C2 and Armour-Infantry Cooperation

[WillLight]

I'm just reading a book about the performance of British and Canadian Armour in Normandy and one of the things it mentioned was how, as the fighting went on, Division and Brigade commanders adapted to the situation and developed methods to increase the cooperation between armour and infantry.

I was wondering how this would be reflected in the game (beyond the obvious of actually having them both in the same battle).

Say we had a force consisting of an infantry company supported by a platoon of tanks (in US terms ). In one case there would be a force structure as follows:

Bn Cdr

Inf Coy Cdr -> Bn Cdr

3x Inf Pl Cdr -> Inf Coy Cdr

3x Inf Sq -> Inf Pl Cdr

Arm Coy Cdr -> Bn Cdr (in a tank)

Arm Pl Cdr -> Arm Coy Cdr (in a tank)

3x Tank -> Arm Pl Cdr

In the other case:

Bn Cdr

Inf Coy Cdr -> Bn Cdr

3x Inf Pl Cdr -> Inf Coy Cdr

3x Inf Sq + 1 Tank -> Inf Pl Cdr

in other words in the second situation the infantry and the tanks "meet" (in C2 terms) much earlier.

So, in the same tactical situation where say an infantry squad is 10m away from a tank (in Organisation 2, "it's" tank), and it spots an enemy, is there a difference in the game in how long it takes the tank to get that communicated to it and spot the enemy itself? (all other things being equal).

Sorry for the long-winded post

Thanks

[FragerZ]

That would be an incredibly minute detail...

Their time is better spent doing other things, like implementing flamethrowers.

[WillLight]

Well, I'm not asking for it per se, I am under the impression that that is how it works now, given the detailed C2 simulation. Just wanted to clarify if my impression is correct. But I do think it would be a great feature to have (eventually) if it doesn't exist right now. Imagine in future a feature where as part of the setup you can modify the C2 structure of your force before starting (at the designer's discretion). You can already do this in QBs right now (at least it seems that way from the video, though it might be "cheaper" to buy the platoon as a whole rather than one by one for each inf. platoon).

[gunnersman]

So, in the same tactical situation where say an infantry squad is 10m away from a tank (in Organisation 2, "it's" tank), and it spots an enemy, is there a difference in the game in how long it takes the tank to get that communicated to it and spot the enemy itself? (all other things being equal).

I dont see why it would matter it the tank was "attached" permanently or not.

Do you remember the scene in Band of Brothers when the Brit tanks were with Easy Company approaching a town when one of the paratroopers spotted a German tank behind a house? And the trooper was trying to tell one of the tankers where it was?

I think that is about as good as it gets.

[Jaws]

I dont see why it would matter it the tank was "attached" permanently or not.

Do you remember the scene in Band of Brothers when the Brit tanks were with Easy Company approaching a town when one of the paratroopers spotted a German tank behind a house? And the trooper was trying to tell one of the tankers where it was?

I think that is about as good as it gets.

Wrong example.. British didnt listen

[Jaws]

Answer is no. It would be nice to have a spotters bonus to simulate Tank telephones. You got my vote btw to implement this future

[gunnersman]

Wrong example.. British didnt listen

You got me there.

[Broadsword56]

The Spanish AAR says that while you have to start by buying units as pre-structured platoons, companies, etc., you can customize them after that. So you could buy a forward observer team, for example, and add a Sherman tank. This sort of thing would seem to give you the kind of armor-infantry integration at the small-unit level that we're talking about here. In that case I guess the tank is subordinate to the commander of the infantry unit it's integrated with. Sounds good to me. But in this case would the game limit you to give orders only to the Infantry unit, and lose the ability to micromanage the tank? That would be an OK tradeoff, too, if the unit AI handled the tank intelligently enough (basic fire support, letting the infantry go ahead to screen/protect the vehicle, etc.)

[TrailApe]

Wrong example.. British didnt listen

While that example might have been a ‘hollywood’ moment, I can easily imagine it happening for real, especially if the Tanks are from a posh cavalry regiment and the Rupert in the turret has hardly time for his own lads, never mind some bally footslogger – a colonial to boot!

However Clanky/Grunt co-operation did occur, although I’m not sure whether it was embedded in doctrine (rule 3 – Thou shalt talk unto the Infantry before passing the Start Line) or whether it depended on the good sense of both sides. Here’s an example of where it did work, from John Foley’s book Mailed Fist. He describes the reduction of Le Havre

“The previous night’s bombing had left huge craters everywhere but it had also destroyed a lot of the defence works. Anti-tank guns were there, but the bombing had written off their protective machine gun posts. And in some cases the bigger guns had been bombed, leaving the Spandau pits unharmed.

We very soon reached an agreement with the infantry; we would take care of the machine guns for them, if they would sort out the anti-tank guns for us.

And it worked like a charm.

We would roll slowly forward until a burst of unpleasantness met us, and we would turn our combined guns on to whatever was causing the problem. Sometimes we had to put down a hasty smoke bomb, and retire a little way down the hill: and sometimes the infantry would dive into the bomb craters while we fired shells at the pillbox until the little white flags began to appear.”

So definite co-operation there, from the context the quote came from, it was not an organised pre-ordained fact, but something made up on the spot.

Typical British reaction to current events - or just the usual muddling through:p

[mjkerner]

A related question...how well does the Tac AI have infantry cover tanks in close terrain? In one of tyrspawn's AAR's, a Tiger is off by itself trying to flank the US position. Not necessarily a good idea if tank-hunting bazooka teams are around.

[Jaws]

A related question...how well does the Tac AI have infantry cover tanks in close terrain? In one of tyrspawn's AAR's, a Tiger is off by itself trying to flank the US position. Not necessarily a good idea if tank-hunting bazooka teams are around.

Not. Only the scenario designer can manipulate this. Basicly you can expect this only in a QB cause there its not 100% sure if infantry will follow right AI path.

[womble]

So you could buy a forward observer team, for example, and add a Sherman tank. ... In that case I guess the tank is subordinate to the commander of the infantry unit it's integrated with. Sounds good to me. But in this case would the game limit you to give orders only to the Infantry unit, and lose the ability to micromanage the tank?

Does the game restrict the micromanagement of anything just because of the HQ it's attached to? It hasn't in any of the CM incarnations so far. I don't expect it does in CMBN, either. The manual doesn't seem to imply any restrictions on your use of vehicles attached to a parent formation.