Infantry attacking in column= foot traffic jams

[jtcm]

I attack with infantry-- having read the JasonC posts, i try to attack in depth, in a column. OK, so a company attacks: heavy weapons emplaced, a few h/squads as flank security or deception or scouts across the map, and one sector chosen as the focus of the attack: two plts one behind another, 2 squads frontage with hq in middle, and maybe the Co commander leading a group of the left overs from the third plt, and also to collect any stragglers.

The lead plt jumps off. Moves from over to cover. Takes HMG fire. No matter, JasonC's written the book: some units hide and recover, other units continue moving. Cover arcs, 150 m. After soaking up a lot of HMG ammo, finally contact is made, the shooters localized, around 200 m or less. My own HMGs and mortars can start to play on the localized enemy line. My lead plt takes up positions at 150-180 m from the enemy line.

This is when I never know what to do with the follow-up units: should they deploy around the lead plt (which is formed up in a firing line) ? If so, they often attract unwanted attention from other parts of the map. Should they move forward ? if so, they usually mash up into the lead plt, into a bit foot traffic jam. Should they wait ? If so, the lead plt just fires away its ammo

[Kingfish]

If terrain allows, the follow ups should look to flank the now "fixed" enemy defensive line. Not only is this a common military tactic, but it pays extra dividends because of a bug in how the game engine handles units firing.

In a normal situation, a 10-man squad in a trench who is attacked by multiple units would spread its fire to deal with each threat. However, in CM a unit can only engage one target at a time regardless of size. Therefore, part of the attacking force gets a free ride, so to speak, allowing it to flank and fire on the defender with impunity.

A defense in depth would address this to a certain extent, but if the attacker already has a numerical advantage eventually some of his command will break thru.

[Vark]

On the attack you could try two platoons leading with two squads leading, in each. Company HQ follows and then a trail platoon. If contact is made the two forward platoons try to find then fix the enemy, with the option of passing their trailing squads forward to gain some advantageous ground. HQ follows to rally units out of command (especially if the lead units start to move independently, under fire). If the situation warrants, the rear platoon can pass through the middle, between the lead platoons and continue the advance. This way the 25-30m spacings between squads can be maintained, but it does increase the attacking frontage and therefore the exposure to fire, especially in restricted terrain of low visibility conditions. Pre-battle examination of the map can mitigate this unwanted attention, especially tiles that allow sneaking units to break LOS.

An advance to contact might benefit from one lead platoon and two flanking ones, HQ in the middle. If the lead platoon hits trouble it can retire through the gap, supported by the two flanking platoons. If it achieves local success the advance can be continued, with the original lead platoon now taking up a flanking position, or if more aggressive action is suitable both flanking platoons attack and the formation reverts to a two up company attack. This formulation can be repeated with the individual squads replicating the changes in their parent formation.

I've been playing a series of encounters with a reinforced 43 German pioneer company and have found these tactics work pretty well, even advances across open maps! Though the day the AI bought six guns was not a happy one and the Company HQ played shepherd for most of the attack! One final note, rotating your lead platoons is vital as the squads exhaust their ammo so quickly with assaults. The "Taking Viipuri" battle left my lead platoons low on ammo after fighting through a modest trench line, although it was manned by some early examples of genetically engineered and enhanced Soviet supermen. I'm sure that company commander was wearing a spandex suit and cloak!

[JasonC]

It is a fine question. The answer as usual is "it depends". Sometimes the cover justifies deploying on-line on both sides of the point, sometimes just swinging around the stalled point on a single side only. Sometimes you just fire from the depth of the column or with heavy weapons until the point is unpinned. Sometimes you smoke the defenders off of them. Sometimes you advance one tank to get spots and KO shooters that can't hurt armor. Sometimes you can just "top off" a front of a couple of platoons as they break, rallying the remnants of the earlier platoons on the same frontage.

It isn't worth trying to shoot back with just a single half-pinned point platoon. The lead platoon will be incapable of helping itself. Its job is shield anyway, to take the pain, suck out defender ammo, and get spots. It shouldn't fire off all its ammo replying and generally won't get the chance to in rally terms anyway.

The one thing you don't do is pancake too many men into 2 tiny patches of cover. The approach route should have been picked to provide a base of fire onto the defending position you mean to take. Well, whatever that planned base of fire was, you want to keep its forward edge "topped off" with good order defenders.

Remember that it is an OK exchange to lose the entire point platoon as effectives, if your overwatch heavy weapons can clobber an equal number of defenders. It is even an OK exchange to lose the entire point platoon as effectives just in return for sucking all the ammo out of a defending full platoon.

What isn't an acceptable result, though, is losing 10 minutes in return for only "getting at" a tiny portion of the defending force. What the defender gets from a stalled point, especially one stalled by just stealthy ranged weapons, is another 5-10 minutes burned off the clock with the loss rate on both sides still low.

But sure, cover crowding becomes as issue. You generally have more men for the frontage than you can fit up front, that is half the point really. Don't try to use them all at once, just do use them. Feed the front. The defenders opposite will lose individual shooters to heavy weapons fire and whole platoons there will run dry. Once that causes the fire to slacken, the point (often cycled to a new formation by then) should "lift", clear the old cover, and make room for the men behind that way.

[jtcm]

The fine art of leading a infy co. in the attack-- surely the best use of fighting against the AI, to practise co. commander skills.

Anyway, I tried again: lead plt forward, hits enemy line of resistance, second plt swings left-- and, presto, gets hit by all kinds of fire from other parts of enemy line; it being the AI, you can see squads scurrying forward to relocate to join in the fun.

So when choosing approach route: important to visualize how the fight will develop, once the lead plt has found cover and is exchanging fire with the enemy line-- where do the follow up elements go ? -- Have a plan: e.g. mask them from the rest of the enemy line, with smoke, while they flank; or have a covered route by which you can feed them, squad by squad, into the firing line to relieve the lead plt. before it's bled dry; or have a plan to leap frog them past the lead plt, once the heavy weapons have started making an impact; or...

But keep active, and avoid "foot traffic jams". OK, will try this

I wonder how, in real life, you carry out as delicate an operation as withdrawing a lead plt under fire, to relieve it ? I mean, if you do it at one go, e.g. by masking with smoke, the enemy can simply retire to another position; if you do it piece meal, without CM style godlike control, doesn't it turn into a churning mess ?

[Cuirassier]

During the planning phase, there are two very important questions that you need to answer. First, you identify an approach route that you can fit your rifle company into without overconcentrating. Secondly, you want most of this cover to be 100-200m from the expected enemy MLR. Cover along the approach route is also important, though a well conducted advance can still move over open ground nearly devoid of cover. However, for that last stretch, you want shell hoes, trees, fences or whatever else there is to shelter your men so they can rally and fire back at effective small arms range.

The next question to answer is where to place overwatch weapons that can effctively help the advance. From your comments, it seems to me that this may be your biggest problem. If the enemy unvails more of his defense to stop the second platoon you send in, this should not concern you the least. Heavy weapons should now have even more troops to chew on. And bring up more infantry, which serves to create another threat to the defense while giving the pinned guys to rally. Remember, the fundamental idea behind depth tactics is to continually feed fresh forces into the grinder at a sustainable pace. The enemy needs to use new shooters to deal with each new threat you make. Because you have greater odds, you should be able to outlast the defense, provided you do not give him any freebees.

As for withdrawing the point, the best way is to simply gain fire ascendency. The job of point is the worst job to have, and the men rely heavily on the guys watching their backs to make it out with at least some of the alive. There is a reason that the US Army, for example, rotated point duty throughout companies, battalions, etc.

[jtcm]

Got you, thanks. But if more enemies pop up to stop my second plt, and my heavy weapon group starts to silence them, it means I have to take them off relieving the point plt / killing enemies in front, at the point of attack. I mean, a Co in the attack has 2 HMGs and a mortar or two ? (the JasonC style "toolbox" used long range).

Nice point re. using firepower to ease rotating the lead units and withdrawing them.

[JasonC]

If you run a company into a battalion position, you will lose. Not a matter of technique.

If you run a company into a platoon position, you should win handily if you apply proper techinique.

Between lies the gray zone where skill matters and the escalation chain matters. If your company plus supporting FO and tank runs into a company, they may execute poorly and get chopped up and fail, while the tank gets KOed by a hidden gun etc, then the enemy flat out-played you. Or instead you may put the FO square on an enemy platoon position right before contact, cut up or suppress help rushing to them with the tank, slaughter the enemy platoon broken by the artillery and wade into them, and then roll up the enemy position with the cover differential gone and an odds edge. Then you flat out-played them.

These execution details should not matter if you hit a single enemy platoon with your company. You should just chew the hell out of them. Yes they pin the point, then 2 of their shooters pin permanently under mortar fire, HMGs never let them get up again, the second platoon moves up on them and cuts loose at 150m with a full platoon shot at one shooter, and you are "on" the remnants, a single HQ firing with one SMG and some pinned units making their last stands at 30 meters distance. You lose a squad from the point halved and rattled and maybe not even rallied, and take a dozen causalties elsewhere in 1s and 2s, and shot off a bunch of ammo. But the step-size outclassed defending platoon dies outright - broken 2-3 man remnants are the most that get away and they never rally.

Thus the trick is a plan of attack that hits only one enemy platoon with your whole company. If you don't manage that, see above in re skill in execution. You haven't achieved the desired match up by wing-attack maneuver or anything like it, in that case. I assume if you have a company of infantry as a main attack force, the enemy is outnumbered, and I also assume he is covering a wider total frontage than you are attacking on. Well, if you only get an even odds attack locally, it means the defender maneuvered better than you, because he doesn't have even odds overall to start with.

[jtcm]

Most helpful. The last two games I played, indeed, I did try launching an infy Co. at at Battn-sized position. What was I thinking ??-- probably to devour the plt at the point I had chosed to overload (well, with 2 plts), then roll up a flank. Um, it doesn't work that way-- why else do attackers have to have the numbers edge ? Short answer: to keep the other guys busy while the assaulting plt, well, assaults (by moving plts to flank positions, or shooting from within the depth of the column, or manoeuvers out onto the open squad by squad, or whatever). D'oh !

In other words, my Co. "manoeuvers" against the AI should be either:

1. Battn against Battn, with e.g. one Co. assaulting, one Co assets specifically allocated to protect the flanks of the point Co. by drawing fire of the enemy line, and one Co, to follow up. The Co. in the attack (with its various problems of how to locate heavy support weapons, and how to manage the developing of plts on the ground once under fire) is part of a larger ensemble, but this ensemble frees it to concentrate on its job, local fire and manoeuver.

2. Co. against plt, i.e. driving in a plt. outpost-- perfectly realistic situation, too (I think often given in tactics manuals as one of Co infantry's jobs).

Back to practice.

[jtcm]

Correct a sentence above to

"Short answer: to keep the other guys busy while the assaulting Co., well, assaults..."

[JasonC]

A common example would be an entire Russian battalion attacking a German infantry company position, with the Germans having a few fortifications and supporting guns, and one module of 105mm artillery. The Russians might have a literal battalion off the purchase screens, or one that includes specialists, e.g. 2 rifle companies plus an SMG company and a few pioneers. Along with numerous small heavy weapons groups, multiple tube artillery FOs (high caliber conscript using map-fire, plus 1 120mm mortar regular, on call, would be typical), maybe a T-34 platoon maybe not, a few towed 76mm guns if not, on top of the mortars in the heavy weapons groups.

In that case, the Russians might attack in one or two places, with each attack delivered by a reinforced company, while half the frontage is screened by just a few heavy weapons groups (say 4 maxims and 2 mortars all told). The Russians would keep a reserve from a couple of platoons to a company. If they use only a single attack, it would typically be 2 companies wide(not all in column), but the width of each only 4 squads (each company in 2 by 2 platoons, each platoon 2 by 2 squads), so the whole thing might go in on 400 meters of width.

Platoon diagram

A1--A2---B1--B2

A3--A4---B3--B4

With each platoon 2 squads up, 2 squads back. There would be a heavy weapons group in each company center, minimum, and maybe 2 more, say one to the left of A3 and the other between A4 and B3 trailing slightly.

In tight cover spots, sometimes a full platoon will pass in sequence through the same cover tile, but more typically they will use 2 cover tiles within 50 meters of each other. There are similar gaps between the platoons. Thus all that fits on about 400 meters. The wave depth is 4 squads on each line, maybe 6 units if you count HQs and heavy weapons. So the formation may be 250 meters deep, occasionally stretching to 400 as one group steps off before the next etc.

If the attackers have literally one company for the whole frontage plus supporting weapons, then they should come in under 500 points, even with a 4th platoon (e.g. recon A) or a tank (e.g. T-34) and an FO, and should thus face only 300 points of defenders. That will buy 2 regular infantry platoons with nothing in support, or 1 infantry platoon, a couple of HMGs, and for artillery a light FO or one on-map gun plus one 81mm mortar. You should not need to worry about running into a full company with all arms in support, with a total force of one company yourself. (In other words, it is higher HQs' job to get you out of that match-up, not yours to make it possible).

If you do face 2 platoons without other arms, your infantry odds edge is narrower, certainly. But your FO and tank between them should be able to deal with (pin or break etc) half of the defenders in that case, and your own infantry force will not face such heavier-weapon "subtractions".

[jtcm]

Wow. Time for scenarios / QBs !

[Vark]

The good news, when using support weapons, is that you do not have to worry about firing arcs too much. MMG's can fire through attacking platoons they are supporting, or directly across their frontage, which in reality would lead to a charge of gross-negligence and some painful blue on blue incidents. MG's in CM1 are seriously short-changed and this helps you close with the enemy far more rapidly than in reality and suffering far less casualties, especially when they defensively fire from the flank and suffer from the abstracted tile based beaten zone.

[JasonC]

MGs in real life force packet movement. They do not stop movement. This is quite adequately depicted by the tiring advance command compared to move or run. If you try to assault a CMBB position with 2 HMGs on each flank, hidden or entrenched enough to avoid replies, using move or run, you will get stopped and chopped up quite sufficiently.

Sure the physical beaten zone of firing MGs is larger than a 50 meter diameter circle. But every man isn't standing up at the time of trigger-pull, either.