River crossing

[JasonC]

Actually, I think it is easier than that, to see where the different opinions of open vs. built up crossing sectors come from. Fionn wants to cross by shock action, hopefully with an element of surprise. He is not relying on overwatch (though artillery will suppress the defenders at the moment of crossing). He wants to move a large force over the river quickly.

Extensive cover near the crossing site on both sides (as in a village) will give his large crossing force a place to shelter before the rush, and places to occupy on the far side once across. The more cover there is, the less likely it is that there are defenders in each piece of it.

His fire plan is based on suppressing defenders in a limited area right around the crossing point, so restricting the LOS lines of defenders to the crossing point is essential. He wants the relevant defenders to all be local maneuver forces he can overwhelm with local odds. He wants the battle tightly localised on the crossing site, because that is the place he intends to arrange to highest odds ratio.

All of these things are quite different in a firepower based attack. There the reliance is on overall odds, and specifically on ranged overwatch firepower. The attacker wants all of his ranged firepower integrated, in the sense of all sharing wide LOS to most possible defender locations. That the defender will also have wide LOS is not a problem, since the idea is to outshoot all the defenders who reveal themselves, at range, through use of overall, not just local, odds.

Limited cover near the crossing site does not matter much if the crossers are initially only going to be a few scouts. Limited cover will mean access to the defenders by overwatch, and also limit the numbers directly opposite the site. If any defenders are massed there, they are a perfect artillery target. Most of the defenders will have to be relatively far from the crossing site, since they require cover absolutely. That can give scouts a chance to get across to go looking for them.

For a shock action, you want a localised battle against only a portion of the defending force. For a fire action, you want maximum integration of the whole attacking force. Incidentally, the order of these relations can easily and sensibly be reversed. That is, if you are given open terrain, use fire. If you are given closed terrain, use shock.

For what it is worth.

[Redwolf]

What happens if the attacker meets an artillery battery? Something like 6 105mm howitzers.

They are of course vulnerable to artillery and mortar fire, but before that happens the attacker must spot them, which realistically happens only after they fire. So the defender could certainly divide the attacker's force by letting the first elements through and eliminating some layer afterwards. Subsequently 2 guns could continue to threaten the bridge and 4 to eliminate units already crossed, or other units in LOS on the far side.

It appears to me that the shock approach is vulnerable to deception. What if the idiotic looking first defense is only meant to be broken through, into the guns?

What if the guns are set up so that they have LOS only to their half of the bridge and their side, but not to the attacker's side? What happens to the long-range firepower?

[ June 26, 2002, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[JasonC]

"the shock approach is vulnerable to deception"

To a degree, any attack is. It does put more eggs in one basket, it is true. But then it tries to pick the point of attack in a spot unexpected, if possible. If the defender has elaborate traps laid, can he lay them at every location? Then you get 3-card monty - pick the wrong ford and you get hurt, otherwise it can work.

The limited number of possible routes of attack is one reason I like fire methods for crossings. If there are many fords, though, it starts getting similar to a fight without a river. In fights without a river, shock can still get burned if the attack is too predictable and blunders into a kill sack - unless scouts trip that too soon and let the main body avoid it. Shock wants surprise, and the easier the prediction job (as to route) the easier it is to create such nasty reception committees.

"What if the guns are set up so that they have LOS only to their half of the bridge and their side, but not to the attacker's side? What happens to the long-range firepower?"

That is a useful tactic, akin to "reverse slope", for all defenses. It is particularly useful against a firepower based attack, because it exploits the physical seperation between the overwatch back on the other side of the river, and the forward scouting or maneuvering elements on the near side.

But it is not a panacea, because it has counters. For instance, if you try to use a particularly narrow LOS ("keyhole sighting") to hit only the crossing area, you also make it relatively easy to take that shooter out of the battle with a few smoke rounds, e.g. from light mortars or fired by tanks. Firepower attacks have time for such things, because few units are exposed at first.

As for shock, the idea is just to get out of that area and into the enemy positions as rapidly as possible. Anything close to the crossing exit areas is suppressed by arty just before. And those areas are meant to be rushed within a couple of minutes of that fire lifting. But sure, if you have a platoon or more right at the ford the moment a distant, previously unseen high caliber gun puts HE right there, then you can have a shambles on your hands.

[Sarge Saunders]

Been monitoring this discussion and it has been quite interesting. FWIW, I recently built a river crossing scenario that would go well with several tactics mentioned here. It has been playtested against a human for balance, but I haven't gotten around to uploading it to the Scenario Depot.

Anyone interested in trying it out (not against me since I know the forces) please send me an e-mail or post here. My e-mail can be found in my profile.

Would be really cool to see JasonC and Fionn go against each other in this one. Anyone else is welcome also.

Briefly:

American attack

Axis does NOT dig in

Infantry heavy

~ 2500 points

Only fjords / No bridges

4 + crossing points

Densely forested

35 turns

I'd also be willing to tweak the forces/setup to suit a player wanting to test a certain strategy, etc.

Hoping to hear from ya'll!

-Sarge

[ June 28, 2002, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Ozzy]

Reasonable points, Fionn.

Let me mention I feel it important to take weather and daylight into consideration as well.

I am currently playing a river crossing operation, with the first battle under bad sight conditions (rain, dawn). I can use one bridge in the open, and two in the city. Enemy has prepared strong defensive positions in the town (as he expected my crossing there), which has been prooved by scouts. (btw the scouts where deployed such that enemy thinks it was my main effort, so he showed his defensive measures there. This was the first fake). I opted for the bridge in the open for the "main" fake attack with almost all armour support I have. Due to bad sight, he cannot bring to bear his ATGs, which are in safe distance from the bridge to avoid being overun by shock attack - too far, as I can support my guys, but he cannot kill my tanks

Opponent has reacted on the fake and rushed lots of infantry from the town to the spot, where he suffered notable casualties due to my artillery fire (o dear I love those gamey VT rounds ), and he showed up with a PzIV? and a Marder? mutually supporting each other. I forced the TD to relocate, and could concentrate my fire on the PzIV, which was his death. Only seconds later the TD showed up again in Hull Down and my Greyhound achieved a lucky hit (penetrattion at weak point, whew). Enemy ATGs are have popped up, but could not fire due to LOS limitations. The 60mm and 81mm mortar will take care of them

Meanwhile I have started the main attack on one of the town bridges (as resistance lines are now weakened there), and I am (so far) proceeding well. Somewhat sucking is opponent's artillery support, which has already inflicted some annoying losses to me (a Platoon of me ran directly into two explosions of at least 150mm caliber :mad: ).

What I want to say is: I do not doubt your tactic is excellent, but all depends on weather, daylight and terrain. Actually I am playing a mixture of your an my tactic. Hope it works...

[ July 05, 2002, 05:45 AM: Message edited by: Ozzy ]

[Frunze]

Wouldn't bad sight conditions (especially night or fog) give an advantage to the defender, if deployed properly?

The defender could more easily deploy units to have LOS on the bridge itself, but not the far bank. So they couldn't be suppressed by the attackers' direct fire from the opposite bank, and the attackers artillery might be forced to wide target. But units crossing the bridge, or immediately after crossing, could come under fire from several sides.

I don't think I'd want to cross a well-defended river at night. Anybody tried this?

[Shosties]

As far as the possibilities of suprise being limited to the number of bridges and fords in the scenario: what about the attacker bringing up boats or amphibious vehicles (gotta love DUKWs BTW!) and going for a lightly or undefended unfordable section of the river? It may not pay to make the amphib crossing a main effort due to the time and effort involved in comparison to the number of troops you can get across, but it could bring a true element of suprise back into the game. Has anyone tried this approach?

(EDIT) OK, I goofed, DUKW isn't in CMBO (it IS in West Front; try out the "Get a Bridge" scenario if you have it, you'll wish you had more of them!). Can the assault boat be towed or ported by truck or does it always start the game deployed on water?

[ July 13, 2002, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Shosties4th ]

[Ozzy]

Frunze:

Wouldn't bad sight conditions (especially night or fog) give an advantage to the defender, if deployed properly?

The defender could more easily deploy units to have LOS on the bridge itself, but not the far bank. So they couldn't be suppressed by the attackers' direct fire from the opposite bank, and the attackers artillery might be forced to wide target. But units crossing the bridge, or immediately after crossing, could come under fire from several sides.

Yes for the town

No for open ground, if defender has only immobile or slow moving support elements (ATGs, HMGs).

If I have mobile assets I can bring them close enough to support the crossing infantry, but be safe from enemy ATG fire. If enemy ATGs are plced close enough to fire on the far bank, they are in my support fire range as well. But they are in open ground and almost impossible to move.

Again different if enemy has armoured forces as well (AFV, TD).

I don't think I'd want to cross a well-defended river at night. Anybody tried this?

Crossing a well defended river during DAY would be more lethal IMO...

Shosties4th:

OK, I goofed, DUKW isn't in CMBO (it IS in West Front; try out the "Get a Bridge" scenario if you have it, you'll wish you had more of them!). Can the assault boat be towed or ported by truck or does it always start the game deployed on water?

Unfortunately the latter. I would like to have boats in the operation, but I don't have. And they are always placed in water from the beginning.

BTW: would be a nice add-on to CM:BB to have TOWED boats to carry at any desired crossing site!!!

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Ozzy:

... like to have boats ... And they are always placed in water from the beginning.

Not necessarily.

Assault boats in CM can move across land, but at a very slow speed. (Representing being dragged by the crew or so.)

Cheers

Olle

[Olle Petersson]

I have a proposition if any of you are interested in testing a possible river battle; join a Triple Battle.

The maps have a river, initially controlled by Axis in the north and Allies in the centre of the frontline (different maps).

Attacking across the river is just one possible option, but in no way mandatory.

There's a slot available for an Axis player, at a March '45 battle, with an opponent (Panther G) eagerly waiting.

For more info about Triple battles, check out the Triple Battle home page.

Cheers

Olle

[Ozzy]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ozzy:

... like to have boats ... And they are always placed in water from the beginning.

Not necessarily.

Assault boats in CM can move across land, but at a very slow speed. (Representing being dragged by the crew or so.)

Cheers

Olle</font>

[Ozzy]

Originally posted by Pillar:

Ok, let us assume that our commander has decided to hold the far bank of the river as part of his defense. What sort of things might he do to make this more advantageous a position than a passive defense behind the river?

Usually I would only place some kind of observation post on the far bank, except if the far bank provides excellent terrain for ambushes. But I must be sure that I can neutralize substantial part of the enemy forces. Normally this is not true, so the defense line should be on my side of the bridge.

IF the far bank is an option I would place the support weapons (Armour, Guns)on my bank. Then on the far bank a sharshooter on a position with excellent sight. Some Schrecks/Zooks/PIAT and HMG for crossfire into a lethal zone (e.g. narrow road between large buildings) and a platoon to cover the HWs and to provide more firepower. HQ must have double Morale bonus plus other bonuses (C&C in particular). Additional firepower must come from platoons at the close bank.

A problem is that one cannot blow bridges in CM (except arty and tank fire). Hence you cannot withdraw to the close bank and then blow it (in case you need it). At least engineers with satchel charges should be able to drop a bridge in CM (hope to see that in CM:BB).

However, a really risky thingy and I would be very reluctant to use such a tactic....

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Ozzy:

...I experienced the boats to move "on-shore" only when landing (and only a few meters), and that you can't setup them at land?! Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong!

I've quite often used assault boats;

- They're excellent as targets for various firing tests, since they can't shoot back and move very slow on land.

- They can also be used on the defense in a somewhat gamey manner; place some at very visible locations (hill sides and such). The tac-AI can't resist having just about any enemy within LOS to shoot at them, letting your troops spot the shooter.

Cheers

Olle

[Redwolf]

Why don't you just buy a bunch of flamethrowers and set the bridge approach on fire?

Oh, never mind, wrong thread, just heading over to the extremly gamey discussuion...

[ July 19, 2002, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[GenSplatton]

Redwolf, Redwolf, Redwolf... were you in the Bocage Rumble at all??? I can't remember if you were ever involved with BoB or not. That is exaclty what was done to one Bridge to simulate it's "demolition." Bogged down the whole darn game. Sucked allot of the fun right out of it too. But boy it was effective.

[Redwolf]

Everytime I try to be funny by getting sarcastic about extreme gameyness, somebody has done it before...

[GenSplatton]

I guess that speaks volumes for human nature huh?

[xerxes]

Gamey is as gamey does.

or something like that my pappy told me once.

[xerxes]

And getting back to the topic of this thread, I posted the river (well stream) crossing scenario that would be a good test of the various theories. It's at the Scenario Depot, "ToD1: Schwerpunkt"

[xerxes]

I think part of the answer depends on the lay of the land. Rivers are generally of a lower elevation and the land slopes down towards the river. This can often provide very good reverse slope possibilities across a broad front. Defending behind the river will often leave you open to direct fire from the attacking force. It's hard to have covering fire on a low elevation point with exposing yourself. A serious disadvantage. In an "attritionist" attack small scouting parties are head for the river covered by all the long range guns the attacker has. When the scouting parties are hit the attacker just pulverizes whomever fired.

If you're going to defend behind the river it might be better to actually defend fairly far back. Not actually preventing crossing but using the river to slow the attacker. In this way the direction of the attack(s) will be known and can be met once they've advanced beyond the river.

[xerxes]

One more, because the attacker doesn't expect it and doesn't plan for it. (ok, that's not a really good reason).

But in my mind a mobile defense behind a river is probably the best way to go in most cases as long as you have covered movement routes.

[Fionn]

" One more, because the attacker doesn't expect it and doesn't plan for it. (ok, that's not a really good reason)."

I would have thought that those were, quite probably, the best reasons in the world . Most CM players can't change horses mid-race where plans are concerned.

[xerxes]

"mid-stream" Fionn, at least that's the saying in Texas and it matches the thread topic.

And yes, surprise and disruption is good. I'm finishing a playtest of my Schwerpunkt scenario (battalion-strength infantry prepared defense) and I placed a full company up on the left flank on the far side of the stream. They were situated in woods/rough on the hill that rose from the river. I placed them a little forward of the crest of the hill. On initial contact two platoons ambushed his scouting infantry. I pulled back to reverse slope position and waited for his attack. When he came over the crest I met him with arty, the 25blr firing direct and infantry.

In the end the battered remains of the company has withdrawn to near the river and in cover. The defense has blown his timetable. The attacker didn't anticipate the fierceness of the battle before he reached the river and he didn't commit his arty to supporting his attack.

So I guess I agree Fionn.

[Ozzy]

Originally posted by xerxes:

and he didn't commit his arty to supporting his attack.

hmmm.... I would say not very wise. Given that you use stealthy movements to the bridgehead (i.e. Sneak or Crawl, hence slow movement), I would always let a FO target the area right in front of my units and adjust fire until enemy resistance pops up.

And Fionn, you are right. Using the reverse slope effect on the far side can be a very effective tactic, especially when placing 2 Flamethowers and 2 Schrecks hidden near the far side of the bridge with HMG cover from the close bank.