A Radical New Approach to the Meeting Engagement

[Guest Pillar]

I've worked on a new theory for conducting a successful meeting engagement, as defined:

- Equal Force (in point measurement)

- No dug-in troops

- Relatively Equal starting distance from the objective

The traditional method of winning this scenario would be to rush ahead, grab the objectives first, and defend as well as possible.

There are weaknesses to this approach however. First, it leaves you blind to the enemy when it comes to the approach. Contact is virtually stumbled upon, and attack plans often change or develop after this contact is made. Second, it leaves the other play a great initiative. They know where you are, they can manouver and engage you however they want and from whichever direction they choose.

In response to this, I've changed my own tactics. Now, I place a more decisive role on reconaissance, using individual men such as sharpshooters to recon ahead and find the enemy positions. Particularly, these special recon-sharpshooters should be paying attention to locating the enemy armour and avoiding concentrations of enemy infantry. Once the enemy armour is located, the sniper should hide for later use when the attack is conducted.

With the enemy positions or advancements identified, arty spotters with small guards (or none, arty spotters are very hard to see when used properly) should advance to secure locations and begin shelling the enemy known positions. Heavy artillery should be used to destroy their morale and weaken their numbers. Smaller arty should be saved for the attack.

Simultaneously, you should be planning an armour attack and moving up your main body of infantry to suppression positions -- supression against enemy AT defences. Make your armour attack into the side or if possible the rear of the enemy while smaller artillery pins his AT defences and infantry body. Meanwhile, your main infantry should be contributing to this suppresion, while preparing to move up for the final assualt.

With the armour out of the way, SPA can be brought up to support your infantry thrust. MG's should be brought into place quickly (preferably mobile) while the initial suppresion was taking place.

From a good direction offering plenty of cover, with support from your remaining armour, your SPA, and your support weapons you can make the final assault with you as-yet untouched infantry.

The plan places heavy emphasis on the attrition and softening of enemy infantry, the destruction of enemy armour prior to the attack, and the preserving and concealment of ones own main infantry body until the final attack phase.

Without the ability to dig in, the defence is not the superior form of warfare but rather a forfeit of the ability to choose when and where to fight.

If any of you have any comments, I'd love to hear them. If any newer players are interested in trying this approach and/or want advice you may email me.

So far it has brought me success when used.

AAR's to come.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 10-27-2000).]

[jdmorse]

Pillar:

Thanks for a nice summary of "good" realistic tactics. The rush for the VL has always bothered me, making so many games me attacking an stationary enemy. Of course there are times that it is justified and not alwuys "gamey" [yes there have been debates on this already] but there are other ways to play. Many of your principles are incorporated in Fionn's most recent AAR, which I heartly reccomend to others if you haven't seen them.

Good job bringing this to awareness.

JD

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

Official 3000th poster to the original Peng thread and present at it's demise

[Wolfe]

Pretty good idea, but the Devils' in the details, and a few unfortunate things could really throw off any such plan.

I tried something similar recently and didn't have good luck with it.

If you're unable to do any real scouting (or your sharpshooters are killed while scouting), then your troops who attempt the final assault will be moving blindly into setup enemy positions and fighting a force of equal size. Dugin or not, this isn't a good thing.

In my PBEM, the lay of the land prevented me from laying down good accurate artillery (and it also initially helped shield his approach, so I really was never sure where he was). And his screen of numerous half-squads kept my sharpshooter-scouts at bay.

Equally, I couldn't move my tanks around a flank because his tanks and especially his AT teams were protecting his flanks effectively.

I did manage to plink a decent number of his tanks on either flank, but never enough so that I was comfortable attacking either flank knowing I would lose a good many to his AT assets.

And since he was able to deploy in a good defensive setup in the village, my troops, once they began moving, were walking into a well defended village backed by MG fire, mortars, and artillery of his own. My infantry was badly harrased on the way in and weren't able to set up a good screen to remove his AT assets from the village.

So in the end, I ended up doing a tank rush into town before I had cleared it of AT. The predictable happened: my armor was mauled. I almost pulled it off because of the large number of Shermans I had, but not quite.

BTW, my opponent also tried to guess where my infantry launching points were and shelled the Hell out of the area. He guessed wrong, and didn't hit anything thankfully, but if your opponent either guesses correctly or finds your infantry with sniper-scouts of his own, your own infantry is going to die a quick death from his artillery. And any offensive capability dies with them.

A different approach may be to overload one flank with mobile units early in the game, and drive a strong armor-based thrust up his flank before he can set up his AT screen. If your opponent strings his forces roughly evenly across the map (or ateast doesn't concentrate on that one side), your concentrated force can overwhelm him, giving you two directions to attack the main objectives with. It may also allow you to snipe at his troops on their way in to take the objectives. And if your opponent decides to overload the same side and try the same thing, then the battle will likely be decided pretty early on one way or the other.

BTW, for you idea to work, your arty would *have* to be quite accurate so your scouts would have to collect info on his whereabouts early on. You'd also need to win the tank battle to be able to support the attack (a draw wouldn't do, IMO). If any of these things don't happen, then I think it's going to be real tough for you to win the scenario.

Not a bad plan, but I think it hinges a bit too much on certain things going your way. The field of battle isn't always so kind. Automatically ceding good defensive positions to your opponent can too easily come back to bite you.

Just my $0.02

- Chris

[This message has been edited by Wolfe (edited 10-28-2000).]

[Guest Pillar]

Chris,

Any plan depends upon the success of it's troops in carrying out their tasks. If you could find a plan that didn't, you'd be the smartest general ever!

I think your point is that my plan contains much more opportunities for things to "go awry" (go wrong) than your opponents.

Let me look in detail at the issues:

Sharpshooters.

You mentioned that if Sharpshooters get plastered early you loose your recon. But take a look at your typical veteran sharpshooter -- used correctly and in good cover, the unit is very VERY difficult to spot. Even if it is spotted, using the "Hide" command or "Crawl" will take you out of enemy sight immediately EVEN if they are almost on top of your position. Heck, you can "Sneak" a good sharpshooter within 5m of an AT Gun if you want.

For these reasons, I think the reconnaisance is secure.

Winning the Tank Battle

You mentioned that winning the tank battle was very crucial to my strategy. Yes, it is. But I also think it is crucial to *any* strategy. Even if one uses the "Grab and Hold" tactic, if you don't win the armour battle you ain't gonna hold.

The difference? Following my plan means you find the enemy armour, snipe the commanders (forcing them to button up at least, if you're lucky you may shock the crew by killing the TC), and advance ones own armour from a decisive well-planned direction and tempo. Also, since you are the attacker you choose *where* to attack. If the enemy has his armour all on his right flank, you attack into the left and he must come to you. Or, you could send a few tanks to attack one sector, and when the enemy armour is drawn over you kick them in the ass with one or two hidden tanks from the direction they were originally guarding. I could go on, but my point is that with this initiative you can lead the enemy. With most other strategies, you end up making contact and then reacting, or setting up defences that *depend* on the attacker doing what you expect.

In short, every win depends heavily on winning the armour battle, but I think my plan increases the odds of winning that battle.

Artillery

You mentioned that if your opponent guesses as to the location of your infantry force, that it can put a monkey wrench in your offensive plans. This is true, and it works for both sides. The difference is, as the follower of Pillar's wisdom you FORCE the enemy to guess at your location. This is 90% of the time a wasteful endeavour for the enemy, especially on a large map. On the other hand, you KNOW where the enemy is. Spotters aren't much easier to find than a sharpshooter, and you can usually sneak them up pretty close to the enemy and get concentrated arty fire with LOS. Further, if you are concerned about the enemy arty, you can always spread out your hidden infantry a little while on the other hand the enemy may be force to guard a certain area (I.E. The VL).

Finally, and most importantly, the enemy is not going to know precisely where your infantry are *UNTIL* you begin your attack, at which point your temp will be high and your men will be difficult to hit. Most spotters have a delay of at least two minutes until time on target. He'll have to guess where you are going to be in two minutes, whereas you know where he is and as the defender his men will be stationary. You also may get lucky earlier and destroy his spotters in the initial heavy caliber barrages.

{On another note, Fionn and I are both in agreement that you shouldn't change your plans simply because of enemy arty. If you do, a smart player will make use of this far more than he would have been able to deal with a good plan.}

Now I'll address your proposition of the "Heavy side" quick thrust at the beginning.

You suggested using an armour force to move in quickly on one side. This is suicide, I've tried it myself. You are forfieting all options for a well-planned educated armour attack in favour of a blind mad-rush. Even if you do survive it, you've now given the ememy all the information he needs to plot his own armour attack against you. Further, you've seperated your armour from the main body of infantry and deprived them of support. Finally, you'll find that once you've made the stroke (if you even survive it) that there is nothing else much to do except either press on, stay put, or retreat. Pressing on involves moving an un-escorted armour force into more unknown territory. Staying put means inviting the enemy to exact a calculated attack against your armour with his. Retreating means exposing your rear. In sum, it's a gigantic gamble manouever that depends heavily on luck and less on skill.

Another similar tactic is the blind "Main Punch" combined arms assault, usually weighted on a single flank. The theory being that your momentum and shear amount of firepower will allow you to "Roll up" the enemy as you attack his forces piecemeal. I had this exact manouver performed against me in a recent pbem -- the result: A Major victory for me. Here's why:

When my opponent's tactic became evident, I knew:

A) His other flank was very weakly defended

Where his forces were

C) What his basic force composition was

He, on the other hand, did not know where my main forces were nor what my composition was.

Soon enough I had my artillery coming down on his main body, and he was forced to guess at my location. He guessed wrong (thanks to a half-squad purposefully making itself visible momentarily) and wasted most of his artillery.

Simultaneously, a Panther and a half-platoon strolled up mearily along the other flank and took out his artillery, mortar, and support weapons in his rear very quickly. The Panther then quickly drove back to the rear defensive line to support against my opponents approach.

Using direct-fire HE and knowing the location of his main force, I had the opportunity to use and abuse it on it's route of approach. I'd attack it at every turn with only a small fraction of my forces. Finally, towards the end, I massed my own forces and overrann the enemy position.

This prooved to me that the blind "Main Punch" theory could easily be beaten with patience and manouver. Assume formlessness.

It's been a long email, but I enjoyed writing it and hope you have some interesting things to say in response.

- Pillar

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 10-28-2000).]

[Samhain]

Thanks for the tactics suggestions!

I've been compiling what appear to be the most useful or interesting tactics from these forums and various CM sites into a Word doc that I can study. It's been paying off already. I'm pretty new to wargaming (though I've quickly become an ardent CM player) and I've gotten to where I win around 95% of my QB's--time for handicapping, I think!

Please keep these ideas coming. I'm going to try these tactics this weekend instead of the rush to set up defenses, though in fairness the latter technique was working against the AI--don't know how it would fare against a good human

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

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 10-28-2000).]

[CrapGame]

Pillar,

This is a really good thread. There are some helpful ideas in a number of the posts. It should be part of a "required reading" list for any newbies to the forum.

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

CrapGame

[Samhain]

I went to try this new approach in a QB this morning, but I was quickly reminded to let the lay of the land dictate tactics. (Good old Sun-Tzu.)

Background: 1000-point combined arms forces, medium-quality troops, me as the Germans, AI as the Americans. Daytime meeting engagement, clear weather, moderate tree cover and modest hills, medium-sized village map.

I was handed a nearly perfect map with which to use the old rush to set up defenses approach. The one victory flag was in the center of a sizable village in the center of the map. The village had three or four multi-storey buildings, and the village was in the center of a natural depression.

In about 1.5 to 2 turns, I was able to rush in mechanized infantry and set up a V-formation defense with one rifle platoon on each arm of the V (each arm facing the oncoming enemy), squads in separate buildings. 1 HMG was on the tip of each flank, roughly, and one in the middle. I got a TD over on the left flank hills, rather far back, in a wheatfield behind a wall. Snipers for buttoning AFV's and my 105 arty spotter were back in the woods on the semicircular hill crest behind the town with LOS over much of the map. HT's (including two with 81mm mortars) were down in the back of the village (i.e., toward my setup zone), set between buildings to cover their flanks, and far enough back from zook fire (with one sad exception ).

Since I got to the village first, and correctly guessed a good place call in arty on the first turn (i.e., targeted on turn one, came in 3 minutes later), I had a nearly perfect reverse-slope defense with heavy flanking fire and long-range heavy fire support. The village was the practical equivalent of dug-in positions.

A good example of remaining flexible In fairness, the village was a bit closer to me, or at least I set up my troops near the front line of the setup zone, while the AI didn't. Also, I was playing against the AI, which obviously isn't too sharp on the offensive. So, I'm not sure this is a great counter-example, but for what it's worth.... It was certainly fun smashing the AI, with my TD alone taking out two Stuarts and three or four HT's!

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

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 10-28-2000).]

[Wolfe]

Samhain makes a really good point; one that I should have stressed more:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I went to try this new approach in a QB this morning, but I was quickly reminded to let the lay of the land dictate tactics. (Good old Sun-Tzu.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the PBEM where I did the tank rush at the end, the terrain was not in my favor. And so I wasn't able to concentrate my firepower (either arty or tank) well enough to disturb my opponent.

But even if you do have a beneficial lay of the land, it's still an up-hill battle to seize the objectives. Especially if your opponent was unkind enough to actually *not* move all of his forces forward for you to shell them into oblivion. If he keeps a significant portion in reserve behind his forces sitting on the objectives, this gives _him_ the ability to counter-stroke your assault. And you likely will have spent much of your large artillery only on his forces at the objectives, leaving his reserves untouched. It's asking an awful lot of your sniper-scouts for them to be able to get through an infantry screen, find his main force protecting the objectives, attack his tanks to kill TCs, and also find any reserve forces without being spotted.

Brian, my opponent in my current PBEM, did keep a good number of troops in reserve. I shelled his force that moved forward to take one objective, but he left a significant force behind a hill on his side of the map. Even if I had scouted deep into his territory and found this reserve force, my arty strikes would have been much too spread out over a number of targets (not to mention out of LOS) to do any real damage. In this 2000pt battle, there are two main areas to try to take and hold. I just don't have enough arty to cover it all. And Brian even said that my arty did only some damage to his force holding the objectives, but mostly just rattled them. And this is on a map that is very beneficial to me.

On larger maps (higher point QBs), a defending force is able to spread out and find more places to hide, making life even more difficult for your scouts. With larger point battles, you certainly get more points to spend on arty, but the size of the map increases exponentially while the points you're able to spend for artillery only goes up linearly. Also on larger maps, there is often more than one objective area to attack/defend, spreading any arty strike out even further, significantly reducing its effectiveness.

Another point is that your opponent can definitely do the same thing to you. If you're setting up an attack, your forces are in many cases more concentrated at your launching points than his defending forces (atleast mine often are). So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you can send out sharpshooter recon, you better believe your opponent can too. If he finds your troops, you're going to be the one on the receiving end of an arty strike. And because your troops may very well be more concentrated than his, his strike will likely be more devastating than yours will.

I like counter-attacking too, and Pillar's idea can definitely work, but like any plan in warfare, there are always ways to counter your opponent's moves. By ceding tactical objectives early on, you've made life more difficult for yourself from the get-go, and haven't necessarily given yourself any advantage in the process.

Just to answer a few points directly:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think your point is that my plan contains much more opportunities for things to "go awry" (go wrong) than your opponents.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. And you also put yourself behind the 8-ball by surrendering a defensive position to your enemy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sharpshooters.: For these reasons, I think the reconnaisance is secure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I love sharpshooters, especially for recon and hunting TCs, but they're not supermen. If you lose even a couple, a good deal of your recon is lost. You have no other assets in the immediate area to find out his locations, and so you'll be forced to either charge in blindly, or take some of your infantry out of their launching positions and use them as recon instead. This gives away your positions, will likely lead to the destruction of these infantry units, and they're not likely to be able to do a better job than the snipers did, especialy since they'd be advancing into a well-setup defense. I just think it's a bit too much of a gamble to rely on sharpshooters to be so effective. IMO, send atleast a platoon of half squads in along with the sniper-scouts to ensure you get the recon you absolutely need to pull this off.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Winning the Tank Battle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point isn't that you can't win the tank battle with your strategy, you most certainly can. But giving your opponent time to set up a good AT screen can definitely make life Hell for you later on when you try to move your tanks forward to assist the assault. My suggestion of striking early isn't just to drive straight across the map at top speed, but to move forward, scout the area, kill all the enemy AFVs in the area you can, setup a good position on one flank to prevent your opponent to set up his own AT screen on the flanks. Ambushing his armor with yours is generally a good idea, but don't allow him to seize the initiative on the flanks with his AT assets, especially if you're playing as Allies. It'll come back to haunt you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Artillery: The difference is, as the follower of Pillar's wisdom you FORCE the enemy to guess at your location.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said above, he can use his sniper-scouts just as well as you can.

And on larger maps, arty is definitely much less effective, particularly with multiple VLs (sometimes you can't afford to concentrate on just one area to attack).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Most spotters have a delay of at least two minutes until time on target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. Vet US 81mm and 4.2in mortars take less than a minute to begin falling. Brit 3in and 4.2in take just over a minute. Even German 81mm and 120mm take just over a minute. And with adjustments, you can follow the attacking troops all the way in. You'd need to counter this with smoke which reduces the punch you'll have to assist your troops with friendly arty once they've engaged. And some people are definitely willing to dump arty on their own troops in order to nail close-in enemy attackers.

Some really good stuff, Pillar. Definitely makes me think about how I play and about different possible strategies. Thanks.

Sorry for the really long post.

- Chris

[Chupacabra]

I posted this on the main board, but I'll repost it here, with some additions and clarifications.

Original text:

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

I think with Meeting Engagements, as with any other type of battle, there's no Sanctioned-by-God-on-high-never-fail strategy.

IMO it's a bad idea to resolutely stick to one type of gameplan. So much depends on the type of map you're dealt, what your forces are, what your opponent's forces are, time, weather, number of turns, force quality, etc...

In certain situations it is for sure a good idea to go hell for leather for the most defensible terrain on the map, and make the other guy try to beat you out of it. In other situations I think, as you suggest, it's a better idea to hang back and make the other guy commit his forces first. Hell, what kind of artillery support I have often determines what I do for the first ten turns.

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

Additions and random musings:

I wrote that what units I've got will often dictate what I do. Here's an example from a PBEM game I'm currently playing - Village, moderate trees, modest hills. The village in the center offer a very strong defensive position. The buildings themselves are in fairly hilly terrain, with patches of trees screening several of the buildings from DF HE. Meaning that troops in those buildings could likely hold out for quite a while, even under a strong assault. My initial plan was, therefore, to quickly move my Panther into a position on a large hill where it could put hurt down on infantry and tanks approaching the town from his side, while I sent a VG rifle platoon into the town backed by a PzIV and a halftrack. I got my other platoons ready to flank. But then I remembered that I'd also bought a 300mm rocket observer. And blowing up towns is about what they're good for, so I held up my town-assault troops and let 'er rip. Although I didn't find this out for a few turns, I got at least a platoon of infantry, and threw a fairly serious wrench into my opponent's works. If I hadn't had that large caliber artillery, though, it would have made much more sense to rush the town, take up a good defensive position, and go from there.

Also, I'm not sure that winning the tank battle is the key to winning the game. It helps, but it's by no means vital.

Another also, I think this is a style thing, but I dislike using sharpshooters for recon. The way I use recon isn't just to see what the other guy's doing, but to (hopefully) slow him up, force him to muddle up his plans to deal with my units, bring up a tank he didn't intend to bring up, call in artillery he didn't intend to call in. This gives me plenty of time to do what I need to do to bring down the hammer.

Um, I'll probably think of more things later on.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Chupacabra]

Oh, also (told you I'd think of more).

I don't think that winning the tank battle is key to winning. I've said this in other posts, but I probably get 50% of my tank kills with infantry. So I don't tend to worry a whole lot about what his tanks are doing immediately since, after all, they're seriously lousy for parking on VLs.

Second, I think tactics are often dictated by what role you assign to your different types of units.

I think a lot of people see tanks as the main killing arm, while infantry and artillery are there mainly to support the tanks.

I'm the other way around. My tanks support my infantry by making it unpleasant or impossible for the other guy to be in a position where he can kill my infantry. In most of my games, my infantry and my artillery do most of the killing.

This tends to work well against the folks that see tanks as the queens of the battlefield. They want a decisive tank battle, I don't want to give it to them. I'd rather use my tanks to mess with his movements than take the chance of losing them in a showdown.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Guest Pillar]

I think Chupacabra put things well into perspective when he said "Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super."

I mean, that's like poetry and winning a battle mixed together!

Seriously now.

I think these last few posts in particular have definitely raised some issues and pointed out some holes in my plan. It has also lead to an evolution in our discussion away from "How to beat the grab and hold" into "How to perform a grab and hold correctly."

So I'm going to focus on countering my own strategy while at the same time trying to eliminate the weaknesses I pointed out in the "grab and hold." What I'll have is a sort of hybrid theory that combines the best of both worlds.

Post to come.

[ScoutPL]

I think you guys are missing the whole idea of a meeting engagement. Basically what you are doing is fighting a deliberate attack/defense from scratch. Rather then having one opponent set up in a defensvie position prior to game start, you're just doing it all during the actual game. Meeting engagements are just that, meeting engagements. In your tactical "solution" the meeting engagement only takes place when your scouts or spotters come in contact with the enemy. After that everything is deliberate attack. Meeting engagement scenarios should be way too short for the kinda recon/maneuver you're trying to do. It should be short, fast and furious. Most meeting engagements on the scale of CM take place between light, fast recon units that are forward of the established MLR or advance guard element. Thats their whole reason for being out there. Make a small contact with the enemy, develop the situation and report back. Anything bigger then a reinforced company in a meeting engagement could be characterized as a movement to contact, which is another form of attack. I know I'm getting finicky about terms but back to my point, you're no longer fighting a meeting engagement when you use the tactics you laid out.

[Samhain]

But then again, the point is to win, regardless of the type of battle Do what works, regardless of what the scenario/QB type is. I don't at all mean to sound flippant; I think it's a valid point.

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

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[Guest wwb_99]

My POV is that Objective flags are immaterial until turn 25 (of 30). My main goal in any meeting engagment is to destroy the enemy's mobile forces while perserving my own. Then objectives can be captured at my leisure.

WWB

[Juardis]

I don't have a strategy that works all the time. Heck, I don't even have a strategy that works some of the time . But I am playing this one guy who has taught me a lot while kicking my butt at the same time. It's frustrating as hell, but definitely worthwhile as a learning experience. Here's what he does.

He doesn't necessarily race for the VL. He does if he can hold it, but only if he can hold it. Once he comes into contact with me, he drops arty all over my butt while maintaing pressure with his troops. He keeps a AT gun or two in the rear to deny specific avenues of approach. He uses his armor to both support his troops and deny area to my troops. Since he keeps his armor in standoff, I cannot work a AT team close enough to kill. His FOs are isolated from the rest of his troops and always in LOS of choice real estate. Consequently, when he does drop it, it's deadly accurate. So is AT guns protect his armor, his armor protects his troops, his arty protects his troops, and his troops, arty, tanks and AT guns kick my butt. His strategy is quite effective in that it keeps pressure on the front lines and denies me areas of the map and mobility.

I, on the other hand, know there's a AT gun or two back there and am usually vehicle/armor deficient to not have the luxury of finding it by letting him kill me . And if he doesn't have one, the fear is there so there might as well be one. So I have to either drop arty on suspected locations (wasteful), or work some troops back there somehow. The terrain dictates how successful that is. But more often than not I'm spotted before I can sneak behind his lines. Using a sharpshooter is no good because 1) it takes too long to sneak one back and 2) if the AT gun is hidden, it'll be impossible to find unless you stumble into it. That is the major flaw with any recon units. If the enemy is hidden, they're harder to find, which puts your recon force in greater danger. If my forces stay still for too long, arty is dropping on me or he is area firing SPAs into that area. It may not kill me outright, but the morale hit is phenomenal. Until I know where the AT guns are, I'm hesitant to use my tanks, so they're useless other than in a minor role supporting infantry. Also, because he has limited my mobility due to holding advantageous ground, I have to gingerly advance my tanks. Why not attack his tanks denying me access? Because I'm unlucky and my tanks never hit on the first or 2nd shot - NEVER. Sharpshooters help though in buttoning up his armor. But I'm still unlucky. But even if I was lucky and managed to kill his armor or make him move, I'm still wary of the AT guns in the rear.

As you can see, his strategy works well. It is synergistic in that each of his units protects his other units. He has defense in depth so that, even if I do overcome his infantry, I still have to deal with his reserves and his covering force and his rear-guards. Very difficult to attack this.

IMHO, the key is the AT guns in the rear. Once those are found, arty can bust it up provided my FOs have a LOS to it. If not, then it's a waste of arty. Unfortunately, by the time I've located said guns, I've lost at least one armored asset, but most likely more. Then I have to wait a few turns for the arty to land so it's 5 turns just to take out the AT gun. (Note: in one QB, his AT gun took out 3 of my tanks before my 4th and last armored vehicle - a PUMA -could knock it out). Very good odds for him, very poor odds for me when I slug it out like that. Arty seems the way to go.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Guest Pillar]

Jeff,

Your opponent has hit the nail on the head.

1) He has a good conceptual understanding of the battlefield. This demonstrated by his ability to spot key terrain and to think outside the box of victory locations.

2) He knows how to use combined arms. He knows how to use his spotters well too, which is unusual

Keeping a reserve proper is good thinking. There *IS* a way to beat this master though it seems, from what you've said in your description.

[Samhain]

As for AT guns, remember that tanks have the big advantage of mobility (and sometimes numbers). Fast movement from cover to cover and multiple tanks with the mutually supporting fire lanes can help offset the AT danger. AT guns generally turn and take aim pretty slowly, so if you have some fast Shermans with their fast turret traverse, you can even the odds a bit. (I almost always play as the Germans, so what would I know? ) Of course, if his guns have tight fire lanes with flanking terrain cover and nice ambushes set up, well....

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

Hope you got your things together,

Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

[Samhain]

One more thought: temporarily forget the flags like your opponent and use the whole map for flanking. If you're moving, it forces him to rearrange his units, which could potentially, if temporarily weaken his benefits from a tidy combined arms setup.

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

Hope you got your things together,

Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

[Juardis]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not looking for advice on how to beat such a strategy (although I welcome any and all suggestions). Pillar started this radical new strategy with what he does or proposes to do. With all due respect to Pillar, I have yet to find a strategy as good as the one I'm facing in my QB. That is the model I intend to follow, or at least try to follow. Knowing what's happening and stopping it from happening are 2 different things.

It reminds me of an AAR Fionn did with his pummeling of some poor schmo (Greg?). Although Fionn talks above me and I only understood some of it, his strategy is effective if carried out properly. The 3 themes were advance to contact, drop arty on contact, prevent opfor mobility with your schwerpunkt?, then repeat steps 1-3. Eventually, you commit your reserves for the final push (after softening up with the last of your arty of course). As I said, knowing it's coming and stopping it are two different things.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Guest Pillar]

Jeff,

Who is it? I agree 100% with the tactics they are using.

One thing I like to do is have small arty support behind the screen if on attack. This way as soon as you locate the enemy you can begin suppressing him and softening him up...

[Juardis]

Ron Alderdice (aka Longknife) on theblitz.org. One thing though, I actually like the guy based on our email correspondence. So while I'm extremely pissed after watching my tanks brew up, I really can't get mad at him. So I get mad at myself, the monitor, the AI, BTS, all the damned beta testers....well you get the idea If he's willing, I intend to keep playing him until I win a game. I ought to get something like quadruple points for doing that, don't you think?

[This message has been edited by Juardis (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Ron]

Thanks for the compliments Jeff. That's a pretty perceptive analysis, I think I will refrain from sharing any tips with you like I promised earlier, I may very well need them in upcoming battles

I've never really given much thought to How to play opposed to actually playing. I think Fionn is adept at that with his AARs. I found his Sunken Lane piece to be very enlightening. However I'll add a couple cents worth anyways.

Really it seems to me it comes down to destroying or neutralizing your opponent's forces. How you do that, as others have said, is dependent on the different variables in the scenario, everything from terrain, equipment, the changing situation to the psychology of your opponent. I don't think there is one sure way. Though I agree there are certain techniques that work.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Without the ability to dig in, the defence is not the superior form of warfare but rather a forfeit of the ability to choose when and where to fight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We're talking a Meeting Engagement right? In my experience a well supported defense in a ME is damn effective at stopping an attack as not enough force can be brought to bear and followed up without sacrificing elsewhere. You aren't giving up the initiative by defending, afterall you choose that location for a reason.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, I place a more decisive role on reconaissance, using individual men such as sharpshooters to recon ahead and find the enemy positions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't say I have ever used Sharpshooters that way. I agree getting good intel is important but it can also be accomplished by simply occupying terrain with good observation and determining the enemy's likely avenues of approach beforehand and keying in on those. Somewhat more difficult on a larger map so you may have to force his hand a little.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Another point is that your opponent can definitely do the same thing to you. If you're setting up an attack, your forces are in many cases more concentrated at your launching points than his defending forces (atleast mine often are). So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you can send out sharpshooter recon, you better believe your opponent can too. If he finds your troops, you're going to be the one on the receiving end of an arty strike. And because your troops may very well be more concentrated than his, his strike will likely be more devastating than yours will.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, it's not like your opponent will be standing by idly, awed and paralyzed by your tactical brilliance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't think that winning the tank battle is key to winning.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While infantry may be the Queen of the battlefield and artillery the King, tanks are definitely the Joker.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>AT guns generally turn and take aim pretty slowly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try using the 6pnder or 50mm AT guns.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So his AT guns protect his armor, his armor protects his troops, his arty protects his troops, and his troops, arty, tanks and AT guns kick my butt....As you can see, his strategy works well. It is synergistic in that each of his units protects his other units. He has defense in depth so that, even if I do overcome his infantry, I still have to deal with his reserves and his covering force and his rear-guards. Very difficult to attack this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol, what more can be added to that?

Ron

[Guest Pillar]

Aye Ron, your points are valid indeed. I've sinced changed my mind on a lot of the points I made at the beginning of this thread.

The most important key to understanding meeting engagements is that you have equal force sizes, and that means defending (properly) is the key to victory. However, properly – that requires clarification.

The fundamental attribute of winning the meeting engagement is controlling the important terrain. The best terrain:

-Overlooks the enemy approach

-Offers good concealment and cover

-Serves as a jumping off point for counterattacks

When conducting a meeting engagement from this position, one can fight a battle of attrition with the enemy as he approaches so that he is weaker than you at the decisive moment.

Massive kill ratios are not required, since numbers are fairly even. All that is required is that his force is in worse shape than yours when he attempts to take the key terrain, which won’t be easy for him at all.

Counterattack the enemy support weapons and rear lines if the opportunity is given.

When conducting an ME from the attack, and you must seize the terrain from your opponent, you must demonstrate considerable skill.

Normally, a commander would decline the option and instead fall back to his main body and prepare a full attack, and the defenders would prepare their defense.

First of all, try and employ all the attack tactics standards. Security, weak point, commit.

Concentration is very important in a meeting engagement because you need local superiority to break into the key terrain.

Once you have seized one piece of the enemy’s terrain, you must continue at a steady pace to overwhelm him with your flanking body. If you delay, his artillery will soon fall on your now known positions and you will be forced into a battle of attrition – ta ta, the end. So keep up the speed.

Drop arty on the enemy before you attack (remember, he has no preparations) and attack swiftly. Don’t stay in one place. Smoke can help you avoid attrition, use it sparingly however, as artillery is a better suppressant IF you know where the enemy is.

To reiterate though, I believe a properly organized active defence dominated by key terrain is the decisive factor.

[joeski]

Pillar: Changed your mind on the orginal tactics!! I'm using them as we speak. Trying to anyways. Just wanted to jump in and ask if someone could point me to Fionn's AAR's that are mentioned quite often. Sounds like good reading. Thanks and nice thread.

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

"If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them." - Jack Handey

[Guest Pillar]

Joeski,

The principles are still valid, they just have to be made use of differently. See above.

Fionn has his AAR's posted at http://combathq.thegamers.net , scroll down the nav bar until you see "After Action Reports"

Enjoy.