BrotherSurplice

Mostly because I find this somewhat interesting in the wild/it's important to counter some narratives.  Basically we're dealing with one of those fun rhetoric games to try to level the "moral" playing field in that 18 howitzers shooting a whole lot somehow equates to more or less the rampant clusterbombing of residential blocks carried out by some folks that I'll just imply are actors here.  

I wouldn't call it "Whataboutism" because the point isn't to distract from the argument, as much as it is to narrow everything to the same gray-ish moral area in which it's really okay the Syrian government uses chemical weapons on civilians because it's like strategic bombing in World War Two, gotta kill them headchoppers amIrightguys?

As to the on topic, precision artillery has taken a fairly interesting role in that it provides the same sort of fires that used to be the domain of fixed wing or rotary wing assets, only with a persistence measured in ammunition stocks vs flight time.  This is sort of a big deal in that it open a whole new can of worms in terms of striking targets/makes the concealment/counter-recon element of the fight much more profound.  As it was, with only 18 guns tied into a fairly comprehensive sensor network it became very hard to go anywhere within the range of those guns without incurring great risk of artillery fire.

Into the future it will be intesting seeing this interact with EW/cyber assets that will make the ISR element a lot less durable, and certainly counter-battery will play a part.  Also as we increasingly see open architecture software and applications grow, it might be possible to see an insurgent group cobble together some manner of precision fires (in as far as digitally computing fire missions vs the "allah akbar?" we used to see). 

Of course seeing what the Russians did with similar applications against the Ukrainians also indicates this might become more of a conduit for doing bad things to bad people in addition to it's role as a red-enabler (And at that, opens some interesting ideas as far as employing applications nominally to "help" our brave patriotic whatevers that are actually enemy malware) 

What is the point of this exercise again, and why are you all humoring it? 

Well that is by definition what a suicide bomber does.  

Quite literally, yes. Just go ahead and google "ISIS suicide bomb" and it should clarify nicely for you. If it doesn't then nothing else anyone here will say can help you.

Morning/afternoon/evening everyone! I return, with the second entry of the AAR.

In the interests of keeping the amount of "filler" entries low, this post will cover both my initial plans and the first few turns of the engagement.
 

Reasoning that it is somewhat pointless to come up with a detailed and intricate plan without having any knowledge of Rinaldi's dispositions, I'll develop my plan as I conduct a reconnaissance. This initially consists of my four scout teams moving forward dismounted, two moving into the high ground on my right and two straddling the MSR on my left. Each duo of scouts is backed up by their APCs and a section of Scimitars, who will follow up to lend support to the scouts when they encounter opposition. The Javelins are deployed mounted up to my extreme right. I am also moving the tac air controller team in the centre, to take up position on the high ground to my front.
 

Now, onto my plans thus far. My task (and that of my enemy) is simplified somewhat by the terrain; the irrigation ditch running across the AO limits me to just three axes of advance. The first axis (the arrow marked '1' on the map above) is a simple advance straight down the middle, over Tweedledee and into the objective. The second axis is a left hook, going over Tweedledum and following the MSR to the objective. The third axis is also a left hook, but even wider; going over Tweedledum and then occupying Point 228 before descending the hill to make a final assault on the objective. Whichever axis that I choose will be supported by a base of fire on the high ground to my front and right. My force composition also limits my choices; with a grand total of 16 men making up my whole infantry complement, I can only really afford to choose one axis for my main effort.
 

"Whichever of you mugs is humming the Jaws theme best pack it the 'eck in . . ."
 
Now, to go over the pros and cons of each axis.
Axis 1 - Pros:
- Most simple of the three plans
- Will take the least time to prepare and execute
Cons:
- Can be enfiladed from enemy positions at the Tool Houses and Point 228
- No concealment or cover; the ground leading to the objective is completely open
- Open to fire from the South side of the objective and from Point 225
- All potential enemy positions at the Tool Houses, Point 228 and Point 225 will have to be suppressed for the final assault on the objective, as well the objective itself
- Attacking from the same position as my base of fire allows the enemy to concentrate all his fire in one direction
Axis 2 - Pros:
- Will neutralise any enemy positions at Tool Houses
- Provides some cover and concealment from enemy positions in the objective and Point 225
- The enemy is forced to split his fire between my base of fire and the manoeuvre force (or shoot at one and not the other)
Cons:
- Is enfiladed at very close range by enemy positions on Point 228; Point 228 will have to be suppressed while the plan is being executed
- Will take longer to prepare and execute; more distance has to be covered
- Vulnerable to a counterattack from the reverse slope of Point 228
Axis 3 - Pros:
- Will neutralise enemy positions at the Tool Houses and Point 228
- The enemy is forced to split his fire between my base of fire and the manoeuvre force (or shoot at one and not the other)
- Provides an additional place from which the objective can be overwatched
Cons:
- Advance up the slope of Point 228 will be enfiladed by the objective and Point 225
- Assault on the positions at Point 228 could be costly and very time consuming
- Vulnerable to a counterattack from the reverse slope of Point 228
- Will take the longest amount of time to prepare and execute
Each plan has some pretty big cons, which is somewhat concerning. I do know one thing though: whichever plan I go with, and however my enemy responds, the objective is going to be swarming with enemy troops. Thus, the objective is going to be smothered in fires, from both my base of fire and my rotary-wing support.
 

And as always, the enemy gets a vote. I made some analysis of the enemy in my last post, but a few things have occurred to me since then. He may have minefields, in which case there is a 99.99% chance that they will be placed on Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and if he has enough of them then there'll probably be some in the entrances to the objective too. Minefields will make my job much harder and without engineers there is, to be frank, jigger all that I can do about it other than grit my teeth and push on through. Freezing up and trying to find another route would give my opponent a wonderful opportunity to inflict heavy losses on me (Rinaldi isn't an amateur; if he has minefields, they'll be covered by fires). The enemy may also have indirect fire support. Each Syrian Reserve Mechanised Battalion gets a platoon of six 120mm mortars and each rifle company within the Battalion gets a section of two 120mm mortars. It is entirely possible that Rinaldi's platoon has the company mortars in support. If I get pinned down or take too long to move from one spot, those 120mms could do some horrendous damage to my small force. Now, that said, Syrian call-in times for indirect fire are quite simply diabolical; in a previous match that I played, it took my Syrian Special Forces forward observer team *seven minutes* to call in a barrage from a section of 82mm mortars. I can't imagine what the call-in time for a reservist mortar section must be like. If I keep moving, any potential mortars shouldn't be an issue, but it is still something to keep in mind.
So far I still can't make up my mind about which of my potential schemes of manoeuvre to go with. All of them are equally unpalatable. My force has does not have sufficient firepower to suppress every potential enemy position and all it takes is one lucky close-range volley from an enemy position to make one of my infantry teams combat ineffective, or to knock out one of my Scimitars. All I can say at this stage is . . . a mortar! A mortar! My kingdom for a mortar!
But alas, it is pointless to screech about what I don't have. You play the hand that you've been dealt. At this stage, I believe that more reconnaissance is needed before I go through with any of my plans. I can at least move the units that will form my base of fire into position (the Javelin troop and at least two Scimitars) while my scouts move forward.
 

And finally, at 42:13, contact is made with the enemy! Scout Team 4, moving up along the road on my left, takes fire from their front. They swiftly identify their assailant as an MMG team, hunkered in a trench on Point 228. Sadly, I hadn't been paying enough attention to the micro terrain, as Team 3 on the other side of the road are in the low ground of the orchard and can't see the hill. So much for bounding overwatch!
 

The sniper in Team 4 is already taking aim at the MMG team before the turn ends, but I decide that a four-man scout team getting into a shootout with an MMG is a mug's game, so in my next turn I order them to drop down and crawl back behind the curve of the hill, while I move my Scimitars forward and get Team 3 into a position where they can actually support their pals over the road.
Right, this post is at a good length now, and I've covered all of my planning so far. First contact with the enemy is a good point to end on I think. Thanks for all the feedback so far everyone!

Yeah, awesome AAR. Not too many modern setting pbem AARs out there.

This looks to be an interesting AAR, I look forward to the next edition. 

That’s very disingenuous of you squarehead, I offered simple good advice and you decided to be rude about it. I’m sad the discussion turned out this way. 
 
SLAVA Ukraine.  

this is weak stuff squarehead, you’ve gone from bragging about your tactical acumen to pretending your above it all. Best be careful squarehead, you wouldn’t want papa Steve to come down and give you a spanking like he did last time

If it were obvious it would be on the agenda for the devs to fix, yet they ignore your constant requests to fix it. 
When the people actually in charge ignore your repeated compalints, it stops being “obvious complaints” and instead becomes nothing more than the petulant whining of a sad British grog. But don’t worry, I’m sure the devs will listen to you after your 40th post on the matter.  
 
 

I guess not using **** tactics lead to you winning, I'm not surprised
Also I'm surprised to hear you have won it every time. The endless parade of whining would have suggested otherwise.
 
Lmao, I wish I could claim the title of number one active troll, sadly I think @IICptMillerII gets those honors; he's also more successful, like that time he got you put on timeout.
 
Anyways, you shouldn't be so hostile squarehead, I'm just giving you good advice, stop being bad and most of your problems, like losing t-90s to immobilized, damaged IFVs, will go away.

Him having a solid point is fine. In fact, I may even agree with it. Doesn't change the fact that "get good" (or as the Germans say, git gud) is pertinent advice that should be heeded. Complaining on a forum, much like Russian "precision" artillery, is relatively ineffective against prepared Americans
 
Regards,
 
Sid

I have, sadly I was forced to abandon the game early on. It’s a difficult scenario that requires a lot of skill as the russians to avoid the attack becoming a farce. I can understand why the scenario would be difficult for less skilled players

The tests by @Rinaldi showed that artillery pretty universally immobilized the Bradley and wiped out many of its externals.
Frankly, if you are struggling to take out immobilized, heavily damaged Bradleys, then you should consider getting better at the game instead of blaming everything on the devs.

Thanks @Rinaldi for doing that. I personally had not fired 122 precision at anything during testing but I did 155 vs M1s and T90s and get expected results the vast majority of the time. This test shows yet again the artillery doing the expected thing - serious effect - on targets. So, I just do not believe that you frequently see Bradley's shrugging of hits and carrying on as if nothing happened. These test shows that is not common. Sure it can happen - I saw T90s that survived a hit from a 155 - it was not common but it did happen. Just because it can happen and it sucks when it does *does not mean it is common*.

Thanks for the heads up. Yes, I can foresee myself having to give a lot of 'Target Light' orders to my Scimitars in the future. Thanks for reminding me to bomb up the dismounts too!
Ah, thank you, I'll check that out after this battle is over.
Thanks very much Ian!
Ruh-roh, now I'm spooked. Thanks for the luck!
Oh my goodness, the pressure is indeed on now! I'll try and make the 9th/12th proud!

Pretty much anybody can 'overwhelm local defenses' inside the first 60 hours, from ISIS fighters in pickups to crackpot ranchers hijacking and occupying an isolated federal building. The trick is what come after those first 60 hours. Let's remember the Allied defense strategy during the Bulge offensive. Let them enter the salient, firm up the shoulders to keep them contained, then close the bag once they're all inside. That netted the allies practically all of the German tanks on the Western Front in just a bit over a month.

Hmmm...

Did you even read what @MikeyD wrote? His whole point was that, even if you assume NATO could be overrun in the first 60 hours of combat due to all of the factors you just listed, there is no strategic point. First off, as I have said before, I very much doubt the Russians could even conduct such a complicated maneuver. Second, and more importantly, is that they simply could not hold all of the ground they would take in such a scenario. 
Yes, it would take a while for the bulk of NATO forces to be brought to bear against them, but this is nothing new. This has been accepted in the US ever since we started fighting wars not on the North American continent. This isn't some glaring, overlooked weakness. It's well known and accounted for. For crying out loud, the US military has an entire Corps, the 18th Airborne Corps, dedicated to this. Their purpose is to be rapidly deployed anywhere in the world within 24-48 hours with enough men and equipment to "hold the line" long enough for the bigger heavier support to arrive. 
Unless infrastructure is physically destroyed, it can still be used. No amount of "hacking" is going to change that, unless of course said "hacking" causes highways to explode and gasoline to no longer be combustible, and food to no longer provide sustenance. 
This isn't true, no matter how much the History/Military/Discovery Channel tells you it is. As I said before, basic land navigation qualification is still done with a map, compass and pace counts. Basic marksmanship still requires a soldier to hit a target with his rifle, unaided by machines. Everyone is still trained to operate in a WWII-like environment, where none of the new shiny toys work. Because guess what? Even under optimal conditions, those shiny toys tend to break. Yes, there is more technology now, that is more capable, thus allowing us to do more things. But no one falls to pieces when the tech stops working. This is pure fantasy. 

I'm looking forward to this, you've done a thorough METT-TC analysis and these more traditional AAR's are a pleasure to read through.
Although WW2 is usually more my thing, I have a vested interest in you winning this battle. The 9th/12th were my old regiment, and I spent the majority of my service in A Squadron...no pressure!

Ahh. I'm very familiar with this battle. Very.
I'm watching, with popcorn near at hand. Good luck!

Very nice first post there @BrotherSurplice!

I think this is one of Paper Tiger's scenarios and it is definitely CMSF 1. It is likely that he (or whoever the designer was) had a mod installed that converted the marsh tiles into water tiles when he took the screenshot for the mission briefing whereas the OP is not using that mod so the marsh tiles show up exactly as they are. The other giveaway is that the gap crossings are mocked up using low wall tiles and higher elevations relative to the 'river'. If this was CMSF 2, you would see an actual bridge.
Anyway @BrotherSurplice - if I am right about this being a Paper Tiger created mission ... good luck, they are tough enough vs the AI, let alone H2H. I have played this one as the British and it took me plenty of attempts to get something resembling a decent victory.
Reference your own forces analysis ... don't forget to consider your ammunition states ... although the British TO&E is accurate for ammunition loadouts, you should bear in mind that your Rarden 30mm don't have many HE rounds and your dismounts will burn through their 5.56mm in a couple of turns so make sure you get your Toms to bomb up early.
Looking forward to the rest of the AAR.

An AAR...Thank you !! 
Even if it is not CMSF2...It isn't...is it ? In the briefing picture it kind of looks like the irrigation ditch contains WATER ! but in the other screenshots it does not...
Ooohh, well...CMSF or CMSF 2...it does not matter...An AAR.
Lovely !! 
The map looks like a tricky one to attack across if the enemy have some long range firepower. Best of luck !
 

Good morning/afternoon/evening everyone. This is an AAR of a PBEM played with the British Forces module of Combat Mission: Shock Force. The scenario is "Sabres at Dawn" - I am attacking with a British light armoured reconnaissance force and @Rinaldi is defending with a Syrian reserve mechanised infantry force.

 
So, without further ado, let's do a quick analysis of the situation. My primary task is to attack and clear a compound known as the "East Yard" approximately 500m to the North-Northeast of my deployment zone. My secondary task is simply to destroy the enemy in the field. I must not suffer over 20% casualties and must have my force "arrayed for future operations", which presumably means I must keep ammunition expenditure to a reasonable level and have as little vehicles immobilised as possible. My force consists of light armour and mechanised reconnaissance infantry, supported by ATGM teams and rotary-wing assets.
 
My enemy is defending positions in and around the East Yard, north of a deep irrigation ditch running west-east across the Area of Operations (AO). Intelligence states that there are no enemy units South of the irrigation ditch. Presumably, given the low quality of my enemy's units, his intent is to hold his position for as long as possible and bleed my forces as much as he can before being eliminated. Enemy forces are estimated to be a platoon-sized force from a reserve mechanised infantry battalion equipped with BMP-1s. It is possible that they may be supported by ATGM teams. Due to my enemy commanding a reserve unit, it is likely that the equipment, training and leadership of his units are of a low quality. However, several things should encourage me to caution. Firstly, my own force is small and very light, designed for reconnaissance, not assaults on fortified positions. The BMP-1 is not a fearsome machine in Shock Force, but even its low-velocity 73mm cannon can easily pop any of my vehicles if it can land a hit. Secondly (and more importantly), Rinaldi is a highly skilled and experienced player of Combat Mission. I myself have very little experience, with only two other PBEMs under my belt (one of which ended prematurely because my opponent got bored, the other of which ended with Rinaldi kicking my teeth in). I can expect my opponent to quickly develop a very clear appraisal of the situation, with great knowledge of the capabilities of both his and my own units. He will likely try and engage me at as short a range as possible to try and offset the advantages that modern optics and firepower give me. He will be on the lookout for any weakness or mistake and will exploit such opportunity ruthlessly. I must be very careful if I am to avoid being severely embarrassed here (doubly so, as Rinaldi takes great pleasure in denigrating the fighting ability of my countrymen ).
 

Now for the terrain. The AO is small, only about 350x600m. To my immediate front and right, the ground is open and rises steeply, before gently falling off to the north. To my left, the ground rises more gently, with an MSR running North-South and a small Orchard running North along the edge of the map. The aforementioned irrigation ditch runs east-west, bisecting the AO. The briefing informs me that the ditch is unfordable, with only two crossing points, designated Tweedledum (to the north-west) and Tweedledee (to the north-east).
 

North of the irrigation ditch, the terrain becomes more complex. There is a small compound immediately North and to the left of Tweedledum, known as the "Tool Houses". North of the Tool Houses there is a gentle hill, designated "Point 228".
 

Immediately North of Tweedledee is my objective, the East Yard, a sprawling compound of one-storey buildings. North of the East Yard is another hill, designated "Point 225". Both Point 228 and 225 are covered in trenches. There is a thick haze covering the AO, the temperature is warm, the ground is very dry and there is a medium breeze blowing from the west.
 

Finally, a view of the AO through the eyes of my enemy. He has some excellent positions to take advantage of, with a large obstacle to his front, the complex semi-urban terrain on his left and right, and elevated fighting positions to his left-rear and right-rear.
 

Now to identify the key terrain (KT) of the AO. The first KT is the hill immediately to the front and right of my deployment zone. This is one of the highest points on the map and will provide excellent sight lines and fields of fire to the North.
 

The second KT is Tweedledum and the Tool Houses. Tweedledum is one of only two points where the irrigation ditch can be crossed and the Tool Houses could provide cover and concealment for forces defending the crossing point. The Tool Houses could be a good place for a forward observation post.
 

The third KT is Point 228. this hill provides sightlines and fields of fire across almost the entire AO, and the reverse slope offers an excellent place to conceal forces, for ambush or counterattack. Any advance towards the East Yard will be enfiladed by fire from Point 228.
 

The fourth and final KT is the East Yard and Point 225. The East Yard is my objective and must be cleared, but is also likely to be the toughest nut to crack. If he so wishes, Rinaldi could hide units deep in this compound as my units approach, before making a potentially devastating point-blank ambush. Point 225 provides good lines of sight over the open ground south of the irrigation ditch and would make another good location for an observation post.
 

Now for a detailed assessment of the force at my disposal. I command a small company-sized force from "A" Squadron of the 9th/12th Lancers. Firstly, we have the Command Troop with the Squadron Leader and Second in Command (2iC) mounted in Sultan APCs. A Tactical Air Controller team is mounted in a Spartan APC and will be directing the fires of a single Apache gunship.
 

Secondly, we have 1 Troop, consisting of four Scimitar light tanks. These little fellows are fast, agile and equipped with a hard-hitting 30mm autocannon. They wield the heaviest firepower of my force but are very lightly armoured, only really able to resist small arms fire.
 

Thirdly, we have the Support Troop, consisting of the command team and four four-man scout teams, all mounted in Spartan APCs. Each scout team has a SAW, a sniper rifle, an under-barrel grenade launcher and three light anti-tank weapons (LAW). These infantry teams will be needed to clear out the East Yard and conduct dismounted reconnaissance, but are all very fragile. This is undoubtedly the most vulnerable but also the most important part of my force.
 

Last, but definitely not least, we have the Guided Weapons Troop, consisting of two Javelin teams mounted in Spartan APCs. Each team has five missiles. The Javelin is an excellent weapon, accurate and very hard hitting. These teams will likely be the best option for knocking out AFVs and other hard targets.
 
Troops thus covered, all that remains is the time; it is currently 0530 and I have 50 minutes to complete my objectives. Phew, so much for a quick analysis! I still haven't really thought much about what my enemy might do or made a tentative plan yet. However, this post is getting rather long so I shall leave that for my next entry. Stay tuned!