Guest Writer: Teamwork and Tactics

[agus92]

As in, having emplacements in TW? Yes, the current thinking is that both sides will feature a role that has a Lafette-mounted MG34/MG42 or a Vickers. These can be placed and picked back up. There will also be emplacements like Flak 18s, Flak 38s, and Pak 40s, but it is unclear whether we will be able to move these.

Thanks.

The ones you mentioned are very important, but originally I had foxholes/sandbags in mind. For chapter one don't seem very fitting, but after bigger maps with longer rounds appear, they should be something to consider IMO.

(I know, I know, chapter 2 won't happen in a while, but discussing is live, discussing is love)

- - - Updated - - -

Not necessarily, you can set up defensive positions without having to use emplacements. What I mean is to position every soldier in a strategic/tactical position to cover the enemy attacks like watching the flanks, how to use cover like buildings or flora, how to use scouts, snipers, MGs, and so on efficiently.

As well state the importance of defending and to promote it because the mindset of most players doesn't focus on defending, as in having to sit down for a long time waiting for the enemy. This happens in most games (PR, FH2, and so on) which is very frustrating.

To clarify: I would like an explanation on defense both with an without the possibility to entrench.

 

[FlyingR]

Thanks.

The ones you mentioned are very important, but originally I had foxholes/sandbags in mind. For chapter one don't seem very fitting, but after bigger maps with longer rounds appear, they should be something to consider IMO.

(I know, I know, chapter 2 won't happen in a while, but discussing is live, discussing is love)

- - - Updated - - -



To clarify: I would like an explanation on defense both with an without the possibility to entrench.

For your first point, I actually discussed with [MENTION=2108]Aniallator[/MENTION] this very topic. As a matter of fact, I'll create a new topic so we don't go off-topic here and so we can discuss it better!

I agree, I only mentioned infantry only because of Chapter I. When Chapter 2 comes out, there will be tanks, emplacements, more weapons which all can offer different tactics depending on the situation.

 

[Rolf Mutzelburg]

I really like this. But a word of caution: A historian will help you far more than a soldier. There are certain things that you won't learn from the modern military. "Fire and Maneuver" is a common and very useful tactic. One that was developed and used heavily in WWII. HOWEVER: "Fire and Maneuver" as we know it today is NOT the same as it was in the 1930s and 40s.

To understand the Great Depression, you must start in the roaring 20s. To really know what it was like in WWII, you must study WWI. Understand where they came from. Unload everything you know about modern military tactics, and put yourself in the shoes of a WWI veteran, Looking over a map thinking about all you had seen as a soldier, and all that you've been taught as a officer. Then it will all make sense. Don't think about battle tanks, they didn't exist yet. Think about MkVs, and such. Remember that tanks as an offensive weapon didn't gain any respect by the military establishment until after the fall of France. Machine guns were in almost every army water or air cooled tripod mounted weapons. The very idea of a light machine gun was an unaffordable luxury.

Squad tactics was more of a German thing. Most armies operated on a platoon and company level. Radio communication was also something of a luxury only available in mass to the more technically advanced and industrially nations. This meant direct communication was often limited to hang signals, flare guns, and command radios.

Modern military tactics glaze over these issues as temporary annoyances, such as radio malfunctions.

Seeing the terms "Fire team" and "Maneuver Team" strikes me as being out of touch with the times. Those are modern military terms, and the number of units shown is too small. A more realistic example would be rifle brigade, and an MG team. Those two components make up the smallest denomination of a German combat unit. Most WWII era armies did not break their units into anything smaller than platoons and companies. MGs were designed to be used from fixed positions and as such required a crew to deploy them in the thick of battle. Even LMGs which could be used as assault rifles in close quarters and could be fired from a bypod, were ideally mounted on a fixed tripod when ever possible. This was a standard doctrine, carried over from WWI. Long range engagements prevented unnecessary losses, and allowed troops to maneuver more freely. Urban encounters were avoided as much as possible.

Heavy weapons and the disregard for civilian and collateral damage meant there was no need to clearing buildings. Leveling them was safer. You won't ever hear a modern solder suggest such tactics, but that was the way of things in WWII.

 

[HDawg]

I really like this. But a word of caution: A historian will help you far more than a soldier. There are certain things that you won't learn from the modern military. "Fire and Maneuver" is a common and very useful tactic. One that was developed and used heavily in WWII. HOWEVER: "Fire and Maneuver" as we know it today is NOT the same as it was in the 1930s and 40s.

To understand the Great Depression, you must start in the roaring 20s. To really know what it was like in WWII, you must study WWI. Understand where they came from. Unload everything you know about modern military tactics, and put yourself in the shoes of a WWI veteran, Looking over a map thinking about all you had seen as a soldier, and all that you've been taught as a officer. Then it will all make sense. Don't think about battle tanks, they didn't exist yet. Think about MkVs, and such. Remember that tanks as an offensive weapon didn't gain any respect by the military establishment until after the fall of France. Machine guns were in almost every army water or air cooled tripod mounted weapons. The very idea of a light machine gun was an unaffordable luxury.

Squad tactics was more of a German thing. Most armies operated on a platoon and company level. Radio communication was also something of a luxury only available in mass to the more technically advanced and industrially nations. This meant direct communication was often limited to hang signals, flare guns, and command radios.

Modern military tactics glaze over these issues as temporary annoyances, such as radio malfunctions.

Seeing the terms "Fire team" and "Maneuver Team" strikes me as being out of touch with the times. Those are modern military terms, and the number of units shown is too small. A more realistic example would be rifle brigade, and an MG team. Those two components make up the smallest denomination of a German combat unit. Most WWII era armies did not break their units into anything smaller than platoons and companies. MGs were designed to be used from fixed positions and as such required a crew to deploy them in the thick of battle. Even LMGs which could be used as assault rifles in close quarters and could be fired from a bypod, were ideally mounted on a fixed tripod when ever possible. This was a standard doctrine, carried over from WWI. Long range engagements prevented unnecessary losses, and allowed troops to maneuver more freely. Urban encounters were avoided as much as possible.

Heavy weapons and the disregard for civilian and collateral damage meant there was no need to clearing buildings. Leveling them was safer. You won't ever hear a modern solder suggest such tactics, but that was the way of things in WWII.

Classic mutzelburg