Hasty vs. Deliberate Attacks

[vicberg]

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]

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_slith]

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

[demyansk]

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]

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_slith]

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]

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]

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