Consecutive line formation not working?

[JArraya]

I am trying to get a mixed formation or armour and infantry to move in consecutive line, with the infantry leading the charge. Every time I do this the armour races forward, leaving the infantry behind, and getting smashed in the process.
To do this I select the units I want (2 armour + 2 infantry), give them an Attack order, select Consecutive Line formation, Safest path. Have also tried other combinations, with no luck.

Does anyone else have this problem?

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

IIRC the default is to put the armour up front in successive line formation if the terrain is open. Is the terrain open?

 

[JArraya]

It’s the area around Joe’s Bridge in the scenario of the same name. So partly open but leading into a town/built up area, which is where my tanks get smashed.

 

[jimcarravallah]

It’s the area around Joe’s Bridge in the scenario of the same name. So partly open but leading into a town/built up area, which is where my tanks get smashed.

What you may try is giving your tank units a defend order at the edge of the town with ambush and attack attributes, and order your infantry units to attack through the defensive line while the tanks provide fire cover.

 

[JArraya]

What you may try is giving your tank units a defend order at the edge of the town with ambush and attack attributes, and order your infantry units to attack through the defensive line while the tanks provide fire cover.

That's what I did in the end, manually took control of the Cos. Kind of defies the purpose of having that formation option though.

 

[jimcarravallah]

That's what I did in the end, manually took control of the Cos. Kind of defies the purpose of having that formation option though.

The point is, that formation option is useful in some situations, and not others, as you indicate with an attack on a town. As Dave indicated, tanks tend to take the lead in open terrain, and then infantry follows, mostly because tanks are generally more mobile than infantry.

If you want a consecutive line attack, then the best bet is to make sure you don't put two movement types in the consecutive lines, because those with more mobility will race ahead of those with less.

German blitzkrieg tactics, which were the ultimate in mobile warfare early in World War II, used tanks to isolate hard points, and infantry to break them down once they were isolated from supply. Hard points tended to be towns, where tanks had a disadvantage in fighting because their mobility was limited to streets instead of open plains.

 

[Kurt]

Extending the current choice of formations to include :
~ combined arms close support-tight ......... In a designated attack group , armoured coy's/plts would pair up with individual foot-line coy's .
These " pairs " would move as one , like ballroom dancers , that is they would occupy the same footprint for the duration of the attack cycle . The pair provide mutual security. . They would move at the pace of the slower dancer . Tests would have to be made for when one dancer is pinned/forced to retreat , if the tanks are pinned the infantry usually pin also , if the infantry pin the tanks usually press on alone .

~ Combined arms close support-loose ......... The attack group all move at the pace of the slowest element for the duration of the attack cycle .

 

[Kurt]

Further to the above , if the the above suggestion is feasible , then it is possible to add a further formation :

Mounted attack ......... infantry pair up with armoured as in " combined arms close support-tight " . Infantry so paired would be treated as mounted on the accompanying armour , these mounted pairs would therefore move at the movement cost of the vehicles . Some modifiers would have to be applied to effects of incoming fire , infantry in halftracks would gain some protection from small arms and artillery fragments but increased vulnerability to anything exceeding 12.7mm . Infantry mounted on exterior of vehicles would be more vulnerable to all incoming fire , including AP fire against the vehicle . Pinned riders would dismount and the vehicles would continue alone . Once the riders are within a specified distance from the target they would dismount to fight on foot , perhaps remaining in the pairing footprint if terrain allowed .

 

[GoodGuy]

Extending the current choice of formations to include :
~ combined arms close support-tight ......... In a designated attack group , armoured coy's/plts would pair up with individual foot-line coy's These " pairs " would move as one ...

Triggered by fears of loosing their precious tanks, quite a few German commanders actually fell back to that kind of formation during the Battle of the Bulge, but also during the Normandy campaign, locally at least: They would tell the tank units to push with infantry only, where the infantry was to make sure that no enemy bazooka or PIAT teams would get to the tanks' flanks. While it was a step back from the modern combined arms regime on Schwerpunkt points, but also from the fast tank dashes of 1940 and 1941, which the Germans had mastered early in the war, it was an understandable attempt to keep their remaining tanks protected (and operational), in 1944. Before deploying and mastering the Deep Thrust doctrine, some Russian commanders tried that formation during several counterattacks in 1941 and 1942 in open and mixed terrain, which often failed, as then the tanks had to give up the vital advantage: speed. In the game, it would be a nice formation feature for attacks on more dense terrain or even city environments.