Attacking with the American Infantry Platoon

[BRO, JD]

I'm still fairly new at the game and am having the biggest problem attacking with my infantry.

The squads don't have the firepower to fight defending forces, especially MGs. So of course I need to use my own .30 cal MGs and 60mm mortars. But with the short sighting distances on the most of the battlefields, I have a hard time keeping the MGs and mortars close enough to use, but far enough back to stay safe. And I'm also struggling figuring out how to keep the mortars under command and control with the radios -- where should my PL be?

[Pak40]

I use my 60mm mortars in a direct fire role up on the line with my squads. Every situation is different but my basic strategy is this:

1. move a scout team up to an undefended hedgerow(the next hedgerow will have Germans). Let the scouts sit a few seconds to look for enemy and draw their fire.

2. Move up the rest of your platoon onto the same hedgerow including the 60mm. Try to time all your squads arriving around the same time so that fire superiority is quickly gained. Usually, I split my squads so that when an squad takes MG fire, it only affects the section, not the whole squad. Keep the HQ back a few meters so it doesn't take fire.

3. Deploy the 60mm asap. By this time at least one of your units should have spotted an enemy unit on the next hedgerow, even if it is still a '?'

4. Once the 60mm is deployed, have it fire just behind the hedgerow where the enemy unit is spotted. The first two rounds are spotting rounds so they are slow to come and are usually off target but after that the rounds come in fast and close to the target.

5. Generally speaking, it takes about 10 60mm rounds to silence an enemy unit. Watch your ammo count on the mortar, they fire fast. If there is another enemy on the same hedgerow then after 10-12 rounds you can switch to the other target.

6. Just in case there are survivors, your squads and .30 should keep area fire where the enemies were spotted as your scout crosses the field to investigate.

Your squads' responsibility in this situation is to draw the MG42 fire while trying to suppress it at the same time. The actual killing is done by the 60mm. It's unavoidable that your squads will take casualties.

[BletchleyGeek]

My basic strategy follows a similar pattern to that of PaK40. My only objection to his suggested plan is that any human player worth its salt will prioritize the mortar section, and probably kill or suppress it.

Here's mine:

1. Divide your attack force into three groups: center and flanks.

2. Set HQ to a circular Target Arc of 5m radius (you don't want these guys to attract much attention on them).

3. Split the center squad into Scout Team, and Split the remainder into two balanced fire teams.

4. Use scout team as Pak suggests

5. Deploy the central squad fire teams to support the Scouts - to their sides - so you get concentric fire on the defenders. Rush the HQ to the center, and deploy the Mortar team 8-16m (1 or 2 action spots) behind the HQ.

6. Setup a fire mission (I tend to select for this a Medium / Short one) behind the hedgerow (linear or area, I'm not sure what's better).

7. Now you have 6 minutes (4 setup + 1 or 2 of fire), approximately, to use the other two infantry groups to envelope (if possible) or flank (if possible). These groups are also split as I describe above.

Clearing the target hedgerow takes with the above procedure - if everything goes according to plan - about 10-12 minutes. Having scouted the flanking avenues of approach beforehand is a plus (just in case there are ambushes setup on most likely approaches).

The AI usually ignores flanking maneuvers or reacts slowly to them (based on the plans). Humans might be wiser (and probably will care more about the flanks). When in a QB, allocating extra BAR and Scout teams for the wings might be of critical importance (extra firepower, real recon forces). Turning the flanks in the bocage is very important I think: what might be at one point in time an excellent defensive position, can become five minutes later a death trap.

[womble]

2. Move up the rest of your platoon onto the same hedgerow including the 60mm. Try to time all your squads arriving around the same time so that fire superiority is quickly gained.

If you're playing WeGo, one way to do this is to get all your truppen to Slow the last action spot, with short covered arcs and Hide when they get nestled into the back of their hedgerow. With the scout team being organic to the 'toon, they get pretty quick info on where things are going to be for when you drop the covered arc and start assigning area or targetted fires in the order phase immediately after all your units are in firing positions.

5. Generally speaking, it takes about 10 60mm rounds to silence an enemy unit. Watch your ammo count on the mortar, they fire fast. If there is another enemy on the same hedgerow then after 10-12 rounds you can switch to the other target.

I think this might be a bit of a problem with WeGo play, as you need to displace/undeploy the mortar team to stop them firing half their inventory at one target. A reason to prefer the indirect approach, perhaps, in WeGo? I've not had my spotters suffer too much in hedgerow fights if they keep their covered arcs short; the HQ in the hedgerow and the mortar team a few Action Spots away in dead ground should work okay, with the obvious need to account for call times.

[Pak40]

@BletchleyGeek

Yea, no doubt a human opponent would try to hammer any mortar it saw. I've only played against AI. However, if you split your squads, put your mortar randomly in the line of sections, there's no way the opposing player can tell which is the mortar until it starts firing.

@Womble

Yes, WeGo will make this tougher and you'll probably use more rounds in the process but I've still had good success with it.

Indirect fire works well too but obviously takes more time. Also, any units that are sighted by the enemy are going to take 4-5 minutes worth of MG42 fire. It's best to put a couple of units on the hedgerow to draw fire and fixate enemy positions, then plot the mortar fire, then pull back non spotting units so they don't take casualties for 4 minutes.

[Ranger33]

Flank, flank, and flank some more. Even if you don't wipe out his line, you can force him to pull back once he realizes the danger. Every defense has a weak point, somewhere with a blind spot or shorter distances to cross, you just have to find it. This is where scouting and the occasional bold attack can pay huge dividends. Attacking head on or just shooting it out from one hedgrerow to another should be the last resort.

[Broadsword56]

Ranger is right. Find the gaps or softer spots and engage first with the smallest possible force (in this game, say, a scout team). If it hits resistance, flow around it and look for another gap. When you find a gap, let your scouts "pull" your lead elements through behind them. Once you've found the point you want to attack the enemy, use your second force to fix them in place and suppress them. Then once they're fixed in place, use your third force to flank and finish them.

Think of the way water flows over rock and finds the smallest possible opening, then forces it wider and wider until the rock gives way. Attack the gaps, not the surfaces. Reinforce success, not failure.

Here's a link to a good presentation on the concept of "recon pull" and maneuver warfare:

http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/ppt/walters_dist_ops_history.ppt#256,1,Distributed Operations and Command: A Brief Historical Perspective

[BletchleyGeek]

@BletchleyGeek

Yea, no doubt a human opponent would try to hammer any mortar it saw. I've only played against AI. However, if you split your squads, put your mortar randomly in the line of sections, there's no way the opposing player can tell which is the mortar until it starts firing.

Not sure about that. Even in Iron mode you can check unit equipment once it's sighted. Which does not imply that the spotted unit has shot at all.

[BletchleyGeek]

Ranger is right. Find the gaps or softer spots and engage first with the smallest possible force (in this game, say, a scout team). If it hits resistance, flow around it and look for another gap. When you find a gap, let your scouts "pull" your lead elements through behind them. Once you've found the point you want to attack the enemy, use your second force to fix them in place and suppress them. Then once they're fixed in place, use your third force to flank and finish them.

My thoughts precisely. Don't you think the "recipe" I gave a bit above goes along those same lines? I would like to hear opinions on that.

Think of the way water flows over rock and finds the smallest possible opening, then forces it wider and wider until the rock gives way. Attack the gaps, not the surfaces. Reinforce success, not failure.

Succesful maneuvering usually turns "surfaces" into "gaps"

Here's a link to a good presentation on the concept of "recon pull" and maneuver warfare:

http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/ppt/walters_dist_ops_history.ppt#256,1,Distributed Operations and Command: A Brief Historical Perspective

Nice link, thank you

[Pak40]

Flank, flank, and flank some more. Even if you don't wipe out his line, you can force him to pull back once he realizes the danger. Every defense has a weak point, somewhere with a blind spot or shorter distances to cross, you just have to find it. This is where scouting and the occasional bold attack can pay huge dividends. Attacking head on or just shooting it out from one hedgrerow to another should be the last resort.

I agree, flanking is key, but first you have to punch a hole in the defense. Often every hedgerow is defended so there is no way to flank until you have punched a hole deep enough. If you've played the ROAD TO MONTEBOURG campaign then you know what I'm talking about. You can probe to your heart's content but in the end you'll have wasted lots of scouts and time. At some point you have to pick a field to punch into, and more than likely, you'll have to punch two fields deep before you can safely flank neighboring fields. The Germans almost always defend in depth.

[Broadsword56]

I agree, flanking is key, but first you have to punch a hole in the defense. Often every hedgerow is defended so there is no way to flank until you have punched a hole deep enough. If you've played the ROAD TO MONTEBOURG campaign then you know what I'm talking about. You can probe to your heart's content but in the end you'll have wasted lots of scouts and time. At some point you have to pick a field to punch into, and more than likely, you'll have to punch two fields deep before you can safely flank neighboring fields. The Germans almost always defend in depth.

True, but a lot of this also depends on the map and scenario designs. Many maps can be too small for maneuver/recon and tend to force players into frontal attacks. "Bad maps make for bad tactics," I often say. IRL, it's often going to be hard for a defender to defend everything. Something will have to be left weaker or less defended because there simply won't be enough troops to defend everything in strength. In CMBN, small maps, plus the tendency of QB players or scenario designers to create "balanced" OOBs, means defenders will more often be able to cover the necessary areas. How often do we see CMBN battles where the attacker outnumbers the defenders 3:1 or even 6:1? But those are the odds a commander would want, or he might never launch the attack at all.

[SteveP]

I often say. IRL, it's often going to be hard for a defender to defend everything. Something will have to be left weaker or less defended because there simply won't be enough troops to defend everything in strength.

The reason why the bocage region was considered ideal defensive terrain was because the Germans could defend everything they wanted to defend, with the troops they had available. If the Americans had been able to stage flanking attacks in June or early July, the bocage defenses would have been no more difficult to defeat than defenses they had run into in Africa, Sicily and much of Italy (except possibly the terrain immediately surrounding the Cassino abbey). The Germans were also confident in their defenses because they discovered that the American infantry would not, or could not, stage effective frontal attacks on their hedgerow defenses. One might surmise that had the situation been reversed, the Germans might have made faster progress attacking thru the hedgerows, though at a higher cost in casualties than the Americans were willing to incur.

[Broadsword56]

Yes SteveP, in real life this was absolutely true. In CMBN, however, the way the bocage is simulated on game maps can vary widely. So my point was just that it's important to do our best to make the bocage as realistic as possible within the limits of the game engine. Try the La Nicollerie HTH map I uploaded to the repository the other day and see what I mean. Attacking on that map is extremely tough, but at least there's plenty of room to try different approaches and the bocage has many gaps and wormholes so the attacker isn't facing a "solid green wall." Also, the liberal use of weeds and brush and realistic placements of orchards, etc., can offer more covered approaches than a less detailed "billiard table" map (sburke said when we battled on the La Nicollerie map that it "felt more like jungle fighting")!

[sburke]

Yes SteveP, in real life this was absolutely true. In CMBN, however, the way the bocage is simulated on game maps can vary widely. So my point was just that it's important to do our best to make the bocage as realistic as possible within the limits of the game engine. Try the La Nicollerie HTH map I uploaded to the repository the other day and see what I mean. Attacking on that map is extremely tough, but at least there's plenty of room to try different approaches and the bocage has many gaps and wormholes so the attacker isn't facing a "solid green wall." Also, the liberal use of weeds and brush and realistic placements of orchards, etc., can offer more covered approaches than a less detailed "billiard table" map (sburke said when we battled on the La Nicollerie map that it "felt more like jungle fighting")!

Absolutely agree, the other thing that many maps lack are terrain flows that are natural and not built with a defense in mind. Dead ground can be a major pain in the a** when you are trying to cobble together a defense knowing there are positions that you can just not cover without leaving your line even more vulnerable. La Nicollerie has a number of locations that if you try to defend you will leave your force unable to retreat. While the hedgerows were definitely defender territory, it doesn't mean it didn't take some tactical finesse to get the most out of it. Most maps right now you can see from one hedgerow to the next in every field. La Nicollerie has a number of them where there are elevation crests within the field so you can only spot a portion of it. I think a lot of folks spend more time working the AI plans and while I agree, a good fight with the AI makes that a prerequisite, the maps themselves seem to have not gotten the same attention. A case in point, almost all the urban maps look like a barracks complex. Next time you see any of the urban scenes during the load sequence ask your self how many maps look anything like that. Don't mean to criticize the folks who have put a lot of effort in getting all the QB maps built, but the editor gives us all the opportunity to contribute. Once you realize how much effort goes into a decent map even w/o an AI you begin to understand how much these guys had to crank out.

[Childress]

Yes SteveP, in real life this was absolutely true. In CMBN, however, the way the bocage is simulated on game maps can vary widely. So my point was just that it's important to do our best to make the bocage as realistic as possible within the limits of the game engine. .... Attacking on that map is extremely tough, but at least there's plenty of room to try different approaches and the bocage has many gaps and wormholes so the attacker isn't facing a "solid green wall."

One annoying aspect, common to many of the qb maps that shipped with the game, is the

phenomenon of the solid wall of impassable Low Bocage. These hedges should be broken up by many gaps, imo, as a matter of course. That would also alleviate the complaints about LB being unrealistically sealed off to infantry penetration.

[Ranger33]

One annoying aspect, common to many of the qb maps that shipped with the game, is the

phenomenon of the solid wall of impassable Low Bocage. These hedges should be broken up by many gaps, imo, as a matter of course. That would also alleviate the complaints about LB being unrealistically sealed off to infantry penetration.

Agree x10

Every account I have read of Normandy seems to indicate that the hedgerows were fairly porous to infantry in most areas. It's really annoying when a map designer covers the map with solid walls of impenetrable hedges, when in reality you would be able to cross at many points.

[Statisoris]

QB-66 is hell because there are zero gaps in all of the bocage, not one.

[Pak40]

I agree with you guys. I've never read an account where soldiers said they couldn't get through a hedgerow. There seems to be a myth floating around these forums that hedgerows are impenetrable by infantry, probably perpetuated by the way CMBN is designed. From all the reading I've done it's the vehicles that had the problem getting through.

[sburke]

I agree with you guys. I've never read an account where soldiers said they couldn't get through a hedgerow. There seems to be a myth floating around these forums that hedgerows are impenetrable by infantry, probably perpetuated by the way CMBN is designed. From all the reading I've done it's the vehicles that had the problem getting through.

I don't think that quite is the argument, though maybe not far off. I think as broadsword has noted, people have blamed the hedgerow tile for behavior that is more an issue on map design. The hedgerow tile represents the portions that are just impenetrable and undoubtedly there is a lot of that. The gaps represent those portions that are penetrable. The trick is knowing how to make realistic terrain with the tools at hand. The folks who designed the QB maps had a lot on their plate and probably had to keep redesigning based on changes in the code for the AI. That the maps probably didn't get the same level of attention is just how things turned out. I haven't gone through every map, but my first qb experience was on a billiard flat map with very few gaps. As the defender that worked for me , but for broadsword it was trying to say the least.

For me the issue of map design becomes more glaring in the urban maps. I notice (very happily) that there has been a bit of a surge in comments about creating better urban terrain features to give infantry cover and concealment etc. I have posted one I used as a testing ground and expect to do more with the ideas being circulated in the mods forum.

What it comes down to is - you want better maps? Take the time to make em. You can at any time you like go edit the existing QB maps to fit more with your own perception, save as something else and then share the map with your opponents to see if they agree and voila! you have a QB map that will be a much better experience and you aren't asking anybody to do anything for ya. Let's face it folks, we can continue to complain about the maps or we can take a little time and eliminate the problem.

Oh and for the qb map makers this isn't to imply that somehow they are all bad. Some are quite good. The urban ones though... well mmm not so good.

[hoolaman]

I agree with you guys. I've never read an account where soldiers said they couldn't get through a hedgerow. There seems to be a myth floating around these forums that hedgerows are impenetrable by infantry, probably perpetuated by the way CMBN is designed. From all the reading I've done it's the vehicles that had the problem getting through.

There's no myth, there have been some looong discussions about this on the forums and there is some evidence pointing both ways. The best consensus I've seen is that in general the hedgerows were indeed difficult obstacles for both infantry and vehicles, but there were also thin spots and entry points used by farmers where it would be practical to send an infantry force through.

The defenders knew about these gaps too of course, and it was partly the physical barrier and partly the well-laid defense that made them so formidable.

[Pak40]

There's no myth, there have been some looong discussions about this on the forums and there is some evidence pointing both ways.

Yes, I know. I've been part of them. But, I've never read or seen any evidence saying that bocage was an impenetrable obstacle to infantry. Undesirable and deadly to attack through, yes, but never impenetrable.

The best consensus I've seen is that in general the hedgerows were indeed difficult obstacles for both infantry and vehicles, but there were also thin spots and entry points used by farmers where it would be practical to send an infantry force through.

The defenders knew about these gaps too of course, and it was partly the physical barrier and partly the well-laid defense that made them so formidable.

My point is that besides the obvious farmer's gaps, the bocage itself is a penetrable obstacle for infantry. A 2-3 foot earthen wall with trees and shrubs will certainly slow down a soldier but will not stop him.

Whether it's wise to attack through a hedgerow is a different topic. I'm purely talking about the physical aspects of getting through the bocage itself.

[BletchleyGeek]

The defenders knew about these gaps too of course, and it was partly the physical barrier and partly the well-laid defense that made them so formidable.

The combination of cover and concealment that hedgerows provide is what makes them premium terrain for the infantry. More in the defense, but also in the attack.

Provided the map is not a "rat in a maze" challenge thing.

[Childress]

My point is that besides the obvious farmer's gaps, the bocage itself is a penetrable obstacle for infantry. A 2-3 foot earthen wall with trees and shrubs will certainly slow down a soldier but will not stop him.

Common sense, maybe, but that's not the point some of us are advancing namely the tiles are OK it's their implementation on some maps that can be defective. Bocage, especially the Low variant, needs more gaps than are commonly offered.

[womble]

Yes, I know. I've been part of them. But, I've never read or seen any evidence saying that bocage was an impenetrable obstacle to infantry. Undesirable and deadly to attack through, yes, but never impenetrable.

My point is that besides the obvious farmer's gaps, the bocage itself is a penetrable obstacle for infantry. A 2-3 foot earthen wall with trees and shrubs will certainly slow down a soldier but will not stop him.

There's "impenetrable" and there's "impenetrable for all practical purposes covered by the CMBN game". Of course infantry can, eventually, hack their way through the immensely dense interwoven vegetation on the top of a bocage berm.

Getting through hundred-year growth of tangled hardwood hedge is a non-trivial task. I can assure you that I have, while holidaying in Normandy, seen hedges that would, indeed, stop a soldier cold (hell, I've seen them in Britain). They're way to tall to jump, you can't get enough purchase to climb them and you certainly can't push your way through. You have to hack through numerous 10-15cm green trunks just to make a hole wide enough to wiggle through. What was the count of hatchets and bowsaws issued per infantry section? I know there were entrenching tools, but they would take, literally, an hour to hack through the kind of vegetation we're looking at for proper Bocage. How often do you have that kind of time to make a man-sized hole in a Bocage hedge that's not covered by some sort of defense that will cut you to shreds? How often would it be a reasonable thing to do compared with ranging a bit wider for a penetrable (i.e. simulated in a better map by a gap, maybe with some shrubs or "hedge") section?

Team tactics might well allow crossing such an obstacle, but the same would apply to a high stone wall, which is equally impenetrable in-game to infantry sans breaching charges.

Instead we have breaching charges, which are probably more common in-game than tree-lopping tools were in real life.

[fry30]

Hedgerows are able to be crawled through, carefully. However, I agree with Womble on this one.

During combat, I can't imagine a soldier breaking out his entrenching tools (trench spade?) and begin to hack through a hedgerow. Maybe when they are setting up defensive positions, or at the tail end of an assault. But these are times when other routes can be found; as a platoon leader, I wouldn't count on reinforcements arriving at the next hedgrerow if they first had to exhaust themselves creating a gap in their present line of bocage.

Having spent a couple years in the conservation corps, I've learned that even with axe-mattocks, loppers, and chainsaws there is still brush that is just too dense to create a path through (I did trail crew and fire line).

Although I didn't cut trail through the bocage country of northern france, I can definitely appreciate the difficulty of humping 30-45 lbs of tools up or across broken terrain; and then be set to work. I couldn't imagine doing all that, and then being expected to fight in combat.

--------

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I could imagine infantry men considering certain hedgerows "impassable" (without the help of explosives or a small animal hole) and therefore opting for a different route.