Digging into squad leadership a little deeper...

[ScoutPL]

Womble: "I'm not saying you're wrong to try and drag a simulation out of the game, but if the specific example of the game omits data you'd expect to have as that putative company commander, your sim starts with a big hole in it, no?"

No not at all. Recon data is never to be relied upon solely, particularly if its not real time. Anyone in a CM scenario who is defending can easily come up with two plans. One he wants to use and then one that he sets his forces up in so that when his enemy gets his little intel dump during setup he sees something else. Then in turn 1 he just moves everything to coincide with his preferred plan. Classic deception and very "RL".

In any fight terrain is key. If you analyze the terrain thoroughly and look at it from the enemy's perspective and what you think he has to achieve, you can come up with a pretty accurate template for what he will do. Like I said earlier, actual data on enemy location and disposition is just gravy. You use it to confirm/deny your analysis of how the enemy will fight, not to base your analysis on. Bils use of recon pull is a looser variation on what I am talking about. He does the analysis on what he thinks the enemy will do and that's how he determines the areas he wants to look at. He then sends his forces forward, usually with a strong reserve centrally located. Once he starts collecting data he is confirming/denying his analysis. He then commits to a particular course of action with his reserve. Movement to contact right out of the FM. This is starting to sound like graduate level stuff and it probably is.

I don't throw any of this stuff out there to say "this is how you win in CM." I am just sharing a particular viewpoint. I have an example of the sort of fight I am talking about in my CMSF tutorials. The scenario labeled "Cain and Able" involved a combined arms attack to seize multiple objectives with practically no intel before the fight. It illustrates recon push and the principles I am trying to desribe.

[ScoutPL]

H1nd: From the US perspective you are correct. Its just how we conduct that "reconnaissance" might not be what you expect. If there is time, and the situation will allow it, the platoon/company leader of an attack will conduct his own reconnaissance and do everything he can to avoid contact. That is extremely risky and takes a lot of time. But this is rarely achievable. The unit then has to move forward using movement techniques and formations that put the smallest element forward (toe in the water so to speak) while keeping the main element relatively secure and ready to pounce.

[Bil Hardenberger]

The way I work when playing a game in CM is to use this decision process:

Note that my Tentative Plan is just that, very loose and very flexible.. I keep the majority of my combat power back to react to enemy threats or to take advantage of any potential enemy gaps or mismatches.

Reconnaissance for me continues the entire game.. I always try to have a scout team (or several) leading the way even when I am going into the assault.

Note that recon feeds the Situation Estimate, which is what will help you make your decisions and finalize your plan. That Recon --> Estimate the Situation loop should never end.

My final plan might not actually get "finalized" until very late in the game.

The pre-battle terrain analysis looks like it is missing from this graphic, but that aspect is included in the Estimate of the Situation.

See: The Decision Process and Estimate the Situation

This is a very interesting subject, and I want to emphasize that there is no single way to play this game. The beauty of it is that you can use it as a test bed to try different tactics and techniques.. so experiment. If a two man scout team works for you and you are satisfied with it then that's great, press on. For example, I continue to use tight armored cover arcs for tank combat because they work for me, or seem to, so I stick with it even though most will say that covered arcs have little effect on spotting.

[BletchleyGeek]

Womble: "I'm not saying you're wrong to try and drag a simulation out of the game, but if the specific example of the game omits data you'd expect to have as that putative company commander, your sim starts with a big hole in it, no?"

No not at all. Recon data is never to be relied upon solely, particularly if its not real time. Anyone in a CM scenario who is defending can easily come up with two plans. One he wants to use and then one that he sets his forces up in so that when his enemy gets his little intel dump during setup he sees something else. Then in turn 1 he just moves everything to coincide with his preferred plan. Classic deception and very "RL".

Classic and really easy to implement example of 'dislocation'. I've also tried to implement the notion of maskirovka - using foxholes, trenches and obstacles - as 'decoys' to mask my actual intentions. This use of fortifications is quite expensive, but it can pay big time.

In any fight terrain is key. If you analyze the terrain thoroughly and look at it from the enemy's perspective and what you think he has to achieve, you can come up with a pretty accurate template for what he will do. Like I said earlier, actual data on enemy location and disposition is just gravy.

The critical bit of operational info in CM is composition. Assuming that the enemy has a force composition which is similar or designed to "counter" yours - which is usually the case in most scenarios which are designed to be "balanced" - may be safe and then those templates are, as you say, uncannily accurate.

I have only played one scenario where the briefing information was - cleverly - misleading me, and I remember that playthrough as one of perhaps my most spectacular blunders ever (being spectacular as in "hmmm, how come is my infantry battalion assaulting a tank force? this was unexpected").

BTW, great thread, Scout

[LUCASWILLEN05]

We do sometimes get early intel of varying strengh which to me simulates any pre battle recon that may haave been done employing various assets. But this is not the same situation your squad ad platoon commander is likely to experience durig the battle itself.

Suppose one of your platoons is approaching a village you believe is held by the enemy in unknown strength. Given the (lack of) information you have you feel it would be too risky to send the whole platoon so you send a squad instead while the rest take up overwatch posiions. The squad is able to use a covered approach but, again, you wish to be cautious and not risk a whole squad. So instead you split off a scout team while the rest of the squad cover them..You end up risking only a couple of men to get you the information you wanted. It does cost you time however.

Alternativey you could use the Hunt command which stops the advance for indivuidual units when they come under fire. The downside to that is you come under heavy fire at the worst time/place taking heavier casualties than you might have.

At the end of the day you need to make your own decision in regard of the best approach.

Naturally, when a firefight begins you want your squads together as far as possibe and co-operating. The deploymeent of your whole force (eg battalion or company is important here. You need to decide how many of your manueveer units (platoons, companies) yo want in the front line when you contact the enemy and how much manuever flexibilty you want at that stage. The more companies you have i reserve the more manuever options you are likely to have. If you have a four company batalion for instance a two up, two ack configuration is probably ideal although there are other options.

[Apocal]

I have only played one scenario where the briefing information was - cleverly - misleading me, and I remember that playthrough as one of perhaps my most spectacular blunders ever (being spectacular as in "hmmm, how come is my infantry battalion assaulting a tank force? this was unexpected").

BTW, great thread, Scout

I've played far more scenarios where I'm essentially being asked to attack a question mark, which is far more annoying. If it was merely imperfect, that would be one thing, but in one - particularly egregious - example, I was told that hours before another company had assaulted the position and been repulsed with heavy losses. I still started that one with zero useful intelligence regarding the enemy's composition or disposition.

lol wat?

[ASL Veteran]

After the initial Soviet breakthrough in June, many of the battles on the eastern front in the Red Thunder time frame could be characterized as meeting engagements between roving battlegroups. Many Soviet units, in particular, didn't get very much intelligence at the lower levels as to the strength and disposition of enemy forces even if such intelligence was broadly known at higher levels. For the Germans there was simply too much 'terrain' to cover and too few forces to have effective recon done prior to every battalion level attack. A modern US style by the numbers doctrinally sound recon of enemy forces prior to an attack on the eastern front would be the exception rather than the rule. Once the situation stabilized somewhat towards the end of August and lines became more static then you might see more pre battle intel.

[BletchleyGeek]

I've played far more scenarios where I'm essentially being asked to attack a question mark, which is far more annoying. If it was merely imperfect, that would be one thing, but in one - particularly egregious - example, I was told that hours before another company had assaulted the position and been repulsed with heavy losses. I still started that one with zero useful intelligence regarding the enemy's composition or disposition.

lol wat?

Copy & paste errors can happen as well.

But yeah, one could expect that unfortunate coy survivors to be debriefed and provide some, probably contradictory, information on what had been causing those casualties.

[ScoutPL]

ASL: "A modern US style by the numbers doctrinally sound recon of enemy forces prior to an attack on the eastern front would be the exception rather than the rule. Once the situation stabilized somewhat towards the end of August and lines became more static then you might see more pre battle intel."

Another classic example of the value of using what you know of the terrain to make an estimation of how the enemy will fight and to identify pieces of key terrain that you think may become important as the "blindly groping for the enemy" unfolds. Characterized by the type of attack the US military terms a Movement to Contact. Practically every major campaign from WW2 (France in 40 and 44, North Africa except for exceptions like El Alamein, most of the Russian campaign, and Burma for example) were "maneuver campaigns" characterized with a lot of searching for the enemy with short, sharp fights when you found him.

US doctrine doesn't focus on a need for accurate information before conducting planning, or even an attack. It is nice to have and every attempt should be made to collect all you can. But with limited collection assets (be it Predator drones or 2 man scout teams) there has to be a process in place to focus your reconnaissance efforts. This comes from your analysis of the terrain and what you know of how the enemy fights.

What I am advocating here is an attempt to get players away from just throwing out a scout screen and bumping into the enemy in a random fashion in order to "develop the enemy situation." Good, well thought out analysis beforehand will do wonders for your game play. I know it sounds boring as hell, but if you spend as much time planning for a game as you spend playing it, you are getting to the right balance. If you want to sim RL of course.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

If you don't know enemy location the best course of action is to use the Hunt Command. Best to lead with a single company or even a single platoon wshose job it is to contact the enemy and set up a base of fire aroun which your reserves can begin to manouvre.

Generally I think it is a bad idea to lead with tanks in late war games as the enemy are likely to have anti tank weapons of all kinds which your hapless armour are going to blunder into if you send them in ahead. Best to deploy the tanks to overwatch positions to support your infantry who will try to idenify and destroy enemy anti tank guns opening a route for the armour. Otherwise you risk ending up wih smashed and burning tanks and those dreaded columns of smoke blackening the horizon.

[slysniper]

ScoutPL

You have some great post here but I do beleive you are over the heads of many here and that they are not understanding or wanting to understand the concept.

I think the main reason is that they only understand combat through the game or maybe other games also. For CM allows for recon type play to work much better than it would in R.L. - because of the player having God like abilities to take all that information and conduct all his units to react to it immediately. No real commander has that ability yet, even with the modern tech stuff. being used. The flexability of combat in the game would be a dream compared to what I saw in my years as a Marine. Command control is a nightmare in R.L.

Your points about understanding the Terrain and the enemy and developing a battle plan for where you know the enemy will likely be found works great in R.L. and also in the game.

But I find even I will play with foward scouts leading my assaults, looking for the weaknesses in the enemy lines and exploiting them as quickly as possible within the game, knowing all well in R.L. it would be just the opposite of that. Once contact on a expected enemy location is found I would be hitting it with my preplanned base fire units and moving assaulting units in to flank and detroy or capture the enemy.

Where as in the game I can find the weakeast areas of the enemy line and either force a penetration there or assault and destroy that sector while trying to prevent enemy reinforcement from aiding the sector. Then use that to out manuver the enemy line.

All these things are aspects of combat that you hardly ever see at lower level command. As was pointed out, we play a tactical game with operational abilities - so plenty of flaws to overlook to be a good sim.

[ScoutPL]

Great points all Slysniper. Thanks.

[ASL Veteran]

Lest fellow gamers feel bad about their method of recon during a CM battle, how about this real life example from Operation Goodwood.

"At this juncture, it so happened that my platoon headquarters half track vehicle was some three yards distant from the gallant colonel, and fixing me with those steely eyes, he beckoned me over and said, 'Boy, we must find out if Hubert - Folie is occupied'. 'Jolly good idea, Sir,' I said or something equally fatuous. 'How do you propose to do it?'

'You're going to do it' came the reply. And as I swallowed, the ever reassuring Noel Bell appeared at my elbow. The plan, like all good plans, was extremely simple. I was temporarily to command a section of the carrier platoon and drive hell for leather down the main street of the village. If we fail to appear, the chances are that the village was occupied; but if we emerge unscathed the chances are that the village was unoccupied.'

Now it so happened that Noel Bell produced a marvelous air photograph of the village of Hubert Folie and the surrounding area. Well of course this meant that I didn't have to fuss around with maps. And also at the moment Major Bill Smyth Osborne who commanded H Battery of the 13th RHA offered his services and he decided to put a heavy artillery concentration down on Hubert Folie as we approached to the village. The last shell was to be a phosphorous one, and this smoke was the signal for us to start on our journey down the village.

Believe you me, once we'd started there was no time for sauntering and within seconds we appeared at the other end of the village and reported back to Noel Bell and told him that we had met no resistance and had seen no sign of the enemy. How wrong one can be! As we discovered later, the village was groaning with the enemy."

Soviet forces from the various accounts I've read used even less sophisticated methods of recon. After a breakthrough occurred, the spearhead tank brigade might be led by a platoon of T34s with a platoon of mounted tank riders. They would then simply drive down the road a few minutes in front of the main body of the tank brigade and if they ran into anything they were to report back on what they encountered.

[womble]

Is the story of Patton telling some junior officer, "Get in that jeep and drive down the road til you get shot, then come back and tell me about it," apocryphal?

[Vanir Ausf B]

And that is how the Allies won the war: gamey Jeep rushes.

[ScoutPL]

Gamey jeep rushes and the industrial might of the United States to replace all of those burning jeep hulls due to the "reconnaissance" taking a little longer than "a few seconds" when the street happened to be blocked by a well placed obstacle and covered by a well placed machine gun. The extra machine gun of course since the others were covering the avenues of approach a professional might actually use.

[Michael Emrys]

Is the story of Patton telling some junior officer, "Get in that jeep and drive down the road til you get shot, then come back and tell me about it," apocryphal?

I don't know, but it's such a good story that it gets repeated. Except that usually the phrase is not "get shot" but "get blown up", and not "tell me about it" but "report to me".

Michael

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Gamey jeep rushes and the industrial might of the United States to replace all of those burning jeep hulls due to the "reconnaissance" taking a little longer than "a few seconds" when the street happened to be blocked by a well placed obstacle and covered by a well placed machine gun. The extra machine gun of course since the others were covering the avenues of approach a professional might actually use.

Brings to mind a story about Frank Chadwick, designer of the miniature wargames rules Command Decision. With the 15 minute turns of the first three editions of the rules, the fast movement rates, the double move allowance on metalled roads and double movement allwance granted by use of the Travel MMarch order some poor fool once asked Chadwick if he could take that jeep straight down the road, through the enemy position and off tghe end of the table in one turn.

Chadwick's reply "No.But you can try!"