Infantry/Tank cooperation in CM Normandy.

[Cuirassier]

Histories of the campaign make clear that infantry/armor cooperation was key to being successful in tactical combat. There are many cases of the Americans, Brits and Germans getting it right or getting it totally, and at times disastrously, wrong.

I am curious if there would be a way to model this, other than how well a player scouts, uses his units on the map etc.

For example, the game gives ratings to platoon and company commanders deciding how good they are at coordinating with armor. So say an infantry CO has a good armor coordination rating. This would mean that whatever his unit sees (especially important items such as enemy tanks, AT guns etc), get passed on to tanks that are out of LOS of the enemy but within a certain radius of the infantry CO. This would be an abstract way of simulating a runner going to the tanks and saying, "there are two Stug's on that ridge up ahead," or something like that. This ability would speed up the tanks' process of target acquisition and give them an advantage if they player then decided to have them engage.

On the other hand, CO's that are poorly rated, have low morale or the tanks are buttoned, cannot communicate with the tanks. Therefore the tanks have to acquire targets on their own or use area fire.

So the basic idea is that tanks can, in a sense come under command of infantry units in game, sharing info with them if they are close enough, unbuttoned and the infantry they are dealing with has a rating good enough to actually 'talk' with them.

Thoughts?

[Michael Emrys]

This is a good question. I don't have an immediate answer to it, but it is worth thinking about. Units who have trained to be coordinated, and units who have spent time in combat together might have a better chance of working together. Also recall that some of the later Shermans had a phone attached to the rear of the tank that allowed an infantryman to speak directly to the TC. I do not at present have good information on when that modification came in or how widespread the practice of using it was.

Michael

[Secondbrooks]

Take combined arms principles directly from leadership rating? Seems okay solution.

I must admit that i really don't know does CMSF have somesort information sharing between different formations (like Syrian SF Plt HQ and Mech inf BMP) if they have time and enough short range... I think there has been talk about it, but really can't tell is it in current CMSF.

On the other hand, CO's that are poorly rated, have low morale or the tanks are buttoned, cannot communicate with the tanks. Therefore the tanks have to acquire targets on their own or use area fire.

Basically this is already in game, which you probably already know (my apologies in that case). Hiding and buttoning are one of many-many factors which affects command radius' quality and range. Platoon hiding in buildings possibly being slightly suppressed from enemy fire are not able to communicate at all from ranges where in open (being not hiding or suppressed) they could communicate very well, see and hear what their PL and SLs do and say/yell. Opening hatches and sticking head out improves lots of situational awareness for vehicles + there ofcourse are radios for vehicle's crew and vehicle's cargo and then those radios which infantry carries when they are dismounted... If they happen to have any radios for dismounts. In which case best spot for PL could be in vehicle overwatching his troops from there. For Syrians that is usually only way for company's/battalion's headman and platoon's headmen to communicate with each of other and keep situational information up-to-date. So it's already pretty complete.

Things which possibly are not are that units from different formations doesn't communicate. AND that, by my understandment, each '?' mark is just '?'-mark without any kind special characteristics... So there won't be 'Tiger-?'- or '88-?'-marks in current game code.

[John Kettler]

In addition to phones, tracer was used to designate targets to supporting armor. ISTR the SL's rifle was so equipped for this purpose. Also, infantry in CM:N will be vastly better off than in all the prior CMx1 games, in that it will actually be able to advance behind the AFV and receive cover therefrom. What a concept!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Cuirassier]

Well AFAIK, information is not shared between formations with different parent units in CMSF. So an infantry company can't tell a tank company where the enemy is, even if they are right beside each other, because they aren't from the same battalion. This is what I think needs to be fixed.

I guess a more flexible TOE could fix this. As in that scenario designers could have the possibility of buying task forcers and kampfgruppes, so tank units and infantry are all under a single command.

I have found some interesting anecdotes regarding the British experience with phones on tanks in Normandy. A lot of them say that it wasn't a useful feature. Infantry complained that the tankers rarely bothered to pick up on the other end, being busy fighting the war and all. Tankers on the other hand said it wasn't a good idea for infantry to hang out behind the tanks since they may slam it into reverse at any moment. So it seems the Brits at least hardly bothered with the things. Then again, they also had serious problems coordinating tanks and infantry.

[Ryujin]

It certainly would be nice if units could communicate to any other units within audio/visual range, reguardless of CoC. I hate rushing my AT team up to deal with a spotted tank, only for the spotting unable being unable to point out the tank.

Another thing is it would be nice if the AI was a little more aware of vehicles as cover, much like they are say walls (would be nice if they were aware of corners too). But I'd imagine you'd need some kind of "follow" command for them to effectively use a moving vehicle, as it is you'd never get them to stick close enough together and at the same speed.

Though I do have one question regarding communicating with units without radios. Currently it seems that you can still give orders to units that aren't really in contact with the CoC. Is the player playing as the highest ranking officer (and such should only be able to command units in contact) or is the player considered to basically be playing as every leader on a given side and so still commanding out of comms units "acting on their own"?

[acrashb]

But I'd imagine you'd need some kind of "follow" command for them to effectively use a moving vehicle, as it is you'd never get them to stick close enough together and at the same speed.

That's what you'd need. It would have the added advantage of allowing convenient convoys. But it's been brought up for years, and no dice.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=51269&highlight=convoy+follow

[snake_eye]

Just to get into it, here is a very good book. I bought it 20 years ago, but I hope it is still available. It is written by a tanker fighting on the English frontline

TANKS ADVANCE! by Ken TOUT - From Normandy to the Netherlands,1944 -

The fight of a tank crew from its beginning to the command of a Sherman as a Lance Corpôral at aged twenty, view from the turret.

Cheers

[c3k]

A tweak I've been hoping for (but will most likely never see) would be to make the color of the various movement options actually match up between vehicles and infantry. For example, slow for infantry may be 1 m/s whereas slow for a tank may be 5 m/s. This makes it difficult to coordinate movement.

In my dream world, the color of the movement option would represent how fast the unit goes in absolute terms, not the speed capability of the unit in relative terms.

Using the color spectrum from red to violet to represent speeds from slow to fast would be my idea. If green= 2m/s, for example, that would be the color of the "MOVE" button for infantry, but it would be the color of the "SLOW" button for a tank. That way I can KNOW that if the two units start in close proximity and I give them their respective orders, they'll stay in pretty close proximity throughout the turn.

It cannot be implemented easily due to the manner in which movement orders affect the combat stance of infantry. Right now, MOVE is more like a chow hall saunter. If you used MOVE in an area near the enemy, you're asking for your men to die. Less spotting, no use of cover, etc. It is not just a speed selection.

FWIW,

Ken

From here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=72973 back 2 years ago in September of 07...

Allow me to ask a question.

In the movement panel shown in the screenshot, the various movement options have certain colored tabs, yet the movement line as plotted in the overhead view only seems to match one of the colored tabs: is this correct?

I would rather see the movement orders plotted on ground to match the colored tabs.

I'd also like to see SPEEDS matched by color and name. I understand infantry MOVE is not the same speed as vehicle MOVE. I think it'd be MUCH more useful to have the speeds of movement matched for various units. E.g., for a vehicle to accompany infantry, call it "DISMOUNT SPEED" or somesuch, and have the colors match.

To add a bit of elegance to the whole speed/movement orders idea, I'd like the velocity to be matched to the colors of the spectrum, going from low crawl of .1m/s as deep red, to Stryker at 60mph (~27m/s) being near ultra-violet. That way I could coordinate my various units' advances.

(I have in my possession both of my collector's editions pre-ordered games, but I will not even attempt to load or play this game until this VERY anticipated patch...)

Thanks,

Ken