Jump to content

Questions on Tactics


Recommended Posts

1.)Do the British have different tactics for their forces or are they too similar to US forces not to matter much?

2.)Do the British ride their IFVs (carriers) into battle until they receive fire or do they dismount prior to battle if they can?

3.)Are there any web souces, books about British tactics that the grogs or others could recommend?

4.)Are most tactics today Brute Force? (ie: see enemy, pound him with artillery and missiles) Is there any maneuvering involved?

5.) Where are the grogs like JasonC who used to love and teach us about the intricacies of tactics and the different nation forces?

I miss the the old postings of CMx1 days when people talked tactics and how to maneuver different forces. I've tried to read different field manuals and such but most are just filled with extraneous information that doesn't really apply to this or any other simulation.They are also dry and boring. I also like looking at different AARs but most just show or tell how different forces maneuver not the why. I want to know why that squad was set up there and not there. Are they setting up a support by fire position or are they maneuvering to get there? That is the kind of information I crave. There are some great websites out there such as Armchair General but even there in their tactics article there is just so much extraneous info that unfortunately doesn't apply.

6.) Anybody willing to do such a detailed AAR? Even a small one? And explain why they are doing this or that? Because this is such a great sim I would like to learn such real world tactics as would apply here. Especially the differences (even though small) of the different nations tactics and how they use their available equipment?

I'm asking a lot ain't I?

Thanks in advance to all who respond!

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been considering writing up a piece on Soviet and likely Syrian tactics but they are not as complex at company level as NATO or even further up the formation.

I am not sure if anyone would be interested though and it would need a lot of work.

+1 on British tactics though, I would love a discription of platoon and company level tactics for the British army and how it differs from the Americans. There is not that much literature on the subject as far as I am aware.

AFAIK, the British army is less firepower oriented than the US forces and try for maneuvre or aimed fire at range. This is simply because they lack the 'punch' of the Yanks but in Iraq or Afghanistan the tactics at the small unit level are very similar because of the nature of the war. Take fire from the concealed enemy, ID a target and let the big guns do the work - no one wants to press an attack because the risk of casualties are high. I am aware of the exceptions to this rule of course and the Brits do fix bayonets when the enemy is close. (only 2 per squad because of MG's and UGL's but its the thought that counts :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There may be doctrine for the British Army, but the key tenet is make it up as you go along.

Not sure where the idea comes from that the British Army lacks firepower. Man for man the SA80 packs more of a punch than the M4 and an 8 man section carries as much UGLs and LMGs as a 9 man US squad, plus two LSWs for those long-range engagements.

Fire and manoeuvre at range is useful in CM:SF because the British firepower (WMIKs etc.) can't take the punishment that the US vehicles. However, the WMIKs especially can dish more out, so standing off out of RPG range can work.

From what I understand it, some British tactics won't work in CM:SF because shock effect doesn't work so well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There may be doctrine for the British Army, but the key tenet is make it up as you go along.

Not sure where the idea comes from that the British Army lacks firepower. Man for man the SA80 packs more of a punch than the M4 and an 8 man section carries as much UGLs and LMGs as a 9 man US squad, plus two LSWs for those long-range engagements.

Fire and manoeuvre at range is useful in CM:SF because the British firepower (WMIKs etc.) can't take the punishment that the US vehicles. However, the WMIKs especially can dish more out, so standing off out of RPG range can work.

From what I understand it, some British tactics won't work in CM:SF because shock effect doesn't work so well.

What is working for me, basically, is blasting things from a distance. I tend to move my infantry to a good jumping off point and hammer their immediate objective with as much firepower from vehicles, air and arty as I can before I move the squaddies forwards. Fire and manoeuver - Concentrated fire and lots of manoeuver - is helping me get where I am trying to go. Doesn't work so well on dense urban maps but I'm still working on that.

I'd like a good primer to how all the various elememets hang together as well. I really don't know much about real world British tactics but I guess I could begin to rectify that with some reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One real world tactic that I can't see working in CM:SF is discussed in "Dusty Warriors"

Step 1) Plaster objective with artillery/air as required

Step 2) Rampage right up to the objective in Warriors, whilst mounted and spraying the bejesus out of everything in sight and a few things that aren't

Step 3) Throw the infantry out of the back so they can shoot things and people and blow stuff up.

Step 4) Back up a little and continue machine gunning anything not dressed in DPM

Step 5) Look for the raving lunatic masquerading as your section commander then go and pick him up.

Step 6) Move to the next bit of dead ground

Step 7) GOTO Step 1)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure where the idea comes from that the British Army lacks firepower. Man for man the SA80 packs more of a punch than the M4 and an 8 man section carries as much UGLs and LMGs as a 9 man US squad, plus two LSWs for those long-range engagements.

I agree that the british army squad has more firepower than its US Army counterpart (not the US marines obviously), its just that the American forces have tanks, IFV's, planes, javelins etc. coming out of their ears whereas the British forces often have to 'Muddle through' without. Still, thats what we are good at right? :)

@falconeer4250 - To answer question 2, AFAIK, only the Soviet influenced countries will attempt to fight from their IFV's (not possible in the game). Western coutries tend to dismount and lead the assault with infantry. Unloading 300-400m away from the enemy position would be a good bet but obviously don't take that as gospel

Edit: flamingknives seems to have found that I am wrong about not dismounting! Still - I would still argue that western countries *usually* dismount :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is working for me, basically, is blasting things from a distance. I tend to move my infantry to a good jumping off point and hammer their immediate objective with as much firepower from vehicles, air and arty as I can before I move the squaddies forwards. Fire and manoeuver - Concentrated fire and lots of manoeuver - is helping me get where I am trying to go. Doesn't work so well on dense urban maps but I'm still working on that.

I'd like a good primer to how all the various elememets hang together as well. I really don't know much about real world British tactics but I guess I could begin to rectify that with some reading.

Knowing nothing about how the British army fights in detail in the real world, I've ended up going down the same road as Lets_All_Fight. British forces tend to have more vehicles than they know what to do with, and most of them aren't tough enough to take a hit from anything, so staying at range and plastering everything with MG fire has been working well for me. Plus it may be my imagination, but they really do seem to be significantly more lethal at longer ranges than similar US forces (even before you factor in the ubiquitous snipers).

I seem to spend a lot more time sitting around waiting with Brits, particularly in comparison to USMC. Simulating tea breaks, no doubt. Waiting for the 51mm mortar to set up and suppress the enemy squad just over that ridge, waiting for the vehicles to get into position to suppress, waiting for arty or CAS to respond. While with a marine squad, you can just charge in there against unsuppressed enemies and the overwhelming firepower will swing the fight your way regardless.

I dare say I play the Brits how I should play the marines, but with the marines you can get away with being sloppy.

The Brits have all the tools for the job. You just have to take a bit more time to arrange them where they are needed and keep them safe.

And remember two important points: HQ units have the 51mm mortar. Use it early and often - every warrior carries another 12 rounds plus 6 smoke rounds, so you can restock easily. And Warriors are actually much tougher beasts from the side than from the front, so keep them side on to the enemy with covered arcs to point their turrets to sites of explosive interest.

That's my main lessons learned so far, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One real world tactic that I can't see working in CM:SF is discussed in "Dusty Warriors"

Step 1) Plaster objective with artillery/air as required

Step 2) Rampage right up to the objective in Warriors, whilst mounted and spraying the bejesus out of everything in sight and a few things that aren't

Step 3) Throw the infantry out of the back so they can shoot things and people and blow stuff up.

Step 4) Back up a little and continue machine gunning anything not dressed in DPM

Step 5) Look for the raving lunatic masquerading as your section commander then go and pick him up.

Step 6) Move to the next bit of dead ground

Step 7) GOTO Step 1)

I've used this as Syria, when testing how it works. If there is enough arty (about 20-30 tubes does it for defeding company :)), and fire mission planning and attacking mech unit's movement's goes smoothly much nothing will stand on it's way. This in battalion/reinforced company, having 1 tank for platoon of mech inf, vs defending light infantry company.

I usually lost few vehicles because i didnt' bothered to give them area fire targets. Defending infantry was still pinned down in their foxholes (i used general ammo-type so that most defenders would survive the barrage) as assaulting infantry dismounted, charged and finally broke into defenses, blew-up and shot cowered enemy infantry. Old fashioned and brutal.

Ofcourse this was text-book example, defenders and everything were setup in "traditional" forms and ways, and i played against AI.

I've also used it with light infantry fights. As long as fire mission planning and other supporting fires and own assault element's movement goes well it's very succesful tactic.

Usually problem is insufficent amount of tubes (or too long time to wait for them)... Or that firemission lasted one minute longer than i tought, which is ouch!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: flamingknives seems to have found that I am wrong about not dismounting! Still - I would still argue that western countries *usually* dismount :)

In a specific instance - a set-piece assault.

British troops certainly don't fight mounted, but crossing ground to an enemy position being suppressed by MGs, Tanks and Artillery doesn't count as fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.)Do the British have different tactics for their forces or are they too similar to US forces not to matter much?

2.)Do the British ride their IFVs (carriers) into battle until they receive fire or do they dismount prior to battle if they can?

3.)Are there any web souces, books about British tactics that the grogs or others could recommend?

4.)Are most tactics today Brute Force? (ie: see enemy, pound him with artillery and missiles) Is there any maneuvering involved?

5.) Where are the grogs like JasonC who used to love and teach us about the intricacies of tactics and the different nation forces?

I miss the the old postings of CMx1 days when people talked tactics and how to maneuver different forces. I've tried to read different field manuals and such but most are just filled with extraneous information that doesn't really apply to this or any other simulation.They are also dry and boring. I also like looking at different AARs but most just show or tell how different forces maneuver not the why. I want to know why that squad was set up there and not there. Are they setting up a support by fire position or are they maneuvering to get there? That is the kind of information I crave. There are some great websites out there such as Armchair General but even there in their tactics article there is just so much extraneous info that unfortunately doesn't apply.

6.) Anybody willing to do such a detailed AAR? Even a small one? And explain why they are doing this or that? Because this is such a great sim I would like to learn such real world tactics as would apply here. Especially the differences (even though small) of the different nations tactics and how they use their available equipment?

I'm asking a lot ain't I?

Thanks in advance to all who respond!

Ron

Ron,

+1 to all of your questions.

The British Army's tactical doctrine is unfortunately classified. Please see this entry in my blog.

I've read all I can from the posts in this forum and more information would be really appreciated.

A bibliography section, as the one BFC posted for CMSF would be great too.

Cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@falconeer4250 - To answer question 2, AFAIK, only the Soviet influenced countries will attempt to fight from their IFV's (not possible in the game).

I have been wondering why this is not possible in the game. It doesn't seem like firing ports would be that hard to code. Even opening the top hatch on the rear of the BMP and standing up to fire would count as firing while mounted. The code is there on the Strykers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFC perhaps wants to encourage the Pixeltruppen syrians to get out of their rolling coffins ASAP. Loaded AFVs are probably the juiciest target in the game. The Syrians are not usually playing with the kind of massive artillery suppression that the Russian tactic envisions. I don't think something as nasty as the Javelin was common when that tactic was thought out either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, as I understand it the Russians never quite comprehended why NATO insisted on setting up defenses in range of Russian artillery. It made less than no sense to them. The concept of militarily stupid but politically necessary just didn't register. It contributed somewhat to their paranoia about NATOs intentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5.) Where are the grogs like JasonC who used to love and teach us about the intricacies of tactics and the different nation forces?

I miss the the old postings of CMx1 days when people talked tactics and how to maneuver different forces.

IIRC, something about all the old timers just not getting it and that Battlefront and the community is much better off now without them around causing trouble.

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally find that a combination of what happens in real life and an understanding of how the game mechanics work is heading on the right path.

Also, be flexible, you dont always have to stand-off in your Warriors, sometimes you can drive them right onto the objective and unload.

Me, I dont take anyone out of a vehicle unless its absolutely necessary. Apply a healthy dose of firepower and a modicum of distance. Just do what the Brits would, er or imagine it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, something about all the old timers just not getting it and that Battlefront and the community is much better off now without them around causing trouble.

I agree.

I agree too, no need for uncomprehending old windbags to sully up the forum with their long winded bore-posts........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with 'official' doctrine is its been warped in the weird wars we've had going for the past eight+ years. Is Syria a 'classic' full-scale invasion? Is it a 'police action'? A retaliatory strike with limited aims? Are the citizens hostile? Pinning down what precisely is to be done under which circumstances might be tough.

A lot of people just seem to hate the Syrian setting with a passion.

Sigh. What can you do? I never understood CMBB being shunned by so many back-in-the-day. And their reasons were all over the map. Nobody in the game spoke English. Both sides are the 'Bad Guy'. Equipment was uninteresting(!). You name it, they used it as an excuse. They came up with similar excuses for CMAK. You got the feeling they were stating every excuse but the real reason, that they've pretty much fetishized NW Europe. Playing WWII Normandy is like acting out the scenes to 'Rocky Horror Picture Show'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with 'official' doctrine is its been warped in the weird wars we've had going for the past eight+ years. Is Syria a 'classic' full-scale invasion? Is it a 'police action'? A retaliatory strike with limited aims? Are the citizens hostile? Pinning down what precisely is to be done under which circumstances might be tough.

Even the basic TO&E doctrine has been fiddled around with to an extent. Its not unusual to see Sergeants or Colour Sergeants as Platoon Commanders, GPMGs issued left right and centre, Platoons organised as two "Multiples" of 12 rather than 3 sections of 8, Cavalry acting as Infantry, the list goes on and on.

But of course, its usually only when a war breaks out that doctrine gets experimented with and thus updated. Mounted cavalry was still a part of most armies in 1914, remember? How quickly that changed ;)

There hasn't been a major war to put the conventional tactics and doctrine developed since 1945 into practice. The warriors never did roll out across the north german plain against that big Soviet tank rush, so it was never discovered if the structure would work for real. I'd like to imagine the US and UK would go into Syria with their "textbook" doctrines but I'd say its very likely some "lessons learned" from the conflict would result in a change to the doctrine to counter some previously unforseen threat/problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing that happens is units rotate in/out of a particular area. Sometimes their equipment doesn't rotate in/out proportionally :D Sometimes this is deliberate from a higher level, sometimes it is more low level. Sometimes it is just a mistake and someone decides to latch onto an opportunity. One thing soldiers don't like to do is let good military hardware sit around without a use :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Seabee, we had almost ALL old crappy stuff. And it RARELY ever moved bases. For example, we would deploy to our forward bases and have to 'sign for' all the equipment. When we left, we had to clean it up and hand it over to the next keepers.

And we had huge warehouses full of brand new war-reserves. We'd by driving Vietnam era deuce and a half's around with dozens of mint condition mtvr's in storage. Hell, my first 4 years I had to buy my own boots because they were issuing WW2 era flight deck boots (the worst boots ever made, would fit an ostrich better than a man)! And I swear some of my issued items in Okinawa were actually veterans of the invasion! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heh... my dad was in the 503rd around 1960. He said that almost everything he had issued to him (in terms of equipment) had WW2 dates on it. They bought their own jump boots because they didn't get them issued. The only major thing he had which wasn't WW2 dated (besides his clothing, which was at least recent production) was his M2 Carbine. Although that was just a M1 Carbine with a bit of metal removed so it could fire full auto ;) In fact, it's likely his was a converted WW2 unit.

He never saw combat, however one day they all thought for sure they were going into Vietnam or some other place guns-a-blazing. What made them think that? They were hauled out double time and issued all new gear, including brand new radios. Some of the stuff they didn't even know what to do with :D Then they were dropped in an exercise and had to return all the new stuff when they got back to base. And it was just like OLD times :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...