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

[ShakyJake]

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.

Hmmm, do units fire on contacts without further information? If not, I'll miss that feature I think. I always thought it was a cool little feature to the game that there were times where your tanks could come upon something (generic tank model), put a hasty round through it, and then back away to safety without ever really knowing what it was in the first place. It added a certain amount of chaos and confusion to the engagement, in my mind.

[GhostRider3/3]

Excellent AAR and Questions... cant wait for Turn 13 to see what else we can discover. I am waiting for the Paratroopers to make a mad dash and possibly flank the Panzers that are in the woods... although with a couple MG's and a Main gun for each tank... You seriously have to ask yourself.... "Do you feel Lucky"... Well do ya! LOL

When I get the game.. I am taking a couple days off and having a 4 day Shoot Out!

[LongLeftFlank]

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? ...No wonder the AI leads with them in attacks, hope that curious anomaly has bitten the dust as well.

Yes, this is long gone. CMSF HQ units have no more combat effectiveness than a comparable manned fire team; less actually, as they only have rifles or pistols. And when the AI executes each Order, the HQ usually moves last (after its subunits).

[nathangun]

Frankly Im drooling soo much, I cant wait for my copy, so I went back and started watching all my DVD's of "A World at War"...again...

Good call, I should dust them off too. May I suggest the Battlefield DVD series.

[Broadsword56]

Who here would/could play a wargame that depicted, with frightening realism, the real effects of modern war and if we did, would we have to pay the attendant psychological price?

(Probably should continue this on a new thread, but...) This exists already: ARMA 2:Operation Arrowhead is so graphically detailed and realistic a FPS that its most advanced realism mods include complex wounding modules, blood trails, etc., and it's an important part of gameplay to drag/carry buddies to safety, use first aid/buddy care, and use team medics effectively. Wounded troops roll around in agony, etc. It's an immersive and violent world if you have the PC hardware to run it. I've enjoyed it but the experience of it vs. Combat Mission is like F1 racing to chess (and both have their merits). I'm amazed at all the real-life ex-grunts who've been in Afghanistan or Iraq (or who say they were) who seem active in the MP community -- you'd think that after seeing the real thing, the last thing they'd want is to re-live it as a hobby. But maybe it's cathartic -- who knows?

[Broadsword56]

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.

I recall being startled at the bloodcurdling screams of wounded or panicked troops when the first Close Combat game appeared -- first time I'd ever experienced this in a wargame, and it made everything seem that more vital and immediate. It also made me that much more careful with pixeltrupppen's lives.

[Vark]

How do you get those nice quote boxes in your replies?

[umlaut]

How do you get those nice quote boxes in your replies?

Push the button on the right that says: "quote"

:-)

[Vark]

Yup, noticed that box as soon as I'd sent the post!! To try and save face, when I did use the quote button it quoted the entire post, if you want to select a piece of it do you just delete the rest?

[Pvt. Ryan]

... if you want to select a piece of it do you just delete the rest?

Yes. Just make sure you keep the quote tags at the beginning and the end.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Minute 12

1st Platoon had no engagements this turn, nor did they move. They stood in their present positions overwatching their assigned zones. Not much to report except that the M4A3(76)W is now attempting to disengage and it looks like it is trying to join its partners who are opposite 2nd Platoon. That leaves me a lot of options.

2nd Platoon

When we left 2nd Platoon, Tank 1 and HQ Tank both were getting ready to engage the M-10 on the hill:

HQ Tank did not fire at the TD but Tank 1 took two cracks at it. The first caused at least one crew casualty and the second, though also a good hit still didn’t kill the TD. Tough SOB, but I think at least it can no longer really be considered a threat. The M-10 was reversing and popping smoke throughout this sequence and shortly after the second hit it had disappeared from view.

During the sequence above the M4A1 popped back into view and took a shot at HQ Tank. This is where my terrain positional advantage really paid off, the round (the only shot fired by Warren’s forces this turn) is deflected by the trees. Look at this image and you can see the depth that HQ Tank has and the effective cover it provides.

Remember you want to be far enough towards the edge of the woods that you can target your area of interest, but no farther. Last turn I was not careful enough about this and Tank 4 got hit because it was too close to the edge.

HQ Tank wasted no time returning the favor, he fires and hits the Sherman four times during this turn; first hit is a turret hit that appears to do no damage (although it might have seeing as I received no more return fire), second hit is a bouncing blow to the hull front (note, this image is a composite image of two screen captures)...

...third hit, again to the turret is the one that kills the tank. Immediately after this hit the hatches pop open and the crew starts to bail. Unfortunately for them, a fourth hit strikes the tank in the middle of their egress.

So in my opinion Warren’s force is now on the run. He has lost everything he had in the center (AA2) or else it has retreated, the AA3 advance has been repulsed and by my count he should have three tanks left: the M4A3(76)W, and two M-10’s, one of which is sorely hurting with one maybe more crew casualties. I still have not seen much from his infantry force, but at this point in the game I still didn’t know how much of an infantry force he actually fielded.

Next: Minute 13

[Praetori]

Wow, just awesome.

I'm a bit surprised though that none of the combatants have dismounted any of the tank crews to get a closer look of what the enemy is doing.

It usually pays off both in CMSF and IRL (Wittman, again) as a couple of guys on foot are a helluva lot harder to spot and kill than a tank.

[Rocky Balboa]

Bill,

To what do you attribute the fact that your tanks are firing 6 shots to his one in this last turn. Arguably during the entire battle your tanks fire many more shots than his do.

Is it crew quality?

[Bil Hardenberger]

Rocky, I think it's the terrain advantage my tanks have enjoyed. They have either been hulldown or within or behind a treeline. Many times Warren never spots my firing tanks, in fact in his last update he stated that he never identified the tanks on his left that decimated his AA3 force.

[Rocky Balboa]

Interesting .... which kind of plays in to the tank vulnerability thread ... part of the discussion there is if it is advantageous for MKIV tank to be in a hull down position because they leave their weak turret armor exposed.

Of course if the MKIV is that much harder to spot in a hull down position then it doesn't really matter does it?

Also I never really thought of armor using woods as cover. I always assumed that all but the thinnest trees would be impassable to most medium and heavy armor ...

Great use of terrain !!!

[Praetori]

Interesting .... which kind of plays in to the tank vulnerability thread ... part of the discussion there is if it is advantageous for MKIV tank to be in a hull down position because they leave their weak turret armor exposed.

Of course if the MKIV is that much harder to spot in a hull down position then it doesn't really matter does it?

Also I never really thought of armor using woods as cover. I always assumed that all but the thinnest trees would be impassable to most medium and heavy armor ...

Great use of terrain !!!

German tank going through trees (1:20 in)

Mind you this is from propaganda footage but still gives an idea.

Modern tanks are BEASTS when it comes to navigating woodland terrain.

[Bil Hardenberger]

I take you back to this image which I posted in the opening turns of the battle:

This is from a US Intelligence release of a German manual, but the same information is also in the US tank manuals of the period:

[Praetori]

I take you back to this image which I posted in the opening turns of the battle:

This is from a US Intelligence release of a German manual, but the same information is also in the US tank manuals of the period:

An old Swedish military memory list.

6Fs (Official)

Flankerande eld = Flanking Fire

Fri reträttväg = Free/Clear lines of retreat

Fly skogsbryn = Don't group in the treeline, keep in the woods.

Frontalt skydd = Frontal Protection

Flygskydd = Mask/Protection against airpower

Fri skottlinje = Free line of fire

6Fs (unofficial)

Forward

Forward

Forward

Forward

Forward

Forward

6Fs (armored forces variant)

Forward

Forward

Forward

FAIL

FAIL

FAIL

(at least as far as the other services are concerned)

[Rocky Balboa]

Once again this is how assumptions can get you in trouble.

In the opening stages of the battle you outlined the 3 AA's that the US player could possibly use and I assumed that woods would be impassable to armor.

When you posted this picture, I was confused because you were advancing your Plt through the woods but the woods for him were impassable. I assumed that the map was symmetrical and neither player could use the woods for an armored advance.

I kept wondering why he didnt use the woods to move his armor. Now as I look closer to this image I can see the underlying impassable terrain (darker green beneath the trees).

Clearly you have a significant terrain advantage.

[WineCape]

... 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....

Yes, agree/confirmed in testing done at 400m ranges for M4A3's vs PzIV(H) at least regarding the average spot (tell-tale small turret movement towards opponent's centre mass) and then-to-shot times for Regulars (non hiding, not hull down, immobile, face to face)

[Praetori]

Once again this is how assumptions can get you in trouble.

In the opening stages of the battle you outlined the 3 AA's that the US player could possibly use and I assumed that woods would be impassable to armor.

When you posted this picture, I was confused because you were advancing your Plt through the woods but the woods for him were impassable. I assumed that the map was symmetrical and neither player could use the woods for an armored advance.

I kept wondering why he didnt use the woods to move his armor. Now as I look closer to this image I can see the underlying impassable terrain (darker green beneath the trees).

Clearly you have a significant terrain advantage.

That's a nice part with combat gaming compared to IRL operations. The maps in wargames usually give you a heads up of how the terrain really looks and what type of units it favors. Looking at a real map never reveals the full story and sometimes it's just plain wrong (gravel road marked as an autobahn for example).

[Other Means]

Alan, you could say the same for films, we can just play it again, but sometimes what is being portrayed is so disturbing that we 'suffer'. Hell I know people who cried when Bambie's mother got shot and an ex-WII para, who fought in the Far East, admitted to shedding tears during ET. Just because we can use of intelligence to self-rationalise does not mean we always escape psychological trauma.

Other means I agree, imagine if the screenshots of Capt's M4's being hit were like this

(2:10-3:00)

The comments in that movie are bloody awful.

[The_Capt]

Yes, agree/confirmed in testing done at 400m ranges for M4A3's vs PzIV(H) at least regarding the average spot (tell-tale small turret movement towards opponent's centre mass) and then-to-shot times for Regulars (non hiding, not hull down, immobile, face to face)

Ok Turn 12...she has all gone sideways. I now have an M4A3 (76), 2x M10s facing 7 working Pz IVs all but two have a Vet crew quality or better. My infantry are back in the woods looking at all these burning tanks and deciding that now is a good time for lunch.

Smoke, fall back and hope to get lucky.

As to the quality issue, but experience plays a very big role. Not only in spot-to-shot but spotting times.

(I am speaking out of school and I remind all this is a Beta BUT it does relate directly to this AAR) I ran a test with two identical tanks, one crew Reg the other Vet and the Vet came out on top 3 times out of 5. Crank it up to Elite and it is 5 out of 5 to them. In one test the Elite tank actually spotted about 2 seconds after the Regular (bad luck) but were so switched on they still got the first shot off.

Bil, check the Beta Forum for "Covered Arc"

[Alan8325]

Ok Turn 12...she has all gone sideways. I now have an M4A3 (76), 2x M10s facing 7 working Pz IVs all but two have a Vet crew quality or better. My infantry are back in the woods looking at all these burning tanks and deciding that now is a good time for lunch.

Smoke, fall back and hope to get lucky.

As to the quality issue, but experience plays a very big role. Not only in spot-to-shot but spotting times.

(I am speaking out of school and I remind all this is a Beta BUT it does relate directly to this AAR) I ran a test with two identical tanks, one crew Reg the other Vet and the Vet came out on top 3 times out of 5. Crank it up to Elite and it is 5 out of 5 to them. In one test the Elite tank actually spotted about 2 seconds after the Regular (bad luck) but were so switched on they still got the first shot off.

Bil, check the Beta Forum for "Covered Arc"

What is the damage to the Sherman and M10 that received hits?

I'm glad to see crew experience coming out on top over superior equipment quality. I think that is how it should be in most cases except for those where equipment quality is largely lopsided (Tiger vs. Sherman for example).

[Battlefront.com]

One thing to note here... if you guys remember a major point in the Elvis/JonS AAR I made... spotting. Even with all of Warren's "eyes" looking around the battlefield, Bil's Panzers have managed to go quite a while without being spotted. This is a combination of good positions, good results (for Bil, obviously ), and the Relative Spotting model. As with the previous AAR, Relative Spotting vastly improves the chances of being surprised and STAYING surprised. And even when you do see something, you generally have less options available to deal with it than you would in CMX1.

For you CM:SF guys, you'll likely take most of this for granted, though still see a big difference if you're not the type to play Red often. CM: Afghanistan guys will feel even more at home with this. CMx1 guys... be prepared for a really new experience

Steve