Infantry-only Tactics and Help?

[Imp]

M2s put up on a ridge or hillside are great supression tools, they have a huge advantage in range over the .30 cal weapons, and better bang for the buck then 60mm mortars.

Not strictly true, long range small mortars like the USAs are great, very high rate of fire & hence suppresion plus you can use them with your troops nearby as they dont kill things often. If you want suppresion great tools, if you want to kill something buy a big gun or rockets. They are great for clearing out woods villages etc where your troops are in proximity.

[Mobryan]

Originally Posted by Imp

Not strictly true, long range small mortars like the USAs are great, very high rate of fire & hence suppresion plus you can use them with your troops nearby as they dont kill things often. If you want suppresion great tools, if you want to kill something buy a big gun or rockets. They are great for clearing out woods villages etc where your troops are in proximity.

Gonna have to disagree with you, Imp

As far as artillery being superior for supression, I agree, and generally use Russian tactics on the attack. Shell them until the rubble bounces, then send in the troops .
However, the discusion here is revolving around infantry companies and the light support weapons available to them. Given that M2's come with more ammo, IMO provide as much supression as the 60mm, and actually KILL things they get aimed at, which provides even more supression, I find them superior to the 60mm.

Matt

[Zinegata]

Originally Posted by Mobryan

Gonna have to disagree with you, Imp

As far as artillery being superior for supression, I agree, and generally use Russian tactics on the attack. Shell them until the rubble bounces, then send in the troops .
However, the discusion here is revolving around infantry companies and the light support weapons available to them. Given that M2's come with more ammo, IMO provide as much supression as the 60mm, and actually KILL things they get aimed at, which provides even more supression, I find them superior to the 60mm.

Matt

Mortars do get the ability to lay smoke from long range though, and I think that in itself is a pretty substantial asset because it can silence a gun position without needing to suppress it. Plus, if you have IR-equipped infantry, smoke becomes utterly deadly.

On the flip side, mortars are generally slower on the move unless you have trucks for transport, and by my experience they get spotted more easily than an M2.

[Mobryan]

Originally Posted by Zinegata

Plus, if you have IR-equipped infantry, smoke becomes utterly deadly.

Good point on the smoke, though it's surprising how far you can get with terrain masking and judicious use of scout teams popping smoke to cover the main advance.

I completly forgot about the IR issue, I'm a WW2 guy who took a wrong turn


Matt

[Imp]

However, the discusion here is revolving around infantry companies and the light support weapons available to them.

Do light mortars not fit into this category?

Given that M2's come with more ammo, IMO provide as much supression as the 60mm, and actually KILL things they get aimed at, which provides even more supression, I find them superior to the 60mm.

Both have there merits the M2 most likely doing better if you have a LOS so are targeting the unit. The mortar though is more effective as stated firing to help advances through woods etc when you are Z firing the machine gun. If taking advantage of the range it will be somewhat inacurate.
Both are best used against clumps of infantry not lone units.

And the comment that started the whole thing

and better bang for the buck then 60mm mortars.

A single 60mm MTR costs 2/3rds what an M2 does, the twin unit costs the same & has 120 ammo total so really suppose you should compare the supression from the twin unit for cost compatibility.

In reality I would still if pos use the M2 for direct fire the mortar for support in dense terrain. The MTR is more flexible as has smoke can be plotted & I think gets track hits much more frequently, in a pinch I do direct fire it at vehicles with limited success.
Try playing as the Canadians you can buy Mech infantry with one HMG & one Light MTR a platoon to get the benefits of both. Or if you want some real support firepower buy an Inf Co DW with a total of 5 LtMTRs & if you wish up to 6 HMGs!!
The MTRs come with limited ammo so they can move quicker to keep up but you get a lot of them.

[Cragspyder]

So far this has been very helpful, thanks so much to everyone who is participating!

Regarding the Light Mortars that come with Infantry Platoons, from what I have gathered from the discussion here, is it always better to fire them directly at a unit (similar to an MG or Infantry Squad), or is it sometimes better to use the Indirect fire option?

I have found so far that if I use the indirect fire option with those light mortars, they don't seem to have much effect, but perhaps I am using them wrong....

So I can see that the main idea is to use Infantry level support weapons, such as Machinegun Teams or Mortars, to supress the enemy, then advance with your main troops, and above all try to have a numerical advantage . I suppose lacking in specialized squads, you have to use additional generic infantry to provide covering fire, though no doubt with much less success.

In another scenario, I was trying to defend my position using Infantry only, against a combined force of tanks and Infantry. The problem was that the enemy infantry would spot my own infantry before the tanks could get in assault range, and then the tanks would take them out.

Obviously a diverse force is going to be better then my own by default, but do you folks have any advice in that sort of situation?

As well, is there any point in firing Korean war era anti-tank teams, such as Bazookas or Recoilless Rifles, at a distance of more then 1 hex? Even if they do hit (which isn't often) I find that they just go 'tink' and then the team is immediately shot down.

[Wdll]

Originally Posted by Cragspyder

So far this has been very helpful, thanks so much to everyone who is participating!

Regarding the Light Mortars that come with Infantry Platoons, from what I have gathered from the discussion here, is it always better to fire them directly at a unit (similar to an MG or Infantry Squad), or is it sometimes better to use the Indirect fire option?

I have found so far that if I use the indirect fire option with those light mortars, they don't seem to have much effect, but perhaps I am using them wrong....

So I can see that the main idea is to use Infantry level support weapons, such as Machinegun Teams or Mortars, to supress the enemy, then advance with your main troops, and above all try to have a numerical advantage . I suppose lacking in specialized squads, you have to use additional generic infantry to provide covering fire, though no doubt with much less success.

In another scenario, I was trying to defend my position using Infantry only, against a combined force of tanks and Infantry. The problem was that the enemy infantry would spot my own infantry before the tanks could get in assault range, and then the tanks would take them out.

Obviously a diverse force is going to be better then my own by default, but do you folks have any advice in that sort of situation?

As well, is there any point in firing Korean war era anti-tank teams, such as Bazookas or Recoilless Rifles, at a distance of more then 1 hex? Even if they do hit (which isn't often) I find that they just go 'tink' and then the team is immediately shot down.

Some modern infantry have very long anti tank weapons, some even have ATGMs. In fact, if you are going for an all inf army against a combined one, you should get ATGM teams and if you can, CM artillery.
One way to deal, partly, with the enemy inf discovering yours is to discover the enemy first, with advanced teams and then rain mortar/arti on them before they spot your main force.
Don't use machineguns unless they are separated from your other inf for obvious I hope reasons.

[Imp]

Regarding the Light Mortars

Dont know I generaly use indirect as cant see the target, as said slow. But use direct to at short range (inacurate) still picking a hex surrounded by targets. Not that I use that often most sides dont have use the arty arm ones 80-120 all the time & much easier due to range, normaly 2 per Inf Co.

the main idea is

As Cross said outnumber them due to terrain or smoke, suppress then fire with safest units alternating firers preferably from stationary, now move forward with the rest.

Vs tanks, tricky you need to use the terrain so you are not spotted until close. Defending in woods or just behind a hill etc so the tank has to come in close for a shot. Or use your MTRs again to drop smoke behind the infantry so the tanks need to come through it if no TI. It all varies on the map which is the fun of this game adapt to the situation there is no one correct way of doing it.

is there any point in firing Korean war era anti-tank teams

You will have to answer the penetration thing yourself based on each weapon, hiting depends 3-4 hexes is best 6 or so possible then need to get lucky. Again look at the weapon a RCL with a range of 24 can push it a bit further.
Using like any weapon for best results stationary unit in good order consecutive shots at target 2nd or 3rd should hit with luck. If you move your unit to take the shot get close its rare for a tank to survive 2 or 3 attacks from adjacent by an RPG equiped unit beside it. Moving may be needed for a flank or rear shot, once hes in position if it turned use another unit to get his attention.

All this depends on troop quality morale if it varies drasticaly from the norm.
Vs some one like Argentina with morale in the 40s suppresion is easy anything will get them running the problem is keeping up. The likes of Israel with 80 morale is a whole diffrent ball game. Plus twin LMG Squads APCs briming with MGs & tanks that outclass anything you have once the Merkerva arrives on the scene means you are in for a fight, it is an ideal force for fighting in open terrain even the later tanks have multiple Smoke Disch to provide cover. Of coure if you happen to be Argentina or some other low morale side playing is challenging when that tank bursts through the woods he was supposed to assault he might panic & fluff it or even run away.

[Zinegata]

Originally Posted by Cragspyder

So far this has been very helpful, thanks so much to everyone who is participating!

Regarding the Light Mortars that come with Infantry Platoons, from what I have gathered from the discussion here, is it always better to fire them directly at a unit (similar to an MG or Infantry Squad), or is it sometimes better to use the Indirect fire option?

I have found so far that if I use the indirect fire option with those light mortars, they don't seem to have much effect, but perhaps I am using them wrong....

It depends.

Indirect fire is generally the safer option for the mortar team. While it may not "seem" to do a lot of damage (i.e. cause casualties) firing mortars can often be enough to suppress an entire enemy company. A suppressed company will fire much fewer shots in retaliation, and it will generally be much less accurate. I've had a single platoon bayonet charge and wipe out an entire company after it got suppressed by a particularly accurate mortar barrage.

On the flip side direct fire will tend to inflict more casualties to the targetted unit. However, you will only be able to suppress the targeted unit, and the units in the six surrounding hexes. In comparison, indirect fire will often hit a much wider area, and thus inflict more suppression.

Finally, note that firing indirect generally takes a while, since you need to plot arty fire for it (unless you're skilled at plotting priority hexes during deployment).

Anyway, good rule of thumb is to use direct fire when facing few enemies that you wanna kill quicky, and indirect fire when facing a lot of them to keep them suppressed.

Also, don't forget the value of smoke. Direct-fire smoke is great for silencing one or two specific positions (i.e. That HMG tearing up your men), while indirect-fire is good for covering a whole front.

So I can see that the main idea is to use Infantry level support weapons, such as Machinegun Teams or Mortars, to supress the enemy, then advance with your main troops, and above all try to have a numerical advantage . I suppose lacking in specialized squads, you have to use additional generic infantry to provide covering fire, though no doubt with much less success.

Personally, the ideal team is a mix of regular infantry, heavy weapons, and tanks. I generally have a platoon each for an assault company.

If you don't have heavy weapons or tanks though, it's still possible to win even with inferior numbers. Use the terrain to your advantage

In defense, it mainly boils down to making sure you have good fields of fire and forcing your opponent to advance over open ground. Generally, if my squads have LMGs I try to engage them at long range first (6+ hexes).

Once they get closer I usually lay smoke (or better yet blow up their vehicles) at around the 6 Hex range. This way, the enemy squads will come out one at a time frome the smoke, with the squads from behind unable to offer their friends up front any covering fire.

If they get past even this and they're around the 4 hex range (and still have huge numbers) I tend to pop smoke right in front of my positions. This again lets you deal with the opposing squads coming in one at a time, and the fire from point-blank fire is often devastating.

(Don't forget to fire mortars at every interval as well)

So, in summary, in defense:

1) Shoot at long range with MGs.
2) Create a cordon of smoke/burning vehicles at the 6-hex range. Drive off enemy squads as they come out one at a time.
3) Pop smoke in front of you if they get pass the smoke cordon with a lot of guy still active. Engage the enemy one at a time when they enter the 1-hex range.
4) Drop mortars on the enemy at each of the above steps.

When advancing, the key to a successful assault with inferior numbers is to use the terrain to mask your advance. Pick a spot in the enemy's defenses with few troops and rush it. Use smoke to cover yourself from fire from other positions in the battlefield that the terrain couln't mask you from. I've been able to infiltrate lone platoons (or in one case, a single sniper) behind the enemy lines that wreaked havoc on his artillery and mortars. After they were destroyed, dealing with the enemy was much easier.

In another scenario, I was trying to defend my position using Infantry only, against a combined force of tanks and Infantry. The problem was that the enemy infantry would spot my own infantry before the tanks could get in assault range, and then the tanks would take them out.

Obviously a diverse force is going to be better then my own by default, but do you folks have any advice in that sort of situation?

As well, is there any point in firing Korean war era anti-tank teams, such as Bazookas or Recoilless Rifles, at a distance of more then 1 hex? Even if they do hit (which isn't often) I find that they just go 'tink' and then the team is immediately shot down.

It depends on your anti-tank kit and the type of armor you're facing.

Armored cars and WW2 armor can generally be destroyed by Bazookas and recoilless rifles. It takes a few shots before getting a penetration, but I would generally like to destroy enemy armor before they get into assault range. Check your kit's AP value vs your enemy's armor value. If your AP value is higher (not equal) than your opponent's armor value, you have a shot of taking them out at range.

The main reason for wanting to take out tanks at range in defense is that burning wrecks block LOS. If you wait until assault range before hitting the tanks, the wrecks are gonna end up blocking your LOS and prevent you from shooting the incoming infantry at range. So you'll either have to abandon the position for one with better LOS, or brace yourself for close-quarters shooting.

OTOH, sometimes you can't kill a tank at range with your weapons. In the Polish Peacekeepers campaigns I had a squad facing T-72 tanks, whose front armor as impenetrable to my RPGs. So I set my shooting range to 0, allowed the tank to get to point-blank range (the infantry still lagging behind), and then promptly blew up the tank with a shot to the side armor. The squad then went on to drive off three enemy squads that advanced into point-blank range.

Of course, in this game I was playing aganst Ethiopians, so I was more or less confident that the enemy infantry would break after suffering just a few casualties. Russian or Western infantry would be more resilient, and the more prudent thing in that case would have been to withdraw after knocking out the lead tank.