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

[Paper Tiger]

How come I only get to see frogs in icecubes instead of screenshots?

[Peregrine]

I noticed from the screenies that the German tank crews seem to have only have pistols as personal weapons but from what I understand most tank crews (western allies and German, no idea about Russian crews) would typically have an SMG or two as well.

Is the lack of SMGs BFCs historical take or something to prevent gamey players turning tank crews into SMG sqds upon a tanks demise?

[Bil Hardenberger]

First Contact! First Blood!

Part 1

Tank Movement

I follow German doctrine when I maneuver my tanks. If I am moving, I move at Fast speed almost every time from point to point, none of my tanks ever move Slow, or at Normal speed except under certain circumstances.

In the attack drive as fast as you can. At slow speed you can see and shoot only a little better than at high, and are much more likely to be hit. For a tank there should be only two speeds: the halt (for firing!) and all out forward. This is the basic principal of tank combat!

From the German Army pamphlet: Panzer Vorwärts! Aber mit Verstand!

One of the exceptions (yes there are exceptions) to the above rule is when I am moving into a hull down position. When attempting to get hull down with a tank I will move the last leg (10-20 meters or so) on Hunt, the tank will immediately Halt upon sighting any enemy and your tank will be in an ideal hull down position to engage that enemy contact.

Minute 2

I might have made a slight mistake with the orders for this turn. For 1st Platoon I order tanks 1 and 2 to move forward out of their hull down positions into positions behind some trees to get more eyeballs and guns overlooking AA3. Perhaps I should have kept them in their original positions?

I just had a feeling that they needed to be further up the map.

In accordance with the following tenant, I guess I was feeling at the time like the two lone tanks forward would be out on a limb, and thus needed some closer support.

You must lead with strength. At least two tanks must be forward, and the trail platoons must be held far enough forward to support the lead platoon. The more guns that fire in the first minute, the quicker the enemy will be defeated and the fewer losses you will suffer.

From the German Army pamphlet: Panzer Vorwärts! Aber mit Verstand!

Well, time will tell… in the meantime the HQ tank takes up the blocking role for now (who knows how long I’ll keep him there ).

I love using trees for cover, and you will see a lot of that in this game by me. You will actually see some of both sides of this figure:

The German Platoon in WWII: Its Training and Employment in Battle

I will say this, trees in CMBN, if used correctly (the right hand side of the above figure) really works as it is supposed to for both making it harder for the enemy to see you, and harder for him to hit you. While if you are at the proper depth, and not too shallow (so you can be hit easily) or too deep in them (so you can’t see out), can hit at will.

[Bil Hardenberger]

First Contact! First Blood!

Part 2

1st Platoon, Tank 4

The saga of Tank 4 is interesting to watch unfold. Here is the blow by blow:

[note: times are counting down from 59:00 – start of turn to 58:00 – end of turn]

58:40 - Tank 4 makes its turn towards the tree line:

58:32 – Tank 4 spots enemy tanks:

58:25 – Tank 4, while moving fires at the M4A1 which is also moving (these two screen shots were taken at the exact same time):

Dammit! The shot is high, which is to be expected as I was firing on the move at a moving target (hard to see in this pic, but the round passes directly over the M4A1):

58:22 – M4A3, at the halt returns fire on Tank 4, and thankfully also misses high (again it's hard to tell here, but watching the Sherman rock back and the barrel recoil during the firing sequence is a beautiful thing):

[Bil Hardenberger]

First Contact! First Blood!

Part 3

1st Platoon, Tank 4 Continued…

58:19 – Tank 4 HIT! Firing unit is as yet unidentified.

58:16 – Tank 4's momentum forces it to roll forward before coming to a halt and then it is hit again by the unseen shooter and the crew bails (I believe this was already under way when the second round hit).

Notice the HQ tank's turret in the blocking position on the ridge in the rear of this pic, and Tanks 1 and 2 in their new positions.

After the tank was destroyed, the crew bailed, and it had rolled to a stop the US tankers continued to fire on it hitting it one more time (as noted above) and missing once. I think this little sequence gives you a good idea of what armored combat is like in CMBN. It is thrilling to watch, rewind and re-watch these sequences from both sides. Watching the tanks rock back on their haunches when they fire, and shudder to a halt when hit is mesmerizing.

Tank 3 also had some action in this turn, hitting and knocking out an M-20 armored car. Note that in this image you can see a third tank. This M4A1 appears to be the tank that did the shooting on Tank 4 before I could spot him.

Tank 3 took a hit in return by another as yet unseen shooter. Note the change in vehicle status post hit (that track damage will slow him down some):

Elsewhere there was no action. Still no activity to be seen along AA1, I might start moving 2d Platoon up some to see if they can get a better view, and perhaps get eyes on AA2.

Next: Rubber Bullets

[gunnersman]

Hi all,

Did anyone notice the snake looking shortcuts through the main areas of trees from the overhead view? Knowing this is a ME type of battle, I might send a tank or two

through and only pop out when an ambush opportunity arises. Just say'n.

Kurt

A man after my own heart.

[Waycool]

Very enjoyable read Bill and Capt. thanks for posting these. Damn I am so glad me preorder is in for CMBN as it looks so good and I definitely did not want to miss out on all this CM goodness.

[zukkov]

pop quiz hot shots!(sorry, watching "speed" as i write this)

how common were meeting engagements? i can see small patrols bumping into each other, but companies or battalions? perhaps, both sides had orders to probe the enemy defenses? anyway, i was just wondering if meeting engagements were common or rare...

[MikeyD]

how common were meeting engagements?

Hah! A question I recall asking, myself, way back in CMAK days.

I suppose the closest you might get tactically to a Combat Mission ME is one side exploiting a gap in the line and the other frantically rushing units forward to stop it. There probably weren't many 'meeting engagements' between mid-June and mid-July, though the Germans were famous for their mobile reserves' ability to patch breeches in the line. I guess that might count.

[zukkov]

german fire brigades. i can buy that. what book was it i read that some german tanks actually got in a column with exploiting russian tanks, then destroyed them all? heh..

[LongLeftFlank]

I do hate to be the first to go against the chorus of admiration here, and I know this scenario is intended to provide a demo of armoured maneuver tactics, but this map isn't anything you'd find in Normandy, or anywhere else.

The problem for me is the trees; you go instantly from dense stands of deciduous forest to open terrain (farmland? and if so, where are the walls or fences?)

In the real world, when you cut down big trees you give small trees and brush a chance to grow, creating a dense thicket along the margin. This may seem like nitpicking but it has very meaningful tactical effects on LOS and vehicle movement around the treeline (e.g. risk of bogging, concealment, their ability to see infantry stalking them).

In the pine forests that start east of the Meuse you don't see this thicket "zone" as much (the dense pine stands form their own thicket), so this map might work if you were training at Grafenwohr. But not in Normandy. Except for orchards, you just don't normally transition from open to mature trees. Anyone who hunts will know what I mean.

Sorry to be negative; the game looks gorgeous! But as in CMSF the maps drive a lot of the realism. Terrain is the "third player" in all wargames (and RL battles for that matter). Here endeth my catechism.

[hoolaman]

I do hate to be the first to go against the chorus of admiration here, and I know this scenario is intended to provide a demo of armoured maneuver tactics, but this map isn't anything you'd find in Normandy, or anywhere else.

The problem for me is the trees; you go instantly from dense stands of deciduous forest to open terrain (farmland? and if so, where are the walls or fences?)

In the real world, when you cut down big trees you give small trees and brush a chance to grow, creating a dense thicket along the margin. This may seem like nitpicking but it has very meaningful tactical effects on LOS and vehicle movement around the treeline (e.g. risk of bogging, concealment, their ability to see infantry stalking them).

In the pine forests that start east of the Meuse you don't see this thicket "zone" as much (the dense pine stands form their own thicket), so this map might work if you were training at Grafenwohr. But not in Normandy. Except for orchards, you just don't normally transition from open to mature trees. Anyone who hunts will know what I mean.

Sorry to be negative; the game looks gorgeous! But as in CMSF the maps drive a lot of the realism. Terrain is the "third player" in all wargames (and RL battles for that matter). Here endeth my catechism.

People have complained about the lack of random maps. If you get a crappy baffling unrealistic map, think of it as an homage to the CMBO map generator.

But seriously, your points are valid, though who says this is supposed to represent anything like real normandy terrain?

[LongLeftFlank]

Well the "game" can be played as a game any way you please, sure. But the name of this game is Battle for Normandy.

I just saw a lot of otherwise fascinating and well-designed CMSF scenarios become science fiction (while remainjng fun games) because of very simple (and readily addressable) flaws in map design. Bois de Baugin was a very "real" looking map to me; this one, not so much. More like a Starcraft map, no offense to the maker. And that means the players and units will behave differently than real armoured forces slugging it out in Normandy. Maybe a little, maybe a lot. Terrain matters if you care about history, just as much as the difference between L48 and L70.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Yeah QB maps on average are not as detailed as maps made for a historically based scenario. But they serve the purpose when the game is being used as a sandbox to practice and examine tactical principals or just to have fun on.

Dont worry Longleftflank there are plenty of Maps that will give you that Normandy fix. However I appreciate the different map styles in the QB folder for a change of pace once in a while.

[GhostRider3/3]

Yeah QB maps on average are not as detailed as maps made for a historically based scenario. But they serve the purpose when the game is being used as a sandbox to practice and examine tactical principals or just to have fun on.

Dont worry Longleftflank there are plenty of Maps that will give you that Normandy fix. However I appreciate the different map styles in the QB folder for a change of pace once in a while.

Good to know.. however I plan to spend the first few hours creating my own maps... and sort of chain my own little Adventure.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

You still fail to grasp that this isn't a scenario but a more whimsical QB. They have always tended to be a bit more on the balanced and gamey side rather then realistic like most "proper" scenarios. Look at it, it is almost a mirrored map.

You are making too much of this entirely.

[Waycool]

Elmar I concur this is just a qb to illustrate a battle while we wait for the main course. The depth of the CM series has been the map scenario editor and the community to create the highly detailed maps/battles. QB are always good for a quick fix to enter the fray.

[Bil Hardenberger]

I would have thought that the tanks in hull down positions would have had their main guns slightly depressed, so as to align them with the terrain. I always remember in CM1 the delay, caused by barrel alignment, could prove fatal!

I actually meant to answer this question earlier (I apologize if I miss some questions, PM me if you want something answered that I missed).

Yes, tanks in a hull down position WILL depress their guns if given a target or target arc order. These tanks don't have one so they just point straight ahead.

Later in the game you will see this in action.

[The_Capt]

Well the "game" can be played as a game any way you please, sure. But the name of this game is Battle for Normandy.

I just saw a lot of otherwise fascinating and well-designed CMSF scenarios become science fiction (while remainjng fun games) because of very simple (and readily addressable) flaws in map design. Bois de Baugin was a very "real" looking map to me; this one, not so much. More like a Starcraft map, no offense to the maker. And that means the players and units will behave differently than real armoured forces slugging it out in Normandy. Maybe a little, maybe a lot. Terrain matters if you care about history, just as much as the difference between L48 and L70.

A map is a map is a map, at least in my opinion. I fight the one given to me. This one was picked at random out of the many the map guys are putting together. Some are abstract (and dare I say "fun"), some you could pull from a Normandy post-card.

And if that doesn't float your boat the editor will allow one to build the shining fjords of Norway if that is what you want.

[ZPB II]

I'm very glad to read about the wide range of maps the game ships with. With CMSF it was problematic as the map was random, but now...ah...

[Pvt. Ryan]

I noticed from the screenies that the German tank crews seem to have only have pistols as personal weapons but from what I understand most tank crews (western allies and German, no idea about Russian crews) would typically have an SMG or two as well.

Is the lack of SMGs BFCs historical take or something to prevent gamey players turning tank crews into SMG sqds upon a tanks demise?

I don't know for sure, but I believe it shows the weapons the men currently have on them. They wouldn't grab the SMGs until they exit the vehicle.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Pvt. Ryan, no the small arms weapons you see them with are what I've seen them bail with. I think the US crews have a grease gun in their kit, but not sure how many per vehicle, maybe only one.

[Battlefront.com]

I'm going to look into the crew weaponry a bit and make sure it's balanced a bit better. In general all armored vehicles had access to at least one SMG. Heck, even up until the 1990s US Abrams had M3s strapped into their turrets.

Steve

[Destraex1]

no infantry on either side??

[Broadsword56]

The US force has armor + some infantry (Airborne), the German is all armor.