Carter

I have a short list of tactics that involve "Maneuvering the enemy" - Hounds-to-the-Hunters - Bait-and-Switch - Decoy-Attacks or "demonstrations" - Feints - Defensive Decoys

The best ambush I ever did in TacOps was the most obvious one: -Your units have thermal imagers -OPFOR doesn't have thermal imagers -Lay down a nice thick smoke screen (I prefer to drop the smoke on my position) Then sit back and enjoy the show. You can see and shoot them, while they die. Don't forget to keep up the smoke screen. Your units might run out of ammo eventually, but there's always resupply.

I thought you had a good comment Missionman. I'm definitly thinking about trying your idea out against the computer. I welcome any ideas, for use against the AI or human vs human.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: I found that maneuvering units to show them to the opponent (as opposed to strike again him) can be a very useful tool in setting action and reaction patterns on your terms, especially on defense. I wonder whether tactics along this line have been used in real life. Any ideas?<hr></blockquote> I know that Rommel used this tactic in North Africa. One time he simulated a major assault from one direction, causing the British to retreat away from the decoy attack ... straight into the real attack Rommel had planned.

Black Hawk Down is supposed to be in wide release on January 18th. More info is available at http://us.imdb.com/ The book was awesome. I can't wait to see the movie.

One time the AI maneuvered me. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but it worked. I had a tank hiding in the woods waiting to take a shot at an enemy company that was closing in. I got a shot or two off at the company, then kicked into reverse. I thought my tank had gotten away when an OPFOR jet appeared and destroyed my tank. It was kinda like a Hounds-to-the-hunters tactic. I decided to use a big artillery smokescreen whenever I could to prevent this. Some air defense would have been helpful to, but I didn't have any in that scenario.

One example of Maneuvering the Enemy that should be useful in TACOPS was performed by Daniel Bolger when he was a company commander visiting the NTC. His company was dug in and hidden along an obvious enemy avenue-of-approach. He patiently let the OPFOR recon units pass by his concealed positions without firing on them. The OPFOR recon units came and went and assumed that that avenue-of-approach was undefended. Later, when the main OPFOR assault moved into that same position, which they thought was a defensive hole, they were very surprised and almost completely destroyed. You could use this in TACOPS. Against the AI, I think you should hit all the recon units. But let the unit moving where you want the enemy to go penetrate the furthest. Hopefully the follow-on units will attack the area where the penetration was the deepest. If you've planned things out right, that will be the area where you are waiting for them. I guess you've got to remain flexible, so that you can handle things if the plan doesn't work. But this is a way to exploit OPFOR tactics. The key is knowing the enemy, and then figuring out a way to exploit your knowledge of the enemy. [ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Carter ]</p>

I read an old article from Armor Magazine that I couldn't get out of my mind. The article was called "Maneuvering the Enemy" by Captain Charles D. Starbird. It is located at: http://www.knox.army.mil/armormag/mj96/3enemy96.pdf The article discusses ways to influence the enemy's maneuvering. This is touted as a quality found in great commanders. I would have to agree. Manipulating the enemy to fall right into your hands is pure genius! It's easy to see how "Maneuvering the Enemy" would be very useful on the battlefield or against human opponents in TACOPS. Unfortunately I couldn't find any good references dedicated to the subject. Does anybody know of a good one? Would anyone care to discuss their experience "Maneuvering the Enemy" or being "Maneuvered by the Enemy" in TACOPS or real-life?

Good info Jeff. It was very informative. The other day I found an great article called "The Justice of War". It argues a similar point, minus the historical perspective. It is located at: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/pubs/pstephens_justice_war.asp I especially like the quote from it that states: "If some 'pacifist' society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it."

Interesting topic. Unfortunately I don't know of any sources. I tell you what I know: I suppose that stimulants, sleeping pills, and pain relievers have military use. I've heard that hashish has been used since the time of the ancient middle-eastern "assassins" group. This may not be true. I've heard that Somali gunmen chewed khat all day long, but I can't imagine the drug was really performance enhancing. [ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Carter ]

Infantry spotters are helpful. They can provide constant observation of the enemy. I have played with some on occation. There is some advice on gunship tactics in the following two posts: -Apaches 5-8-2000 -Tac Ops 1-5-2000 Pop up attacks, and hitting the enemy in-mass at long range help. I lose a number of gunships in Kincaid, but my main trouble is running out of ammo. You can add target reference points to help with the MLRS accuracy. I like regular artillery because you can use smoke. The smoke really interferes with enemy SAMs. [ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: Carter ]

I was reading that in Desert Storm, during the a major battle with the Republican Guard, that Apaches and their scouts were used to attack enemy artillery, command posts, logistic trains, and reinforcements that were well behind the lines. This seems to be an intelligent use of the helo's mobility in an offensive role. The article I read is here: http://www.mideasti.org/articles/bourque.html

I've played against the 2S6 in TACOPS 3. Its definitly a top priority target. After I spot one, I hit the area hard with ICM. Since the 2S6 has only light armor, accurate fire will destroy it quickly. Other options are prioritizing my helo fire, or I suppress the 2S6 with HE before hitting it with an air-strike.

Maybe this is a silly idea, but I thought I would share it. I've customized several scenarios in TACOPS, replacing all my start units with an equivalent "lethality value" of gunships. Basically I take away all my infantry and vehicles and replace them with a few gunships (I prefer Apaches, they're 400 points each). This changes battles significantly. For me it was kind of fun and challenging. Using gunships on the offense, especially in cities, got pretty hairy. But that's part of the fun. I'm not sure how realistic using all gunships is, but I know that there are some pure gunship scenarios already (like Task Force Kincaid). Anyway I thought I would share this and I welcome any other ideas for customizing scenarios.

Abrams engines are being replaced with a new gas turbine, not a diesel. But I have heard that a diesel engine for the Abrams is being offered for export.

Just to clarify about what I meant by tumbling . . . The tumbling I was speaking of is a yaw that occurs on the bullet after the bullet strikes it's "target" Often a bullet will begin to turn as it passes through flesh. If the bullet stays together it will probably turn 180 degrees, exiting the "target" back-end first. This can be seen in Figure 7: http://www.vnh.org/EWSurg/Figures/Fig07.html This turning increases the size of the temporary and permanent wound cavities.

Okay, First, I believe the 7.62 mm NATO is more deadly than the 5.56 mm. Yes, wound placement is the most important factor. If the brain or upper spinal cord is hit, the wound can cause death or instantaneous incapacitation. If the heart or major blood vessels are hit, the wound can make somebody bleed to death. But they will not die instantaneously. It will take a minimum of 10 to 15 seconds to lose consiousness. If the fragile tissue of the brain or liver is affected by the temporary cavity of a bullet wound, the results can be fatal. Otherwise the temporary cavity is largely irrelevant. However wound placement is often a difficult factor to control. Yes, the 5.56 mm is more accurate on rapid fire at short range than the 7.62 mm. But the 7.62 mm is more accurate at long range. And most 7.62 mm weapons are mounted anyway. You can carry more 5.56 mm rounds, so maybe the 5.56 mm has an advantage as far as wound placement. The infantryman has got more shots, that are more accurate at short range. But as far as the actual wound, the 7.62 mm NATO looks like it is quite nasty. Just look at that Figure 11 I mentioned before. The proof is there in black and white. The problem of overpenetration is exagerated. The websites I listed say that a minimum of 12 inchs of (flesh) pentration is desirable. Obsticles, flak jackets, and clothing will slow a bullet down. You've got to penetrate to hit something vital, So in combat, you want a lot of penetration. You also want a big permanent cavity. The 7.62 mm NATO is a big, high energy round. It penetrates and leaves a big permanent cavity. AP rounds and the 7.62 mm Short do have terminal effect problems. They get penetration, but mostly pass right through a "target", often leaving the "target" with a wound that looks more like a pistol wound. The soft point 7.62 mm NATO fragements, and the 7.62 mm FMJ tumbles inside a "target", Enhancing the wound effects. Particularly the deadly permanent-cavity wounding effects. To me, the 7.62 mm NATO soft point looks like an ideal anti-personnel round. A shotgun wound also looks quite deadly. The 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm NATO FMJ look second best as far as permanent cavity. The 7.62 mm Short has penetration, but usually a small permanent cavity because it begins to tumble late. The 5.45 mm has penetration and a smallish permanent cavity. A large temporary cavity increases its potential over the 7.62 mm Short because this makes the brain and liver more vulnerable. But, from what I've seen I'd take the 5.56 mm or 7.62 mm NATO over the 5.45 mm any day.

SeaRich, I was curious which side you played on TF PeterJohn? I've only played PeterJohn vs. the computer. The scenario is very interesting. I've read so much on Desert Storm that its cool to actually play a Desert Storm battle that might have happened.

I think the 7.62 mm NATO is quite deadly. Look at the figure for the 7.62 mm soft-point (Figure 11). In the description of the 7.62 mm soft-point it says "although shooting accidents are not infrequent with such rounds, they are rarely seen in the hospital since few victims of torso shots survive." ------------ Additional ballistics information, including more figures can found at: http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

I found an interesting web site dealing with the wounds of various bullets. http://www.vnh.org/EWSurg/ch02/02Projectiles.html The 5.56 mm, 7.62 mm Short, and 7.62 mm NATO are listed. The results are interesting. The 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm NATO both look like they are very effective against personnel, but the 7.62 mm does have better penetration. The Soviet stuff doesn't seem to measure up.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ignus: Anybody feel the same way as I? Where are all the TacOps people?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I really like the game and the pdf manuals. TacOps is my favorite game, and pdf manuals are very easy for me to use. I have shown the demo to a lot of friends and family. Those who are into strategy games liked it, but it's very complex for people who aren't familure with the modern military. A lot of people don't know what all the units are. They don't know anything about real military tactics. Plus combat is extremely lethal, and doesn't allow a lot of room for error. In addition, the controls are pretty sophisticated. Others were a little put off by the simple graphics. Maybe that's a little shallow, but some people want eye-candy. I like the realism of TacOps. Before TacOps, I was disappointed by a lot of the computer games on the market because they are so silly. I'm facinated with real military tactics, I don't mind sophistication, and I think the game interface is very effective even with simple graphics.

My idea to solve the problem is just making the maps bigger. This way all units would start out on the map. They couldn't be ambushed a few at a time as they entered the map. Plus their air defense would come into play more realistically. I think that would make things more realistic. Plus units wouldn't just appear on the map's edge, waiting for orders. As things are now, my units seem to bunch up after appearing on the map, making them even more vulnerable. This also makes it really annoying to issue orders.

SFC Matrix, Not sure if you were responding to me, elementalwarre or both of us? I've definitely never been in combat and like I say, wouldn't want to tell professional warriors how to do their job. But I am curious about your experience in Somalia. I'd be fascinated to hear anything that you would like to talk about.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by elementalwarre: i strongly disagree for most low-intensity conflicts (LIC). LIC fighting is frequently around friendly or neutral civilians -and soldiers-. achieving the intended goal while fighting under those conditions means being -very- careful about where bullets go. that's anything -but- no holds barred<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent point. "friendly or neutral civilians -and soldiers-" are an important consideration.

minmax, My intent was mostly arguing politics. I'd be an idiot to tell professional warriors how to do their job. As far as the "right to life" and combat, a corollary of the right to life is self-defense. If you have the right to life, then surely you have the right to defend it. War is a kill or be killed situation. Therefore I would say it is only self-defense to kill the enemy before the enemy gets the chance to kill you. How that is done is best left up to the professionals. I don't think that an ambush would be immoral. The enemy would do the same thing. You're both out to kill eachother, by just about any means available. And I think it is well known that prisoners can give away your position or otherwise put friendly troops in danger. This reminds me of the scene in U-571 where the enemy captain is taken prisoner, then later gives away the position of the captured submarine to the enemy, endangering everyone onboard. So I could even understand an argument to "take no prisoners". Modern war is pretty much no holds barred. I could see that it would be very dangerous if you stopped to think about morality on the battlefield. Like I say, I was mostly arguing politics.