Infantry units

[onodoken]

Gentlemen:

After reading the numerous threads and posts regarding the behavior of infantry units under fire, I felt compelled to start this "short" diatribe. First a little background on my military experience. I was an infantryman in the US Army for four years in active duty. I served as a rifleman and Scout/Sniper in the 2/502nd Infantry Regiment 101st Airborne Division and later in the division’s LRSD (Long Range Surveillance Detachment) unit before being transferred to the 25th Infantry Division. I saw service in forward areas such as the Sinai, Honduras and Somalia (1985) and later in South Korea.

When Infantrymen (or anybody else for that matter) are shot at, the very first thing that you instinctively do in hit the ground in the prone position in order to become a smaller target. The second thing that you automatically do is seek cover (preferably staying in a prone position). You do not have to be a seasoned soldier to act that way, both actions happen instinctively, specially when men are being fired (and mauled) upon by heavy machineguns, firearms, artillery, tanks, air attacks or by ambush.

Infantry units are modeled very well in the game, they advance when they are not under fire, and may or may not under fire depending on realistic factors such as suppression, morale etc. and of course the size and/or rate of fire being unleashed upon them. We sometimes do not like that they get down and seek cover instead of charging that MG or get close to a tank to put a magnetic mine to it. This most unnerving action is part of infantry basic, where they have an M60 tank roll over you and then you “fire” at the rear of it with a training LAW, believe me, even in training having a 40 ton monster coming at you is a scary sight.

I believe that Infantry behaves realistically and is simulated well in the game and drastic alterations to the model may put in jeopardy the “real” feel of infantry under fire.

Regards.

“Ono Doken”

[ November 18, 2002, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: onodoken ]

[Michael Dorosh]

So my question to you would be - what did your training say about action taken when coming under fire? I've seen WW II era references that demonstrate the desire by those who wrote the manuals (at the least) was for infantry to charge forward if available cover was in front of them rather than dropping in open ground. This doesn't necessarily correspond to what a perfectly irrational human being scared out of his mind might do, but perhaps you can correspond actions you've taken and are relating to us, with what you were ordered and trained to do in these circumstances?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by onodoken:

...Somalia (1985)...

Could you tell me please how we came to have troops in Somalia in 1985?

Michael

[onodoken]

US Army Infantry doctrine dictated (18 years

ago:) that for example, when ambushed at close range to charge in the direction of the ambush and get immediately out of the kill zone. In open terrain, it depends on range, direction of fire etc. An infantry squad/platoon/company utilized the Bounding Over watch technique where one element would provide suppressive fire while the other would advance or retreat. Smaller units such as scouts and LRP's would use smoke and the "banana peel" while egressing under fire.

This all is dependent on training and experience. You cannot expect a “green” unit or FNG’s to do what elite or specialized and experienced units are conditioned and drilled to do. Both considerations are modeled in the game.

[ November 18, 2002, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: onodoken ]

[onodoken]

The 101st Airborne was deployed in 1985 to Somalia in order to train the Somali Defense force in the use of US weapons (small arms).

[Michael Emrys]

Okay. Thanks. I take though that not the entire division deployed.

Michael

[onodoken]

Only parts of the 2nd Battalion were deployed. Regrettably these same people later used the training (and possibly weapons) against our own troops.

[Cribtop Gamer]

I must totally concur with the original post. I love the infantry model and greatly fear that BTS will tone down the realism too much in order to please those who still want to play CMBO.

As I said in another thread:

1) Just don't try to cross large stretches of open ground in the fact of an unsuppressed enemy. You will fail.

2) Don't try to close to hand to hand range. Get into grenade range and win the final victory by firepower (remember, your enemy is already suppressed before you get to grenade range, right?).

[Andrew H.]

I'm not afraid that BTS will tone down the infantry model because they recently said that they would not tone down the infantry model.

But I think that the infantry is just about perfect, and I'm familiar enough with it that I am rarely frustrated by having troops not do what I want them to do. (Admittedly, this is because sometimes I don't order them to advance when I know that they won't go anywhere, but that's pretty realistic, too.) While I think a little tweaking to the exhaustion bit might be in order, I'm amazed how often my troops do the right thing and crawl towards the cover they were heading for originally - they then often get up and continue assaulting (or whatever) to their original target.

And I have lost games (or at least gotten drawn games) vs. the AI when I've showed up near the end of the game at the VL with a platoon and discovered that the AI had a two platoons in the woods, and I wouldn't be able to get those troops to the VL before the time ran out because I had no more arty or HE. So I just shot it out until the game ended without trying to advance. Completely realistic.

I posted helpful hints to about the first 12 "why won't my soldiers move" threads, but that got tiresome, and I think most people will figure it out eventually anyway.

But, yeah, infantry good.

[Battlefront.com]

Jeepers... yet another vet telling us that we got it right. Cripes, with so many vets coming to our "defense" I am going to guess threads will start popping up suggesting that MadMatt is posting under a couple dozen fake accounts claiming to be vets of various flavors! Far easier to do that than to admit that ones' tactics need to be looked at instead of our game modeling

Seriously folks, how many former and current soldiers need to come forward before we can put this issue to rest? While it is true that just because a veteran says it was this or that way doesn't necessarily make it so, but when it is something rather basic and in total agreement with other credable sources.... one should think we could move on to something else!

Thanks onodoken for your input! My dad was in the 503rd before it lost its independent status. One of the things he continually recounts is how much it sucked to move around with either a 81mm baseplate, tube, or radio equipment Apparently being a 81mm mortar FO was no better than lugging around the mortar itself!

Steve

[Tarquelne]

An amusing anecdote (I was amused, at least):

Not long after I'd read a good spate of "What's wrong with my infantry?" messages I played a CMBB quick battle as the Germans.

I was still trying out the various movement commands and concentrated on Advance that battle. My Regular troops Advanced in the face of fire from the Russian squads with ease. A little suppression, make sure the troops are rested, select "Advance" and off they go. Piece of cake. "Boy, everybody having trouble moving their infantry must be a bunch of wankers."

Well, the Russian infantry turned out to be SMG squads. Once the range closed I found that a leeetle more care than I'd previously used would be required.

[onodoken]

A quick note on tiring infantry...

On an avarage a modern infantryman carries approximately 75-85 pounds (35-40 kilos+-) of equipment. A machinegunner, mortar crew and any other crew served weapon crew must carry the harware and ammunition. Steel ammo boxes and mortar rounds are very heavy. Multiply this by days and weeks of marching (heat and cold), constant brutal combat (a la Eastern Front), scarce rations, lack of sleep, combat fatigue, enemy fire, worries about family, ignorance of strategic status (are we winning?) fear of capture, being crippled or maimed...well you get the idea.

It is quite amazing that infantrymen in WWII got anything done!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by onodoken:

A quick note on tiring infantry...

On an avarage a modern infantryman carries approximately 75-85 pounds (35-40 kilos+-) of equipment. A machinegunner, mortar crew and any other crew served weapon crew must carry the harware and ammunition. Steel ammo boxes and mortar rounds are very heavy. Multiply this by days and weeks of marching (heat and cold), constant brutal combat (a la Eastern Front), scarce rations, lack of sleep, combat fatigue, enemy fire, worries about family, ignorance of strategic status (are we winning?) fear of capture, being crippled or maimed...well you get the idea.

It is quite amazing that infantrymen in WWII got anything done!

This isn't quite true - for battle, infantry usually shed their rucksacks. A full set of German web gear usually weighed only 20 pounds or so, and this is what was worn during actual combat. (I have a complete set of German web gear and have measured it with a full water bottle and cartridge carriers). The British Army had different names for the different orders - the two most common ones were

Marching Order - full pack and webbing

Fighting Order - webbing only

The Germans had their own names for this. The fur covered tornister, and later the rucksack that replaced it, was not carried in action.

Most Russian infantrymen, come to that, rarely had a full set of equipment. Even things like cartridge carriers or e tools were sometimes not issued out to entire units due to shortages.

As one can imagine, most infantry preferred to fight lightly equipped. Even today this has not changed - the Princess Patricias in Afghanistan were carrying 100 pound loads up and down the hills, but they would not have fought with their rucksacks on.

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by onodoken:

Gentlemen:

When Infantrymen (or anybody else for that matter) are shot at, the very first thing that you instinctively do in hit the ground in the prone position in order to become a smaller target. The second thing that you automatically do is seek cover (preferably staying in a prone position). You do not have to be a seasoned soldier to act that way, both actions happen instinctively

No argument there with the first observation although it seems at odds with the second quotation. I have always understood that the whole point of military training was to stop the individual thinking like an individual and to "programme" reactions that overcame the natural self preservation feelings.

Can anyone clarify how much training was done at that time to promote the "official" go forwards attitude.

And no, Steve, I will not accept modern vererans recollections to prove the accuracy of the model in the same way I would no more accept the recollections of say a Spartan Hoplite. I would rather have the input from period survivors or WW1 or Korean vets whose periods are frankly more in line with the period than the modern battlefield.

[Redwolf]

For the record from a hopefully reasonable whiner:

I and most other people do not complain about the basic exhaustion model for infantry squads, which I have no authority to sneak about and which I don't consider a gameplay problem to start from. I certainly know that running with what light gear I carry through woods exhausts me after a few hundred meters in deep snow and/or bad weather with wet clothers (and I am in goretex).

The IMHO reasonable whining is concerned about finer points like heavy weapons which get unfair treatment from now having an exhausting sneak command, but no run command, so reaching the cover will always take long and put them out of the game from exhaustion (being forced into sneak against the player's will).

Another fine point is wire artillery spotters which cannot abandon their stupid wire after firing allt heir ammo and going back to friendly lines. I know the current engine cannot handle abanonding stuff, but then we should be given some replacement, like a compromise speed setting, or a faster withdrawl command.

The (IMHO) reasonable whiners are between a rock and a hard stone between the real whiners who want their CMBO supermen back and the whiner-whiners who are fed up with them, but that doesn't make us wrong.

Thanks for your attention.

[mattman2000]

Please please please leave the infantry just as they are. I got mauled the first SEVERAL times I played the game (I'm not ashamed to say it). But I'm doing my best to adapt, things are starting to pay off and it's a lot more rewarding to successfully use my infantry in CMBB than in CMBO. In fact, I'm starting to live for the opportunity when I can use my pioneers to clear a minefield, or tackle a gun emplacement.

BTW, there's a web site that has pdf copies of the U.S. Army's combat infantry drills. With a little tweaking, they're certainly applicable to the game.

[Redwolf]

As a concrete suggestion about the heavy weapons:

1) make the threshold where control is taken away from the player higher.

In special, do not give another auto-sneak when the player already canceled one. If the player gives a stop (or hide) command in the open, then try to keep it, only under more heavy fire than now given an auto-sneak.

2) tune the sneak command for units which cannot really run. Make it less exhausting and remove cover bonus in return. And as said, allow players to cancel it. If the player says "stay in the open", then respect that wish longer than now.

So the theory is this: for squads the whole auto-exhaustion business is not that bad since on panic they will first run most of the way to cover and then switch to sneak. That realsonably often enables them to reach the cover wth moderate exhaustion, since they cover a lot of way in run.

A key problem in CMBB 1.0 is IMHO that the same sneak treatment is given to units which cannot cover a way in run this way.

So I suggest: make the sneak command for heavy weapons less exhausting, but given them less cover bonus/more exposure. So if the player lets them sneak to cover, they are likely to take losses, but if they survive they are still in business, exhaustion-wise.

The payer can now take measure to rescue them by smoke, APCs, supression, praying, whatever.

2 + 3) combined:

In combination, these two measure will allow the player to make a tactical decision:

- either he wants the heavy weapon to stay instead of exhausting themself, usually he will do that if he has a plan how to protect them

- or he can order them to "semi-sneak" to cover, where they would arrive with losses, but they would be in good shape if they make it

Today he gets nothing: no control, all the losses (from being too slow in the open ground and staying in the fire zone too long) and automatic full-exhaustion which will last to the game end for regulars.

[mattman2000]

One last thing. Granted, it's a no brainer, but I'm gonna post it anyway. My dad and grandfather are combat veterans (WWI and Vietnam, respectively). And from what I've gleaned from their accounts, they both encountered the same thing -- There's often a monstrous difference between what that 19-year-old private has been trained to do, and what he's capable of when someone's trying their best to kill him.

[mattman2000]

Geez -- typo. Gandfather was in WWII, not WWI. D'oh.

[Martin Rapier]

I have always understood that the whole point of military training was to stop the individual thinking like an individual and to "programme" reactions that overcame the natural self preservation feelings.

It certainly is, however I'm not sure that all WW2 armies had a doctrine of 'charge forward' if shot at. In the British Army units were supposed to follow their orders until they came under effective fire (ie fire which actually landed in the immediate vicinity of the section). In this case they were supposed to drop to the ground instantly ('as if shot' the manual says) and return fire until the section commander took control. He could then attempt to proceed by fire and movement ('advance' in CMBB parlance) but if the fire was too heavy then the platoon would have to attempt a more complex solution (usually the section under fire plus any available heavy weapons became a firebase whilst the platoon CO led the other two sections on a flanking manouvre).

Anyway, the main point is that they were trained to drop to the ground instantly, it being stressed in fieldcraft training that there is no such thing as 'open ground' and that cover and concealment is available anywhere. This is from both the 1942 and the March 1944 Platoon Commanders Manual.

Anyone got any idea what German & Russian doctrine was? The most detailed info I can come up with is just that German infantry generally operated in dispersed columns of files, shaking out into line when a firefight was initiated & that they the operated in small groups on a wide front advancing by fire and movement, decentralised heavy weapons aiding in suppressive defensive fires. This is pretty much what the eingrif divisions in WW1 did, and the stress on supressive heavy weapons, artillery and MG fire gives the impression that running around in the face of effective incoming fire was not exactly encouraged.

Cheers

Martin

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by Martin Rapier:

I have always understood that the whole point of military training was to stop the individual thinking like an individual and to "programme" reactions that overcame the natural self preservation feelings.

It certainly is, however I'm not sure that all WW2 armies had a doctrine of 'charge forward' if shot at. In the British Army units were supposed to follow their orders until they came under effective fire (ie fire which actually landed in the immediate vicinity of the section). In this case they were supposed to drop to the ground instantly ('as if shot' the manual says) and return fire until the section commander took control. He could then attempt to proceed by fire and movement ('advance' in CMBB parlance) but if the fire was too heavy then the platoon would have to attempt a more complex solution (usually the section under fire plus any available heavy weapons became a firebase whilst the platoon CO led the other two sections on a flanking manouvre).

Anyway, the main point is that they were trained to drop to the ground instantly, it being stressed in fieldcraft training that there is no such thing as 'open ground' and that cover and concealment is available anywhere. This is from both the 1942 and the March 1944 Platoon Commanders Manual.

Anyone got any idea what German & Russian doctrine was? The most detailed info I can come up with is just that German infantry generally operated in dispersed columns of files, shaking out into line when a firefight was initiated & that they the operated in small groups on a wide front advancing by fire and movement, decentralised heavy weapons aiding in suppressive defensive fires. This is pretty much what the eingrif divisions in WW1 did, and the stress on supressive heavy weapons, artillery and MG fire gives the impression that running around in the face of effective incoming fire was not exactly encouraged.

Cheers

Martin

Thank you Martin. That's very useful info. Already it throws some light on the expected reactions of units under fire. Now can anyone elaborate whether there are details with regards as to what should happen if the unit is getting in to a panicked situation?

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

So just out of curiosity.... what happened to the parts of the full pack that the soldiers didn't carry into battle with them? Did they go back and pick it up after the fighting? Did a support element bring it forward?

Quote from redwolf:

"Another fine point is wire artillery spotters which cannot abandon their stupid wire after firing allt heir ammo and going back to friendly lines."

At the risk of seeming heartless, why do you care about arty spotters with no ammo? They've done their work and aren't of much strategic value any more.

Dr. Rosenrosen

[MasterGoodale]

I can't agree with the original post more than I already do, as well as several other replies in here. Being an 8 year vet I am often astonished that people think the soldiers don't act properly under fire. Holy Crap!! I have noticed to my delight that almost always the green troops become frazzled to varying degrees when faced with enemy fire while the vets tend to carry on. Also the FNGs tend to be a little more composed when near regulars or other troops! Very normal and accurate. Aftr a short time in combat (ie they become regulars, vets, etc) troops become somewhat "immune" to the typical firefight. This is modeled well I think. As for the tanks and what not holy christ I can imagine what it was like to be walking along and suddenly 3 or 4 enemy tanks appear out of nowhere and start blasting away at you! These things are tremendously intimidating in real life. It's not a game people. This **** is real. Half the time when I get done playing I have to wipe the gunpowder from my face for christ sakes!! :mad:

Oh and don't get me started about the fatige thing. God I would just love to toss a few of you into the fields and forests of Europe (or the blizzards of Russia) with battle gear on under fire and laugh mananically while you slithered through mud and snow, crawling over the mutilated bodies of your comrades.

AARARAARGGARAGRGRARAGRAGR AR AGRA GR AGR AGRAGRGR G GG G G GG G!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Carry on.

[onodoken]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

A quick note on tiring infantry...

On an avarage a modern infantryman carries approximately 75-85 pounds (35-40 kilos+-) of equipment. A machinegunner, mortar crew and any other crew served weapon crew must carry the harware and ammunition. Steel ammo boxes and mortar rounds are very heavy. Multiply this by days and weeks of marching (heat and cold), constant brutal combat (a la Eastern Front), scarce rations, lack of sleep, combat fatigue, enemy fire, worries about family, ignorance of strategic status (are we winning?) fear of capture, being crippled or maimed...well you get the idea.

It is quite amazing that infantrymen in WWII got anything done!

This isn't quite true - for battle, infantry usually shed their rucksacks. A full set of German web gear usually weighed only 20 pounds or so, and this is what was worn during actual combat. (I have a complete set of German web gear and have measured it with a full water bottle and cartridge carriers). The British Army had different names for the different orders - the two most common ones were

Marching Order - full pack and webbing

Fighting Order - webbing only

The Germans had their own names for this. The fur covered tornister, and later the rucksack that replaced it, was not carried in action.

Most Russian infantrymen, come to that, rarely had a full set of equipment. Even things like cartridge carriers or e tools were sometimes not issued out to entire units due to shortages.

As one can imagine, most infantry preferred to fight lightly equipped. Even today this has not changed - the Princess Patricias in Afghanistan were carrying 100 pound loads up and down the hills, but they would not have fought with their rucksacks on.</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Ono - our rucksacks here in Canada have a quick release - the first thing you would do when coming under fire would be to dump the 50 or 60 pounds of spare socks, rations, sleeping bag, air mattress, etc.!

No doubt assault troops carried heavy loads with them on D-Day - this was the exception rather than the rule, as there was no real choice otherwise. A German platoon in WW II had a horse cart, a Canadian or Briitsh platoon had a 15 cwt truck, etc., on which the platoon piled all its gear. These weren't available for assault operations, obviously, but the majority of time, most soldiers in Europe in WW II regardless of natinality had some sort of wheeled conveyance on which his pack, sleeping gear, and other impedimenta was stored and transported. There were many extreme cases when this transport was not available (think of encirclement or retreat battles, etc.) and of course soldiers were required to march with full pack on occasion - but fighting was not often done with full gear on. I think the example you cite would be a rarity. An even more extreme example would be the Airborne troops who dropped into Normandy with everything but the kitchen sink. Still, I would expect (and photographic "evidence" seems to suggest) that troops generally stripped down for fighting in.

I agree, this has been a very interesting thread - it's good to have you on the forum.

Incidentally, for anyone who hasn't checked, Ono has a pretty good website on the go that is worth checking out.

[ November 19, 2002, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]