Hi comrades, in WWII close support between tanks and infantry was common practice, some nations better than others at it. In CO2 from what I have seen this is not simulated correctly. Close support means just that, infantry able to touch the tank, ride on it, take cover behind it. In game terms therefore an infantry company and tank company in the same assigned attack group approaching urban,wooded or similar covered terrain should both occupy the same footprint to provide mutual support. In CO2 I have not seen this happen , all to often I see tanks/tank-destroyers drive into covered terrain at night in dense fog during an attack without close infantry support with inevitable results. Please feel free to comment
Rob
Member
Hi,
Yes, I know what you mean......and I don't disagree. I'm hoping the new mount/dismount feature Dave is working on for the next iteration will address these things.
Rob.
Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor
Panther Games Designer
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 3,416
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Canberra, Australia
- Website
- www.panthergames.com
Yes your right Kurt.
This would especially help the opposing AI side, where I often see the enemy AI plow their tank formations into close terrain unsupported, with the result that they lose most of their highest value units in short measure.
The down side to this though, is quite often the infantry is beaten back by artillery, and small arms fire and the tanks continue on into the close terrain on their own. Tanks high visibility on the battlefield make them a magnet for every weapon in range, with the result that the infantry close to them get caught up in the maelstrom, where as with no tanks present they may well have gone unnoticed until almost on top of the objective.
I have read many historical accounts of this happening, especially during the battle of the bulge, where the Allies had such powerful well supplied artillery.
A counter measure for supporting infantry was used very effectively in the desert as well, where the Allies (Ausie's I think) were ordered to stay in their trenches and let the tanks pass, but cut down the supporting infantry. A number of the unsupported tanks then went on to be destroyed by dug in AT guns to their rear, where the remainder eventually gave up and had to retreat back to their start line.
This would especially help the opposing AI side, where I often see the enemy AI plow their tank formations into close terrain unsupported, with the result that they lose most of their highest value units in short measure.
The down side to this though, is quite often the infantry is beaten back by artillery, and small arms fire and the tanks continue on into the close terrain on their own. Tanks high visibility on the battlefield make them a magnet for every weapon in range, with the result that the infantry close to them get caught up in the maelstrom, where as with no tanks present they may well have gone unnoticed until almost on top of the objective.
I have read many historical accounts of this happening, especially during the battle of the bulge, where the Allies had such powerful well supplied artillery.
A counter measure for supporting infantry was used very effectively in the desert as well, where the Allies (Ausie's I think) were ordered to stay in their trenches and let the tanks pass, but cut down the supporting infantry. A number of the unsupported tanks then went on to be destroyed by dug in AT guns to their rear, where the remainder eventually gave up and had to retreat back to their start line.
Well it may if ever I get a chance to start it. (where is the frustrated emoticon when you need it?
Well, i always thought that Inf providing close support to tanks would be somewhat abstracted ingame. So you say it is not ?
Its down to the player to use the right kind of attack orders, with the right mix of infantry and armour to get the AI to employ Infantry-Armour Cooperation. Its not abstracted in the "pure" Armoured units.
Obviously units with mixed light armour and infantry have different stats.
US Cavalry Recon units as an example.
Here is an Extract from the CO1 Manual.
Employ Infantry-Armour Cooperation (Basic Attacks)
If the force includes armoured units and the assault route is into or through covered terrain, selecting Successive Lines will send the infantry forward to the front line and the armour in the rear. To ensure that this occurs:
Attach an armour unit to an infantry basic attack, or attach an infantry unit to an armour basic attack
Infantry-armour cooperation in complex attacks is a more complicated proposition. See Employ Infantry-Armour Cooperation (Complex Attacks) for details. Essentially the force will attack in line with each sub-force attacking in either line or successive lines.
Note the centre guard exploits beyond the Regiment objective.
Employ Infantry-Armour Cooperation (Complex Attacks)
For complex attacks, infantry-armour cooperation will only routinely occur if the subordinate HQs each already have a mix of infantry and armour as their organic structure ( see Organic and Attached Units ). Although you cannot force a complex attack to employ infantry-armour cooperation, you can improve the chances of it happening:
Attach some armour companies to an all-infantry complex attack, or attach some infantry companies to an all-armour complex attack
The attachments must be made as individual companies. For example, if you are attaching some tank companies to an infantry regiment attack, make sure you don’t attach the tank battalion HQ. If you do include the tank battalion HQ, then it will command the tank companies in the assault, so there will be no chance that the tanks will get allocated to one of the infantry battalions. Even when attaching individual companies, it is up to the HQ in charge of the complex attack to decide where to allocate them; better commanders will be more likely to employ infantry-armour cooperation.
Obviously units with mixed light armour and infantry have different stats.
US Cavalry Recon units as an example.
Here is an Extract from the CO1 Manual.
Employ Infantry-Armour Cooperation (Basic Attacks)
If the force includes armoured units and the assault route is into or through covered terrain, selecting Successive Lines will send the infantry forward to the front line and the armour in the rear. To ensure that this occurs:
Attach an armour unit to an infantry basic attack, or attach an infantry unit to an armour basic attack
Infantry-armour cooperation in complex attacks is a more complicated proposition. See Employ Infantry-Armour Cooperation (Complex Attacks) for details. Essentially the force will attack in line with each sub-force attacking in either line or successive lines.
Note the centre guard exploits beyond the Regiment objective.
Employ Infantry-Armour Cooperation (Complex Attacks)
For complex attacks, infantry-armour cooperation will only routinely occur if the subordinate HQs each already have a mix of infantry and armour as their organic structure ( see Organic and Attached Units ). Although you cannot force a complex attack to employ infantry-armour cooperation, you can improve the chances of it happening:
Attach some armour companies to an all-infantry complex attack, or attach some infantry companies to an all-armour complex attack
The attachments must be made as individual companies. For example, if you are attaching some tank companies to an infantry regiment attack, make sure you don’t attach the tank battalion HQ. If you do include the tank battalion HQ, then it will command the tank companies in the assault, so there will be no chance that the tanks will get allocated to one of the infantry battalions. Even when attaching individual companies, it is up to the HQ in charge of the complex attack to decide where to allocate them; better commanders will be more likely to employ infantry-armour cooperation.
There is an example of an Infantry-Armour complex attack in my St Vith AAR, Battle of Lommersweiler.
Also a Basic Infantry-Armour attack with the 51st Arm Inf Bn in the Battle of Steinebruck.
I think the AI did quite a good job with its allocations, and pairing of the units involved. The spacing was too far apart for the Battle of Steinebruck however. I ordered as shallow a "depth" to the formation as was possible, but the AI spaced out the successive lines to its own liking.
Quite a minor complaint considdering the complexity of the overall game.
http://forums.lnlpublishing.com/thr...r-alert-for-those-playing-as-axis.1196/page-3
Also a Basic Infantry-Armour attack with the 51st Arm Inf Bn in the Battle of Steinebruck.
I think the AI did quite a good job with its allocations, and pairing of the units involved. The spacing was too far apart for the Battle of Steinebruck however. I ordered as shallow a "depth" to the formation as was possible, but the AI spaced out the successive lines to its own liking
.Quite a minor complaint considdering the complexity of the overall game.
http://forums.lnlpublishing.com/thr...r-alert-for-those-playing-as-axis.1196/page-3
Last edited:
