Brit 1000pts ME - What would you choose?

[Trotsky]

Need some advice. Been playing a lot of TCP/IP games lately and a 1000pts. ME seems the most commonly chosen battle.

I am really trying to get to grips with the Brits. Any advice on how to choose the best units.

I typically take a company (usually vets)

But what about the other stuff?

2 or 3 arty spotters - size?

6pdr AT guns are awesome - any good in ME?

Support - I like to have at least 3-4 armoured cars.

Armour - Just not sure what to take - the lack of squad level AT - means I do not want to be at the mercy of some big cat I can only kill if I get close with a PIAT. A challenger?

I know this is quite a big subject - but am finding the Brits quite difficult to get right.

Trotsky

[Samhain]

I'm embarrassingly far from an expert and normally play as the Germans, but I wouldn't recommend AT guns for an ME, as you have to haul them into position with trucks and then unlimber them, usually under fire. Since they weren't set up defensively, they won't be placed in foxholes, either. They derive a lot of their strength from suprise, and you won't surpise anyone with them under those circumstances.

For spotters, I'm starting to realize that smaller caliber is better, since it can be called in very quickly for supression at vital moments (I'm thinking of 81mm mortars, in particular). Then roll up armor to put the hurt on the supressed enemy pockets of resistance. Where the enemy is advancing, it can quickly be used to break up formations.

Purchases will depend a lot on the terrain too. Heavily wooded areas usually dictate fewer tanks, I've found, or at the very least different tactics. There are just too many ambush sites for AT threats. Better to scout each stand of trees and small building with half squads before bringing tanks through, at least.

------------------

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 12-23-2000).]

[Guest Pillar]

AT Guns are PERFECT for meeting engagements because the enemy least expects them to be there. (He should in reality, but for the game, they don't). Make them pay for it.

Move quickly at the beginning to control the key terrain, and then some more. Grab positions that you can fall back from. While this is going on, have a vehicle bring up AT guns into positions to guard your flanks and withdraw. Fall back from your advance positions after an initial anti-recon ambush and withdraw back to where the AT net has been established. When the enemy makes his breakthough attempt, SURPRISE!

This is a very speed-reliant issue, though not a gamble.

[Samhain]

I would think that this tactic is very much dependent on the size of the map and terrain, though. (What isn't?) Smaller maps wouldn't as readily allow the luxury of that sort of setup, since you're both in each other's face right away. As you say, speed is of the essence as well, and depending on your opponent's speed and aggression, things could get dicey. An interesting idea I'm going to experiment with, nonetheless Where are you suggesting the initial line and then MLR, if you could call it that in this case, be established in relation to the VL's?

I would think you'd want multiple AT guns on both flanks with overlapping LOS, since AT guns don't seem to last too long usually on CM's relatively small battlefields.

I'd think more armored and arty assets would be more useful on an offensive, though as you say, AT guns might have the virtue of surprise here.

------------------

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 12-23-2000).]

[Guest Pillar]

Certainly.

You must evaluate your means and adapt to your environment.

If you have a large map, it means more cover usually for your approach and setup.

The purpose of all meeting engagements is to seize the initiative to gain an advantageous position of firepower and security through manouver. To gain that, you must have mobility. To hold it, you must have a defensive, secure position setup.

The AT guns work nicely for this.

Try moving your mobile forces up quickly to sieze the key terrain. You WILL meet the enemy trying to do the same thing. It will be superior small unit tactics and approaches that win that fight. However, it is DURING that fight that your highly mobile AT assets (AT Guns fixed to trucks etc.) will be taking up immobile positions. Thus, they won't be attacked directly unless you make a significant blunder with your forward screening/advance.

Once they are setup (with MG's too preferably) you can begin to fall back into this defensive belt. The enemy then has two choices:

A) Disengage, at which point on a larger time scale you would dig in defensively and conduct a prepared defence when the enemy attack resumed itself.

Engage your hasty defence immediately.

In real life, this decision would be based on expected reinforcements, time constraints, and other operational factors. The sum of the decision would be "Is it better for me to attack his hasty defence with what I have, or attack a prepared defence later with what I will have then?"

In CM, they almost always attack. Unless someone is trying to act historical in a scenario, there is no other option. Call it "gamey" but that's what most players do, simply because there is not yet a model for translating the outcome of stale Meeting Engagmements into their full developed positional/defensive maturity.

[Samhain]

When you say "highly mobile AT assets," that to me means armor, but then again, I always focus a lot on armor, to my benefit and detriment both. Benefit, because of armor's versatility, strength, and impact at decisive points in battles, detriment because it's easy to loose focus on intelligent combined arms tactical execution.

Armor is generally more expensive than towed AT guns, of course, but it tends to be so much more versatile. If a unit can only do one thing well and/or can't move while under fire, I tend to hold it suspect, rightly or wrongly.

I still need to work out a general strategic philosophy for meeting engagements, since they can readily resemble defense or attack scenarios, depending on how fast you and the opponent are and who tries to occupy a town, for instance, first. Would you want to focus on establishing firebases near the flags and defending them, assaulting hasty defenses the enemy has erected there first, focusing solely on attriting the enemy and then moving to the flags during the end-game, etc.?

------------------

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[Guest Pillar]

Anything mounted on or hitched to a motorized vehicle is "highly mobile". Mechanized infantry for example.

All I meant is that the AT assets can be brought up quickly because of trucks.

For me, the meeting engagement is all about initiative and speed, then security and defence. I haven't yet had the enemy control the key terrain first.

If they did however, somehow beat me to the key terrain, I'd have a good idea where his defences were (inevitably from the initial struggle) and I'd try to break through at his weak spot and flank the rest of his forces.

The idea would simply be to sieze back some good terrain and then defeat his forces piecemeal. Easier said than done, I know.

[Samhain]

I know what you meant by "highly mobile," but was just making a point (albeit obliquely ) about relative efficacy (not cost) of mobile unit types (an HT vs. an open truck for troop transport, for instance). I tend to view armor as the best anti-armor units in fluid situations, while on more fixed defenses, I'd be a bit more ready to use AT guns, Schrecks, mines, etc.

I too like to use speed and initiative to seize defensible ground somewhere near the VL's first, particularly if a town is at stake. Along the lines of what you're saying here, I think you--correct me if I'm wrong--suggested in a post a while back that it could conceivably be more valuable to let the enemy establish positions first, since what you lose in defensive positioning, you gain in knowledge of enemy positions and fluidity of attack. Plus, in an ME, the defender wouldn't generally have nearly the subtlety of defensive positioning you get in a true defensive scenario and would be subject to encirclement and wide flanking maneuvers.

------------------

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 12-24-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

I play the Pommies quite a lot.

Combined arms 1000 points

1 Vet Infantry Coy

1 Infantry support tank (Churchill or Sherman 75)

1 3" or 4.2" spotter or 2 3" mortars

1 Vickers team or 1 MMG carrier

1 Wasp

That should do it for most battles. Reasonably realistic and a good combination that makes for some interesting tactics.

Don't have the game here at the moment, but IIRC it should work out around 1000 pts

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-24-2000).]

[Trotsky]

Thanks for the replies guys.

What do you suggest for hauling an AT gun around with? Something with utility?

The wasp is a great vehicle - I have thought about using it in defense - setting light to possible areas of enemy advance - not sure how I would use it in a ME, the same way? Is this a bit risky?

Talking about seizing the VLC or nearby key terrain - how much transport should I purchase for the company - I assume at least for 1 platoon.

Thanks in advance.

Trotsky.

[goodwood]

a 6pdr is sound advice, especially a vet one. Choose your ground correctly and they can be deadly. I have played over 10 TCP games as the Brits with a great deal of success with them. in combined arms a challenger & churchill mk8 (95mm) is a good conbination of AT & anti pers.

and a Glider Coy (4 pl ) useful

[Guest Pillar]

Samhain

Some of that logic I abandoned for other reasons. However, the principle remains: If you are playing an opponent who just grabs VL's, UNLESS they are key terrain and not just VL's, LET him take it.

It won't do him any good in the long run. Key terrain is what is important.

Forget the Flags is what I always tell people.

[Banshee]

AT guns are fantastic for ME's. If you place them in overwatch positions before the battle they can cover your troops as they advance and have all the advantages of stealth and suprise.

------------------

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Trooper]

As a slight side-note (And I will frequently buy a towed AT gun for cheap flank security.. Got to give those Pumas and half-tracks trying to zip around my side something to worry about), there is something to be said for qaulity over quantity. I'll generally spend my points to buy Vets, I've found them to be quite resilient against Regular opponents.

Of course, if the enemy is just going to stonk them with long range cannon fire, the extra quality will do nobody any good at all.

NTM

------------------

The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle!

[retarded_keydet]

I think Pillar's advice while sounding somewhat radical is ultimately sound. I have played numerous Meeting engagements with my brother and while he rushes the VL's I will just lag back and scout out his units and probe him. Rushing the VLs usually leads to a sort of false sense of security. I don't usually use anti tank guns to take him out after this but a careful use of hetzers and the armored cars with 75 mm infantry guns to support my infantry. It worked numerous times for me but it would be interesting to try it with anti tank guns instead.

------------------

There was a long silence of rememberance for the dead, to which I added these names:

Ernst Neubach, Lensen, Wiener, Wesreidau, Prinz, Solma, Hoth, Olensheim, Sperlovski, Smellens, Dunde, Kellerman, Freivitch, Ballers, Frosch, Woortenbeck, Siemenlies...

I refuse to add Paula to that list, and I shall never forget the names of Hals, or Lindberg, or Pferham, or Wollers. Their memory lves within me.

There is another man, whom I must forget. He was called Guy Sajer.

[Guest Captitalistdoginchina]

When playing the Brits i always choose a couple of Wasps (Late 1944 onwards). These little beautys can wreak havoc among the enemy troops. They have a 75m range and loads of ammo. Hold them back till your opponents arty is used up, hopefully his armour will also be destroyed. Then bring up the wasps and they will flush infantry out of woods, trees, buildings and so on. i have even destroyed a Jagdpanzer 1V with a wasp, it needed 3 or 4 bursts of flame though! But boy did it explode in a big way. I have learned to love them.

One word of warning, always keep them buttoned because the loss of one crew member renders the vehicle useless.

CDIC

------------------

"Death solves all problems - no man no problem"

J.V.Stalin, 1918

[Simon Fox]

Poor Trotsky asks a question and he gets a Pillar vs Samhain debate hehe

Anyway I agree with suggestions re ATk guns though I would prefer to use them for overwatch and have the towing vehicle there to relocate them if required.

For a ME I find I prefer the better reach of the 17pdr which also has some decent HE, 6pdrs are good for defense though. It would be very unusual for a Brit ATk gun to be towed by a truck. 6pdrs would be Bren carriers or maybe a jeep. 17pdrs would be a halftrack or a so-called Stuart Kangaroo.

I never use wasps in a British ME only attack or assault. Germanboy show he is a gamey bastard to to so I recommend you buy extra PIATs (which is within the units expected TOE) and Bren carriers are pretty handy for moving them around. A MMG carrier or two are good and give the Vickers good mobility.

As for arty, 3in is OK 4.2in or 25pdr is better and can really shake a German player is he only has 81mm. 3in is good for suppression but 4.2in or 25pdr can really strip the opposing force of its infantry.