The overwatch TD question (especially British)

[Austrian Strategist]

The point I'm trying to make is that a single T.D. can still survive and be quite effective even against potential multiple opposing AFV's if terrain is used to its advantage.

Agreed; in one of my current pbems I killed 3 Shermans and an M10 with a single Nashorn.

[Fionn]

"Pray tell- what if the enemy also keeps his tanks in defilade, and begins to punish your infantry (whether by crunchies, arty, tanks w/ narrow LOS)...possibly forcing your hand to reveal your tanks first (he is then in *your* OODA loop?)."

Doesn't happen. My infantry can get themselves out of that sort of trouble with only a little help from their organic FOs and a lot of help from their own firepower.

"If the OPFOR tries to 'maneuver you', what tactic do you use to avoid being slaughtered en masse when you move your tanks to assist (without overwatch) and he then brings out his TDs to prey on your tanks?"

Simple, my tanks don't assist. That's not their job and therefore they avoid the whole "being slaughtered en masse when you move your tanks to assist" bit.

"Would such a situation cause you to use overwatch, despite you comment above..."

No. Instead I'd just use more covered routes to advance my tanks through the enemy firesacks. No need for overwatch.

" To sum up...what is your logic in avoiding AT ambushes while manuevering your armor without overwatch? Thanks in advance!"

Simple, kill the AT guns before your tanks have to move through their killzones. Sometimes you can't get them all but most of the time you can kill the vast majority of the ones near you and the ones farther away can't do enough damage to totally destroy your plan. Sure they can kill a tank or two but not enough to impact the plan.

I always like it when the attacker overwatches. It lets me see all these tanks in positions onto which I can bring my guns to bear. Once that happens he loses his overwatch.

There's nothing fancy going on here. I just think overwatch is not the optimal solution ( most of the time). Of course sometimes it is a good solution but the vast majority of the time it isn't.

[xerxes]

Overwatch that involves parking for more than a minute always makes the hair on my back stick up. I don't like it and won't do it unless I feel it's 100% necessary.

I will pop up a Shermie to hit a known position, but I try to keep LOS as restricted as possible. Not really overwatch at all.

Only the axis armor gets to sit on a hill and throw taunts. Axis can get away with it for a while but I don't mind, I know where trouble is when they do that. When I only get sound contacts and a lot of movement of the contacts, then I get worried. When a large channel is out of my LOS and I can't get LOS, I get worried.

Whenever I don't know what the OPFOR is doing, I get very nervous.

Heh, guess I'm just a little paranoid.

[Redwolf]

The results of my findings:

Real overwatch as in king-of-the-hill never works as advertised. Even waiting behind a ridge and popping up (with an infantry unit on the ridgetop doing spotting) is pretty dangerous.

On the other hand, massing the biggest number of tanks you can and move it around doesn't work either. Lower quality than regular is out of question. You never get the LOS you want with many tanks. Also traffic jams lead to tanks turning and presenting flanks on their own.

CMBO greatly rewards attacking the enemy from several angles at once.

So what I am doing most often these days is loose platoons. I don't really seperate overwatch units from moving units, and I don't try to move them tightly enough to come into enemy LOS together. But keeping them near together and looking for local, short-term standing positions to cover suspected enemy positions works reasonably well.

Mixing tanks with different guns doesn't do much good, it only limits your flexibilty in leapfrogging and other tasks that require one tank taking over from another.

[xerxes]

Wow, that's a pretty good description of what I do Redwolf. Never thought of it the way you describe it though.

[Fionn]

" So what I am doing most often these days is loose platoons. I don't really seperate overwatch units from moving units, and I don't try to move them tightly enough to come into enemy LOS together. But keeping them near together and looking for local, short-term standing positions to cover suspected enemy positions works reasonably well."

You've just described what real tank platoon commanders are trained to do. Concentration of force does NOT necessitate geographic concentration. It merely requires that all units have good LOS to a particular area ( often units can be separated by hundreds of metres and still achieve concentration of force against a specific portion of the enemy line).

In summary... What you describe is exactly what the FMs promulgate.

[Redwolf]

I am aware of this. Now.

The interesting thing here is that I learned CMBO and started reading tactics books at roughly the same time. I figure it is a good sign for the realism of the game that I ended up doing the thing the real life guys ended up doing without actually trying to be realistic just for realism's sake.

[xerxes]

FMs???

[Stormin Norman]

FM = Field manuals (army instruction manuals on many topics)

try this link

One of the reasons CM is so freakin cool is that you can learn real-life tactics and many can be applied in game. Or even more fun, you can figure out what 'works' in CM and later find out that you've 'rediscovered' known tactics. Such as was done above.

[ June 07, 2002, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Stormin Norman ]

[xerxes]

Speaking of known tactics, I've begun wondering about the entire MLR concept. I really don't think along those lines when running a defence. I think of multiple defensive points, avoiding the opfor direct HE, forcing the OPFOR to expose and commit. It doesn't seem like an MLR (from my understanding of it) fits. Then again, maybe if I knew more about the real MLR concept it would. I'll have to check out that Field manual link and learn something.

-marc s

[Fionn]

Xerxes,

MLRs don't have to be relatively linear, contiguous defensive positions. A series of positions fortified for all-round defence ( such as you seem to describe) are actually, doctrinally speaking, the Soviet's preferred way of developing an MLR in the post-1943 time period.

As usual, if it seems like a good idea to you/you have tried it in CM you can bet that it seemed like a good idea to/was tried by some military commanders in the past. You have but to read their accounts to see whether or not it actually proved viable.

[Redwolf]

In reality it was at least a line with heavy bumps, if a line at all.

In CMBO artillery, especially heavy artillery, is substancially more useful for tactical commander. This makes destruction of heavily armed posts that are discovered during the fight easier. So using a line might avoid being too vulnerable. But noone says it has to be a straight line.

[ June 08, 2002, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Fionn:

MLRs don't have to be relatively linear, contiguous defensive positions. A series of positions fortified for all-round defence ( such as you seem to describe) are actually, doctrinally speaking, the Soviet's preferred way of developing an MLR in the post-1943 time period.

The Germans`, too. This was called an Igelstellung, (Hedgehog Position); MLR was called HKL (Hauptkampflinie).

[ June 08, 2002, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: Austrian Strategist ]

[xerxes]

The hedgehog defences tended to be too rigid. Too easy to bypass and isolate. I despise using fixed defensive positions unless they are pure bait.

[winkelried]

I often use US/UK TD's. The main point IMHO is to use real tactics (e.g. read "Gare La Bete : A History of the 814th Tank Destroyer Battalion, 1942-1945"). These tactics take into consideration the advantages (firepower, speed) and the disadvantages (armor, open turret) of the TD's pretty much.

- I always combine the TD's with recon (M-20 or M-8) and at least a squad of inf (recon and close support), better an inf platoon.

- I try to use them in full platoons (4 TD's) or half platoons (2 TD's).

- I use "shoot and scoot" tactics: stay in the defilade, have the recon spot enemy tanks, move up, shoot and go back in coverage (another rule: never pop up at the same spot twice - the other guy could be waiting for you).

- I try to have superiority of fire (e.g. 4 TD's popping up at the same time).

- I try to pop up at the end of the turn (pause befor the hunt begins).

- I use the speed of the M-18 wherever possible (this bastard *is* fast).

until now, I think I was pretty successful with this tactics (amongst other's I zapped 5 KingTiger's like this, in one of my current games 4 regular TD's zapped 2 veteran Tiger IE in a frontal attack - at the cost of 1 TD).

But be aware that one of the best anti TD weapons are mortar shells ... as Axis I shell TD positions with 81mm mortars almost immediately ...

regards

Honneur et Fidelité

[winkelried]

By the way, the FM 18-5 (1944) is also a good reference and you will also find a good article on the evolution of US TD doctrine on ftp://160.149.109.31/carl/gabel2.pdf ...

[Fionn]

Austrian,

Yes, I know. They learnt some useful lessons from the Soviets .

Xerxes,

Repeat after me the three things EVERYONE must remember before saying anything about a particular doctrine or decision... " Scale, scale, scale."

Bypass etc is, generally, much more difficult to accomplish than outpost elimination within the scale of CM battles. Bypass happened on the operative and strategic scales where the Soviets would bypass an entire town garrison of several thousand Germans.

You really have to bear scale in mind when making any comments re: the viability of tactics etc.

I'll also point out that the Germans didn't find it "too easy to bypass and isolate" the Soviet positions at Kursk ( which were created from a series of mutually supporing strongpoints). That is why strongpoints organised for 360 degree defence must be part of a mutually supporting greater position.

A large-scale system of strongpoints organised for all-round defence is incredibly capable of stopping a break-in attempt at the higher tactical and lower operational scales. In fact, the above sentence is, largely the story of the entire Northern Sector at Kursk.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Fionn:

...strongpoints organised for 360 degree defence must be part of a mutually supporting greater position.

The key phrase there is "mutually supporting". That enables a concentration of fire at the schwehrpunkt, a vital military principle. Strongpoints that are not mutually supporting can be reduced and defeated piecemeal, no matter how strong they are. If they begin in isolation, they have been hung out to dry and will do no more than slow down an enemy advance.

Michael