Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21

User avatar
redboot
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 1:33 pm

Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by redboot »

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.
User avatar
karonagames
Posts: 4701
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:05 am
Location: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by karonagames »

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.

It's only a Game

Zonso
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:57 pm

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by Zonso »

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.
User avatar
AFV
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:12 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by AFV »

Normally I consider 6:1 a safe attack with hasty, but with deliberate I consider 3:1 a safe attack (very roughly),
Schmart
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by Schmart »

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
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:57 pm

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by Zonso »

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
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by Schmart »

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
Posts: 2057
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:28 pm

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by randallw »

What was the amount of heavy artillery in a panzer div compared to an infantry div?
Schmart
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by Schmart »

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
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:57 pm

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by Zonso »

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.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7727
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by Flaviusx »

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.
WitE Alpha Tester
Schmart
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by Schmart »

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.
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.
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.
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.
User avatar
Toby42
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Central Florida

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by Toby42 »

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.....
Tony
Zonso
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:57 pm

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by Zonso »

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!
User avatar
demyansk
Posts: 2843
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:55 pm

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by demyansk »

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
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by janh »

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.
User avatar
henri51
Posts: 1151
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:07 pm

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by henri51 »

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
User avatar
AFV
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:12 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by AFV »

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
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:22 pm

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by 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.
vicberg
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:29 am

RE: Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

Post by vicberg »

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.
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”