ScoutPL
-
Posts
539 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ScoutPL
-
-
Thanks for the sunday school lesson, Dorosh. What are you the unit EO rep?
I made none of the generalizations you accuse me of making about the military and those who didnt serve. I only stated I hoped others had something in their lives they felt as strongly about as I did. I'm just one man, and a rather weak one at that. I have faults. One of them happens to be an inability to always turn the other cheek. If only I had the clear thinking and iron will of a few of the folks who post here. But, alas, I dont, so to save myself the headache and high blood pressure, I'm going to make "Enjoy your gaming experience" my new motto and stay out of these petty fights over silly ideas. Bygones.
-
I was doing good there for awhile, staying away, not getting involved. But then I felt the need to reply to one of Pillar's neverending posts the other day and have found myself once again in the thick of this morass.
I really love this game, I really love the military and what it has done for my life. I hope those of you who are so ready to take offense or climb up on your horse when I act out a little, can one day find something that makes you feel the way I do. Otherwise you will have led a very empty life, sir. I'm only thirty and no longer in the military. But even being as young as I am, I wouldn't trade any of my experiences for anyone else's.
I think CM is a wonderful game and I will continue to play it and devote some of my prescious time to posting articles and tutorials. I'm way to busy a man to get wrapped up in this message board like I do. I find we are rehashing all the same old arguemants, throwing the same old insults back and forth and not accomplishing a damn thing. But then there really isnt anything to accomplish.
CM is a very versatile system. Use it for whatever the hell you like. If you know little about tactics or how CM works then read the tutorials and decide who and how you want to play. I know how I want to play it and the kinda players I want to play against. That in itself makes me a happy man. And thats enough for me.
Enjoy your gaming expereince.
[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 01-31-2001).]
-
How old are you Henri? 12?
You should be careful what you say in a forum where no one can reach out and touch you. Such false bravado makes enemies fast. Professional soldiers dont train their asses off to play games. They do it to win wars. Dont be naive and confuse the two.
-
This is a rather disturbing quote, fraught with inaccuracies and misinformation, so I'll go straight to the source and get back with you.
-
Interesting. Why was he banned?
And,ahem, you were the one using him as a reference, perhaps you should get ahold of him and have him email me if its that important of a point for you. I still contend he will agree with me. We've talked about it before in relation to Pillar's posts.
-
The key to this article is what the commander knew prior to committing to a course of action. He knew the roads were blocked. He knew he needed to get the germans out of the woods and wanted to use his armor to do it since it gave him a distinct advantage. He developed a plan PRIOR to attacking and implemented it. Advance parties moving ahead of tanks to find suitable routes and locate enemy positions is not reconnaissance for the sake of reconnaissance. Its simply good tactical sense. The advance parties provide security to the main body (in this case the armor) and provide a heads up to the commander. Every movement formation from platoon up to the corps level (in any army's doctrine) emphasize placing security elements to the front and flanks. As you near the enemy positions these elements move farther out to the front and the formation as a whole slows down. This is not recon for the sake of gaining intel, its just good tactics. Pillar advocated pushing elements forward to determine as much as possible about the enemy setup BEFORE committing to a plan. If he wants to amend his prior statements and say he always backs those efforts up with his main body, then he's not conducting recon anymore, he's attacking. Albeit in a very haphazard manner since he has no real synchronization and would fall very quickly into reacting to his opponent rather then seizing the initiative at the very start of the fight and maintaining it. Exactly like this Russian commander did, by developing a plan and attacking.
There is no lack of preplanned routes since the wooded area isnt that big. The preplanned routes were to advance between the road and the open areas on the flanks, staying in the trees. No commander is going to be foolish enough to dictate to his subordinate units a specific route in such circumstances so the routes are very vague. Another requiremment for good front and flank security by dismounts. Yes, they are modifying their route as they advance, but if you read closely I think you'll see that it was mostly due to the terrain rather then the enemy. Whenever they encountered the enemy they attacked, knowing his forces in the woods were much weaker then those at the road blocks.
As far as Fionn goes I promised I wouldn't comment on his posts without discussing them with him first. So if he wants to jump on here and verify what you quoted him as saying I'll be happy to respond. I will say that alot of that has to do with professionals using TTP's that they are trained to use, a few which can be usurped by the game mechanics. Which by the way, I am convinced is the reason so many players advocate broad front recon in CM. With the see all/know all type spotting rules, the system contradicts reality to the utmost in this regard. Making such tactics much more successful in the game then they would be in real life. I think you will find Fionn would agree with this statement.
-
I would be willing to do that. Even though with my attack and defense tutorials I think its already pretty obvious how I would approach the setup. However, let me make a qualification.
In the defense, Pillar's big emphasis has been on the counter-reconnaissance screen forward of the actual MLR, rather then how to setup an actual defense in depth. He has addressed the complete defense but not with the thoroughness he has the CR fight. My approach has been exactly opposite. I dont think you can realistically portray any sort of focused reconnaissance effort using the CM system, for the myriad of reasons previously discussed ad nauseum on this board. CM was designed to simulate the actual clashing of the main bodies. So thats why my defense tutorial starts at the point in a defensive battle when the CR screen and the OP's have been pulled in and the attacking player is getting ready to hit the MLR. I am beginning work on Part II of my battalion defense tutorial which will address alot of recon issues in CM. Hope to have it posted in a few days.
-
I guess its a good thing the russians weren't fighting on the western front then huh? If they were fighting in the west that would blow our debate right out of the water wouldn't it? Boy, I'm glad they decided to stick to their side of Germany.
-
Here is a reprint of my reply to you guys providing that link on the "preview" post.
Sorry but I'm still not convinced. What you have here is a commander who's first COA was to go up the roads, so he directed his reconnaissance there. They came back with the intel that showed the roads were impassable, convincing him to find an alternate route.
So he task organized his combined arms units to create a rather standard marching order for tank/infantry teams operating in wooded terrain. They advanced, staying away from the roads, with a small dismounted advance party to warn of enemy positions to the front. Look up traveling overwatch in FM 7-8. It'll look real familiar to you.
The broad flanking maneuver to the left is simply a factor of outnumbering your enemy to the point he cant cover his flanks. Since this was basically a clean-up operation of a surrounded german force, thats not surprising.
What we dont have here is a commander splitting up his infantry forces into "recon" teams, distributing them relatively evenly across his front and sending them forward to make contact with the enemy surfaces and hopefully discover his gaps. This commander had a very good idea where the enemy was located from the very beginning and developed a very sound plan on how to bypass the enemy's strength. Great read on using good intel to come up with a plan and then ATTACKING.
As far as broad front recon? Sorry, no sale.
-
Well then Henri how about giving us some better examples!
-
One more comment about the arty FO's. You guys are right on the money when it comes to limiting FO's. And Jason you are absolutely right about your distribution of mortar platoons/arty batteries. But I would up my FO numbers by at least one over the very limited ones you suggest. This is because even though the battalion only has one mortar platoon, that battalion will have multiple spotters and in the attack will probably have a good hefty stock of ammo. Thats why I suggest going with one per company. Yes they're all requesting from the same platoon, but game mechanics restrict their ammo to the point that one FO doesnt do a very good job simulating that valuable asset. I would like to see FO's having to fight over priority of fire though. What would really be great would be if in the purchasing phase you bought the offboard asset, rather then the FO. The FO's would come as part of the company command unit. In other words, your battalion commander had to spend his prescious "asset" or purchase points, dedicating the mortars to support your attack. Then he had to spend more points making sure your HQ unit was on the ground with an FO. The FO should be a seperate maneuver unit but come with the company HQ purchase. This would more accurately simulate how TO&E units operate in the field and make for a more realistic application of fires. Arty batteries and arty FO's should be tremendously expensive, thus restricting their appearance to large battalion sized battles. Even more realistic would be if you could rate your HQ units to determine who has priority of fires in the game. For example, you could have an "A-grade" HQ as your main effort and "B, C and D-Grade" HQ's in the support and reserve. Since a Mortar Platoon can really only effectively fire one target at a time, when multiple requests for fire went up, the "A-grade" unit would get priority. Does any of that make sense?
-
BnP, the easiest way to avoid the problem with "narrow front recon" in CM is decide with your opponent before hand (if you're playing a QB) to set realistic limits on arty purchases. Say, one or two mortar observers per rifle company and maybe two arty observers if you have a bn on the field. This kind of scarcity in arty assets is much more realistic to the time period. The other way around it is to find a scenario designer who designs realistic scenarios and just play them. Players who show up on the board with a tank platoon, a rifle platoon and 4 indirect fire observers, are just taking advantage of the game, rather then trying to play it real. I know many find that more rewarding, but it is possible to play a good realistic game and have fun too!
-
Pillar, for a good example of what Jason is talking about, go back and read my Infantry in the Attack tutorial. I'm saying the same things (with pictures), that he is in this discussion. Which also happens to be what the US infantry school teaches, FM 7-8, 7-10. Plan your attack on what you know (as little as it may be) but put some flexibility into it and be prepared to fight hard when you engage the enemy. Put good security out to your main effort's front and flanks and GO! If you understand how to maneuver your sub units correctly so that they are always mutually supporting and have constant overwatch then you should have the mass to handle anything you run into, including (surprisingly enough) your main objective! I'd also like to know if when you're "experimenting" if you use realistic combined arms force TO&E's or if your forces look like a hodge podge of the best and brightest, like Fionn's usually do.
Also I'd be interested in hearing what sorta "feel" for the battlefield you'd get with your broad front recon on my defense tutorial. By pushing forces toward gaps I think you'd end up having to fight through the first BP just because its the only route for vehicles. Then you might try to push dismounts through the central woods, but they would get chewed up on the other side by dug in infantry and a reserve counterattack. That would leave you massing against the gaping hole on the north side, which happens to be my main effort's engagement area. By following your reinforce success model, you would first divide your forces (losing the combined arms aspect), then risk losing most of your combat power in an area that I hoped you would come into. Not very successful. Actually the AI often attacks like this. It moves forces to the flanks of any strong resistance it encounters, particularly obstacles (both natural and man-made) and ends up getting its butt handed to it.
If you can come off your morale high ground for a little while to answer these points I promise not to tell you what I'm really thinking when I respond next time.
I'd hate to let you think I'm oversensitive or overreacting. I actually lost sleep over your last post.Great posts Jason. You come across as a man whose done some writing before and demonstrate a maturity in your thinking that most of us surely lack.
-
These are the Q's I found:
Posted 01-24, 0110 hrs. "Do you not use an SRE? Do you wait until the enemy has hit your MLR before you commit reserves? I'm still totally in the dark as to your own concepts of the battlefield."
Answered in depth, 01-24, 1000 hrs.
Posted 01-24, 1648 hrs. "Finally, and most importantly, I want you to sit down some time and really explain what you dissaproove of regarding the tactics I use.
Is it just that you can't concieve of them being used in your battalion? A soviet battalion? A german one?"
Answered in my 01-24, 1000 hrs and 1753 hrs post.
"Is it that you feel that they are gamey, and only work in a computer game?"
Answered in my 01-24, 1000 hrs and 1753 hrs post.
"Is it that you think they won't lead to success?"
Answered in my 01-24, 1000 hrs and 1753 hrs post.
Most of your questions seemed like moot points to me since I had already addressed them in earlier posts. Your questionaire made me think you really werent reading my stuff at all, just looking for me to agree with you and support your ideas.
Step back for a minute, this statement doesnt sound provacative to you?
"Do you mean that ScoutPL's perspective will be different than mine since his experience relates mostly to commanding a platoon on the field? I.E. As opposed to a Battalion commander or Regimental commander?"
Basically what this said to me was that even though I had years of experience as a junior officer I was unable to take that experience and apply it to higher levels of command, thus giving me a better understanding of those levels of command over someone who had never even worn a uniform.
I'm a police officer by trade now Pillar, I deal with provacative statements all day long. But this provoked me even though it wasnt addressed to me. Does anyone else out there think I over reacted to this?
Let me address these directly, so there's no confusion, hopefully.
"Why is it always "If you aren't using ScoutPL's tactics you are simply playing a computer game"? I have never stated this. Its obvious I'm not the only one making assumptions about the other, right? I may have stated that it seemed to me you were just playing the game, Pillar, but I never told anyone they had to use "my" tactics to do it. I have said this a hundred times but I'll say it again. CM was designed for battalion level fights and smaller. Everything about it screams this point. Yes it can handle bigger engagements if you want to take the time and energy to do that. Personally I dont and I'm pretty sure most of the players out there dont, otherwise we wouldnt see new small unit action scenarios all the time. Instead we'd see larger stuff, right? A better game for that level stuff IS TOAW which can handle a scale of 5km per hex and company level icons. Perfect for fighting say a division attack on a regiment. I urge you Pillar to continue to explore doctrine at all levels and in all facets. Attack, defense, reconnaissance, latrine installation, whatever strikes your fancy. I'll happily read your work and let you know what I think of it. But I also feel like its necessary to play devils advocate sometimes. I'm not trying to run you down or make you look bad or make myself look good. I could give two damns about any of that. I just honestly dont think CM was designed for these huge fights you're experimenting with and I think alot of the doctrine you're using doesnt apply at small unit level. THATS ALL! I'm not trying to say your full of it or wrong or that you put your pants on backwards or anything like that. I just think your misapplying some TTP's. Can I not say that without getting my experience/knowledge challenged or made to feel like I'm yelling suff across cyber space but no one's listening?
"You still haven't explained to me what "rules" say my tactics conflict with reality? Which law of physics?"
Your tactics are sound Pillar, since they come right out of someones FM. A few months ago they were a little flaky but we've already been around the mulberry bush about that. I just dont think you're applying those tactics in the right battlespace. Or should I say game? But hey, remember my Ranger School story? The RI reply to every eager Ranger Student? "Weellll...That IS a technique." It didnt really matter how ate up it was, as long as it worked. Well if your stuff works Pillar, go for it. But I can still disagree with it right?
"And because I like to use it for larger battles I'm missing out? On what?"
See above
"Can you give me some solid reasoning behind why CM can't handle anything larger, other than CPU power?"
See above
Henri, Mr Johnson and Gremlin, thanks for the input guys, but you've got it wrong. Pillar and I quit argueing over specific tactics and doctrine months ago. We agree on the use of pull vs. push recon and the value of each. Now its more of a debate over scale and application. A double AAR wouldnt solve anything since we'd both probably get the same result just using different means.
I just want Pillar to come out and say that most of his doctrinal study has been based on large unit "operational" levels (something he has already admitted to) and that small unit tactics are pretty much the same world over. Doctrine has absolutely nothing to do with how a battalion attacks a fortified village or hilltop, once it crosses the LD. And that is the realm that CM was designed for, that is where it excels. As long as all of Pillars readers understand that then I'll shutup.
-
I'm sure you get plenty of military types who say, sure broad front recon's a good idea. Yes, definately recon to gain all the intel you can before you make an attack. Who wouldn't? I wouldnt be surprised if you asked a US armor officer today about recon efforts at the division/corps level and he outlined something very similiar to broad front. But for a rifle company in the attack? Starting basically from their assault position in relation to the objective? I dont think so. Really what we're arguing about here is a matter of scale, I suppose. Not my hurt feelings or emotional instability. Pillar, I'm a very aggressive guy, its what made me a successful infantry officer in the first place, I was often rewarded for it. If I sound a litle cross or seem to be attacking you then thats just my nature, bud. You want to debate with me then stand up and take the heat. I havent really said anything that bad or offensive about you personally, you were the first to cast that stone.
Bottom line I feel like you are trying to use CM to explore aspects of maneuver warfare on a scale it wasnt designed for. And folks may get the idea that they can realisticaly employ those methods at battalion or even company level. I dont think they should. We both have admitted that different armies fight pretty much the same way when it gets down to the last 500 meters or so. If you want to come out and say that you are experimenting with brigade level ops with CM and that those methods you advocate are your focus then groovy, I say burn up your machine and spend hours sitting there waiting for the turns to play out, entirely up to you (yes for the record, that IS an exageration and I'm totally aware of that fact). If you want to send "scouting" parties forward to bump into the enemy that arent properly supported by the main body, because you think it wins fights in CM then go for it. Just qualify it as such. Because I still havent seen any evidence that any army, past or present, does it at the small unit scale.
-
I sent this email to Pillar in response to one he sent me. I thought I would make it public, kinda my final thought.
"I give you nothing but facts, reasons, explanations, and yet I still get questions like "Please explain yourself." Sorry Adam but I'm not sure we'll ever be able to discuss this stuff amicably. I make no apologies for my attitude or my statements. I think they are all well founded and justified. I still hold to the belief that you are taking doctrine and tactics that are better applied to upper levels of command and trying to apply them to a battlespace that is little more then a few klicks square. I know you dont think thats the way it is and thats fine. I'll keep to my corner from now on.
Todd"
-
"for how we play CM..."
As long as we keep that distinction, we should all get along peachy!
-
Sorry but I'm still not convinced. What you have here is a commander who's first COA was to go up the roads, so he directed his reconnaissance there. They came back with the intel that showed the roads were impassable, convincing him to find an alternate route.
So he task organized his combined arms units to create a rather standard marching order for tank/infantry teams operating in wooded terrain. They advanced, staying away from the roads, with a small dismounted advance party to warn of enemy positions to the front. Look up traveling overwatch in FM 7-8. It'll look real familiar to you.
The broad flanking maneuver to the left is simply a factor of outnumbering your enemy to the point he cant cover his flanks. Since this was basically a clean-up operation of a surrounded german force, thats not surprising.
What we dont have here is a commander splitting up his infantry forces into "recon" teams, distributing them relatively evenly across his front and sending them forward to make contact with the enemy surfaces and hopefully discover his gaps. This commander had a very good idea where the enemy was located from the very beginning and developed a very sound plan on how to bypass the enemy's strength. Great read on using good intel to come up with a plan and then ATTACKING.
As far as broad front recon? Sorry, no sale.
-
Since I have trouble reading peoples minds (I cant seem to interpret their writing correctly), suffer from penis envy (my computer isnt fast enough to run REALLY BIG games), and cant seem to grasp higher concepts of learning (I'm to forever fight my battles in the trenchs, just me and my boys), I obviously have nothing more to contribute here. I honestly dont know why I keep making this same mistake. Some people like oranges, some like apples. Thats just the way it goes.
Dont call me, Pillar, I'll call you....
-
Ok, Pillar, dont be calling me out. JoePrivate's comments may have cut a little deep but I have to respond.
"Do you mean that ScoutPL's perspective will be different than mine since his experience relates mostly to commanding a platoon on the field? I.E. As opposed to a Battalion commander or Regimental commander?"
I spent three years as an enlisted man, most of it as my battalion commanders RTO. He issued the orders, I repeated them over the radio. I watched, I learned. Its what influenced me to return as an officer. I watched everything about how a battalion/brigade (since I went to every brigade oporder) operated in the field. Both in training environments and in combat.
I spent a year eating dirt with my guys as a rifle platoon leader then came back up to battalion level operations as the scout platoon leader. You think I didnt have to know what the rest of the REGIMENT was doing, and understand it, to do my job as a scout? After that came rifle company XO time. During which I commanded the company in tactical situations in the field a number of times. And that doesnt count all the times I assisted my company commander in his oporder process by discussing COA's and offering ideas. Then came another year as a battalion asistant operations officer, during which I sat in the TOC during battles and tracked the big picture for the operations officer and the battalion commander. When we weren't training I was back in the rear planning the next training exercise. Think I didnt need to know the ins and outs of that battalion and how it worked to plan training events?
Pillar, the only thing keeping me from commanding a battalion right now is time served and a few official schools. I think I'm qualified to talk about company/battalion level ops even though my "experience relates mostly to commanding a platoon on the field"
-
What I gleaned from that, Pillar, is that you're working on a doctrinal and TTP base for playing CM, a computer simulation. Thats great. I should keep that in mind, that way I wont get so upset when I see things that conflict with reality.
"The article was describing a Battalion or bigger. CM *can* handle it."
I dont think BTS meant for CM to handle regimental sized defenses. Ever look at what the doctrinal coverage is for a regiment? Has to be at least 8 km, probably bigger. Thats with two bn's forward and one back. CM wont even handle a map bigger then 5km square. Not on the majority of machines anyway. Want to fight a regiment/division? Update your copy of TAOW and we'll go at it.
"First, I never think in terms of a company operating on it's own UNLESS it is a forward detachment (peredovoi otriad)."
Then you're missing whats really great about CM and are trying to mutate it into something its not. Company fights are what CM is all about. If I'm wrong someone from BTS please jump in here and correct me. Actually I'd refer you to the design note on page 18 which states that the scope of CM is battalion level, hence the three man icons representing squads. This to me says the intended scope of CM is a company in the defense with a battalion attacking. I know I'm stretching it with my battalion defense tutorial but there was so much interest in it I couldnt refuse. I did manage to keep the unit count down however by echeloning the attacking forces by entering 5 seperate combined arms teams at different intervals, just as they would be in real life, rather then piling up an entire Kampfgruppe on the german board edge.
"Peredovoi Otriad can themselves be as big as a battalion! Are you confusing Peredovoie Otriad with golovnyi pokhodnyi zastav (advance lead march party)?"
Either one represents the forward element of a larger body and if that larger body stumbles onto a CM mapboard then you just blew the scope of the game all to hell. So we're back to CM being about company level fights.
"I've found it can do far more than just simulate the assault, and players that simply jump right into an attack end up getting slaughtered in my experience."
Then they need to learn how to conduct an assault.
-
Pillar, I assume you're talking about alternate company BP's behind the first ones. Ever tried to move with a combat load through snow? CM does a pretty good job on effecting rates of movement. There's no way i could split all my squads and set up secondary positions farther back in sector. My guys would be exhausted trying to reconsolidate in the first couple turns. Probably wouldnt get to cover in time and probably would get cut to pieces by arty in the process. Look at it from the other angle. You're a german commanding a fully motorized PZGR battalion supported by a company of Panzers. You going to give your enemy time to hoof it back a klick or two to his secondary positions? No, you're going to use your mobility to run him down and run him over. I'm not betting on it, either. And of course we're not even getting in to the real world time table and building supply stocks that get sucked dry by building defensive positions. Even with 48 hours of prep an infantry battalion is very hard pressed to get the TLP's complete and dessiminated, obstacles in, mines laid, fire lanes marked and cleared, and primary defenses dug before the bad guys come in. And thats with grabbing a bite to eat between shovel fulls and trying to get a catnap every now and then when your squad leader isnt looking. Know what the quietest sound in the world is? A company assembly area about an hour after a defensive battle was fought. Everybody's dead asleep.
-
Let me reiterate a point I've made before and its been made by others. If you want to have a realistic playing experience with CM, stay the hell away from QB's. Talk over with you're opponent what you want to do and take a few minutes to set up a scenario. Make sure the one setting it up is on the defense and provide a good intel dump based on what you guys predecided the level of intel would be. Then fight a damn battle! And quit p-footing around! Your attack plan should be based on the intel paragraph you received from "higher", not on the first ten turns of you stumbling around toward the enemy positions like Elmer Fudd!
-
"Most of the things you mentioned in your post are micro-level decisions which, while important, are not what my article was addressing."
I realize I came over a little heavy handed but these discussions are supposed to be within the realm of CM right? Which means we're discussing actions that take place at the battalion level or lower. Actions that take less then an hour (at most) to fight. Usually less then half an hour. Please produce an authoritative example of broad front recon tactics at the company level (from any country) and I'll shut my mouth. I just really think your taking "big picture" doctrine and applying it at the level where the only things you should be concerned with is MG placement, supporting arty fires and movement routes, to name a few. In my opinion you're over complicating an already complicated window into battle. To put it a different way, when a soviet rifle company attacks a town, they do it exactly the same way we would, or the Germans would or the French would or anybody else. SBF element in overwatch, smoke screen for obscuration, and an assault element advancing across the objective by bounds. Thats what CM is all about. Not reconning to find the hole in the line. There is no "line" at this scale, only defensive positions that are focused, usually, on defending key terrain!
"Do you not use an SRE? Do you wait until the enemy has hit your MLR before you commit reserves? I'm still totally in the dark as to your own concepts of the battlefield."
First off read the delay defense tutorial, it'll shine a little light on "my" concepts. If you've read up on US doctrine like you claimed to you should know very well that we use what you call an SRE. But in US doctrine its treated as a seperate fight from the main battle. As a scout platoon leader I was always involved in the counterrecon fight in the defense. My primary mission was usually to watch suspected dismounted infiltration routes and call for fire or air to engage any enemy we spotted. The battalions AT company (armed with HMMWV's with .50 cals and TOWs) had the primary responibility of screening to the battalions front and catching the enemy's mounted recon assets. We all had pretty much the same tasks and purposes you laid out in your rundown on soviet style counterrecon. You know why they're so similiar? Because everyone knows that defenses in depth are the way to go. No big "doctrinal" differences here. For that express reason I didnt include the counterrecon assets in my battalion defense tutorial. Since the enemy will conduct his recon hours prior to making his attack and at the expected hit time my counterrecon assets will either go to ground or withdraw back to their primary positions for the actual battle it didnt make much sense. So my tutorial starts when the actual main battle is joined. Which is what CM is all about.
Our reserve is usually committed late in the fight after the enemy has been severly attrited and when it would do the most damage to the enemy. If all an infantry battalion can hope to do is delay and attrit, then a good hard tank platoon counterattack against the enemy regiments third echelon can be devastating and demoralizing enough to give the task force a hard won victory. Tell you a secret though, I never once in eight years, saw a light infantry battalion (usually supported with a tank platoon, but sometimes a tank company) successfully stop a motorized rifle regiment supported with tanks. They say the javelin will make a significant difference, but we could never really play it to its max effectiveness in training so I cant say. But I would not want to be in a light infantry battalion that gets tasked with stopping a chinese armored regiment, no way jose.
Which brings up another point:
"Identify the enemy avenue of approach, shift reserves, use forward elements to counter attack the enemy. 1, 2, 3."
The strength of the defense, to withstand direct and indirect fires, is the dugin position. In most cases, once you leave those positions you give up any advantage you may have had. If you have the assets to counterattack the enemy's lead elements then you are probably defending a piece of terrain that is much smaller then what you would in reality. Something I have noticed in Fionns posts, by the way. He's always heavy on the assets and they read like Santa Clauses wish list. If you are defending a piece of ground that was doctrinally assigned by your higher headquarters, you're probably going to be stretched to the breaking point anyway. My tutorial map is extremely narrow by doctrinal standards for a battalion defense but I had to do that to keep my map a manageable size. Even so, I barely have the assets to cover the necessary AOA's. Take a look at your own soviet model template you posted. How big is their reserve? Where are the counterattack routes? I bet they're not that much different from my own. Which goes back to my original point. At the pointy end of the stick (battalion level or lower) the subspecies just arent that much different on the tactical DNA chart. Trying to find huge differences just complicates things.
I'd hate to let you think I'm oversensitive or overreacting. I actually lost sleep over your last post.
For Pillar and ScoutPL
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
All of my stuff is at www.geocities.com/fpd131. Hope it helps out.