IICptMillerII

Another writeup for those of you who can pry yourselves from the Ukraine thread. This time, the topic is mission planning, specifically how to do it in relation to Combat Mission scenarios. 
The basic idea is:
Planning Framework for Combat Mission
The workflow for planning how to play a scenario in Combat Mission can be broken into four parts and are done in order. They are:
     1.      Receive OPORD/WARNO/FRAGO
     2.      METT-TC
     3.      OKOCA
     4.      Enemy Course of Action (ECOA)
Read along for the full breakdown and explanation! https://millerswargamingvault.blogspot.com/2022/06/introduction-planning-is-critical-to.html 
Feel free to discuss. Just remember that this is a very complicated subject if you decide to get really into the details. There are entire doctrinal publications covering each one of these topics. This is a more general overview meant to be easily digestible in a single sitting, as as such some nuance is lost.
Fair warning for my fellow rock bangers, there are no pictures in this entry besides the cover image.

Another writeup for those of you who can pry yourselves from the Ukraine thread. This time, the topic is mission planning, specifically how to do it in relation to Combat Mission scenarios. 
The basic idea is:
Planning Framework for Combat Mission
The workflow for planning how to play a scenario in Combat Mission can be broken into four parts and are done in order. They are:
     1.      Receive OPORD/WARNO/FRAGO
     2.      METT-TC
     3.      OKOCA
     4.      Enemy Course of Action (ECOA)
Read along for the full breakdown and explanation! https://millerswargamingvault.blogspot.com/2022/06/introduction-planning-is-critical-to.html 
Feel free to discuss. Just remember that this is a very complicated subject if you decide to get really into the details. There are entire doctrinal publications covering each one of these topics. This is a more general overview meant to be easily digestible in a single sitting, as as such some nuance is lost.
Fair warning for my fellow rock bangers, there are no pictures in this entry besides the cover image.

Another writeup for those of you who can pry yourselves from the Ukraine thread. This time, the topic is mission planning, specifically how to do it in relation to Combat Mission scenarios. 
The basic idea is:
Planning Framework for Combat Mission
The workflow for planning how to play a scenario in Combat Mission can be broken into four parts and are done in order. They are:
     1.      Receive OPORD/WARNO/FRAGO
     2.      METT-TC
     3.      OKOCA
     4.      Enemy Course of Action (ECOA)
Read along for the full breakdown and explanation! https://millerswargamingvault.blogspot.com/2022/06/introduction-planning-is-critical-to.html 
Feel free to discuss. Just remember that this is a very complicated subject if you decide to get really into the details. There are entire doctrinal publications covering each one of these topics. This is a more general overview meant to be easily digestible in a single sitting, as as such some nuance is lost.
Fair warning for my fellow rock bangers, there are no pictures in this entry besides the cover image.

My good man @SergeantSqook was joking, but yes you are correct. 

Another writeup for those of you who can pry yourselves from the Ukraine thread. This time, the topic is mission planning, specifically how to do it in relation to Combat Mission scenarios. 
The basic idea is:
Planning Framework for Combat Mission
The workflow for planning how to play a scenario in Combat Mission can be broken into four parts and are done in order. They are:
     1.      Receive OPORD/WARNO/FRAGO
     2.      METT-TC
     3.      OKOCA
     4.      Enemy Course of Action (ECOA)
Read along for the full breakdown and explanation! https://millerswargamingvault.blogspot.com/2022/06/introduction-planning-is-critical-to.html 
Feel free to discuss. Just remember that this is a very complicated subject if you decide to get really into the details. There are entire doctrinal publications covering each one of these topics. This is a more general overview meant to be easily digestible in a single sitting, as as such some nuance is lost.
Fair warning for my fellow rock bangers, there are no pictures in this entry besides the cover image.

Another writeup for those of you who can pry yourselves from the Ukraine thread. This time, the topic is mission planning, specifically how to do it in relation to Combat Mission scenarios. 
The basic idea is:
Planning Framework for Combat Mission
The workflow for planning how to play a scenario in Combat Mission can be broken into four parts and are done in order. They are:
     1.      Receive OPORD/WARNO/FRAGO
     2.      METT-TC
     3.      OKOCA
     4.      Enemy Course of Action (ECOA)
Read along for the full breakdown and explanation! https://millerswargamingvault.blogspot.com/2022/06/introduction-planning-is-critical-to.html 
Feel free to discuss. Just remember that this is a very complicated subject if you decide to get really into the details. There are entire doctrinal publications covering each one of these topics. This is a more general overview meant to be easily digestible in a single sitting, as as such some nuance is lost.
Fair warning for my fellow rock bangers, there are no pictures in this entry besides the cover image.

Another writeup for those of you who can pry yourselves from the Ukraine thread. This time, the topic is mission planning, specifically how to do it in relation to Combat Mission scenarios. 
The basic idea is:
Planning Framework for Combat Mission
The workflow for planning how to play a scenario in Combat Mission can be broken into four parts and are done in order. They are:
     1.      Receive OPORD/WARNO/FRAGO
     2.      METT-TC
     3.      OKOCA
     4.      Enemy Course of Action (ECOA)
Read along for the full breakdown and explanation! https://millerswargamingvault.blogspot.com/2022/06/introduction-planning-is-critical-to.html 
Feel free to discuss. Just remember that this is a very complicated subject if you decide to get really into the details. There are entire doctrinal publications covering each one of these topics. This is a more general overview meant to be easily digestible in a single sitting, as as such some nuance is lost.
Fair warning for my fellow rock bangers, there are no pictures in this entry besides the cover image.

Another writeup for those of you who can pry yourselves from the Ukraine thread. This time, the topic is mission planning, specifically how to do it in relation to Combat Mission scenarios. 
The basic idea is:
Planning Framework for Combat Mission
The workflow for planning how to play a scenario in Combat Mission can be broken into four parts and are done in order. They are:
     1.      Receive OPORD/WARNO/FRAGO
     2.      METT-TC
     3.      OKOCA
     4.      Enemy Course of Action (ECOA)
Read along for the full breakdown and explanation! https://millerswargamingvault.blogspot.com/2022/06/introduction-planning-is-critical-to.html 
Feel free to discuss. Just remember that this is a very complicated subject if you decide to get really into the details. There are entire doctrinal publications covering each one of these topics. This is a more general overview meant to be easily digestible in a single sitting, as as such some nuance is lost.
Fair warning for my fellow rock bangers, there are no pictures in this entry besides the cover image.

Another writeup for those of you who can pry yourselves from the Ukraine thread. This time, the topic is mission planning, specifically how to do it in relation to Combat Mission scenarios. 
The basic idea is:
Planning Framework for Combat Mission
The workflow for planning how to play a scenario in Combat Mission can be broken into four parts and are done in order. They are:
     1.      Receive OPORD/WARNO/FRAGO
     2.      METT-TC
     3.      OKOCA
     4.      Enemy Course of Action (ECOA)
Read along for the full breakdown and explanation! https://millerswargamingvault.blogspot.com/2022/06/introduction-planning-is-critical-to.html 
Feel free to discuss. Just remember that this is a very complicated subject if you decide to get really into the details. There are entire doctrinal publications covering each one of these topics. This is a more general overview meant to be easily digestible in a single sitting, as as such some nuance is lost.
Fair warning for my fellow rock bangers, there are no pictures in this entry besides the cover image.

Another writeup for those of you who can pry yourselves from the Ukraine thread. This time, the topic is mission planning, specifically how to do it in relation to Combat Mission scenarios. 
The basic idea is:
Planning Framework for Combat Mission
The workflow for planning how to play a scenario in Combat Mission can be broken into four parts and are done in order. They are:
     1.      Receive OPORD/WARNO/FRAGO
     2.      METT-TC
     3.      OKOCA
     4.      Enemy Course of Action (ECOA)
Read along for the full breakdown and explanation! https://millerswargamingvault.blogspot.com/2022/06/introduction-planning-is-critical-to.html 
Feel free to discuss. Just remember that this is a very complicated subject if you decide to get really into the details. There are entire doctrinal publications covering each one of these topics. This is a more general overview meant to be easily digestible in a single sitting, as as such some nuance is lost.
Fair warning for my fellow rock bangers, there are no pictures in this entry besides the cover image.

Yo that's crazy but how does it relate to Ukraine

Another writeup for those of you who can pry yourselves from the Ukraine thread. This time, the topic is mission planning, specifically how to do it in relation to Combat Mission scenarios. 
The basic idea is:
Planning Framework for Combat Mission
The workflow for planning how to play a scenario in Combat Mission can be broken into four parts and are done in order. They are:
     1.      Receive OPORD/WARNO/FRAGO
     2.      METT-TC
     3.      OKOCA
     4.      Enemy Course of Action (ECOA)
Read along for the full breakdown and explanation! https://millerswargamingvault.blogspot.com/2022/06/introduction-planning-is-critical-to.html 
Feel free to discuss. Just remember that this is a very complicated subject if you decide to get really into the details. There are entire doctrinal publications covering each one of these topics. This is a more general overview meant to be easily digestible in a single sitting, as as such some nuance is lost.
Fair warning for my fellow rock bangers, there are no pictures in this entry besides the cover image.

@Rinaldi, at least they gave you a bit of a challenge this time. Your stuff is easy to read and your graphics are perfect.
Well done.

Both highly recommended reads, that have graced my book shelf for quite some time.

I think there's some criticism to be made, with hindsight, of some of Bolger's sources, but the book is a product of its time and he worked with what he had to hand. As a resource for future map makers and scenario designers though it's a goldmine, I agree. 
Now, without further ado...
 
Chapter 1.2: Pursuit, Interrupted
 
16th October, 1300 hours
It had taken much longer than Wren was happy with for the order to resume the advance to be given. Problems had developed at the Brigade level, with the neighbouring task force reporting extremely heavy resistance as they conducted their own movements to contact. The hold order, Wren found out, was born out of a worry that the spread-out companies of his own TF would get defeated in detail or hit in the flank by the enemy’s reserves, which had clearly not been needed elsewhere.
So, both B Team and the surviving OPFOR bided their time and licked their wounds. All was not still, though: violence had occasionally punctuated the time since his morning’s fight had ended. Mortars, and the odd machinegun burst had kept both sides’ security elements discomfited, and had equally frustrated the infantry’s attempts to dig any type of scrape in the rocky desert floor.
Wren had hoped he could make the most of the late morning to reconstitute and rearm his forces. No such luck, however. The Battalion trains had been incredibly overstretched between the widely separate teams and canalized geography. The Battalion XO had managed to push forward much needed fuel to his tracks and tanks, and even hot food for the men. Nothing further was forthcoming. The TOWs, already low on ammunition, would have to make do with what they had. He was likewise running low on Dragon missiles in his rifle platoons.
Worse still, his tank platoon was still down to only three effective tanks. With no crew casualty replacements, the stricken tank was too undermanned to be worth a damn, and he had sent the disappointed crew back to Battalion. The Platoon leader’s gun would require legitimate maintenance, and he was effectively a machinegun bunker. Command devolved to SFC Rosenberger, the tank platoon NCO. Vehicular woes did not end there, two M113s had broken down (little surprise, given the state they were in when his unit collected them) late in the morning, and they were still in no condition to fight by H-hour.
Nevertheless, word had come down at 1100: B Company Team was to pursue and destroy surviving enemy in vicinity North of Brown Pass. The rest of the tank platoons were being returned to the control of their parent company and would follow and support Wren’s efforts. It had now become a Battalion-level affair, to a degree. H-hour had been set to 1300 hours. He had been warned by the TF’s S-2 to expect the enemy to redouble their effort with the injection of more combat power in his AO, likely armour. The time had come.

The plan was simple: Hug the same key terrain he had anchored his company on earlier that morning and attempt to continue that right-wheeling attack his unit had been completing when the stop order arrived. He integrated an air and artillery interdiction effort, once again, into the scheme; making the most of his trip back to TOC to liaise with combat-aviation and the Battalion FIST. Fires would land, and Cobras would prowl about on the likely axis of advance for any reinforcing enemy armour. Wren did not feel fully satisfied with the plan: it was predictable and merely a repetition of the morning’s efforts, but it was what he could do with the little time (and resources) he had. It would have to do.
B Company team had assembled once again in the small bowl that denoted the exit from Brown Pass. Just like that morning, the lip of the bowl provided an excellent battle position and location from which to provide cover. Sure enough, as soon as the lead vehicles creeped into a hull-down position to establish such positions, they reported and destroyed a lone BMP. The assaulting forces snake forward even as this occurs.


Something's up...and something's wrong.
The SBF and the point elements all report the same thing: enemy dismounts retreating from PL Chariots towards PL Stripes. Why fall back now? Wren ponders.
Whatever the OPFOR have planned, for now, Wren doesn't interrupt his own. It only takes a few minutes for 2LT Bunting to report his dismounts and Rosenberger's tank section, in position. They will form the anchor on the mountainous left flank. The infantry, established on the cliffs, have set up OPs/LPs and anti-tank blocking positions. The tanks take an attack-by-fire position at the base of this same terrain and begin coaxing the enemy infantry earlier seen falling back.


All is soon revealed when the SFC reports that he has contact with enemy armour, in about company strength, approaching from the north.
A flurry of code words are fired over the net, signalling the pre-arranged artillery and combat aviation missions. Cobras, loitering to the west, swiftly respond and take firing positions. Artillery confirms fire for effect with cluster munitions. The intention is to give the OPFOR armour a hot reception. Too hot of one.
It doesn’t quite go as planned. The flight leader of the pair of helicopters reports coming under heavy fire and cancels his engagement after only a single clear-cut kill. They must evade swiftly, practically bouncing off the desert floor to break radar lock and line of sight. Having anticipated more of the same from this morning, the OPFOR commanders had attached a “Shilka” – an anti-air gun tractor – to the relief force.

The vehicle spits out fire like a dragon, breaking up the Cobras’ attack without much effort. Rosenberger announces he is beginning a direct fire engagement, but two tanks M60s fighting off an entire armoured company is long odds by any measurement.
Then the artillery weighs in. The T-72s boldly surge through it and are out of the danger zone quickly. Wren and his FO scramble to begin shifting the fire. 

Having emerged from the maelstrom, the T-72s open fire. It is only the combination of excellent hull-down positions and frequent jockeying that spare Rosenberger, his wingman, and the supporting positions from being removed from the fight immediately.

Things, to put it mildly, were not looking hot. CPT Wren knew he had lost control of the battle. There was little he could do now: he had played his cards, and the OPFOR hadn’t even looked at them. A direct-fire engagement was roaring across the entire length of the desert and all the infantry and their carriers could do was find some cover. The Sioux were closing in, whooping and hollering, and all his command could do was return fire, as best they could, and await the Cavalry.
Return fire they did. B Company’s heavy-hitters were stationary and in good cover, whereas the enemy was in the open and on the move. Speed protected the OPFOR to a degree, but they would need to halt, or slow their rate of advance, to give accurate return fire. Despite the mounting pressure on their battle position, Rosenberger’s wingman puts a T-72 down. Then, the TOWs secure two kills themselves, exhausting the remaining ammo on these vehicles. 

The fierce defensive fire buys precious minutes. Under heavy fire and mounting losses, the OPFOR Tank Company leader issues brisk orders to begin advancing more cautiously. What was once a surging wave becomes a series of aggressive bounds. Fire becomes much more accurate, as a result, and Rosenberger’s luck finally runs out. In swift succession, his tank, then his wingman’s, are destroyed. One burns fiercely, its entire crew killed.

With the tanks duelling at extreme range, Wren finally feels secure enough to attempt to get back into the fight. OPFOR dismounts were still attempting to filter back to safety, and he reintroduces himself to the battle by ordering the M113s from Bunting’s platoon to move forward and engage them. They put down heavy enfilading fire, and the hapless enemy fall steadily to the thumping fire. Bunting’s M60s can reach out at this extended range, albeit less effectively, to add to this fire.
Reports confirm that about 5 OPFOR T-72s are still operational. Slowly wrestling the initiative back from the enemy, Wren begins coordinating with his supporting assets a renewed joint-fires effort on the now stalled-out enemy. Ten minutes. Ten minutes until these assets could be guided onto target. Realising that the enemy ADA was still out there and exposed, Wren tells his counterpart to prioritize the Shilka. He gets an affirmative response from the tank leader.


“This is Tango 26. Roger Bravo 26, we’re going to go for that ADA. Wait one.”
The imposing line jockey forward and backwards over the next couple minutes, again duelling with the T-72s, as they search out for the high value target. A SSG on the third engagement spots the Shilka, and in a remarkable feat of gunnery, guides his gunner on for a kill.

“Tango 26 send to Bravo 26: tell the birds they’re in business. Out.”
CPT Wren, and the surviving elements of the company team, had at last found their equilibrium. A plan had formed in his mind, clear and apparent, and involving all elements. Risking excessive radio communications, he runs it past the Tank Company leader. The aggressive-minded cavalryman agrees without much hesitation.
He issues his orders: 1st and 2nd Platoon’s Dragons to work forward on the high ground and engage T-72s on the left flank of PL STRIPES, Renfro (and the sole combat effective tank) to take his platoon and carriers to mop up the enemy dismounts, all the while the Tank Company surged forward in bounds towards STRIPES. Mortars would support Renfro, air and artillery the tank company. It was just similar enough to the original scheme that the pivot could be done quickly and without confusion, but unlike the original plan, it properly involved the tank company.
The Dragon gunners get moving, hustling to be in position before the air and artillery signal the start of the attack. Soon they are putting fire down on a pair of T-72s hidden from the Tank Company’s sight. They report no penetrations, but the heavy hits undoubtedly effect, to a serious degree, the enemy armour’s ability to participate in the coming fight. 


Then the combined fires of the Cobras and cluster munitions renew. No radio communication is necessary, with the tanks getting a primetime view of the cluster munitions impacting among the enemy’s positions. Their young 1LT issues the order to attack. Wren, hanging out the cargo hatch of his command track, sees this movement over his right shoulder, and orders his own men to go.

The T-72s, now largely stationary, feel the impact of the cluster artillery much more keenly. It disrupts their return fire, as the bomblets cause spalling and much discomfort within the fighting compartment of the vehicles. The initial bounds of the heavy company proceed unmolested in large part thanks to this.


The OPFOR had not been idle during this impasse either, however. Their own artillery falls on the assembly area of B Co, and Bunting and Renfro’s men find themselves chased all the way back to their M113s by impacting high explosives. A Dragon team are cut down. Despite the heavy fire, the Company is able to remount, and make it away and clear out of the heavy shellfire before more misfortune can befall them.


Armour begins to dominate the fight, though not entirely. As the heavy team fights slowly forward, bounding by platoons down from the high ground, Renfro’s platoon is able to hit OPFOR dismounts in the flank, sweeping along the plateau just in front of PL CHARIOTS. It’s hardly a battle. Exhausted from their morning ordeal and caught in the middle of a raging firefight between two groups of tanks, the OPFOR are swept away. 

The friendly tanks bound through, and past them, and report PL CHARIOTS crossed by 1328 hours. Then, inexplicably, the enemy armour rumbles out of their hasty battle positions and once again attempt to surge forward. The firefight rapidly accelerates to a conclusion, as the outnumbered T-72s take a shellacking from the M60s. 


Outnumbered and outgunned, by 1333 hours all that remains of the OPFOR armour are shuddering, popping wrecks, most burning fiercely. The hard-bitten OPFOR dismounts scatter if not compelled to surrender, and escape and evade into the desert, no longer a coherent fighting force. Those that survive the trek back to safety will be in no condition, physically, to fight.

Exhaustion blankets the two companies and like an insidious fog, it slowly creeps across the entire task force. Heat, thirst, hunger, the release of adrenaline, and sheer physical fatigue root men to the spot. CPT Wren and his sweat-soaked counterpart from the tank company have difficulty even getting their swollen tongues to move when they deliver their situation reports back at the TOC:

To everyone’s immense relief and satisfaction, the LTC, after hearing their reports, had some good news: They were getting 24 hours for much-needed maintenance and rest. Then, between the 17th and 19th of October the unit would be in the Northern Corridor, conducting live-fire exercises. They would be spared the attentions of the OPFOR until after that time.
The officers and men of B Company, salt-stained, hot and exhausted, slept like the dead that evening. 

Would love to see Engine 5 and CMBS expanded, my favorite CM game for a while.  Mainly, I still want larger functioning maps, 6x6km or bigger?  Maybe more building, fence, and flavor object variety: cell towers, electrical structures, chain link and corrugated metal fences, a few civilian vehicles...  Maybe some kind of command post structure.  Any gfx improvements are welcome.  More rubble and debris and maybe a little more fire and smoke.  Ability for troops to ride on top of vehicles like other CM titles would be nice. In the editor it would be nice to have a way to import parts of different maps into other maps like one used to be able to do in the old days.  It is very difficult and time consuming to make a good huge maps completely from scratch.  Looking forward to that new CMBS module and curious about the professional version and what that may have that the general game doesn't.  More Russian rocket artillery?  MLRS?

@beeron has done an amazing job on this AAR. I love the floating icons too.  
There are so many high quality AARs getting posted recently, it is very nice to read and experience them.  

Fantastic write up, amazing screenshots (seriously, some of the best combat photography I have ever seen) and a great analysis at the end. @Bil Hardenberger, how do you think my padawan here is doing?
I see you. A highly applicable Clancy reference. 
Preach.
But yes, you are 100% correct. This AAR will serve well as a ready example of how a SBCT unit should be employed. Very well done. Don't let the inevitable naysayers dissuade you. 
Again, 100% spot on.
Looking forward to Passage at Wilcox! Hoping you get it out of the way before your extended "vacation."

Fantastic write up, amazing screenshots (seriously, some of the best combat photography I have ever seen) and a great analysis at the end. @Bil Hardenberger, how do you think my padawan here is doing?
I see you. A highly applicable Clancy reference. 
Preach.
But yes, you are 100% correct. This AAR will serve well as a ready example of how a SBCT unit should be employed. Very well done. Don't let the inevitable naysayers dissuade you. 
Again, 100% spot on.
Looking forward to Passage at Wilcox! Hoping you get it out of the way before your extended "vacation."

Yes, that's succinct and, generally, accurate. I would agree. You could nitpick or call it a generalisation but I think that would be ungenerous given this a forum.
Video games are generally player driven, so a good one will give the individual the tools to portray it accurately when they are the Soviets. This has been a source of fierce debate, mainly started by the OP of this thread (who, I note, has been conspicuously absent). He believes, among other things, that the ingredients are inadequately modelled, and therefore the recipe cannot be recreated. Tamping down his actual point is difficult, as he simply changes the topic of debate as and when he sees fit. No matter, there's a lot of evidence from other players that playing the Soviets as expected can produce results. That, of course, isn't as simple as "evolve from platoon columns to line 1 kilometer from enemy position" - though it often sounds like it is. It requires heavy dosages of common sense and understanding of the American way of war to create an effective fires plan to build that momentum. 
That's the first half of the equation. The second half is when the Soviets are AI. Now, is that up to the scenario designer. This is, again, realm of opinion, but we can object some objectivity into it. The campaigns' AI are basically textbook Soviet tactical evolutions (as we understand them): people lose these campaigns, and hard at that, routinely. So something must be right. Standalone scenarios are, in my view, a mixed bag. Some are excellent, others border on absolutely shambolic (Czechmate is a standout example of the latter). 
I would argue CW (and RT) do indeed depict their strengths, as much as their limitations. It is no different than people (correctly) despairing in CMBN that their American rifle company in, let us say, Road to Monteburg only has a few 60mms for a particular mission. The objective likely could justify more fire support. Well, that wasn't always an operational reality, and the Western allies often had to tighten their belts in the early part of the campaign re: ammunition supplies. The point, of course, is that the Soviets do very well when they can judiciously support an appropriate amount of force (or force multipliers) to the objective to hand. I don't think that is particularly unique; just that their equations are perhaps less optimistic, or more realistic, than others. 
A question of definition. Fighting 'toe to toe' insofar as fighting on qualitative or quantitatively equal terms would be considered foolish and likely to result in defeat. However, in short, and generally: Absolutely. Of course they believed they could win, and not without merit. They did not plan around winning every engagement, is the point. Only the engagements that mattered. I know that sounds trite, but its the shortest way to say it. 
 

I do think there's some confusion of ideas in here, but I don't think that's unusual for wargaming in general, especially when it comes to conflating scope and scale.
 
Thinking is good.
What.
Okay, Clausewitz is an important work on military thinking, but this, like many things that quote Clausewitz, confuse scale significantly. I don't know how you "sue for peace" on a CM battlefield, really.
Wargaming has a focus on the decisive battle. Especially with CM, you're only ever seeing the sharp end. You're not necessarily seeing the main part, mind you. That's definitely a good point to bear in mind.
 
Uh... sort of. CM's focus is the tactical level, and that's the kind of questions it can ask and answer. Focus is a good thing, because it means you can answer one thing well, not a ton of things badly. It does mean you're not so concerned with stuff outside of your remit.
 
It's not only realistic, it's vitally important.
"The Soviets" may or may not have cared, but the chap in charge of the regiment certainly would, as well as the people fighting. It turns out that Russians are also people, and a CM-scale game is concerned with people above all else.

There are also broader points here about the extent to which numbers actually matter - it's been very common to have ratio-based CRTs in wargaming, but it's not actually clear how important that is.
 
"Why do people compare BMP-1 and M60?" - playing Top Trumps is absolutely not useful in the broad scheme of things, but the two also have to engage. If you're looking at it in terms of "which tank is the best", then that's never going to end well, but it's no different from saying "Well, if the Sherman and the Tiger were on a flat field, and they don't see each other until 200m., and there's no air cover, and..."

"Fair" is irrelevant, and playing Top Trumps with AFVs is useless. Comparing capabilities can be a lot more fruitful, but you need to consider a level or two higher than "my tank has a really large gun". It's very useful to know that both the ATGM and the 73mm HEAT round of the BMP-1 can penetrate an M60 from all aspects, since engagements will likely happen, but "which tank is best" is not useful.
Soviet doctrine is not, and has never been, about reckless charges into prepared kill zones. The whole reason for the CRP/FSE/main body march sequence is to avoid precisely this - attacking off the march trades risk for tempo, and correct movement techniques reduce risk.

You're still accepting risk - you are launching an offensive operation after all, and that's inherently risky - but you're going out of your way to minimise that risk as much as possible, whilst working within the bounds of a scheme which you believe offers you the best chance of actually achieving victory.
 
Attacks from the march would have been the most common, and typically the first engagements, because the emphasis was on speed. The Clausewitzian approach to war described above more accurately describes the Warsaw Pact approach than anything Western. There's a good argument to be made that the "bypass and force a capitulation" concept isn't terribly plausible in reality, outside of the 19th century context. There are a number of reasons for that, I suspect, but that's pushing the scope of this.
Prepared Soviet attacks would be something that would come later, especially if the attack from the march failed, or couldn't make progress otherwise. Maintaining tempo is the important thing.

The Bulldog's Make Their Stand

Life has gotten in my way of making another update, but I finally have time to conclude this AAR. Contrary to what I said before, I will not be making a Battle for Normandy AAR next but another SF2 one (I'm pretty excited about it). After the conclusion of these two AARs, I will be gone for a period of 5+ months, so enjoy my writing while it's still here! Anyway, it's time to witness some very intense combat, probably the coolest CM experience I've had in my year and a half of playing. 

The situation as of last post. 2nd platoon with the help of a Stryker MGS is able to suppress a sniper in Ar Sariya. Luckily, the two men that are hit by the sniper are still alive and we were able to evacuate them. Meanwhile, 3rd platoon holds the decisive terrain on the map and starts engaging whatever they can see in the valley. The first target engaged is a BMP-2 which is promptly smacked by a javelin missile. I was feeling pretty confident at this point, but little did I realize how serious things were about to get.

3rd platoon spots a platoon of T-72 tanks entering the battlefield from LOA Tennessee. This is obviously the SLA battalion's CAR (combined arms reserve), and I waste no time engaging them. 
 
A Javelin gunner from 2nd squad, 3rd platoon flings a missile towards the lead T-72.

In a excellent display of timing and SLA incompetence I am able to nail both tanks with one missile. #1's wingman made the mistake of trying to pass him and they both paid the price.  

3rd platoon fires another missile, this time from 1st squad. The result is extremely disappointing. 

(How many times have you had a Javelin fail to penetrate?)
Despite the dangerous threat the appearance of the CAR presents, I still feel very confident. After all, where can they hide? I can see everywhere into the valley. As always though, my overconfidence is soon checked by the enemy. 

More armor begins to appear, and I suspect the SLA commander's CAR has at least a company sized element of T-72s at his disposal. 3rd platoon also has another issue - only a single Javelin missile remains with the dismounts, with 2 more in 3rd platoons Stryker's below the hill. With the possibility of a push onto OBJ Bear, it's time for me to activate my reserve - 1st platoon. 

3rd platoon is able to hit the remaining tank again from the first tank platoon we encountered and destroy it, but now they have no means of dealing with the other T-72s. Spotting rounds are also falling, but I keep my men hunkered down in defilade. We cannot abandon this hill.


With a somewhat safe route cleared, I move 1st platoon up the hill mounted in their Stryker's. They dismount on the reverse slope and begin moving to reinforce 3rd platoon. Feeling I had control over the battlefield, I was oblivious to the nightmare about to unfold.

Those previously mentioned spotting rounds turn into a FFE call, likely air-bursting heavy mortars. It's not the most accurate fire mission, and I have decent cover from it, but the shrapnel exploding overhead does cause casualties. The rounds incapacitate a team leader from 1st Pl, 3rd Sq and give light wounds to various joes. The casualties are not good, but the worst part is that 3rd platoon is suppressed and unable to observe the CAR's movement in the valley. This scenario has turned into a good example of why IDF doesn't have to always kill to be effective. At this point I can surmise the SLA commander is likely coordinating his fires with his armor's movement in order to give himself some freedom to maneuver. After a couple minutes, the barrage ends and I move the Javelin teams from 3rd and 1st platoon back into position to observe the CAR's movement. My jaw drops at what I find.

I find a friend waiting for me, and a sudden feeling of dread hits me like a train. I am realizing now how bad this situation is quickly getting. I am about to have to fight for my company's life.

Yeah... this is quickly developing into a nightmare situation. Two platoons of T-72s are barreling towards my dismounts, the men have no choice but to brace for impact. Loosing OBJ Bear to armor would probably result in the destruction of my company, there is no choice but to stem the tide. The next few minutes will consist of decisive action, and friendly casualties will be inevitable. 

I am shown a beautiful flank shot on one of the tank platoons, which is going around OBJ Bear on my left flank. The MGS platoon is deployed in BPs below the hill and 2nd platoon is watching the left flank as well.

(Scratch one)

(I was watching this with my jaw dropped)
A bad situation is soon turned worse... a platoon sized element of BMP-2s crest over the hill to the north and begin suppressing OBJ Bear with their 30mm auto cannons, blowing a javelin gunner to a few chunks. The anti tank gunners retreat to the rest of their respective platoons in defilade between them and the BMP-2s.

In a role they were not intended for, the MGS can be quite useful against armor in a pinch. Two SABOTs from the MGS platoon take out a T-72. I can only imagine the intercom chatter during this, the T-72AV TURMS-T is a scary threat in an M1A2 SEP, let alone a Stryker MGS. 2nd platoon takes IDF and their PL and a Javelin gunner become casualties, severely wounded. I have no choice but to pull them off the hill, leaving the MGS platoon alone to defend the flank. 

The situation develops more, and another SLA mechanized infantry platoon reinforces the effort to push me off OBJ Bear. I am extremely worried about these BMPs, they pose the biggest threat to the dismounts on OBJ Bear. However, I am quite confident in my company's ability to win a dismounted fight. Communist armies never seem to excel in training effective infantrymen (they are good at cooking them in the back of their personnel carriers though). 

Another T-72 destroyed by the MGS platoon.

A 1st platoon Javelin team gets an angle on a BMP-2 and smacks it with a Javelin missile.

The situation after less than two minutes of combat. This fight is happening very quickly, and it's far from over. Much to my annoyance, I have a platoon leader and his HQ stuck in front of 1st and 3rd platoon's positions. However it's safer to keep them put than to risk those BMP-2s shooting at them. To make matters worse, a T-72 on my left flank is in an area where the MGS platoon cannot see it.

(Oh ****)

The shell hits 1st platoon's positions, killing a grenadier in 2nd squad. Looks like there is another enemy tank platoon exploiting my weak flank. 

This presents a very big problem. My company is unable to engage this tank platoon breaking through my flank, let alone see them. My whole company is now in a very bad spot, especially my Stryker's that are no longer in cover from the enemy with their flanks exposed. On OBJ Bear, I take another javelin gunner KIA from BMP fire, and two radio operators are casualties from tank fire, one killed and one wounded.

The MGS platoon gets an angle on a T-72 cresting over the hill, but I am still mostly blind to their movement.

A BMP crests over the hill and is promptly destroyed

The first round is shot back at the MGS platoon, fortunately it is way short. Annoyingly, the two SABOTs that impact on the T-72 do not penetrate it and it reverses into cover.

Concurrently, the first BMP-2 moves into OBJ Bear, right into 1st and 3rd platoon. It's an awesome slaughter that's almost an homage to the halftrack scene from SPR.

An AT-4 eliminates a BMP, killing everyone inside. We're in business!

The situation has improved in many ways, but I still have the problem on the left flank. All but two T-72s have been eliminated, but even one is a massive threat to my men. The MGS platoon is punching well above their weight, I had only intended to use them for fortification busting and sniping the occasional BMP. At this point in the battle I am also wishing I had a platoon sized element of anti tank Strykers equipped with TOW missiles to help me out. 

Another BMP is destroyed by an AT-4. You never know when you might need these things, it's worth humping the extra weight. Remember the lessons from the Battle of Mogadishu!

The SLA mechanized infantry platoons are quickly disintegrating, thanks to poor tactical employment of their vehicles and dismounts in typical 3rd world army fashion. Great for me.

Another great little victory for me - a T-72 I couldn't previously see is engaged & destroyed by a Javelin gunner on OBJ Bear. You can see 2nd platoon in the distance moving to engage this guy, luckily they didn't end up needing to.

"BMP, Cover!"
Both 1st and 3rd platoon light these guys up. So many rounds were fired at these poor bastards the game couldn't process the audio. The CAR is almost completely eliminated now, only two tanks remain and the mechanized infantry elements have been rendered CI, only stragglers remain. However, those two tanks now have spots on 1st & 3rd platoon's Strykers. I have no choice to push the MGS platoon out of cover to engage them. I am prepared to lose them in order to save the rest of the company.

The last two tanks are destroyed, but an MGS is destroyed, killing everyone inside. Kudos to the infantry for saving the other MGS with a Javelin through the top of the turret. The loss of the MGS is rough, but it was necessary to prevent further damage. Lots of medals will be handed out after today. 

The intense report of small arms and tank shells flying through the air dies down, replaced by the screams of the wounded and the crackle and fire & secondary explosions. In the span of 6 minutes of combat, the entire SLA combined arms reserve is destroyed. 3 platoons of armor, and two platoons of infantry disappear in minutes. I finally have some time to compose myself after some of the most intense combat I've had in Combat Mission.

Wounded & dead men are removed from the battlefield, while my platoon leaders get ammo & headcounts from their squad leaders. Considering the circumstances, friendly casualties were not high. I'm still angry that I lost so many men KIA, but we made those bastards pay. 

While decisive action may be over, there is still work to do. 2nd platoon will take over as the company reserve and hold OBJ Bear while 1st & 3rd platoon clean up stragglers. 

While waiting for their Strykers to arrive, 2nd platoon gets sweet revenge when they hose down a fleeing tank crewman with their SAWs. No mercy.


The battlefield looks like something you'd see in a Fulda battlefield, destroyed eastern bloc armor litters the field like trash thrown from a window. It's an awe inspiring sight.

The mop up operations move smoothly, the broken tank crews & infantrymen scattered around the hill offer little resistance. 1st platoon starts doing ammo runs up the hill with their Strykers. 

 
The Bulldogs are good shots, best in the battalion.

No SLA soldier can hide from the men on this hill.

The company's FSO calls for fire on a group of stragglers, the 120mm airbursts rip them to shreds. 

Annoyingly, SLA in-direct continues to be an annoyance. Waiting for their Strykers to arrive, a soldier from 2nd platoon is killed and another wounded from it. The craters in this photo illustrate how much ordinance was dropped on 2nd platoon through the scenario. Repositioning every five minutes does get old after a while. 

Another key-holed BMP-2 is destroyed in Ar Sariya, contributing nothing toward the SLA effort. 2nd platoon mounts up and moves out towards OBJ Bear.

Mopping up the stragglers is an easy affair, everyone gets some.


Even a Stryker is able to have some target practice.

The battle is just about won at this point. 3rd platoon is bounded up to hill 92, covering the rest of the valley. I move them dismounted for fear of ATGM ambush, the last thing I want is to get men killed for the sake of convenience. Eventually, 1st platoon joins them while 2nd platoon holds OBJ Bear.
 
The rest of the scenario consists of movement with no more fighting. I will spare the boring details, but the forest on the eastern side of the map proved to be an excellent infiltration route for my dismounts. LOA Tennessee is reached, and I call for a cease fire. 
Conclusion

The battle is a tactical victory, I was able to achieve my objectives outlined at the beginning of the AAR. Unfortunately, the Bulldogs lost 8 men achieving this outcome. Enemy casualties were far greater, with 31 vehicles destroyed and 128 personnel killed or wounded. The combat power of the SLA battalion in the area is severely depleted. They certainly do not have the ability to conduct offensive operations in their state. Hours after this battle, the Bulldogs will be reinforced and the rest of the SLA battalion destroyed in place.

Lots of SLA dismounts remain on the map, unable to contribute to the battle. Unsurprisingly, most of them occupy the various villages.
 
The most surprising find after the battle concluded was this platoon of T-72s & platoon of BMP-2s on the western slope of OBJ Bear. Had the enemy commander chosen to commit this element on my weak left flank with the rest of the attack, I am sure my company would have been destroyed. 


Moving dismounted to LOA Tennessee was the right call, turns out three AT-3 Sagger teams had eyes on the decisive terrain the whole time. Even with fancy thermal optics, the infantryman's ability to conceal himself will always be a lethal ability. Moving those platoons mounted through the open would have likely been catastrophic.

The MGS platoon leader deserves a congressional Medal of Honor for his platoon's role in the battle. Without them, I am sure B/1-24 would have been destroyed in place by Sahrani armor. The MGS platoon is accredited with four T-72 kills & a BMP-2 kill. The infantrymen punched way above their weight as well, with 4-8 AFV kills per platoon. 

The 2 F-16CJs tasked with destroying targets of opportunity didn't hit anything except this recon team. Not much is left of them. Supporting fires weren't utilized as much as I wanted, mainly being used to deny terrain. I am curious how the BMP attack would have played out if I was able to get the battery of 155s dropped on them, after all I had sufficient cover to do that. I was at least happy I got some mileage out of the 120mm mortars though. Usage of supporting fires will be something I continue to work on.
My Thoughts

"Stryker's Attack" ended up probably being the greatest CM experience I've had. My fundamentals were tested, along with my ability to use a SBCT formation against a near peer enemy equipped with armor. As he does with his other scenarios, GeorgeMC provides challenging AI plans that keep you on your toes and surprised at moments, like I was. It is very easy to tell when a scenario is play-tested well, and "Armor Attacks!" is definitely one. I was seriously impressed by the AI's suppression of the decisive terrain and subsequent thrust to drive me off the hill. I was literally giddy with excitement while the big battle for OBJ Bear took place.
One of my favorite parts of this experience was demonstrating the ability of the SBCT in the offensive. The Stryker gets a bad rap from those ranging from morons or to people who don't understand it's capabilities & correct usage. Here it was utilized in it's correct application, an infantry carrier and ammo hauler. It's not a Bradley with ****ty armament, it's a way for the infantryman to be taken to point A to point B with protection from shrapnel & small arms with plenty of ammunition resupply. Stryker infantry in real life can dismount up to 10 km away from their objective. It's a vehicle best concealed from enemy fire, much like the American half-tracks of World War 2. Operationally, the Stryker is an excellent rapid reaction force, with the ability to deploy to areas much quicker than their heavy counterparts.
Similarly, the Stryker MGS is a very misunderstood vehicle. It isn't a very good vehicle by any means, with a small ammo complement & notorious mechanical problems. However, that doesn't mean you can't use it in the way it was intended pretty effectively. That means engaging buildings, fortifications, and the occasional light vehicle. If you've ever taken Stryker infantry into urban areas in CM, you've probably gotten good mileage out of the thing. The 105mm round makes short work of enemy strongpoints. That being said, the MGS does have the ability to engage armor, but it isn't a good idea unless you absolutely have to. As evidenced by this AAR, the 105mm round struggles to penetrate modern T-72 tanks at times, although older tanks like T-62s or T-55s and light vehicles will be cut through like a knife through butter. The MGS also obviously lacks the armor to be engaged by anything bigger than 12.7mm. When you stop treating the MGS as a bad Abrams, it does have a role that can fit into the modern battlefield.

This AAR also demonstrates the punching power of the modern US Army dismounted infantryman, the firepower a single platoon can dish out will never cease to be incredible to me. The Javelin missile gives incredible capabilities to the infantryman, from the ability to engage armor at 99% kill rates, to the ability to destroy enemy strongpoints and weapons teams. The AT-4 continues to be a reliable killer of light vehicles & armor at close range, much like the LAW that the Cold War infantryman humped. When it comes to killing enemy personnel, the SAW will remain the #1 killer. Accurate, a high rate of fire, reliability and ammo combability with the rest of the squad makes it the best tool for the job. The two M240Bs the platoon's weapon's squad compliment the SAW with their ability to kill the enemy and/or keep their heads down. At the end of the day though, "There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.” Even with the best infantry & armor in the world, CM commanders still managed to get their pixeltruppen killed in droves. I've personally rendered US Army heavy company teams combat ineffective as the Syrian/Red player. I've seen other red commanders to do the same on "Armor Attacks". It is insane to see the best of the best units in the world dominated by inferior enemies, but again, they aren't a magic win button. Poor employment of your assets will always result in good men dying, and embarrassing defeats.
In conclusion, I enjoyed the hell out of this scenario. Not only for the entertaining combat in provided, but also the excellent lessons it demonstrated. Your fundamentals are guaranteed to be tested. Play any of the versions of "Armor Attacks!", they are all great experiences, but "Stryker's Attack!" will test you in it's own cool way. Stay tuned for my next AAR, GeorgeMC's Passage At Wilcox with a light infantry company from 10th Mountain attacking the town.
 
 
 

Apologies for the delay on this one. I had to travel for a significant part of May and was unable to finish this before I left. Without further ado, the concluding post, along with a link to the entire post consolidated on my blog: https://millerswargamingvault.blogspot.com/2022/06/visualized-in-combat-mission-killing-fse.html
Hasty Debrief
This was a resounding success for the US. The Soviet FSE was stonewalled, and 2nd platoon was able to fall back into friendly lines without further incident. Under combat conditions, this is probably the best outcome that could be realistically hoped for.
Some might make an argument that the position was abandoned too early. After all, the enemy was destroyed for relatively little loss, and the position is a good one. There were AT weapons remaining in the platoon (roughly half the dragon missiles and LAW launchers), the defensive fortifications were intact, and the M113’s were unmolested. They could have displaced later in the fight after potentially causing more damage to the Soviet attack.
However, this would have been cutting it too close in my opinion. The platoon had stopped the initial probe of Soviet forces and helped determine and shape Soviet intent. Staying in a good position isn’t always the right call. After all, the main goal of US forces in this scenario is to hold out long enough to allow logistics unit to pull out of the town and then have the combat forces fall back as well. Leaving 2nd platoon far forward could have risked them being cut off, either physically or by fires.
In the end, the decision to fall back is a subjective one made by the commander in the field. There is no perfect solution, but there are certainly wrong solutions. Many times, the difference between a good plan and a bad one is a simple matter of timing.
How did the Soviets fare? From the US perspective, they were soundly defeated. From the Soviet perspective, it is not quite that clear cut. Jokes about political commissars and propaganda spinning aside, this is not as bad for the Soviets as one might think. The job of the Soviet FSE is to find and either destroy the enemy or fix them in place. In this case, the FSE found the enemy and engaged it. The engagement was not successful, but the enemy was found. As a result, the Soviet main effort went down the other flank, avoiding the defensive position that caused them problems. Had 2nd platoon stayed in place, they would not have been able to effectively engage the Soviet main effort as it conducted its attack down the left flank and could have easily been cut off and unable to return to friendly lines. Plus, the Soviets do eventually take over the village and surrounding areas, which is the overall Soviet objective. While not blatantly successful, the efforts of the FSE have aided in attaining that goal. Finally, the entire FSE did not perish. Roughly half of the tanks and a 3rd of the infantry were lost discovering 2nd platoons location. The remaining tanks and infantry were able to establish initial positions in the center and left side of the map, revealing those routes to be viable avenues of approach for the Soviet main effort.
When viewed through the somewhat brutal lens of Soviet battlefield arithmetic, one can begin to understand how the Soviets might not view this as a resounding defeat. This understanding reveals insight into how the Soviets thought about success and defeat on the battlefield.      

Apologies for the delay on this one. I had to travel for a significant part of May and was unable to finish this before I left. Without further ado, the concluding post, along with a link to the entire post consolidated on my blog: https://millerswargamingvault.blogspot.com/2022/06/visualized-in-combat-mission-killing-fse.html
Hasty Debrief
This was a resounding success for the US. The Soviet FSE was stonewalled, and 2nd platoon was able to fall back into friendly lines without further incident. Under combat conditions, this is probably the best outcome that could be realistically hoped for.
Some might make an argument that the position was abandoned too early. After all, the enemy was destroyed for relatively little loss, and the position is a good one. There were AT weapons remaining in the platoon (roughly half the dragon missiles and LAW launchers), the defensive fortifications were intact, and the M113’s were unmolested. They could have displaced later in the fight after potentially causing more damage to the Soviet attack.
However, this would have been cutting it too close in my opinion. The platoon had stopped the initial probe of Soviet forces and helped determine and shape Soviet intent. Staying in a good position isn’t always the right call. After all, the main goal of US forces in this scenario is to hold out long enough to allow logistics unit to pull out of the town and then have the combat forces fall back as well. Leaving 2nd platoon far forward could have risked them being cut off, either physically or by fires.
In the end, the decision to fall back is a subjective one made by the commander in the field. There is no perfect solution, but there are certainly wrong solutions. Many times, the difference between a good plan and a bad one is a simple matter of timing.
How did the Soviets fare? From the US perspective, they were soundly defeated. From the Soviet perspective, it is not quite that clear cut. Jokes about political commissars and propaganda spinning aside, this is not as bad for the Soviets as one might think. The job of the Soviet FSE is to find and either destroy the enemy or fix them in place. In this case, the FSE found the enemy and engaged it. The engagement was not successful, but the enemy was found. As a result, the Soviet main effort went down the other flank, avoiding the defensive position that caused them problems. Had 2nd platoon stayed in place, they would not have been able to effectively engage the Soviet main effort as it conducted its attack down the left flank and could have easily been cut off and unable to return to friendly lines. Plus, the Soviets do eventually take over the village and surrounding areas, which is the overall Soviet objective. While not blatantly successful, the efforts of the FSE have aided in attaining that goal. Finally, the entire FSE did not perish. Roughly half of the tanks and a 3rd of the infantry were lost discovering 2nd platoons location. The remaining tanks and infantry were able to establish initial positions in the center and left side of the map, revealing those routes to be viable avenues of approach for the Soviet main effort.
When viewed through the somewhat brutal lens of Soviet battlefield arithmetic, one can begin to understand how the Soviets might not view this as a resounding defeat. This understanding reveals insight into how the Soviets thought about success and defeat on the battlefield.      

Apologies for the delay on this one. I had to travel for a significant part of May and was unable to finish this before I left. Without further ado, the concluding post, along with a link to the entire post consolidated on my blog: https://millerswargamingvault.blogspot.com/2022/06/visualized-in-combat-mission-killing-fse.html
Hasty Debrief
This was a resounding success for the US. The Soviet FSE was stonewalled, and 2nd platoon was able to fall back into friendly lines without further incident. Under combat conditions, this is probably the best outcome that could be realistically hoped for.
Some might make an argument that the position was abandoned too early. After all, the enemy was destroyed for relatively little loss, and the position is a good one. There were AT weapons remaining in the platoon (roughly half the dragon missiles and LAW launchers), the defensive fortifications were intact, and the M113’s were unmolested. They could have displaced later in the fight after potentially causing more damage to the Soviet attack.
However, this would have been cutting it too close in my opinion. The platoon had stopped the initial probe of Soviet forces and helped determine and shape Soviet intent. Staying in a good position isn’t always the right call. After all, the main goal of US forces in this scenario is to hold out long enough to allow logistics unit to pull out of the town and then have the combat forces fall back as well. Leaving 2nd platoon far forward could have risked them being cut off, either physically or by fires.
In the end, the decision to fall back is a subjective one made by the commander in the field. There is no perfect solution, but there are certainly wrong solutions. Many times, the difference between a good plan and a bad one is a simple matter of timing.
How did the Soviets fare? From the US perspective, they were soundly defeated. From the Soviet perspective, it is not quite that clear cut. Jokes about political commissars and propaganda spinning aside, this is not as bad for the Soviets as one might think. The job of the Soviet FSE is to find and either destroy the enemy or fix them in place. In this case, the FSE found the enemy and engaged it. The engagement was not successful, but the enemy was found. As a result, the Soviet main effort went down the other flank, avoiding the defensive position that caused them problems. Had 2nd platoon stayed in place, they would not have been able to effectively engage the Soviet main effort as it conducted its attack down the left flank and could have easily been cut off and unable to return to friendly lines. Plus, the Soviets do eventually take over the village and surrounding areas, which is the overall Soviet objective. While not blatantly successful, the efforts of the FSE have aided in attaining that goal. Finally, the entire FSE did not perish. Roughly half of the tanks and a 3rd of the infantry were lost discovering 2nd platoons location. The remaining tanks and infantry were able to establish initial positions in the center and left side of the map, revealing those routes to be viable avenues of approach for the Soviet main effort.
When viewed through the somewhat brutal lens of Soviet battlefield arithmetic, one can begin to understand how the Soviets might not view this as a resounding defeat. This understanding reveals insight into how the Soviets thought about success and defeat on the battlefield.      

Apologies for the delay on this one. I had to travel for a significant part of May and was unable to finish this before I left. Without further ado, the concluding post, along with a link to the entire post consolidated on my blog: https://millerswargamingvault.blogspot.com/2022/06/visualized-in-combat-mission-killing-fse.html
Hasty Debrief
This was a resounding success for the US. The Soviet FSE was stonewalled, and 2nd platoon was able to fall back into friendly lines without further incident. Under combat conditions, this is probably the best outcome that could be realistically hoped for.
Some might make an argument that the position was abandoned too early. After all, the enemy was destroyed for relatively little loss, and the position is a good one. There were AT weapons remaining in the platoon (roughly half the dragon missiles and LAW launchers), the defensive fortifications were intact, and the M113’s were unmolested. They could have displaced later in the fight after potentially causing more damage to the Soviet attack.
However, this would have been cutting it too close in my opinion. The platoon had stopped the initial probe of Soviet forces and helped determine and shape Soviet intent. Staying in a good position isn’t always the right call. After all, the main goal of US forces in this scenario is to hold out long enough to allow logistics unit to pull out of the town and then have the combat forces fall back as well. Leaving 2nd platoon far forward could have risked them being cut off, either physically or by fires.
In the end, the decision to fall back is a subjective one made by the commander in the field. There is no perfect solution, but there are certainly wrong solutions. Many times, the difference between a good plan and a bad one is a simple matter of timing.
How did the Soviets fare? From the US perspective, they were soundly defeated. From the Soviet perspective, it is not quite that clear cut. Jokes about political commissars and propaganda spinning aside, this is not as bad for the Soviets as one might think. The job of the Soviet FSE is to find and either destroy the enemy or fix them in place. In this case, the FSE found the enemy and engaged it. The engagement was not successful, but the enemy was found. As a result, the Soviet main effort went down the other flank, avoiding the defensive position that caused them problems. Had 2nd platoon stayed in place, they would not have been able to effectively engage the Soviet main effort as it conducted its attack down the left flank and could have easily been cut off and unable to return to friendly lines. Plus, the Soviets do eventually take over the village and surrounding areas, which is the overall Soviet objective. While not blatantly successful, the efforts of the FSE have aided in attaining that goal. Finally, the entire FSE did not perish. Roughly half of the tanks and a 3rd of the infantry were lost discovering 2nd platoons location. The remaining tanks and infantry were able to establish initial positions in the center and left side of the map, revealing those routes to be viable avenues of approach for the Soviet main effort.
When viewed through the somewhat brutal lens of Soviet battlefield arithmetic, one can begin to understand how the Soviets might not view this as a resounding defeat. This understanding reveals insight into how the Soviets thought about success and defeat on the battlefield.