Zizka

Whenever you're thinking about tank or weapon design issues (like 'why not stick an ATGM on a tank?'), remember some mundane issues: 1. Cost to retrofit the fleet. 2. Cost (time, money) to train tankers how to fire and maintain the TOW. 3. Cost to put TOW rounds in an armor battalion's basic load--more trucks, troops, money, etc. 4. Usually the biggest killer of ideas like this is the organizational issue: now the battalion will need folks to perform organizational maintenance, supply, etc. Where will these new soldiers come from in a zero-sum army?

With questions like these, it's important to remember to answer within the context of the COMBINED ARMS fight. If you imagine only a kinetic energy round flying toward a tank, the scenario looks grim for the tank. But remember that the tank is intended to fight as part of a team of infantry, armor, artillery, attack aviation, etc. And it's most effective when employed en masse against vulnerable targets. In this happier scenario, artillery is suppressing enemy ATGMs. Infantry is infiltrating and harassing the enemy with close-in antiarmor fires. And the tanks are overruning the enemy's command posts and logistics! Keep in mind also that enemy ATGMs don't just appear. They have to make it to the battlefield like any other system. They need supplies, trained and cohesive crews, and effective command and control. The combined arms fight looks to disrupt all of that BEFORE the KEM rounds start to fly. One other point. In the many real-world scenarios of peace operations, veterans will tell you that there is a world of difference between a jeep driving up to a hostile roadblock and a 70 ton tank. Part of the goodness of a tank is the terror it inspires. LTC Bob Leonhard

I've been in major trouble at home lately, because my wife keeps finding me on the family computer playing TACOPS. Now when she asks me, "Are you playing THAT GAME again?" I answer: "No honey, I swear! I'm having a cyber affair with another woman! Honest!" That usually calms her down. Anyway, my new favorite scenario is Fenwick--the one where you command an airmobile force that has to take down a terrorist camp. Way cool. I had to play it three times before I won. This type of scenario, in my opinion, shows that the simplicity of mission orders and Auftragstaktik sometimes doesn't work. To take down that installation, it requires detailed synchronization and precise timing and teamwork. I think I've cracked the code on the tactics, but if I were commanding on this mission for real, I'd keep a very tight rein. Basically, you have to use your infiltrators first as artillery observers to knock out the SA-16s. Then and only then can you execute joint air attacks (CAS and ATK AVN) on the BTRs. Once they are history, I smoke the hell out of the encampment and fly the Blackhawks right next to each objective--offload the infantry and storm the building. Meanwhile, the artillery and mortars are suppressing/destroying the heavy machine guns, and I let the snipers loose, too. I designate the targets for them, and I've found that they are incredibly effective. Then reload the bir-ds and move to the next building. I rely on the AT Hummers and Javelins to slow the MRB when it comes, and the Apaches usually end up fighting the remnants to a standstill while the Blackhawks evacuate everyone at the end. Anyway--great scenario! My palms were sweating.

How 'bout morale rules? I'd love to see Blue and Red units hesitate, rout, surrender, etc. Gives the player more to worry about and will stimulate pursuits, etc. Also, HQ units could rally.

Agree with all the above. This gal needs horse-whipped. I recommend she take some history courses to discover what life is all about. As TJ Jackson reminded us: "A man's entire duty is to pray and fight." I infer from her idiotic comment that she considers real war to be immoral too? If I were you, I'd ignore her completely. Unless she's good-looking. Then I'd try to convince her that I'm a pacifist. By the way, what is HER favorite game?

As a result of this discussion, I played Peterjohn for the first time yesterday. I took a slightly different approach. I put one tank company on the high ground southeast of the town, ordered the mech company to the small hill in the middle, and kept the other two tank companies near the town. As the battle unfolded, two technological advantages for the US became clear: the OPFOR had no thermal sights, and they had no ICM (or at least didn't fire any). As Stoffel noted, this first issue makes it easy for the Blue Force to shoot with impunity, and the lack of ICM makes Red artillery virtually useless. Strangely, the OPFOR never fired their MRL at me. The OPFOR charged with tanks and BMPs across the whole wadi. My tank company on the high ground kept the OPFOR from there. The OPFOR, however, eventually overran the mech by the central hill. (In retrospect, I probably could have won without putting them there.) The enemy never got close to the town, and I ended the game with a counterattack to clean up the remnants of OPFOR. They had 100% casualties by game's end, and I had 35% (due mainly to the mauling of the mech company.) Fun scenario.

Trooper-- The Major is right on target. Specifically, I teach my cadets to develop two products: a doctrinal template and a situational template. The first one is simply a graphic layout of "how an MRR attacks" for example. The situational template then takes that doctrinal template and makes it specific to the actual terrain and mission. A good situational template (SITEMP) becomes the basis for the reconnaissance and surveillance plan. Basically, the scouts go out and "confirm or deny" the template. The SITEMP is also the starting point for a good concept of operation. What's cool about playing an attack scenario in TACOPS is that the cadets can derive a SITEMP showing how they think the enemy is defending. Then, I turn off the fog of war and compare the template with reality. A real eye-opener.

Major H-- Colonel John Antal is a close friend of mine, and he invited me to speak to his officers and NCOs a few weeks ago. While I was there, he told me about the whole project, and I applauded! A great move forward for the Army, and John is the perfect guy to make it happen. I don't know a more innovative or enthusiastic trainer than he. I definitely want to participate when the contract is let. Tomorrow morning I will be using TACOPS to teach enemy templating in the morning, and concept of operation in the afternoon. Hooah! Bob

Trooper--For the moment I have to pass on an email game (regretably!) because for the next month and a half, we are hard at it. Two FTXs and a bunch of other projects going on, but I will definitely take you up on it as we get closer to Christmas. I remember playing an email game a few years ago. I got HAMMERED! Much harder than playing against the computer AI! Bob

I just pulled up some of the AARs and I'm making my way through them. I want to incorporate this kind of stuff into my training of Army ROTC cadets. This semester, we are playing Gallagher, with the cadets playing the BLUFOR and the computer playing OPFOR. I use TACOPS to teach terrain analysis and templating, and then I task the cadets to write the OPORD and play the game. The battalion commander and staff work in a TOC with paper maps, while the company commanders play the game, sending reports via radio. Two things strike me about the game. First, I wish there were some actual no-go terrain. In real life, tanks and Bradleys can't usually go through woods, etc. Secondly, I find myself using mostly ambush tactics on the defense, rather than building big, mass engagement areas as we do in real life. Maybe this second problem relates to the first, because I've found it's hard to turn the enemy into your engagement areas when they can literally go anywhere on the map. Nevertheless, I still LOVE the game and use it religiously with my cadets. I agree with you about that north-south road near the west edge of the map. That's where I place my tank reserve when I use one. I will definitely play with your restrictions about the east edge in the future, because although it's a hoot to ambust the bad guys, it does seem unrealistic. Bob

James-- Thanks for the response and kind comment. My "standard play" for Gallagher violates your suggested limitations. I might try your idea. Usually, I put two mech companies aggressively forward, along with scouts, and these forces normally destroy the first MRB and most of the second before getting attrited. Artillery is a huge killer during this phase, and by the end of it, I'm begging for more ICM. I put my main effort tank company in the highlands just west of the central valley, and I usually put the other tank company to the far west of the map in reserve, with the mission to flex north or south to intercept any OPFOR that escape westward. But lately I've found that I end up accomplishing the mission before either of my two tank companies get into the fight! So I decided to move my "reserve" company forward instead and had them join the Bradleys. I found one sweet little ambush spot for my tanks that resulted in the destruction of two + MRCs, but the tanks were mostly destroyed. I have a hard time making good use of the tanks, because if they get into fire fights, they die in droves to ATGMs or get trounced by ICM. If they try to move and overrun weak targets, there's always a hidden BMP around somewhere ready to pick them off. I also have abandoned the idea of using aircraft until/unless the OPFOR penetrate to the far western part of the map, because I have not yet developed effective SEAD tactics, and those SA-16s always slaughter my jets. Again, thanks for the response! Bob

I LOVE TACOPS! My favorite scenario is Gallagher--the big tank/mech task force defense. My question is: how do most of you do when you solitaire against the computer on this scenario? I think I do okay, but I wonder if others are doing considerably better? In the last game I played, I defeated the enemy with 43% US casualties (enemy had 77% at game end), with about 50 minutes to go, and the enemy had only advanced about 1/3 of the way across the board.