A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission

[Elmar Bijlsma]

1:1 representation sure made me more casualty sensitive.

In CMx1 you could lose the greater part of a platoon and not a dead body insight. Now I have a battlefield strewn with the dead to remind me I did indeed mess up.

Of course, I wouldn't exactly get PTSD from that.

[Ranger33]

This makes me think of the Dawn to Setting Sun campaign for CMSF, in the third mission you only have infantry and must cross about 100m of open field at the beginning while under fire from across the map.

Things went well at first, but despite my cover fire one man in the last group got hit, right in the middle of the field. I honestly felt bad for him because I knew I couldn't send anyone out there in time to help him. Just seeing that one body all alone on the ground was pretty powerful.

[RogCBrand]

The talk of Bigfoot got me thinking about a little known German unit in World War 2- they had scoured the world for supernatural and legendary weapons.

One result was a company of SasquatchStaffel.

Using Bigfoots in Panzers turned out to be a bad idea, however- it was extremely hard for them to fit in the tanks!

[gunnersman]

LOL! RogCBrand...you are wrong!

;)

[Vark]

Interesting, since the debate about Shermans V's PzIV's that picture of the Tiger shows just how archaic the Tigers design was. Anyway, whats Chewie doing fighting for the Evil Empire?

[LongLeftFlank]

Some very nice German Normandy action footage in this

ignore the ridiculous title of the Youtube video.

This terrain just looks like a god awful nightmare to fight in. Note also the heavy use of undergrowth as camouflage by both German vehicles and infantry.

[Battlefront.com]

I think the primary reason why many people, myself included, think 1:1 increases casualty sensitivity is because it is a lot harder to ignore the reality of what those casualties mean in terms of the unit's condition. I had a German Rifle squad engaged in a fierce firefight in bocage country and saw a couple guys fall, then a couple more. I had the unit highlighted and I was seeing a lot of "red cross" bases. In fact, I saw more of those than "green" bases. For some reason this made me think I should get those guys out of there ASAP, while in CMx1 I'm sure seeing Moe or Curley jerk backwards wouldn't have made me think the same thing.

Steve

[Vark]

Shouldn't the morale model be simulating them 'getting out of there' Steve, without the need for human intervention? In CM1, unless the unit was of high proficiency, or a blasted super-human HQ unit, such losses normally meant it crawled away and tried to hide, regardless of what you wanted it to do (which in my case was, "fire your bloody weapons you malingerers, second squad needs fire support!).

[RogCBrand]

Interesting, since the debate about Shermans V's PzIV's that picture of the Tiger shows just how archaic the Tigers design was. Anyway, whats Chewie doing fighting for the Evil Empire?

Yeah, I always think the Tiger I looks like the big brother to the Pz IV, while the Panther looks like the father of the modern tank.

[RogCBrand]

Some very nice German Normandy action footage in this

ignore the ridiculous title of the Youtube video.

This terrain just looks like a god awful nightmare to fight in. Note also the heavy use of undergrowth as camouflage by both German vehicles and infantry.

Heavy undergrowth definitely makes camouflage much more effective! If I was an allied soldier, I'd be seeing German soldiers and armor in every slight movement of a branch or leaf!

[Bil Hardenberger]

Minute 11 Part 2

2nd Platoon

2nd Platoon is moving on line this turn. Tank 4 I am actually going to pull back and reposition... my thought was that I didn’t want it to appear in the same spot two turns in a row.

I guess I had Tank 4 too far towards the edge of the woods as immediately upon halting it takes a hit damaging the tracks and optics (shooter unknown, I suspect it was the M4A1). The tank was otherwise fine, but the regular crew decided it would be safer hiding out in the woods. Hopefully I can keep the M4A1 that is on the hill opposite busy long enough that they can re-man the tank before Warren can pump a few more rounds into it and destroy it.

Ahead of them on the hill 2nd Platoon can not only see the M4A1 (which did in fact fire the round at Tank 4), but also an M-10. So this is the face off… Warren’s M-10 and M4A1, against two of my tanks, Tank 1 and HQ Tank that can actually oversee this area. Tank 3’s vision is blocked.

I lose sight of the M4A1, I think Tank 4 was the only tank that could see it. HQ Tank has eyes on the M-10 and lets fly a round. I would bet there was a crew casualty or two with this hit, but I don’t know for sure.

What I do know is that the M-10 was popping smoke and reversing at the end of the turn. I also know that I now have two tanks, Tank 1 and HQ Tank that now have LOS to the M-10.

The M-10 is highlighted I this image and you can see that Tank 1 and HQ Tank’s icons are both highlighted indicating LOS to that vehicle. They should each have a good opportunity to take this M-10 out next turn.

That M4A1 still worries me though. I can’t see it, and it could still destroy Tank 4 at will. Hopefully Warren hasn’t noticed that the tank isn’t destroyed, just unhorsed.

Next: Minute 12

[Battlefront.com]

Shouldn't the morale model be simulating them 'getting out of there' Steve, without the need for human intervention?

Of course it did, which is why right after they took the casualties the unit pulled back. You guys have to stop trying to read so much into one or two sentences

Steve

[zukkov]

bil, don't know ya, but from what i've seen from this AAR, i think you'd make a good tank commander. if it had been me suffering those early losses it would've been easy to get disheartened and go into panic mode "OMG! my shells are bouncing off! run away!"

but you hung in there and never gave up on your game plan. just out of curiousity, how many more tank losses would it have taken for you to push the panic button?

[Vark]

Bil, quick question, on two occasions when you have tried to reposition your units they have drawn fire, is this a coincidence or do you think movement attracts attention? Or do you think it is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't, the units would have been shot if they moved or if they remained stationary?

Just checking, Steve, just checking and good to hear the answer! Have HQ's lost their 'seemingly' super-human powers of resilience? I had a green HQ unit, recently, absorb the attentions of three PzGr squads and still manage to hold them off, foil their assault and shock a supporting AG. In the end I had to send my Super-Hero forward to do battle, it still took my Veteran HQ a full minute to kill him and for most of that time the enemy HQ was down to one man and able to pin the Veteran PzGr squad, who supported the HQ, most of the encounter. It could have been a fanatic, but later on another cloaked and Lycra clad HQ unit awaited these poor soldiers, this time I counted 17 grenades needed to pin and when one squad occupied his foxhole found out it was another Green HQ! No wonder the AI leads with them in attacks, hope that curious anomaly has bitten the dust as well.

[Vark]

That should have read 7 grenades, not 17, the HQ wasn't quite Kapitan Sovyetski Soyuz!

[Bil Hardenberger]

how many more tank losses would it have taken for you to push the panic button?

If I had lost Tank 1 in 1st Platoon before taking out any Shermans then I would have been worried. Luckily I don't think Warren's tanks ever did locate this tank.

Bil, quick question, on two occasions when you have tried to reposition your units they have drawn fire, is this a coincidence or do you think movement attracts attention?

The movement defintely gets them spotted quicker... stationary is better if you don't want to be seen.

[Ron]

Excellent AAR thanks. A couple questions or observations.

1. The tanks seem to be able to move-spot-acquire the target- fire in a very short time, seconds even. Are targets which are communicated through the platoon radio net picked up faster than targets which are previously unseen?

2. A lot of smoke is being repeatedly popped when in danger or rattled. Is that realistic for WWII?

3. The Germans used smokeless powder. I would think that's a significant advantage in many ways - remaining unspotted longer, maintaining the target etc. Is that modelled under the hood?

[ShakyJake]

I haven't seemed to notice it in the AAR's posted so far, but does spotting ever occur at less then full detail? I always liked how tanks in CMBO and CMBB would show up as blocky general models until it could be more closely identified. So far in the AAR, it seems that whenever you actually "see" something, you know exactly what it is. Or are we seeing the descriptions only after you've had time to figure out what they were, Bil?

[ChrisND]

I haven't seemed to notice it in the AAR's posted so far, but does spotting ever occur at less then full detail? I always liked how tanks in CMBO and CMBB would show up as blocky general models until it could be more closely identified.

No this spotting feature no longer exists. Now what happens is that if a unit thinks it has seen something, but hasn't confirmed it, a "contact" icon of a question mark appears. This could be from sight, sound, pre-battle intel, or passed through the C2 network. Once the sighting has been confirmed the model pops up.

[The_Capt]

Well I guess minute 11 was really my "uh-oh" turn. You know the one where you get that sinking feeling?

At this point I am clearly in deep trouble. My sharshooters in the woodline can see that there are more than 3-4 tanks left. I count at least 6 with a possible 7th left in the game.

Facing off against that by this turn are: 1 x M4A1, 1 x M4A3 (76), and 2 x M10s one of which has taken a crew cas. Here the lesson that TDs are not tanks is really being reinforced, at least in my mind. Their amour is roughly the thickness of onion skin and the M10 turret turns slightly faster than a glacier. The TD shoul dbe used like a mobile ATG, well back and from cover. I have to in the open at 400m from tanks...all bad.

So it is time to try and pull out of this mess. In the woods my infantry are coming close to the woodline. I break off 3 x AT teams. My plan is to fire smoke and try to fall back to a position closer to my infantry so we can get some mutual support here.

I am still not out of this at this point as a few good kills and this thing can turn back my way.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Excellent AAR thanks. A couple questions or observations.

1. The tanks seem to be able to move-spot-acquire the target- fire in a very short time, seconds even. Are targets which are communicated through the platoon radio net picked up faster than targets which are previously unseen?

2. A lot of smoke is being repeatedly popped when in danger or rattled. Is that realistic for WWII?

3. The Germans used smokeless powder. I would think that's a significant advantage in many ways - remaining unspotted longer, maintaining the target etc. Is that modelled under the hood?

Good questions.. I think I'll let Steve tackle the "under the hood" type stuff as I usually get myself in trouble with those.

For number one though I can give a tactically applicable answer. When I approach a position I give the tank a very focused cover arc; in fact I normally do this for the previous waypoint also (as in I give it a cover arc for the same area that the final waypoint will cover).. what this does is require a very short turret rotation in order to line the gun up with whatever target might be on the area of interest. They already have a round in the chamber and an itchy 19 year old finger on the trigger so the first shot is usually pretty quick.

I think this is realistic.. if I had given a wider cover arc (say a full half circle as one poster suggested as the best) then the initial engagement time could be another 4, 5, or more seconds longer than the on average 5 seconds from spotting to engagement that I am getting.

Also, I do think the focused cover arcs help with spotting. I can't otherwise explain how I can consistently get the drop on Warren's tanks... even when his are stationary and mine moving, like the engagemnet between 2nd Platoon's HQ Tank and the M-10 in turn 11.

He should have spotted and fired at 2nd Platoon's HQ Tank before I could get a round off. Did he have a cover arc? I don't think so... his turret was not swinging back and forth like it normally does when a cover arc is assigned (looking for targets in its assigned zone).

So in essence his TD was spotting all over the map to the fullest extent of it's spotting ability while mine was focused only on the hilltop where I knew his M4A1 was.

Bil

[The_Capt]

Good questions.. I think I'll let Steve tackle the "under the hood" type stuff as I usually get myself in trouble with those.

For number one though I can give a tactically applicable answer. When I approach a position I give the tank very focused cover arcs.. in fact I normally do this for the previous waypoint also (as in I give it a cover arc for the same area that the final waypoint will cover).. what this does is require a very short turret rotation in order to line the gun up with whatever target might be on the area of interest. They already have a round in the chamber and an itchy 19 year old finger on the trigger so the first shot is usually pretty quick.

I think this is realistic.. if I had given a wider cover arc (say a full half circle as one poster suggested is the best) then the initial engagement time could be another 4, 5, or more seconds longer than the on average 5 seconds from spotting to engagement that I am getting.

Also, I do think the focused cover arcs help with spotting. I can't otherwise explain how I can consistently get the drop on Warren's tanks... even when his are stationary, like the M-10 in turn 11.

He should have spotted and fired at 2nd Platoon's HQ Tank before I could get a round off. Did he have a cover arc? I don't think so... his turret was not swinging back and forth like it normally does when a cover arc is assigned (looking for targets in its assigned zone).

So in essence his TD was spotting all over the map to the fullest extent of it's spotting ability while mine was focused only on the hilltop where I knew his M4A1 was.

Bil

Bil,

I will chime in that crew quality does count as well. Covered arcs appear to "focus the crew" on a given area and improve spotting BUT you also have a risk if targets pop up outside those arcs.

Crew quality definitely has an effect. Regular crews take about 12-14 seconds from spot-to-shot. Crack, for instance take about 8 seconds on average. So for higher quality crews you get an 4-6 second advantage IF they both spot at the same time.

Add to this the vast array of other factors, crew morale, optics, turret speeds buttoned/unbuttoned, smoke..etc.

[Rayak47]

I am very interested in whether cover arcs increase spotting ability. I've only ever used them to set up fields of fire for hidden units. I've used "face" to have a non-hidden unit point in the direction I want it to observe. If cover arc allows quicker spotting and rounds downrange, I need to change stragegies!

[Bil Hardenberger]

Warren, in my example above my crew was Veteran... 2nd Platoon's four tanks are composed of two veteran crews and two regular (Tank 3 and Tank 4). In this example I don't think crew quality had much of an impact.

[The_Capt]

Warren, in my example above my crew was Veteran... 2nd Platoon's four tanks are composed of two veteran crews and two regular (Tank 3 and Tank 4). In this example I don't think crew quality had much of an impact.

Veteran to Regular should still see a delta advantage in the spot to shoot time, it is why they cost more...among other things of course. Now I am going to have to go check.

For those of you wondering, CM Beta testing is about 50% playing and 50% "testing" stuff in trying to hammer down what exactly you "are seeing".