Scout teams--? a problem

[sburke]

Maybe it is me, but from the beginning in this thread and from comments in a few others I get the sense that many people feel that WW 2 combat tactics were very deficient compared to today. I think the reality is that between wars, armies tend to forget a lot or think somehow those particular rules don't apply. Granted better communications have been developed and new technologies employed, but frankly at the grunt level much of what we think of as modern tactics was born in the later stages of WW I and brought to a pinnacle in WW II. After 11 years of war in some parts of the world and 6 in the ETO folks learned the hard way what works well from small unit tactics to operational warfare. Bounding movement, overwatch, fire and movement all were well known by 1944 even for the relatively new to the war US troops.

Before you write off capabilites represented in CM as being too influenced by current knowledge it would be worth one's while to look up material like what akd posted. If you review the battles of the 4th Armored division in Lorraine you can clearly see how well Allied forces had learned battlefield mobility almost on the same terms of what later became "Airland Battle" in the European Central Front. Our forefathers may not have had laser ranging tanks, but they certainly understood how to make the best of what they had.

[MikeyD]

And just where will a couple of GI's disappear to in the summer of '44 in Nazi occupied France??

I would suspect the word 'mademoiselle' was involved in many such disappearances.

[gunnergoz]

Hi gunnergoz,

Defection has always been a problem. I know it was a huge problem in parts of the Eastern front. ... I thought it just sounded funny to try modeling it in a company-sized operation in CM:BN! .... sending your scout team over to the next line of bocage ... having them pause for a second ... and then run off at full speed!!!

I don't think the BF team will be too keen to code that in!

Don't hold me to this but I have the impression that a lot of the desertion problems arose from either combat troops failing to return from leaves granted them, from escapees from the replacement depots, or from rear-echelon types who took advantage of their proximity to the big cities go underground for a while. For most GI's already on the front line, there was not much opportunity to go anywhere but towards the enemy. If you were wounded, you were pretty much in the hospital area until either returned to your unit or sent to a repple depple. It's not to say that front line troops did not ever desert, but I suspect the most likely to desert were those with easier access to the big cities in the rear areas.

[ASL Veteran]

For frontline soldiers the 'desertion' would be taking your wounded buddy over to the aid station and then just hanging out there 'looking after him' for a while. Generally these soldiers will return to the unit after they think the combat has ended, but not all. Once you are at the aid station then you are surrounded by troops that don't necessarily know you or what unit you belong to and you can wander off from there.

[MikeyD]

Private Eddy Slovik managed to go missing for six whole weeks without charges being filed against him. The second time he deserted though, after telling his CO he would, he found himself in front of a firing squad.

[ChrisND]

Private Eddy Slovik managed to go missing for six whole weeks without charges being filed against him. The second time he deserted though, after telling his CO he would, he found himself in front of a firing squad.

Of course, he was the only US soldier executed for desertion since, I think, the Civil War.

Wikipedia has an interesting article on him for anyone interested. Especially interesting was the numerous offers for him to go back to his unit and everything would be forgotten, but he insisted on court martial.

[Dietrich]

I understand real-world infantry squads would rotate who got to take point during a patrol because the guy up front was most likely to get shot.

Ohhhhhh, so that's why when a squad of mine executing an Assault movement order in the open suffers a casualty, it's always the squad leader.

[Dadekster88]

For frontline soldiers the 'desertion' would be taking your wounded buddy over to the aid station and then just hanging out there 'looking after him' for a while. Generally these soldiers will return to the unit after they think the combat has ended, but not all. Once you are at the aid station then you are surrounded by troops that don't necessarily know you or what unit you belong to and you can wander off from there.

For more info on this the link expains it in more detail. I am sure there was a fair amount of malingering going on as well.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm85.htm

[ChrisND]

Ohhhhhh, so that's why when a squad of mine executing an Assault movement order in the open suffers a casualty, it's always the squad leader.

Bingo. People often wonder if the AI is purposely targeting the SLs, but it's because they are often in front.

[akd]

Bingo. People often wonder if the AI is purposely targeting the SLs, but it's because they are often in front.

It's also often because they are firing bursts with their SMGs at 300m while the riflemen are firing occasional shots. Guess who gets spotted first?

[Dietrich]

Bingo. People often wonder if the AI is purposely targeting the SLs, but it's because they are often in front.

It's also often because they are firing bursts with their SMGs at 300m while the riflemen are firing occasional shots. Guess who gets spotted first?

Well, being the one to yell "Mir nach!" or "Follow my tracer!" certainly has its disadvantages. :cool:

[Boche]

Well, being the one to yell "Mir nach!" or "Follow my tracer!" certainly has its disadvantages. :cool:

ahhhh Captain America.... jajaja

[Dietrich]

ahhhh Captain America.... jajaja

Well, as I understand it the tactic has a precedent, but Captain America ued it in a situation where neither tracers nor following were necessary or prudent. =P

[DavidFields]

Quoted from akd post:

Most armies had a previous World War and a few decades to develop the tactics made possible by the options available at the squad level in the game.

Straight from the relevant US field manual:

Quote:

Duties of scouts. (1) When it is not preceded by friendly troops within view, a rifle platoon in the attacking echelon of a leading company is preceded by its scouts. The scouts operate under control of the platoon leader. (See paragraph 114f.) Deployed in pairs at wide and irregular intervals, they move out boldly to the front to reconnoiter successive positions (objectives) along the route of advance, and seek to force enemy riflemen and machine guns to disclose their position. One member of each pair watches for signals from the platoon leader. They take advantage of cover without delaying their advance, and cross exposed ground at a run. Their distance in front of the platoon is governed by orders of the platoon leader and varies with the ground and with the probable position of the enemy. One moment they may be 500 yards ahead; at another time they may be absorbed within their units. In approaching houses, na-tural defiles, and villages, one scout of each pair cover the movement and reconnaissance of the other. [end of quote]

Thanks akd. I find the above very relevant. A few questions/observations:

1. What is the date of the field manual noted above?

2. Note: "a rifle platoon in the attacking echelon of a leading company is preceded by its scouts." Deployed in pairs and spaced out.....sounds like a scout squad, not a scout team. What I find a bit potentially anachronistic is a scout squad detaching a scout team. [love the language, by the way: "attacking echelon"--a French, almost Napoleonic term, which gives a good flavor of where US WW2 teachings partially came from. Along with reconnoiter and even recon--wonder if current US manuals have as much a french language base.]

3. The scouts operate under the control of the platoon leader. Again, this is not a sub-squad level issue.

It appears as though these squad teams are very popular.

My sorta point is this: CMBN would likely not look the way it does if it were to have been designed in 1970, which would have still been 25 years after the end of WW2. I sense the influence of warfare development in the last several decades in its design, in part in this team break-off concept.

That is not surprising. Few of the people playing this game were WW2 vets--I treat WW2 vets, and most are over 80.

I am now dawdling, with pleasure, through the second scenario of Courage and Fortitude. I have never seen anything like it, in CM1, or any other WW2 previous tactical game.

Perhaps that is the point of the scenario.

The static of FO monotone chatter is interspersed with meteor-shower like strikes. If it were a night battle, I would think it would look like the bridge scene in Apocalypse now. What I had considered a WW2 battlefield vital element, the MG, seems substantially downgraded in comparison with the artillery.

I will adapt.

My plea, such as it is, to keep anachronsims to a minimum, is a friendly one. If sub squad scout teams are fun, fine. But some people are going to try to, for example, make sure the Stug frontal armor is correct. And some of us will look at the human element, where...oh my gosh, I am calling in 155 artillery on my own position.....it might be more relevant in the WW2 context to ask what are the current Afghan and Iraqi troops capable of performing, and model that, rather than what curent Nato troops can do.

Women, cheese, wine. I think you will find that some of the US troops in France had a great time--ordinary guys, very temporary soldiers, a long, long, way from home.

I

[akd]

Quoted from akd post:

Most armies had a previous World War and a few decades to develop the tactics made possible by the options available at the squad level in the game.

Straight from the relevant US field manual:

Quote:

Duties of scouts. (1) When it is not preceded by friendly troops within view, a rifle platoon in the attacking echelon of a leading company is preceded by its scouts. The scouts operate under control of the platoon leader. (See paragraph 114f.) Deployed in pairs at wide and irregular intervals, they move out boldly to the front to reconnoiter successive positions (objectives) along the route of advance, and seek to force enemy riflemen and machine guns to disclose their position. One member of each pair watches for signals from the platoon leader. They take advantage of cover without delaying their advance, and cross exposed ground at a run. Their distance in front of the platoon is governed by orders of the platoon leader and varies with the ground and with the probable position of the enemy. One moment they may be 500 yards ahead; at another time they may be absorbed within their units. In approaching houses, na-tural defiles, and villages, one scout of each pair cover the movement and reconnaissance of the other. [end of quote]

Thanks akd. I find the above very relevant. A few questions/observations:

1. What is the date of the field manual noted above?

2. Note: "a rifle platoon in the attacking echelon of a leading company is preceded by its scouts." Deployed in pairs and spaced out.....sounds like a scout squad, not a scout team. What I find a bit potentially anachronistic is a scout squad detaching a scout team. [love the language, by the way: "attacking echelon"--a French, almost Napoleonic term, which gives a good flavor of where US WW2 teachings partially came from. Along with reconnoiter and even recon--wonder if current US manuals have as much a french language base.]

3. The scouts operate under the control of the platoon leader. Again, this is not a sub-squad level issue.

It appears as though these squad teams are very popular.

My sorta point is this: CMBN would likely not look the way it does if it were to have been designed in 1970, which would have still been 25 years after the end of WW2. I sense the influence of warfare development in the last several decades in its design, in part in this team break-off concept.

That is not surprising. Few of the people playing this game were WW2 vets--I treat WW2 vets, and most are over 80.

I am now dawdling, with pleasure, through the second scenario of Courage and Fortitude. I have never seen anything like it, in CM1, or any other WW2 previous tactical game.

Perhaps that is the point of the scenario.

The static of FO monotone chatter is interspersed with meteor-shower like strikes. If it were a night battle, I would think it would look like the bridge scene in Apocalypse now. What I had considered a WW2 battlefield vital element, the MG, seems substantially downgraded in comparison with the artillery.

I will adapt.

My plea, such as it is, to keep anachronsims to a minimum, is a friendly one. If sub squad scout teams are fun, fine. But some people are going to try to, for example, make sure the Stug frontal armor is correct. And some of us will look at the human element, where...oh my gosh, I am calling in 155 artillery on my own position.....it might be more relevant in the WW2 context to ask what are the current Afghan and Iraqi troops capable of performing, and model that, rather than what curent Nato troops can do.

Women, cheese, wine. I think you will find that some of the US troops in France had a great time--ordinary guys, very temporary soldiers, a long, long, way from home.

I

The FM is for the Rifle Company, Infantry Regiment, dated June of '44. The above was drawn from the section on the Rifle Squad. There was no such thing as a "scout squad" in the Rifle Platoon. The scout pairs were drawn from the squads. They were under control of the Platoon Leader because he was expected to be at the front of the platoon. In fact, this is how it works out in the game: once split, the team is tied to the Platoon HQ for c2.

If you can document any anachronisms with relevant supporting information, I will be the first to try and get them corrected.

[gunnergoz]

Rankorian -

Can't say for sure this is what they did back then, but in the game I pull a two man scout team from each squad and send them out ahead to reconnoiter. That would account for the "operating in pairs" part of the manual...two teams on either flank, one on point in the middle. The squads provide the scouts but while they are scouts, they work for the platoon leader because he's the one with the most immediate need to know, so he can deploy the squads according to what the scouts report back.

To the best of my knowledge, dedicated scout squads were only in the recon troop of the infantry division and in the mechanized recon troops of the mechanized recon squadrons. Otherwise they were an ad hoc thing.

[akd]

Correction to above: the manual I quoted is dated March of 1944, not June.

[sburke]

In fact, this is how it works out in the game: once split, the team is tied to the Platoon HQ for c2.

Wow hadn't noticed that. Can I just say one more time, this game is awesome.

[DavidFields]

OK, I stand rightly corrected. Scout teams--will use them without hesitation.

And when, in a previous post, that breaking off teams might leading to them to "disppear", I did not mean that literally--or even that they did something like desert.

My meaning was that when one relies only on sight and voice, if the teams lose contact with the rest of the squad--they could easily be get lost.

As in:

You are a scout team a couple of 100 yards ahead. Either because of enemy fire, or miscommunication, you lose contact. You yell? Wave your arms around?--does not seem like a healthy thing to be doing. How the heck do you find each other again--particularly in hedgerow, dense woods, or a village? Probably you have a rally point, but there might be a long time lag before all elements decide to go there.

And for you grogs, how far down the line did maps go.

Company Commander/XO: certainly.

Platoon Commander: Probably?

Squad Leader: Probably not?

Sub-squad team: No?

For one thing, I would think that one would want to minimize notated maps landing in the hands of the enemy.

I appreciate, AKD, that you would want to have any potential anachronisms backed with documentation. Subjectively, I am still going by "feel"--I am looking to see that longshorman from Long Island, or the son of a farmer from Arkansas, put in a cloth uniform, taken to France, given a gun which, most of them, just went bang.....bang...., and put in a position if they just went out a different door in a large building could potentially be completely out of contact with the rest of his squad temporarily--longer if it is hectic, and everyone then makes a few wrong turns.

[idea: If split squads are out of command and control for long enough they disappear, like the dead, because they are effectively lost to your unit? That would rein in their use, to more specific squad/platoon scouts. Also (and this may already be the case--I have not tested--have them not be able to touch or occupy a Victory location.]

[gunnergoz]

Rankorian - I think you may be underestimating the amount of training that most US troops had in the workup to Normandy. Replacements coming in later might have had less, that is true, but the units designated to go in on D-Day and in the follow up had lots of training in the US and England at all levels. Those guys knew what a scouting order meant and how to go about it because it had been practiced, just as we do today.

[Vinnart]

I have no problems with the way the game gives in flexibility in splitting squads into teams. I am glad BF has chosen this way to go. It solves many practical reasons too. For example if you can't split the squads then you have no way of spreading your guys out in artillery barrage. This also allows the player to micro manage the placement of the squad I.E. one team in each corner of a building, or to disperse fire with more control such as A team you take that target, and B team you take this target ect,..

The only real problem to it that I think it needs fixing on is the C2 for broken squads. If a team is split, and it is still in visual contact of the A team squad leader it should still show in command as that is the next in chain of command for the team. It makes no sense if a squad is split, and they are right next to each other that the B,C teams show out of C2. In cases like that being showing out of C2 there should be no morale hit if this is how it is.

If a player chooses to send a scout team 200 meters, and out sight that is there prerogative as a commander. Do teams split of in reality? Absolutely, especially for a recon detail. Which CAN be out of sight of the squad leader. I have been in the situation in reality during training, so I say that it can happen is realistic. A REAL person would have to report that info back though because that is the FIRST PERSON experience of REALITY. Combat Mission is a 3RD person experience of a GAME. That is where the difference lies for the type of game it is though in what the PLAYER must know. Will those troops probably panic much more quickly doing that? Yes no doubt, just as anyone would if they found there arse hanging in the breeze. Does the information the scout team gets get transfer to the rest of the force even though it is not in contact via the PLAYER? Yes. Why? It’s a 3RD person GAME. In order for this game to play like a game it must make some concessions to reality in certain regards. I’ll take practical in my gaming any day because it is a GAME that is PLAYED!

POW! BOOM! Body blow at ya! (Just busting balls Peace to all.

[Norfaust]

This is a computer game! There is no way you could mimic a real life combat encounter...

[Battlefront.com]

My meaning was that when one relies only on sight and voice, if the teams lose contact with the rest of the squad--they could easily be get lost.

A standard problem with any military unit of any size. Entire BATALLIONS got "lost" sometimes. Squads, Platoons, etc. often were out of C2 with anybody else. Battlefield conditions really aren't conducive to staying in C2. Even in today's military with all their hightech gear it's difficult.

You are a scout team a couple of 100 yards ahead. Either because of enemy fire, or miscommunication, you lose contact. You yell? Wave your arms around?--does not seem like a healthy thing to be doing. How the heck do you find each other again--particularly in hedgerow, dense woods, or a village? Probably you have a rally point, but there might be a long time lag before all elements decide to go there.

This is actually an easy question to answer. Let's look at a Platoon.

The Platoon Leader (PL) uses various methods to describe to the designated Scouts and Squad Leaders (SLs) and Team Leaders (TLs), if relevant, what the plan of action is. The PL assigns roles to each of them so that they know what they are supposed to do for themselves but also for the rest of the formation. The PL gives them information about what other Platoons and relevant units are doing as needed. Things like when artillery is supposed to come in, when they might get relief, etc.

As the action is being carried out they all try to stay on the same page, even without contact. Contact, however, is preferable except in some situations where it's so difficult that the plan is created with the expectation that contact won't be possible (picture night fighting in a forest). Alternatives, such as times, distances, signals, etc substitute for direct knowledge of what each is doing. And as one would expect, results varied wildly The more assumptions that are made at the beginning of an action the more that can go wrong. The more complicated the action is, the more that can go wrong.

OK, so how does this relate to Scouts? Well, the PL doesn't say to the Scouts "wander aimlessly and without any specific purpose kinda over there and at some point we'll see you. Who knows where, really, but I'm sure we'll catch up eventually" Instead the PL says something like "Go up to this farmhouse here and figure out if we're going to get into trouble. Come back to this point and we'll meet up with you there." Or something like "We're going to be going up this axis here. 2nd Platoon will be over here. We'll be looking for you around 0630. If we don't meet up we'll assume you've run into trouble and proceed to this line here with extreme caution".

Really... this isn't rocket science.

I appreciate, AKD, that you would want to have any potential anachronisms backed with documentation. Subjectively, I am still going by "feel"--I am looking to see that longshorman from Long Island, or the son of a farmer from Arkansas, put in a cloth uniform, taken to France, given a gun which, most of them, just went bang.....bang...., and put in a position if they just went out a different door in a large building could potentially be completely out of contact with the rest of his squad temporarily--longer if it is hectic, and everyone then makes a few wrong turns.

I think you way, way, WAY underestimate what even Basic Training can do for even a dimwitted 18 year old. You need to adjust your expectations of the average soldier's capabilities up about 10 notches.

Also keep in mind that the Army didn't put stripes on a guy, even a PFC stripe, if the guy couldn't figure out which door to go through or what to do if the lemming in front of him went off a cliff.

[idea: If split squads are out of command and control for long enough they disappear, like the dead, because they are effectively lost to your unit? That would rein in their use, to more specific squad/platoon scouts. Also (and this may already be the case--I have not tested--have them not be able to touch or occupy a Victory location.]

Since your idea is based on a pretty serious lack of understanding of what happened in real life at this level, it's not surprising that we don't see it having any applicability within the game

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

The only real problem to it that I think it needs fixing on is the C2 for broken squads. If a team is split, and it is still in visual contact of the A team squad leader it should still show in command as that is the next in chain of command for the team. It makes no sense if a squad is split, and they are right next to each other that the B,C teams show out of C2. In cases like that being showing out of C2 there should be no morale hit if this is how it is.

This would be a nice feature to have, but presently I don't think the code is set up for it. HQs are the only types of units that can have direct C2 links. However, units in close proximity to each other will share spotting information, regardless of C2 links. Meaning, the situation you described Teams B and C should see what Team A sees within a short period of time.

Steve

[DavidFields]

A standard problem with any military unit of any size. Entire BATALLIONS got "lost" sometimes. Squads, Platoons, etc. often were out of C2 with anybody else. Battlefield conditions really aren't conducive to staying in C2. Even in today's military with all their hightech gear it's difficult.

This is actually an easy question to answer. Let's look at a Platoon.

The Platoon Leader (PL) uses various methods to describe to the designated Scouts and Squad Leaders (SLs) and Team Leaders (TLs), if relevant, what the plan of action is. The PL assigns roles to each of them so that they know what they are supposed to do for themselves but also for the rest of the formation. The PL gives them information about what other Platoons and relevant units are doing as needed. Things like when artillery is supposed to come in, when they might get relief, etc.

As the action is being carried out they all try to stay on the same page, even without contact. Contact, however, is preferable except in some situations where it's so difficult that the plan is created with the expectation that contact won't be possible (picture night fighting in a forest). Alternatives, such as times, distances, signals, etc substitute for direct knowledge of what each is doing. And as one would expect, results varied wildly The more assumptions that are made at the beginning of an action the more that can go wrong. The more complicated the action is, the more that can go wrong.

OK, so how does this relate to Scouts? Well, the PL doesn't say to the Scouts "wander aimlessly and without any specific purpose kinda over there and at some point we'll see you. Who knows where, really, but I'm sure we'll catch up eventually" Instead the PL says something like "Go up to this farmhouse here and figure out if we're going to get into trouble. Come back to this point and we'll meet up with you there." Or something like "We're going to be going up this axis here. 2nd Platoon will be over here. We'll be looking for you around 0630. If we don't meet up we'll assume you've run into trouble and proceed to this line here with extreme caution".

Really... this isn't rocket science.

I think you way, way, WAY underestimate what even Basic Training can do for even a dimwitted 18 year old. You need to adjust your expectations of the average soldier's capabilities up about 10 notches.

Also keep in mind that the Army didn't put stripes on a guy, even a PFC stripe, if the guy couldn't figure out which door to go through or what to do if the lemming in front of him went off a cliff.

[idea: If split squads are out of command and control for long enough they disappear, like the dead, because they are effectively lost to your unit? That would rein in their use, to more specific squad/platoon scouts. Also (and this may already be the case--I have not tested--have them not be able to touch or occupy a Victory location.]

Since your idea is based on a pretty serious lack of understanding of what happened in real life at this level, it's not surprising that we don't see it having any applicability within the game

Steve