurs in Hannibal's initial foray over the Alps and into Northern Italy. Some Roman forces tried to stop him at a river but ceded him the far bank. Suffice it to say that this proved entirely disastrous for these Romans

[Ozzy]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Ozzy,

What if the enemy CO uses TDs which have alternate positions and relocate to those positions after each kill. Any half-way competent opponent is going to have multiple interlocking and mutually supporting fire positions for his tanks/TDs and isn't going to kill from the same spot twice in a row.

Hey Fionn, you are completely true! They key is to recon which are enemy AT disposals! If it is (rather immobile) guns, well, some HE and arty do fine. If it is TD, well a problem on first sight. But forcing enemy to relocate his TDs offers the time slot to move your units to your desired positions or even to cross them.

Mutual support of enemy weapons is always a problem - independent of your tactics and enemy assets.

I do completely agree that your tactics can work as well and even perfect - actually I am currently playing a river crossing operation using almost YOUR tactic, as mine would not work due to terrain (two bridges in enemy controlled town :mad: , and one outside the town - which would you use for the major thrust...?)

But if we speak about two single bridges in the open (plus maybe some fords), I personally would use the one I described.

[Fionn]

" But forcing enemy to relocate his TDs offers the time slot to move your units to your desired positions or even to cross them. "

And if your opponent is any good whatsoever he ALWAYS has one TD overwatching the area of the moving TD. TDs work in pairs. One fires, kills the enemy and then relocates while the other overwatches the area and kills anything which tries to take advantage of the "gap" in coverage . Any good player will do that.

As re: which bridge:

One of the ones in the town. It'll be unexpected and people are usually very poor at cityfighting. Mass a few tanks and some MGs and you can get across most village bridges quite easily. The unexpectedness is your biggest friend so you have to be fast IMO.

[JasonC]

Yes, Fionn's solution and mine differ as shock and fire. I am not so committed to fire methods that I never recommend shock, I just happen to think that defended river crossings call for fire methods on the tactical level.

That means arty yes - even Fionn's shock relies on that to suppress the defenders during the actual crossing - but also on overwatch direct fire. The tanks, MGs, mortars, etc on the friendly bank engage enemy targets on the far side of the river, as those open up to stop the crossing scouts, or (if the scouts aren't molested) as the scouts find them.

What really makes one shock and the other fire, though, is the "gradualism" of my solution, as opposed to the "all at once" of his. He wants his artillery to perform mostly a suppression role, which does have something to recommend it, because it is easier to suppress the enemy for one short period with the same total applied firepower. On the other hand my solution extends the firing time available to the attackers, and thus the overall level of firepower that can be delivered to support the crossing attempt.

The reason I don't pick the shock action version, though, is the chokepoint nature of the fords or bridges themselves. In my experience, a good defender can, if he only needs to focus on such a limited number of points, put in some sort of area effect weapon at each. And overloading area effect weapons with local odds tends not to work. More sent increases the butcher's bill, rather than overwhelming the defenders. To overwhelm with local numbers the attackers need "access" to the defenders, and most of the defender's assets need to be "local" (nearby maneuver elements that your own massed force can clobber with their replies).

Take an extreme example to illustrate the point. Suppose just on the far side of every ford there is a TRP, and a 40 meter deep AP minefield over the whole breadth of exit from the ford. Able to fire on any of the TRPs on one minutes notice, there are 3 modules of artillery, 105mm or above. These FOs are far from the fords, with LOS needed for fire within one minute and no LOS still allowing fire within two minutes.

In such a situation, you can't suppress the FOs with your artillery. You can't outshoot the minefields. The time it would take engineers to clear the mines, even the more distant FOs without LOS would have shells down in an accurate pattern on and just across the ford. If you have a whole company crossing in that minute, will the added manpower defeat flying HE, or mines? No. Against one platoon covering the ford by fire 100 meters away, on the other hand, momentary artillery suppression and massed crossers will work fine.

If the defenders are all local and can be suppressed, mass can work. To me it is high risk, though, because of the possibility of area effect defenses at chokepoints. (Including "on the fly counter-massing" by artillery). Yes, defending artillery could be registered with the firepower approach to. But it does not get a tightly massed target. It can dump its shells back on the overwatch shooters on the far bank. But not forever. Mines might be encountered by the first crossers in the firepower approach. But only a limit number of men are exposed if this happens, and then engineers try to clear the mines, with overwatch shooting anyone shooting at them, etc.

I can give an example of what sometimes happens to shock attacks that encounter such defenses, in less skilled hands. I've seen a full company of infantry directly on my only TRP, with 120mm mortar FO targeted, and the time remaining reading 1 second. The next minute that battle was practically over. The cause was simply the fact that I predicted a main avenue of advance at set up, and planned my whole defense around an artillery trap "kill sack" at that point. (It was also covered by direct 150mm sIG and on two sides by infantry).

Fionn is right that unpredictability or non-detectibility in movements is key to avoiding such things, and no doubt he is very good at it, and it helps shock methods succeed. But when there are 3 fords, the defender's task in figuring out where the slinking attackers are going to pop out is considerably simplified. It will be right here, or right here, or right there.

On defending river crossings, there are two points, one mostly reinforcing and explaining Fionn's about defending by holding the far bank, one a slight counterexample, especially applicable on the tactical rather than the operational level.

First, understand why the idea of holding the far bank makes sense. It does not simply mean holding the entire length of the front without the aid of the river. It means keeping bridgeheads on the far side, including at all the easiest crossing points. This makes passage of the river, and thus fighting on either side of it, easy for the defender and hard for the attacker - even if he crosses someplace harder. If pressed, the defender can retreat out of the bridgehead and blow the bridges. If not pressed, he can sortie along the river bank on the far side. Or if the enemy gets a modest force across somewhere, on the near side in a counterattack.

The principle involved is uniting the defenders by superior mobility. While the attackers will be divided by the river line in the act of crossing. Not all of them are going to cross at once. And you can hit the portion on either side of the river. In pre-modern times, with point-like armies, it was especially feasible to hit on the far side of the river with the entire force (there were no "fronts").

The other point is the tactical semi-exception, which is really in a way an application of the same maneuver-concentration logic. The idea is simply to let the attacker get modest forces across, because indeed you can't stop that everywhere (especially at loops in the river, etc). But then counterattack him while his room to deploy and forces across are limited.

This can work by dislocating combined arms, if e.g. he can only get infantry and not yet get tanks over the river. If the room is limited, it can work by area fire multipliers (drop arty on a contained bridgehead, and the more attackers are across the more they lose to each shell). In open enough ground and small enough areas, such effects are created even by MG and infantry fire.

The broader point is that the defender needn't just sit on his side of the river with 1/n of his force opposite each of n possible crossing sites, waiting for the attack to pick one and overpower him. Set traps, counter-concentrate with artillery fires or reserves delivering counterattacks before too much gets across at one point, etc.

To illustrate this point about defenses, consider the follow alternatives as portions (not all, certainly) on a defender's assets to contest a crossing. Option one is an additional infantry company with heavy weapons, say US rifle or German Pz Gdr. Option two is registered artillery and mines - 9xAP minefield, 3xTRP, Germans 2x105 or 120, 1x150 FO, Americans 2x105 or 155 FO. The cost is about the same, 500 odd points.

To defend 3 sites, option one gives each one extra platoon and 2 extra support weapons. (Extra because other defenders are assumed to be present at each, regardless). Option two puts a string of 3 AP mines around each ford exit, plus a TRP. The FOs can have LOS to 1-2 fords each, and of course can fire accurately on any of the TRPs without observation, and the cost of 45-60 seconds of additional delay.

The arty and mines alone could not defend the crossing sites. But the infantry and pair of heavy weapons are easier to predict as to location, suppress momentarily at the time of crossing, and to overwhelm with mass on the other side. If a defender's scheme is based on the infantry company, either method can work, and Fionn's may even work better and more quickly (executed well, of course). Against the area-effect reinforced defense, however, a shock attack could get badly burned. It is my wariness about this sort of counter that make me prefer the slower but to me surer means of a firepower based attack.

[ June 24, 2002, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Fionn]

My response to Cawley is rather salacious .

It goes as follows "Different strokes for different folks" . IOW, whatever works for you. What makes tactics and strategy so interesting is that the number of solutions is limited only by the imaginations of the various commanders.

Anyone who tells you there is a single, best solution is to be suspected IMO.

P.s. I find it difficult to believe I have reason to say this but kudos to Jason for being quite open to differing approaches in this thread (and presenting some well-thought out points in a very clear manner). Without casting "blame" anywhere I'd like to say that if more tactics threads were like this then tactics-grogs would probably post more to a lot more of them.

[ June 24, 2002, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[JasonC]

I will second the notion that "if more tactics threads were like this" we would all be better off.

[Fionn]

So, would you be interested in discussing ways to make this happen ( via email)?

[JasonC]

You can always email me. I'll always listen and you will always hear what I think I can't promise more than that...

[Fionn]

*chuckle* Well you could promise civility in telling me what you think .

Fair enough though. I'll drop you an email over the next few days and see what happens.

[Ozzy]

Originally posted by Fionn:

" But forcing enemy to relocate his TDs offers the time slot to move your units to your desired positions or even to cross them. "

And if your opponent is any good whatsoever he ALWAYS has one TD overwatching the area of the moving TD. TDs work in pairs. One fires, kills the enemy and then relocates while the other overwatches the area and kills anything which tries to take advantage of the "gap" in coverage . Any good player will do that.

As re: which bridge:

One of the ones in the town. It'll be unexpected and people are usually very poor at cityfighting. Mass a few tanks and some MGs and you can get across most village bridges quite easily. The unexpectedness is your biggest friend so you have to be fast IMO.

hmmm.... actually, you will never find a situation where there is NO resistance or AT fire, at least not against competent opponents. But if he (what we assume) has deployed his AT assets in such way that they can fire with a certain angle to achieve side penetrations, AND firing from different angles, it is an advantage to force one TD to relocate. This way you can concentrate your fire on the other one having a reasonable chance to be secure from enemy fire from the first TD for at least some moments.

Funny: I would have chosen the bridge in the open ground for the same reasons you mention. It appears to be easily defensible, while HMGs, Schrecks/PIAT/Zooks, Flamethrower and lots of halfsquads hidden in houses can give you a kind of troublesome day in the city. Scattered trees and brushes close to the bridge can perfectly harbour small ATGs, handheld AT and HMGs, and with some additional tanks/TDs behind the houses you can stop river crossings in the village.

Meanwhile, in the open, I can bring my full support to bear on enemy resistance lines.

[Fionn]

Well Ozzy, I guess it'd just be decided by comparing who had more success with their river crossing tactics.

IMO open terrain on a river crossing works in favour of the defender and that's why I'd go for the city. You differ. I guess it comes down to what works for each person and then which approach proves more succesful over several dozen games.