Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room



Message


redboot -> Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/15/2012 3:09:19 AM)

Is there a rule of thumb on when a hasty attack is going to be worth the risk. I suspect I waste alot of MPs on Deliberate Attacks because of the concern of getting a hold.




BigAnorak -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/15/2012 12:46:48 PM)

I think it is more a matter of taste and style. I started off playing pretty much all hasty with very few deliberates, until I got so frustrated with the variance in modified CVs that I stopped playing the game. I have since developed my "grinding" attack strategy that makes more use of deliberate attacks. I am more selective in deciding on hasties particularly with Motorised units that may already have made 1-2 attacks; if their fatigue is too high, and/or their ammo is too low, I am less likely to attempt a hasty.

It is difficult to get the balance between needing to cause casualties and the need to gain ground, but sometimes this is dictated by how your opponents plays his defence - if he defends forward you can grind him; if he runs away, your only option to damage him may be via hasties.





Zonso -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/15/2012 2:24:35 PM)

You will get a feel for when you can and can't do it, but it may really only be consistently possible for the German at the start of the campaign or later when exploiting. Sometimes you will get wild variations which can be frustrating and if your opponent has setup reserves then forget it.

Somehwat related to attacks and casualties which I have never understood about the combat engine. How come on average a PanzerCorps will suffer significantly more casualties, likely causing less also, than an Infantry Corps when attacking, especially Deliberate? The PanzerCorps were true combined armed forces with the better quality manpower.




AFV -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/15/2012 3:50:18 PM)

Normally I consider 6:1 a safe attack with hasty, but with deliberate I consider 3:1 a safe attack (very roughly),




Schmart -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/15/2012 5:37:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonso
How come on average a PanzerCorps will suffer significantly more casualties, likely causing less also, than an Infantry Corps when attacking, especially Deliberate? The PanzerCorps were true combined armed forces with the better quality manpower.


Large scale armoured forces were never intended to attack prepared and entrenched positions frontally in a set-piece assault. They are intended for exploitation, pursuit, envelopment, etc. In other words, manoeuvre. The tanks are best used to cut-off or surround the entrenched positions to deny the enemy supply, communications, and reinforcements, while it's the good old infantry and artillery's job to carry out the assault.




Zonso -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/15/2012 9:45:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

Large scale armoured forces were never intended to attack prepared and entrenched positions frontally in a set-piece assault. They are intended for exploitation, pursuit, envelopment, etc. In other words, manoeuvre. The tanks are best used to cut-off or surround the entrenched positions to deny the enemy supply, communications, and reinforcements, while it's the good old infantry and artillery's job to carry out the assault.


That was the prevailing pre-war theory. However, right from the Poland campaign the battle experience dictated otherwise as evidenced by the changing TOE of the Panzer Division and the roles they were required to perform, ie they were necessary to create the breakthrough in the first place, the infantry no longer could do it alone, hence the necessity of a true combined arms force - tanks, artillery and infantry.




Schmart -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/15/2012 10:10:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonso
That was the prevailing pre-war theory. However, right from the Poland campaign the battle experience dictated otherwise as evidenced by the changing TOE of the Panzer Division and the roles they were required to perform, ie they were necessary to create the breakthrough in the first place, the infantry no longer could do it alone, hence the necessity of a true combined arms force - tanks, artillery and infantry.


True, more infantry may have given armoured formations greater flexibility, but it still doesn't make them efficient in assaulting prepared positions (see Kursk Edit: Goodwood and Totalize are also good examples from the Allied side). A standard Panzer Division had 9-12 Infantry Companies compared to an Infantry Division of 27-36 Infantry Companies. The Panzer Division Infantry component still amounts to little more than a heavily reinforced regular Infantry Regiment.

It still remains that using armoured formations (as opposed to infantry support armoured units) are inefficient (and suffer greater losses) during the break-in phase as opposed to the breakout. An extra infantry component allows them to better overcome unexpected resistence, but nevertheless they are still best suited for mobile operations, rather than set piece attacks, hence greater losses suffered in assaulting prepared defenses.




randallw -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/15/2012 11:41:41 PM)

What was the amount of heavy artillery in a panzer div compared to an infantry div?




Schmart -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/16/2012 12:15:33 AM)

IIRC, a Pz Div had 2x 105mm Bns (1 Bn later becoming SP) and 1x 150mm Bn, vs an Inf Div which had 3x 105mm Bns and 1x 150mm Bn.




Zonso -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/16/2012 12:54:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

True, more infantry may have given armoured formations greater flexibility, but it still doesn't make them efficient in assaulting prepared positions (see Kursk Edit: Goodwood and Totalize are also good examples from the Allied side). A standard Panzer Division had 9-12 Infantry Companies compared to an Infantry Division of 27-36 Infantry Companies. The Panzer Division Infantry component still amounts to little more than a heavily reinforced regular Infantry Regiment.

It still remains that using armoured formations (as opposed to infantry support armoured units) are inefficient (and suffer greater losses) during the break-in phase as opposed to the breakout. An extra infantry component allows them to better overcome unexpected resistence, but nevertheless they are still best suited for mobile operations, rather than set piece attacks, hence greater losses suffered in assaulting prepared defenses.


Interesting examples I think! :) For Kursk, look at the respective progress and losses between 4th PzArmy and 9th Army - pretty obvious who was more efficient as you say. As for Goodwood and Totalize - the British still hadn't ironed out the combined arms concept (to put it mildly) and were stuck in the armor=cavalry concept.

A brief overview of the changes to the German Panzer Division's TOE shows a higher ratio of infantry to armor. The structure of a typical US Infantry Division starting in Normandy with the independent Tank Battalions mirrors a beefed up Panzer Division. Rarely did the break-in stage occur with Infantry alone - in fact the reality was a combined arms force, ie armored forces, was necessary whether East or West, of which a Panzer Division was an independent version of and the most efficient at.

Your arguement doesn't hold up to what actually occurred - hence my question why in WitE Infantry Corps can achieve incredible casualty ratios versus their Panzer Corps brothers, especially in the later parts of the campaign.




Flaviusx -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/16/2012 4:16:48 PM)

I'm not sure that 4PzA in Kursk is a particularly encouraging example. They did better than Model, sure. They both failed, however. And 9. Army had the tougher assignment, Central Front was stronger and had higher unit density than Voronezh Front. If Model had led with armor rather than infantry I doubt the results would be very different, except for heavier AFV losses, and quite possibly great Soviet success in clearing the Orel salient as a result.

Throwing armor into an unbroken defense rarely succeeded for the Soviets, btw.




Schmart -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/16/2012 5:57:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonso
For Kursk, look at the respective progress and losses between 4th PzArmy and 9th Army - pretty obvious who was more efficient as you say.


So, you are suggesting that 4th Pz Army's operations at Kursk were efficient and successful? They may have gotten further than 9th Army because of a greater weight of attack, but that doesn't show that they were efficient, and nobody can argue that they were successful.

quote:

As for Goodwood and Totalize - the British still hadn't ironed out the combined arms concept (to put it mildly) and were stuck in the armor=cavalry concept.


Right, they mistakenly believed that they could achieve a break-in with massed armour mostly alone against prepared defenses...and the result was major armoured loses, and a need to bring up the infantry.

quote:

The structure of a typical US Infantry Division starting in Normandy with the independent Tank Battalions mirrors a beefed up Panzer Division. Rarely did the break-in stage occur with Infantry alone - in fact the reality was a combined arms force, ie armored forces, was necessary whether East or West, of which a Panzer Division was an independent version of and the most efficient at.


The Tank and TD Bns attached to US Inf Divs were for Infantry support. The US Inf Divs don't mirror Panzer Divs, as they had 250% more infantry than the Panzers! They were never intended nor used for independent deep mobile operations. Yes the infantry needs armoured support to achieve the break-in, but it still isn't efficient to use armoured formations (ie Armoured Divisions, whose primary purpose is manoeuvre) to achieve the break-in, for the simple reason that the formation will be spent by the time it needs to breakout. Even when an Armoured formation DOES conduct an assault against prepared positions, it is the infantry component that does the dirty work, with some support from the armour. The whole purpose of a breakthrough operation is to hold your mobile forces in reserve, so that they are fresh and available to exploit the break-in. Using your armour to carry out the break-in will result in inefficient, costly, and shallow penetrations, ie Kursk, Goodwood, Totalize, etc.

quote:

Your arguement doesn't hold up to what actually occurred - hence my question why in WitE Infantry Corps can achieve incredible casualty ratios versus their Panzer Corps brothers, especially in the later parts of the campaign.


What is it that actually occured? Can you provide examples where Armoured Divisions (Allied, German, or Soviet) conducted successfull break-ins alone against well prepared and strong defenses (Soviet defenses in the summer of 1941 don't coun't as 'well prepared'), and then carried through with a breakout? Up until later 1943, the German MBT was the 50mm armed PzIII. How much HE impact do you think a 50mm shell has to support an assault on prepared defenses? You need at least a 75mm shell to give you anything resembling a usefull HE capacity, and that was the reason for the short barreled PzIV and early STUGs, of which the Germans had very few early on.




Treale -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/16/2012 6:55:06 PM)

I don't understsand! If someone hates the game like this Helio dude does, why hang out here and whine? Move on, get a life. Coming on here and starting arguments with people, and then calling them names. Not very mature.....




Zonso -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/17/2012 3:52:04 PM)

Schmart - It appears we are communicating at cross purposes here and you are framing arguments that don't exist! What WWII combat pounded home was that 'combined arms' was the name of the game - not armor, not infantry, not air, not artillery - but all acting in concert was the requirement for success. Whether 4th PanzerArmy tried to fly to the moon or the British were incapable of using one facet do not invalidate that as it is obvious there are other factors involed in those examples!




demjansk -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/18/2012 12:24:17 PM)

By the way, when playing the game and I am going to attack, simple question, what do you guys look at to see if the attack is worthwhile? I still don't get the numbers, like do you place the cursor over the opponent and decide to attack? What numbers to see if successful?




janh -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/18/2012 2:31:10 PM)

Schmart is right with what he is saying, mobile formations are for maneuver, that is where they are most force-economic: driving deep into the enemy rear, cutting lines of communications, isolating enemy front line units, creating disorder in the C&C etc. such that the following infantry can exploit the situation.

There is a mix-up here, though: Combined arms versus the German Blitz Krieg concept. Combined arms applies to many situations, even to assault fortifications, but could be applied there too: a tank plt at the right moment could help to suppress while the engineers do their job, but arty can do so as much better if available. And ultimately it is the infantry that bear the load.

That is opposed to German Blitz Krieg concept, which is closely linked to combined arms in the sense that combined use of force, especially close air support and assistance from artillery and infantry was to enable the mobile formations to quickly get free of the main battle line and ultimately start their job. And depth of the battle field combined with rashness was the core of Blitz Krieg, and that is were the German offensive doctrine suggested the armor to be employed. Not in taking over the job of infantry or assault engineers:
Infantry and artillery was to create the gaps through which the Panzers and Genadiers were to go forward. Look at the initial stages of Barbarossa, already the force setup shows that. Same for the setup at Kursk, or the drive into Belgium, and probably many more examples also on the allied side. Germans bypassed Brest-Litovsk and left it to infantry, had similar orders in place for Riga, or other places well defended by the enemy. They did not leave tanks behind (nor had the assault guns yet been made integral to the infantry formations) to deal with fortified infantry or dug-in armor. Sevastopol, infantry, massive artillery commitment, and funny games like employing the "rasante 88" ("rapid 88", the 88mm/L long barreled, high muzzle velocity flaks) as close support and highly accurate bunker buster. Attacking heavily fortified places like Brest-Litovsk, Tobruk, Svebastopol, Leningrad or deep, mine and artillery supported entrenchments frontally with tanks... not a sensible idea.

As for deliberate attacks, I also use AFVs rules of thumb. If time is of essence, i.e. MP crucial, I may bent them to risk more hasty attacks, but especially after summer 1942, I prefer to go with deliberate attacks. Also, during the "Axis offensive months" of the 1st winter, i.e. late February and March, if I can mount attacks (e.g. against brigades, to regain morale or attempt small envelopments with my refitted armor), I only do deliberate attacks since a "held" costs you moral badly.




henri51 -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/18/2012 4:48:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: demjansk

By the way, when playing the game and I am going to attack, simple question, what do you guys look at to see if the attack is worthwhile? I still don't get the numbers, like do you place the cursor over the opponent and decide to attack? What numbers to see if successful?


I would like to know too. When I asked on another thread, Big Anorak referred me to page 102 of the manual (which he wrote) where it says that there is no recipe due to effects of artillery, fortifications, reserves etc. I understand that, but still it is frustrating to commit 3 units to a deliberate attack only to see that I had 50:1 odds and that I have wasted movement points [:@]. That part of the manual IS worth reading though since it DOES contain helpful information.

Henri




AFV -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/18/2012 8:44:23 PM)

All you can do is estimate. Determine the ratio of your attacking CV to his defending CV, and go from there. Many other factors can come into play- leadership die roles, reserve committment, inexact CV display (a unit with a CV of .5 will display as 1, for example), Like I stated earlier, for a hasty I would want 6:1 odds, for a deliberate I would want at least a 3:1 ratio.
So, if your units show a CV of 10, and his show a CV of 2- thats a 5:1 ratio, I would feel safe doing a deliberate attack, but a hasty has a possible (but fairly low) chance of failing.
Pretty much what Anorak said, there is no exact formula. Despite your best estimates, you are still going to get attacks that looked like they were 6:1 and ended up 50:1, and attacks that were 3:1 that ended up 1.9:1 and resulted in a hold. Thats just part of the Fog of War.
One thing to bear in mind, if you see an enemy brigade and an enemy division- both show to have a CV of 1, but almost for sure the brigade is less than half the CV of the division- so think of it as a CV of .5 (again, just another estimate, it is more of an art than a science).
I hope that helps.




bevans -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/24/2012 5:10:18 AM)

The problem with WitE is that after T2, there are almost no opportunities to use Pz/PG/Mot divs as suggested above. Hugely deep carpet defenses by the SU make 'war of manouver' nothing more than a fantasy. Now the SU will be able to do this from, roughly, summer '43 on as the Axis will never have the units to defend in depth. However, if you are playing the SU, you should have wrapped up the game by this point as the Germans appear to have Field Marshall Klink in charge of AGC and Field Marshall Schultz in charge of AGS. 1.06 is a definite change for the better, but good yet it is not.




vicberg -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/24/2012 5:35:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bevans

The problem with WitE is that after T2, there are almost no opportunities to use Pz/PG/Mot divs as suggested above. Hugely deep carpet defenses by the SU make 'war of manouver' nothing more than a fantasy. Now the SU will be able to do this from, roughly, summer '43 on as the Axis will never have the units to defend in depth. However, if you are playing the SU, you should have wrapped up the game by this point as the Germans appear to have Field Marshall Klink in charge of AGC and Field Marshall Schultz in charge of AGS. 1.06 is a definite change for the better, but good yet it is not.


That's a bit simplisitic. It's totally dependent upon quality of German play in 41. 41 for the German sets up 42 and yes by 43 most likely the defensive, but not in all cases (see Pelton's AARs). Good play in 41 prevents the massive defense in depth in 42, both by manpower losses from losing cities and by loss of troops caused by pockets. There's a few ways to beat a good defense in depth in 41. I just lost a game because I didn't figure out what to do before it was too late.




vicberg -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (3/24/2012 5:36:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: henri51

I would like to know too. When I asked on another thread, Big Anorak referred me to page 102 of the manual (which he wrote) where it says that there is no recipe due to effects of artillery, fortifications, reserves etc. I understand that, but still it is frustrating to commit 3 units to a deliberate attack only to see that I had 50:1 odds and that I have wasted movement points . That part of the manual IS worth reading though since it DOES contain helpful information.


You are making a case for using offensive reserves (especially armor). They don't get committed if the battle is way in your favor. They do get committed (based on leader initiative) if they are needed. They can be switched over to ready mode if needed to encircle or exploit.




Shermanny -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (4/4/2012 3:02:31 AM)

Look at the Axis southern Kursk effort. This achieved far more than the effort in the North, and in the South, panzer divisions led the way.

While a pure tank attack is most unlikely to succeed against prepared defenses, the lesson of WW1 is that a pure infantry attack can be blunted and bled by machine gunners, entrenched tactical infantry reserves, and masses of artillery that have preregistered on likely targets.

Armor breaks up that formula, because the artillery of the day was ineffectual in indirect fire mode against tanks. The tank was invented as an infantry assault support tool, and it could be and was used effectively in that role. Patton even wrote that the machine gun was a tank's main weapon. (Of course, he was talking about Shermans. But still.)




IronDuke -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (4/4/2012 9:58:33 PM)

It's a false argument. German Panzer Forces led the way. It was attached Panzer Infantry and assault Pioneers that crossed the Meuse in 1940. It never really changed although I seem to recall some of the assaults were preceded by infantry at the bulge.

German Panzer formations were not massed armoured formations. They were a mobile combined arms team, so attacking with a Panzer Corps is not the same as attacking with "massed armour". The best place to exploit from was the forward edge of battle. The Germans didn't open the breach with infantry and pour armour through. They attacked with combined arms Panzer formations and exploited from the front.

Soviet doctrine called for a breach to be opened by infantry, but generally they committed the reserve armoured manouvre forces before the breakthrough was complete out of impatience or lack of progress.

Regards,
IronDuke




demjansk -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (4/4/2012 10:48:30 PM)

How do you guys know the odds when attacking? I still haven't figured out like other games if I should attack or not?




mariandavid -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (4/5/2012 7:35:25 PM)

What is missed in these discussions is the need to take the impact of losses by type into account. Some earlier posters referenced Goodwood and Totalise (to be seen soon, pretty please!) as 'failures' when defined as armored attacks. Not quite - Goodwood was a deliberate head-on attack that was mounted by three armoured divisions simply because the CW had a massive excess of tanks, but were suffering from unexpectedly high personel losses. And so it proved - more ground was gained than is normally recognised (vice the opening of the US breakout) and while about 120-150 tanks (figures vary) were 'totalled' (the CW held the ground at the end so many tanks were repaired) the three armoured divisions lost fewer men than the infantry brigade operating on their flanks. So such tactics make sense for a late-war Russian attack.

Totalize I in contrast was an overwhelming success - by some measure the 'only perfect' armored attack of WW2. But not sure it is applicable to the game as yet. Requires the following that are not available/applicable - night attack, all infantry in heavy (deturreted Sherman class tanks) APC, massive use of mine-clearing and demolition tanks, etc etc.

And back on topic - I share the initiators frustration. In my case once the early victories are over (say October) I tend to switch to deliberate, followed by hasty when German corps are attacking - the logic being to inflict maximum losses in the initial followed by even heavier from a shatter or rout in the second attack.




IronDuke -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (4/5/2012 10:01:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

What is missed in these discussions is the need to take the impact of losses by type into account. Some earlier posters referenced Goodwood and Totalise (to be seen soon, pretty please!) as 'failures' when defined as armored attacks. Not quite - Goodwood was a deliberate head-on attack that was mounted by three armoured divisions simply because the CW had a massive excess of tanks, but were suffering from unexpectedly high personel losses. And so it proved - more ground was gained than is normally recognised (vice the opening of the US breakout) and while about 120-150 tanks (figures vary) were 'totalled' (the CW held the ground at the end so many tanks were repaired) the three armoured divisions lost fewer men than the infantry brigade operating on their flanks. So such tactics make sense for a late-war Russian attack.

Totalize I in contrast was an overwhelming success - by some measure the 'only perfect' armored attack of WW2. But not sure it is applicable to the game as yet. Requires the following that are not available/applicable - night attack, all infantry in heavy (deturreted Sherman class tanks) APC, massive use of mine-clearing and demolition tanks, etc etc.

And back on topic - I share the initiators frustration. In my case once the early victories are over (say October) I tend to switch to deliberate, followed by hasty when German corps are attacking - the logic being to inflict maximum losses in the initial followed by even heavier from a shatter or rout in the second attack.


I believe the 120-150 totalled were the ones that weren't repaired, or total losses. Perhaps twice that number were tactically lost.

Regards,
ID.




pompack -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (4/5/2012 10:42:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: demjansk

How do you guys know the odds when attacking? I still haven't figured out like other games if I should attack or not?



1. Look at the CV ratio
2. Throw in some windage for fort level based upon your combat engineer level
3. Fudge it a smidgeon due to the turn #
4. Tweak it a bit for your own leadership levels
5. Account for the eventual increase in opponent leadership and army organization if opponent is Russian
6. Make allowance for the weather
7. Examine the result closely and understand why the attack worked or didn't work

Repeat steps 1-7 at least 27,182 times. Eventually you get a feel for whether it will probably work or not; remember that "probably" is the best you will ever do since each combat involves the equivilent of about a gazillion die rolls.




mariandavid -> RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks (4/7/2012 5:41:39 PM)

I was using the German definition - ie units 'lost'. The old problem that beggers comparative AFV losses everywhere in WW2!

But a fair comment!

md




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0390625