Modern warfare players and WW2 tactics

[DavidFields]

The AARs are great, with some great playing, with great results.

As a CM Wego player, watching someone who "trained" on CMSF was interesting.

1. CMSF players may have to heavily adapt to the shorter, tighter fights. Sighting a Schrek across a long open field would not be my usual practice. Regardless of there range, all those infantry AT weapons seem best to me used in the 30-50 meter range, often pointing backwards, or at least sideways, from the main attack approach, suitably covered. Infantry behind hedge rows, with nothing but empty terrain behind them also seems like a potential death trap for them--no place to retreat to when discovered.

2. There was an interesting remark on one of the AARs--something to the effect that German squads were good, but were hampered by the need to carry and set-up their machine guns. I had never thought of it like that, but then again, I don't see squads being run and gun attack elements. To think of the precious German HMG as a liability.....I instead see it as one of the most powerful units in the battle.

3. The Panther tanks in the AARs seemed to me to be used like the almost invulnerable M1A1--which they are not. This was mitigated by what still seems like the weakness in the "hold intersection" AAR for the AI to shove the tanks forward first, followed by the infantry, instead of the other way around. But I saw some Panther dashes which would be questionable with a lighter AFV.

4. When a Sherman broke into some german squads, the narrator thought the squads might all be destroyed. But that seems to me to reflect Modern Warfare: you are seen, you die. A WW 2 tank, isolated, had poor vision. With a bunch of infantry around it, the tank is going to correctly retreat--before someone gets, for instance, a hit on the delicate tracks.

5. On the other hand, the meticulous "overwatch", and then "fire superiority", with relentless artillery--if it was available--was impressive. Interesting abbreviations for the different size roads.

My hope is that everyone, coming from various approaches, will appreciate each other. I still like WEGO, looking at all the AARs and the demos from CMSF--I want to enjoy watching the action, and just don't like the RTS feel. Thinking about how to send a few squads on a flanking maneuver, with a leader--soldiers without body armor, and without overwhelming firepower (bang, bang, go the rifles)--carefully evaluating the terrain.....on both flanks, while carefully calculating indirect fire from minimally effective mortars with very limited ammo....maybe to finally get a close infantry assault on a key-holed AFV...this I enjoy.

And it will good to be back with the current games. (need to let go...of ......CMBB)

[ChrisND]

The curve for players who have only played CMSF will be far smaller than the purely-CMx1 adapting to CMx2.

Tactical warfare hasn't changed that much in many ways. Only minor adjustments are needed.

[Vinnart]

"BE LIKE WATER" . When water goes into the teapot it adapts to the teapot. When water goes into a cup it adapts to the cup.

Agree getting used to shorter ranges again will take a bit getting used to especially if after CMSF. I'm sure the groghood should do just fine.

[Plastic viking]

Interesting read Rankorian!

[Ryujin]

I'd say it seems tanks are generally much more powerful relative to infantry than in modern combat. With infantry AT being basically limited to spitting distance outside of big heavy AT guns, infantry will be much, much more vulnerable to AFVs, especially on the offensive. In modern combat infantry can be extremely dangerous to tanks with stuff like Panzerfaust-3s, RPG-29s, or even javelins at the squad/platoon level (which are a danger to most MBTs head on, at respectable ranges).

Bocage or urban terrain offers the infantry some chances to get in close, but outside of that getting within 50m of a tank sounds pretty tricky.

As for the MG42 being a liability, I can certainly see that if you're used to modern squads with LMGs and assault rifles that quick to use and everyone has one. In modern combat, usually your volume of rifle fire and LMGs, not the bigger MGs, was both your suppressive fire and your run and gun element. The MMGs were just extras for those longer range targets using the tripod or to cover something to free up a rifle squad.

With WW2 squads having a much poorer selection of weapons (bolt action rifles!), it'll certainly shift the tactics for the Germans, especially since your volume of fire usually hinges on one guy and him not getting shot or cowering. So if your squad can't get that MG42 into action, you're in trouble, and it is a risk from that perspective. So you don't have the flexibility of a modern squad.

I assume there are squads that do fill the "run 'n gun" attack role for the Germans? More SMGs and such? Or would you usually have to make do with bolt action rifles and MMGs?

[Mord]

My biggest obstacle is gonna be getting used to letting guys die again. The 1:1 makes it hard enough but CMSF trained me to be very aware of my casualties, to the point where if I had four or five guys go down I was really cringing! LOL compare that to the wholesale slaughter in CMX1, most of which you never really witnessed...gonna take some brain retraining.

Mord.

[womble]

I assume there are squads that do fill the "run 'n gun" attack role for the Germans? More SMGs and such? Or would you usually have to make do with bolt action rifles and MMGs?

Not so much in your standard squads, no. You'd get the 'run-and-gun' bit by splitting off an assault squad, I reckon, and doing 'caterpillar overwatch' by team instead of by squad.

[LJFHutch]

Shouldn't be that much of an adjustment, you're assuming all player of CMSF have never heard of WW2 before

[flamingknives]

As normal dude says, tactics haven't really changed that much. Those used to micro-managing to the nth degree may need to alter some of the low level stuff.

Other than that, the differences I can think of are:

that long range shoot-and-scoot with infantry AT isn't going to work because the long-range infantry AT is large AT guns which are not mobile.

Infantry is a lot more fragile - small arms are more powerful and there is no body armour (unless you played red, then there will be no noticeable difference).

If you run armour into close quarters with infantry the chances are it's going to get toasted by infantry AT, but that holds true in either setting. Modern armour is tougher, but modern AT is more powerful.

[Zatoichi]

I think that having tank battles that last longer than 1 shot will take the most getting used to, closely followed by the reduced awareness of the troops - they're no longer linked up electronically and in constant communication with everyone else - relying on radios and hand signals is going to be fun again!

Mind you, I guess if you've been playing as the Syrians, you're used to some of this already.

I'm looking forward to re-adapting my CMSF tactics (such as they are!) to 1944 - but I'm pretty sure my first few games are going to be spent zoomed in close oohing and ahhing over the pretty graphics as my poor pixeltruppen suffer!

[Doug Williams]

The curve for players who have only played CMSF will be far smaller than the purely-CMx1 adapting to CMx2.

This is true. I would say it will take me far longer to get used to the CMx2 engine than it will take an experienced CMx2 player to get used to the changes in tactics that will be necessary going from modern to WW2.

For the last week or so, I've been experimenting with CMSF, trying to get used to the engine some before CMBN is released, which means I've been hit with the double whammy of learning a new engine as well as modern combat tactics.

[winkelried]

fighting distance will also be shorter for armor i presume (as it was in CM1x) - and not too many first hit with first shot since there are no laser range finders. probably also more hits with not too much impact - less frustration with the M1 first shot first hit = kill on my T-xx's.

the good old anti-tank guns will also call for some adaptation. try to get flanking shots etc. i am looking forward to engage the cats with the 6-pounders :-)

[Sgt Schultz]

While I didn't play CMSF(and obviously cannot comment on CMBN), in both CM1 and historical reports armor is very vulnerable once its supporting infantry is stripped away/outrun and it is forced to button up.

If we are assuming battles in the D-Day timeframe, then most maps will not be plowed, but will in fact be high with crops/grasses. This makes for ambush opportunities. One of the early AARs shows a grenade sailing into a truck full of Engineers from a bush. Think along those lines.

One of the first training scenarios in CMBB was an armor ambush I believe, just to get folks used to the fact that tanks aren't uber-deathstars. Anyone can cower in a hole as armor rumbles closer. Hiding is the easy part. Choosing you hiding places and being patient is harder.

-----

Once folks get used to a deployed MG42, the word will get around quickly.

SMG squads should be coming soon™ to a Module near you. They were little bundles o' death in CMBO. Having an ammo halftrack nearby would make these little bullet pukers extremely dangerous.

The tight infantry groupings may be more of a change for CM1 players, than going to WWII weapons will be for CMSF players. No more stretching my 'toons out. No more super-toons made from my best squads and a Cpt(the only way to make reserves for me ).

If a player isn't quite the WWII grog, then I think most surprises will be cool ones after the initial adjustment. The TO&E of the Germans as they get desperate means more firepower per person, and Kitties galore. Each module should boost the 'oohh... aahh' factor. You haven't lived until you've fired a Sturmmoser Tiger's main gun. 380mm(yes, three hundred eighty) of what is basically a tactical nuke.

[winkelried]

You haven't lived until you've fired a Sturmmoser Tiger's main gun. 380mm(yes, three hundred eighty) of what is basically a tactical nuke.

The 150mm infantry gun already was a lot of fun :-) hopefully these come back sooon.

[DavidFields]

Nice replies.

I am going to analyze the AAR which has the Allies attacking the German road crossing. I would be interested if my discussion would be similar to other CM players, and if it would be different for those mostly experienced with modern warfare (yes, I realize you have studied WW2 tactics, but I think there is just a different "feel".)

German

1. The duel between the Tiger and the Shermans was dangerous. I would have put the tank further back. The main feature which sticks out to me is the woods along the main road, on the right side. Some infantry and some infantry AT go there. The hope is that if AFVs foolishly come up the main road (and playing the AI, it usually is that foolish--will see if that changes in CM2) or right/center, they would loose a couple of them there to flank shots. The other infantry AT assets would be in a perimeter 50-70 meters out from the intersection, in whatever covering terrain is available, pointing toward the intersection--or perhaps even further out, in clusters, so as not to be subject to indirect fire on the intersection.

The Panther would only be used once the infantry was stripped from the Allied tanks, and most of tanks were burning from infantry AT or assaults.

It would be the Allied infantry I would fear the most (as spotters for the tanks), and would have my german infantry as far forward as possible--but in the back of houses, trees, etc so as to minimally be exposed to tank fire. If I can kill the Allied infantry, perhaps by them not seeing my infantry until 20-30 meters away, the tanks will be blind.

The left flank was fairly meaningless (unless there were a bunch of objective points there), and the Germans had an amazing number of infantry AT weapons in the scenario--they could have probably managed with 1/2 the number.

Allied

I did not look closely at the infantry in the intersection scenario, but give me 6 Sherman tanks and 2 companies of infantry, and I think the German position can be destroyed. The infantry move forwards to spot/pin units including hopefully spotting the Panther--its large size being a liability--, the Shermans move forward and obliterate positions--taking care to stay care to stay 100 meters away from any enemy infantry position, and to avoid the Panther. The Shermans are positioned so that if the Panther moves up, one or more will have a flank shot on it.

The Allied infantry moves up, and repeats. The German infantry AT weapons are useless and the Panther has too many threats to manage. Probably my thrust would be far right german flank, or right-center, with MGs trying to get in position in the center--buildings and forests--to prevent the german left flank units from moving across.

If one had enough time, the Allies could do a hook around the left flank, with, perhaps, infantry on the tanks. I am not a big fan of that maneuver (too much ground, too many open fields, too exhausting and takes a lot of time)--but it could be considered.

As Allied, if I had to choose between 2 companies of infantry with 3 Shermans, or 1 company of infantry with 6 Shermans, I think I would take the former--still might be able to pull it off if I knew the german OOB, and knew it did not have AT guns.

None of the tracks of my Shermans would touch the main road until it was cleared all the way to the intersection.

If the Allied had some heavy Indirect, I would target the intersection, and hope that my opponent made the mistake of thinking that defending the intersection meant having people immediately around the intersection.

In practice, my guess is that most of those in this forum will be able to clobber me in CMBN, but what do you think of the style of the above analysis?

[womble]

Nice replies.

I am going to analyze the AAR which has the Allies attacking the German road crossing.

Some of what you say about the "Barkmann's Corner" scenario itself is, I think, made redundant by the particular nature of that scenario. Specifically, and my recall may be faulty, I don't think the Allied attacker has any infantry at all. I don't remember seeing any in the AAR...

1. The duel between the [Panther] and the Shermans was dangerous.

Perhaps not as dangerous as you might think. The Shermans will have difficulty penetrating the front of the Panther, and its flanks are pretty secure. And with the chaos at the far end of the road, the kitty will have the drop on its victims most of the time, so even registering a hit before getting killed is going to be challenging for the green tanks.

I would have put the tank further back.

I'm not sure there us very much 'further back'. The Panther sits at a kink in the road and any further back will mean very short engagement ranges, not longer ones.

The main feature which sticks out to me is the woods along the main road, on the right side. Some infantry and some infantry AT go there.

Yes, I'd say that too. Don't think they can be deployed there, but I'd be wanting to sneak some 'Schrecky goodness up inside that treeline if the scenario allows it.

The other infantry AT assets would be in a perimeter 50-70 meters out from the intersection, in whatever covering terrain is available, pointing toward the intersection--or perhaps even further out, in clusters, so as not to be subject to indirect fire on the intersection.

I think the further out option would be best. Gives you a good chance to nail any flanking elements before they see your Panther's side armour.

The Panther would only be used once the infantry was stripped from the Allied tanks, and most of tanks were burning from infantry AT or assaults.

Generally that's a good plan, but given the lack of Allied infantry, and the sheer numbers of Allied tanks, I don't think the ammo load of a couple of Shreck teams would be enough to hold the road without the AP of the long 75 to help. Even if they survived the devastating HE/coax area fire they'd receive from the rest of the column after the first noticed launch.

I reckon so, too.

Avoiding the Panther is the key, here. As you say: stay off the road. A human Allied player would be a different proposition entirely.

A somewhat optimistic hope, sure, but if you're not ready for it and they do...

Would depend if your infantry had transport available, I guess. Having something to bring your overwatching squads up to the cleared starting point for the next bound helps keep them fresh for that bound, and the ones who just bounded will be sat pretty catching their breath in overwatch.

Yeah, it's an obvious killing ground.

Since I think you only get Tanks, but lots of 'em, I'd be inclined to rubble every building and coat the rubble in a thin layer of flattened lead, advancing by inches down the middle, with a 100m wasteland either side of my column/V

[Rocken]

u suck .. sori

[FragerZ]

My biggest obstacle is gonna be getting used to letting guys die again. The 1:1 makes it hard enough but CMSF trained me to be very aware of my casualties, to the point where if I had four or five guys go down I was really cringing! LOL compare that to the wholesale slaughter in CMX1, most of which you never really witnessed...gonna take some brain retraining.

Mord.

Only ever played CMx1... So how would a battle ever end in modern combat mission, if both players managed to avoid heavy squad casualties??? Are there lots of stale-mates? I'm finishing off a CMAK game where everyone in two of my companies is dead, so I'm sending the Company HQ's to the front.

[Mord]

Only ever played CMx1... So how would a battle ever end in modern combat mission, if both players managed to avoid heavy squad casualties??? Are there lots of stale-mates? I'm finishing off a CMAK game where everyone in two of my companies is dead, so I'm sending the Company HQ's to the front.

It would all depend on the victory conditions for each side...For instance playing as the US Army I might need to keep my casualties at 10%, and take two area objectives to get a total victory...Red might just have to cause 50% enemy casualties and nothing else to get a total victory. Victory will then be decided by the outcomes of who best succeeds...either side can be aware, unaware or partially aware of their enemies victory conditions. It's MUCH more in depth than CMX1 with lots of parameters...but you could just give each side the same terrain objectives and leave it at that...can be as complicated or simple as you want.

But mostly what I meant was playing as the US, Brits, Or NATO you kinda feel the weight of our times on you...where high mortality rates are unacceptable militarily, politically and in public opinion...life is more valuable than 70 years ago. You get used to, at least with me, to taking losses very personally...the 1:1 helps there as well...pounds it home that you are in charge of real dudes not just a collection of fire power modifiers. So 1:1 + a modern outlook on casualties is gonna take some getting used to going back to the WWII meat grinder.

Mord.

[DavidFields]

No Allied infantry in Barkmann's Corner? Just a training exercise, then, I guess. You could then probably take the Panther away from the Germans and still have an almost certain German win. Without the infantry spotters, and even just trying to destroy everything, the tanks would be almost blind, and eventually would run out of ammo--and the german infantry would just close on them in protected terrain.

[noxnoctum]

I for one am glad to be back to the days where infantry must FEAR armor.

It makes it all the more satisfying when you manage to take a tank out with just a regular infantry squad close assaulting.

In CMx1, getting my tank hunter or AT grenade/faust equipped squad in range was one of the more gratifying things in the game . I also loved my shreks hehe... which I always bought at "elite" veterancy . Made them quite deadly and able to pull off 100 meter shots.

[Lets_All_Fight]

My biggest obstacle is gonna be getting used to letting guys die again. The 1:1 makes it hard enough but CMSF trained me to be very aware of my casualties, to the point where if I had four or five guys go down I was really cringing! LOL compare that to the wholesale slaughter in CMX1, most of which you never really witnessed...gonna take some brain retraining.

Mord.

Yep, this has been the hardest thing to readjust to so far. I screwed up the timing and moved a squad over a footbridge in the tute scenario - it was horrible...such a massive difference from three figures jerking slightly like in CM1. My brain kept doing that Shock Force thing of reminding me that the embedded ITN correspondent was going to have the whole thing on the 6 o clock news.

[Pandur]

honestly i think there is not so much different from CMSF RED vs RED to CMBN. as i played a lot RED on RED, CMBN feels pretty similar. C2 ranges are the same, casualty rate is the same and tanks are rather blind.

if someone was playing BLUE a lot in CMSF i can see problems when starting out in CMBN but this should be over in a matter of a few games.