ScoutPL
-
Posts
539 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ScoutPL
-
-
Not really I just read in an advice column that if you have a motherboard thats a couples years old and you are running into trouble with a graphics card a BIOS update may be in order. I'm not really having any serious problems, I just want to run as efficiently as possible. Will the motherboard manufacturer be listed in the BIOS setup or somewhere like that?
-
I apologize for being so quiet. Its been a busy week at work and when I come home I just want to veg. I'll get some stuff posted by this weekend hopefully, the axis setup included.
-
Does anyone know if it is possible to upgrade BIOS with a generic upgrade or if they have to be manufacturuer specific?
-
Go to my site, www.geocities.com/fpd131 and download the TDG you want, then send me your solution! It's just that easy!
-
As far as being on their own, I always operated as a PL under the assumption that when in the woods there wasnt anything my platoon couldnt handle on its own given a standard load of ammo and some room to maneuver. So, no I wasnt hesitant about putting them up there on their own.
I need some feed back guys. I'm getting more and more new faces sending in posts. I'll try to get them all up as soon as I can. What I need to know is which way everyone wants to go for TDG 3. Do we continue working on the attack, in order to perfect this slippery subject? Or do we try a game with a solution focused on a defense?
-
The blocking position on the ridge is there as a security measure for the units tasked with clobbering the counterattack force. I could see units (possibly a tank or two) abandoning the town under pressure and in their withdrawal hitting my AT assets in the flank or rear. I placed the blocking position there as security against this. You could put it down as "isolating the objective". Also if any tanks in the counterattack force make it across the bridge and over the ridge, this blocking force may buy the town's new defenders another minute or two. Necessary? Probably not, but I really didnt like sending that AT task force around there without some infantry support.
-
Obviously I should have spent more time explaining my concept, but man, that pizza was calling my name. I'll attempt to do a better job now, though the wife is screaming for some attention so I might have to make this a two parter.
Basically this is the way I see it. There are three avenues of approach into the town. These AOA's all had to meet the following criteria: 1. provide a good SBF position that could cover the majority of the objective. 2. Offer a cover and concealed route for the dismounts. 3. offer a stable route for the supporting armor and other vehicles.
AOA 1, the eastern side of town. This is the one most contributors chose and I've already laid out the reasons why I ruled it out.
AOA 2, the southwest corner. This one meets two of the criteria right off the bat, cover and concealed route for dismounts and stable route for vehicles (the road and fields). But in my enemy analysis I decided any fixed positions (obstacles, MG bunkers, AT Pillboxes) that the enemy possessed would have to have an LOS to the river's west bank. Meaning, regardless of how far back they were, they would be oriented to the west. Therefore the best way to attack would be from the east, negating the combat power of these powerful assets. Its a given that the enemy's unfixed assets would shift once it became clear we would approach from the south but any permanent fortifications would still be oriented to the west. This made me question whether the risk of running into the snout of a MG bunker or a pillbox was worth using AOA 2. Also, AOA 2 lacks a good SBF position. In order to properly support an attack on AOA2, you would have to establish a SBF in the buildings on AOA3 (the SE approach). This SBF position would be isolated and within easy reach of a counterattack out of the town, which means you would have to committ a couple squads to securing the SBF, taking units away from the assault force to do so.
Which leaves us with AOA3. It also meets the criteria for dismounts/vehicles. It has a relatively good SBF position (the two story barn) but with limited sectors of fire. The SBF would only be effective until friendly units were into the obstacle belt and the foothold buildings. Then it would have to shift or perhaps even lift fires.
Looking at each of the AOA's I decided AOA3 offered the best chance of success. My plan was to unfold like this. My order of march out of the assembly area was to be scout section, tank section, inf platoon, weapons platoon, engineer platoon, and then the last inf platoon. The scouts and tanks rolled forward looking for enemy positions. The inf platoon came next, ready to seize the SBF position if it turned out to be held by the enemy. It was not, so the platoon pulled off the road and the infantry dismounted near the assault position. The weapons platoon pulled into the SBF position, dismounted, set up their weapon systems, and began hammering any German who happened to stick up his head. This fire, coupled with the tank MG and main gun fire did a great job suppressing the enemy in the town. As the engineer platoon rolled forward, the mortars and tanks popped smoke on the northern side of the wire and the SBF shifted its fire to the western side of the town. The engineers moved forward (concealed by the smoke and covered by their halftracks until the last possible moment), breached the MWO and moved into the first set of buildings. While this was happening the last infantry platoon rolled forward into the assault position and dismounted. Once organized the two inf platoons moved around the flank of the MWO and attacked the town from the east. Supported by tanks moving through the breach, the engineer platoon, and what fires could still come from the main SBF, the infantry quickly routed the German infantry defending the town and seized the bridge.
I realize that in the analysis of TDG 1 I stated that a SBF position should try to maintain a 45 to 90 degree angle to the troops they are supporting. Keeping this "rule" in mind, my main SBF was only effective for a short period of time. But it got me in close enough to make the breach. This allowed my tanks to take over the role of SBF and they maintained a decent angle to the assault element as it attacked from the east.
I hope my negligence in not going into this sort of detail in my posted concept won't cause any sore feelings. The comments I posted above probably sounded like criticisms since I hadnt really illustrated my own way of thinking. For that I aplogize. I dont want this to turn into a "who's right" fight. That just takes the fun right out of it. All of the plans would have probably worked, to varying degrees of success. But sending your file to me for posting means you open yourself up to FAIR, CONSTRUCTIVE comments and not just by me. I hope everyone finds that my comments meet that difficult standard. I post my own solutions just for that very reason. I am not trying to sell this as a "scout knows best" type of post. I encourage everyone to do as Fox has done and evaluate my comments and solutions with the same critical eye I level at your submissions. Thats the only way WE will learn.
-
I couldnt play the Operation Flashpoint demo cause I dont have a bigger then 8mb graphics card. And since I refuse to go blow 150+ dollars just to play one lousy game I will probably have to miss out on the Flashpoint revolution. BUt what I gleaned from the README file was that OPFlash is basically a first person shooter with some small unit tactics thrown in (a la Rogue Spear in the woods). So let me say this. The only way OpFlash could realistically portray a M60 MG is if you could only fire it accurately from the prone, you had to change barrels (due to excessive heat and stoppages) almost as often as you had to add belts of ammo, you had two other poor SOB's who follow you around the entire time, and you had to spend hours playing just to get to where you could shoot accurately at a multitude of ranges (from a tripod, the firing from the bipod is even less accurate and takes even longer to master). I doubt flashpoint meets these standards. My bet is you're running around, keeping up with everyone else (usually everyone is waiting on the MGer's to catch up, like in CM) and shooting everything that moves with quick easy bursts. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think you get the idea of what I'm saying.
-
I've added the enemy setup for TDG 1 and a couple more solutions for TDG 2, including my own.
A few comments on the solutions received so far. The enemy's obstacle plan seems to have fullfilled its mission of turning the allied attack. Two of the three solutions submitted decided to avoid attacking the town from the south and instead went with a long hail mary around the town's eastern flank. While this is, of course, a maneuverist's wet dream, I'm afraid it is too risky. For starters, the enemy armor counterattack could arrive at any minute. What German panzer commander wouldnt love to top a ridge to see a river valley full of halftracks and tanks, all of them with their flanks or rear exposed? The intel brief offered no hard intel on when the enemy would arrive or in what strength, so basing your entire plan on the assumption that they wont arrive for at least 10-15 turns is very risky. Also, any attack out of the wooded ridge line east of the town will probably incur relatively high casualties since the ground between the edge of the woods and the first buildings is actually pretty open and at least 300-400 meters wide. Quite a dash under fire. It would be much easier to get infantry to seize a foothold in the SE corner of the village.
Fox decided to go through a breach in the MWO but he chose a route next to the river (SW corner of town), which will put him attacking into the enemy's strength since they were originally oriented to the west, looking across the river.
I dont think any of you really put enough combat power into your AT defenses at bridge B. This is the best place to stop the counterattack (or at least hurt it real bad) but it gets minimal coverage in most of the plans.
I have more comments but since my Pizza is ready I gotta go. Please let me know what you think about my comments and the scenario as a whole. I would also be interested in letting someone else submit a scenario for our enjoyment, though I am already formulating TDG #3.
-
I think maybe the Target symbol is what is throwing you off, perhaps. The cross is what a Target symbol looks like, deceptively, a TRP uses the same symbol, its just a question of what they are used for. A purely artillery target is referred to as a Target. A direct fire reference point is referred to as a TRP. On a graphics overlay they are one and the same, just labeled slightly different (a grunt TRP will often be labeled rather simply as 1, 2 or 3 whereas an artillery target will often have two letters and four numbers for a label).
I think we're just stumbling over nomenclature. Those who dont deal with the operational graphics/terms on a daily basis often call artillery Targets TRP's. I was just pointing out that this is technically incorrect.
-
Well look at it this way. You want to shift fires 500 meters from a preplanned target. It takes time to do that. The call for fire has to be developed by the FO. The fires have to be cleared by higher in order to prevent friendly fire incidents. The call for fire has to be processed by the FDC. The new elevation and direction has to be figured and delivered to the guns. The guns have to shift. If the range is greatly increased, charges have to remade. All of this takes time, more then a minute for sure, so if the game puts constraints on arty reaction time for artilleery shifts then thats good. I will agree with you that having to fire those prescious rounds everytime just to shift fires is a pain in the butt. But I 'd rather have that then let my opponent have immediate, accurate fires anywhere on the map just because he has line of sight to the target and a TRP. It just doesnt work that way.
-
Taken from FM 6-20-20 Fire Support at the Battalion Task Force Level and Below
Page 1-27 Para. f.
Target Reference Point
A TRP is an easily recognizable point on the ground (either natural or man-made) used for identifying enemy targets or controlling fires. A TRP is usually designated by a company commander or platoon leaders for company team, platoon, section or individual weapons. It can also designate the center of an area where the commander plans to distribute or converge the fires of all of his weapons rapidly. A TRP is designated by using the standard target symbol and target number issued by the FIST or FSO. Once designated, a TRP also constitutes an indirect fire target.
The keys here being that it is originally designated as a direct fire weapons control measure and it is a spot on the ground (i.e. a chem light) that is readily visible to the eye rather then just a grid coordinate.
Actual artillery targets are referred to as:
1. Target of Opportunity
2. Planned Target
a. Scheduled Target (delivered at a specific time)
b. On-Call Target (usually guns sit on this target until called for or a mission with a higher priority is called)
c. Priority Target (takes prioity over all other calls for fire, usually only one per supported commander)
d. Final Protective Fire (linear sheaf fired until told to stop or the ammo runs out. Fired right in front of friendly positions in defense)
The kicker to all of this is that these are modern designations. A preplanned target in WWII may have very well been called a TRP.
-
I'll give an infantryman's perspective on this. Preplanned artillery targets (in the US Army anyway) are called Targets. TRP's are actually control measures used to control direct fire, for example we used IR chem lights to designate right and left limits for machinegunners. The one on the right would be a TRP and the one on the left would be a TRP. But I'm just being finicky. Back to artillery Targets or CM TRP's.
A preregistered target really isnt any different from a preplanned target except of course for the lack of a spotting round. You are correct you can still FFE as soon as the guns get lined up. But calling for fire using a preregistered target as a reference point still requires a spotting round procedure. Not because the gunners cant do the math, but in most cases because the spotter cant. Even on flat terrain it is very difficult to estimate direction and distance properly. Add in rolling terrain and enemy fire and it becomes a task even the most seasoned FO would find challenging. So a spotting round is usually necessary to make sure the spotter's call for fire is correct, rather then making sure the guns are lined up correctly. Make sense?
So those first few rounds that have to fall before adjusting even on a TRP in CM may simply be reflecting this.
-
Good thing to keep in mind may be that the majority of the german defenses in the town will still be oriented to the west... That is the direction from which the germans originally expected the attack and with only a understrength company, that german commander may be relying on the obstacle belt more then bullets for his flank security.
Just playing devils advocate... just think of me as that pissed company commander who figures the BC just sent you down to babysit.
-
Tankersley's TDG #2 solution is posted! Check it out!
Awefully risky Leland! Think you might be leaving your back door open, particularly if the Germs arrive before you think they will!
-
"I'm amused by people who think that if you are Axis and use submachine gun squads, you're "gamey". Well, consider this. The typical American platoon setup was to have the machinegun support the infanty. German doctrine was to have infantry support the machine gun. This means that Americans would have, say 40 guys for every machine gun. Germans would have about 5. So in reality, to NOT use submachine gun squads is gamey! Of course, this would suck if you happen to be playing as allies, but there you go. It's not anyone's fault here if the American Brass had their priorities misplaced."
Another "expert" cuts loose.
Frankly, I could care less if you like to use SMG squads. If you do that, and I realize it, I'll just stay about 150 meters from your squads as much as I can and watch them fall over like targets on the KD range. But I have some trouble with your reasoning. The ratio in American squads is actually about 6 to one when you consider the BAR which fulfilled the same role as the LMG in the German squads (squad automatic weapon). You also have to take into account that the Americans were the first to abandon the bolt action rifle for a MASS PRODUCED self loading rifle that greatly increased their firepower (pre war, by the way). Granted the BAR was a little past its hey-day, hence the move towards an attempt to turn the M1919 into a LMG (shoulder stock, pistol grip). But the squad tactics focusing on using firepower to suppress the enemy were there at the beginning. The idea that the riflemen supported the LMG is a misunderstanding, I believe. Yes, it was important to keep the guns firing, they were the squads real source for firepower and security. But you cant clear a building room by room with a MG42 (believe me, its hard enough to do with a M249 SAW). As a Platoon Leader, I often sacrificed manpower in my rifle squads to keep my MG's manned. But once I became ineffective at MANEUVER I became the company support element, and other platoons took over maneuver. I think if you really dug some you would find that the SMG squads were mostly designed for city fighting. It wasnt until the MP44 started replacing the K98 in significant numbers that you saw a great increase in the standard german rifle squads firepower.
-
I love these threads! They always give me a good idea of who NOT to accept PBEM games from.
I do find it rather ironic, though, that in The Capt's rant on grogs, whom he critisizes for discussing his manhood behind his back (since he apparently cant play and win historically), he actually manages to get rather offensive himself.
-
Ouch, you're right I knew I was forgetting something! I'll get it in there as soon as I can.
Ok its taken care of. Zip file is now complete. Thanks, Leland
[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 03-23-2001).]
-
Hey guys!
TDG number 2 is posted. www.geocities.com/fpd131
Check it out, dont be afraid. This one is bigger and better. Should be a real challenge.
-
Ok Mattias has plainly stated his position and has almost convinced me I dont need to stay in this any longer. I'm pretty much done arguing points with folks who's onoly reply to a suggestion or opinion is to lash out. I would like to know why the "glossy photos" of the western european front show skirts on a lot of german tanks when ATR's werent used by the vast majority of the allied armies there.
-
You know I dont really "know" the facts about the skirts, I was just wondering in my original post since I thought the skirts were kinda early precursers to todays reactive armor. In other words, dissipate some of the energy of the incoming round before it struck the main hull. And since most tof the skirts I've seen in photos from the era look very thin I just assumed it was there mainly as a defense against explosive charges that detonated when they impacted with something i.e. bazookas and piats. If MASS PRODUCED skirts predated the rocket launchers then perhaps they were developed to counter the ATR's. Though I'm not entirely convinced the ATR's were effective enough to warrant such a wide upgrading of armor.
Personaly if I had been a tank commander in WWII I would have welded on skirts and shelving, then stacked a couple rows of sandbags on the shelving. Sure I would have only managed a top speed of approx. 10 mph, but at least I wouldnt have had to worry about "death from a thousand needles!"
(For the uninitiated that last paragraph was written with dark sarcasm.)
-
Withdrawals are just like advances but in reverse. Same tactics apply. Suppress the enemy, move only when the bad guys heads are down. Attempt to use all available cover and concealment, smoke works great but chances are you used all of that in your failed attack.
Rule of thumb for when to withdraw? Depends on what kinda game you want to play. If you're just interested in winning then fight to the last man. Your enemy might be on his last legs too. More then likely he's about to run out of machinegun ammo so that might play into your hands. On the other side if you want to master realistic tactics then the above advice is good advice. Once you feel you can no longer make any gains without unacceptable losses you should withdraw. This is, of course, very arbitrary. Basically you have to decide for yourself what is acceptable. One of the things I really liked about the Close Combat series was that once the troops figured out you were trying to get them killed by fighting unsurmountable odds, they quit responding to your orders. CM does this too but not on a very realistic scale. A good rule of thumb is to decide in your planning process how many losses you want to take. Look at the scenario for hints at the objective's value in the "big picture." Is it worth 10% of your force? 25%? 50%? For QB's you kinda have to make that decision on your own, but then thats all part of the fun. In a lot of cases, ecspecially meeting engagements, you might actually be able to hurt the enemy more by withdrawing and enticing him to pursue you, abandoning that favorable position he was using to cream you with. Then by games end you may have actually racked up more kills then your opponent, giving you a draw or even a minor victory.
-
ATR Rifles = Early Death
When will the appeal of what looks "cool" or sounds "awesome" cease to be so attractive? ATR rifles are nothing more then a poor governments stop gap measure to deal with something it hadnt planned or researched enough in advance. Sounds an aweful lot like the US Army's 66mm LAW Rocket circa 1965-1980. A terrible weapon that couldn't penetrate WWII vintage armor and was wildly inaccurate, but hey, we sure did have alot of'em.
Yeah you can take out a vision block with an ATR rifle. Anybody know how easy it is to replace a vision block? Alot easier then replacing an entire Mk IV I'm sure. I'd like to know the survival rate on all these excellent sharpshooters. Even the Red Army's own doctrine says get as close as possible. Since German tanks operated in groups and with close infantry support, my bet is alot more ATR gunners bit the dirt then german vision blocks.
Also I thought the skirts were mainly a western european theater thing designed to deal with the allies Bazookas and Piats. The intent was to detonate the warhead before it hit the main armor plating or the road wheels. If the primary target for ATR's on the late war tanks were vision blocks and main gun barrels why bother with skirts that protected the sides and road wheels?
IMHO, ATR's rate up there with Kamikaze bomb dogs and remote contol AT drones, they sure look snazzy and sound "awesome" but get behind one with 30 tons of steel bearing down on you with two more metal behemoths just yards away and I think you'd sing a different tune. Then you'd stop singing and start dying.
-
Well since I'm not getting swamped with solutions and no one's burning up the forum with comments about the solutions posted so far, I'm going to go ahead and make my comments so we can move on to the next game.
Keep in mind guys, that there is no such thing as the perfect solution to a tactical problem. Friction on the battlefield will make every situation have a different outcome, no matter how many times you do it over.
I dont want to sound like I'm picking the "best" solution or ridiculing anyone's work. That is the furtherest thing from my true intentions. What I want to do is offer some observations and advice that will hopefully refine each contributors game play and in turn increase their playing proficiency and enjoyment. All of my observations will be based on what I have learned are the rules, principles and tenets of land warfare, rather then my own biases or opinions. But then no one's perfect, so if I fail to meet the intent here, allow me to apologize before hand.
That said lets look at the solutions.
First up, Leland's. Mr. Tankersly's solution was alot like the one I had. (I play all of the scenario's before posting them in order to hopefully avoid any huge Gameplay errors.) With a plan similiar to his I was able to force a german surrender within 15 turns with only 5 friendly KIA. But then it was against the AI and IMHO playing against the AI (even at +3) is like playing against a freshman ROTC student who just wants the army to pay for his college (in other words ridiculously simple).
But back to Leland's solution. The only comment I have deals with his supporting attack by his SBF element.
http://www.geocities.com/fpd131/scraps.html
I think by keeping his support and assault elements so far apart (the image only shows his support element and their supporting attack to seize a SBF position, the assault element is a few hundreds meters to the north of the road) I think Tankersley is violating the principles of security, mass and simplicity.
Security: by keeping his elements so far apart they cant support one another if one runs into trouble, mainly the support element, since it will conduct its attack first so that it can support the assault element's attack. If it were to run into serious trouble the assault element would be too far away to help. Also route 1 exposes the support element to unnecessary danger from objective zeppo.
Mass: for pretty much the same reason. Mass doesnt mean you have to keep all of your forces crammed together but they should be able to achieve mass by their ability to be mutually supporting.
Simplicity: The red lines I drew in the image above show my plan for the supporting element. As you can see its pretty simple and keeps them within easy supporting distance of the assault element. By going straight for Objective Zeppo you seize the key terrain right away and immediately gain the initiative. In my opinion seizing Objective Harpo is a waste of valuable time and assets and throws away the element of surprise.
Lets move on to Chris's solution.
Basically Chris went the other way with his plan, he kept the entire company together, planning to use bounding overwatch all the way to the objective. Though a plan that would surely work I'm afraid it would lead to unneccesary casualties for a number of reasons.
1. Too much mass. Keeping his entire company together makes it too susceptible to arty fires and a lucky tank or AC attack.
2. Limited support. Each time a SBF element halts and setups it will be limited in the amount of time it can suppress the objective and its "fan" or area it can suppress. Since the main body will be moving so close to the SBF position they will quickly become susceptible to friendly fire, forcin gthe SBF position to cease fire or shift their fires off portions of the objective if not the entire objective. SBF positions should always be placed at a 45* to 90* angle from the assault element's route. This way they can suppress the objective throughout the assault elements movement (this becomes very important during breaches and the seizing of footholds) plus once the attack begins they should be able to shift fires very slowly, keeping their fires just ahead of the assault element as they advance across the objective.
3. Lack of flexibility. By committing his entire company to one route and course of action, Chris severly restricts his options.
Last of all Dirtweasles plan. Dirt goes the other way in SBF positions. Take a look att this cutout.
http://www.geocities.com/fpd131/scraps.html
Weasles fist SBF position on the left (Objective I) is a good one except that the rest of his attack puts it in serious danger of sustaining more then a few casualties from friendly fire. This is an easy mistake to make when you're not used to seeing the effects of real bullets. They dont stop for much except concrete, solid earth, or gravity. And with the volume of fire that will be pouring out of his other SBF position and from his assaults on Objectives IV and V, friendly fire casualties on Objective I or III are a distinct possibility. Great maneuver plan, it just takes a little experience to see the little things. CM doesnt do a very good job of modeling friendly fire, probably because they didnt want to lose the arcade crowd. If it were properly modeled alot of guys would be paying more attention to these tutorials then whining about how much the grognards hate gamey players. But I digress.
Hope you guys enjoyed this one. I'll have another one (bigger and better) posted in a few days.
[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 03-20-2001).]
[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 03-20-2001).]
[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 03-20-2001).]
[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 03-20-2001).]
[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 03-20-2001).]
[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 03-20-2001).]
Tactical Decision Game
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
I've been rather busy with work, what free time I can devote to CM has been taken up by CMMC. I am however carrying around a heavy load of guilt for neglecting the website. I am almost finished with an Italian mountain TDG that I hope to have up this weekend, as well as the German setup for the last game.