Jump to content

Passage At Wilcox SOP


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Jesus....mate, I can give it a go in French and Italian if that'll help some.

This thread started with a question about employment of reconnaissance elements and has then morphed into discussions about XOs and who does what plus a plea for accurate information. Here is wha

Others have already commented generally on the differences, or the typical roles. You'll see the recurring theme: XOs, Platoon Sergeants (or Platoon Warrant Officers depending on the nation) tend to h

Posted Images

This thread started with a question about employment of reconnaissance elements and has then morphed into discussions about XOs and who does what plus a plea for accurate information.

Here is what the US Army has to say about these topics across a number of some of the US Army organisations in CMSF:

Reconnaissance Platoon

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/atp3_20x98.pdf

Infantry Company

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN8519_ATP%203-21x10%20Final%20Web.pdf

Tank Platoon

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN4803_ATP%203-20x15%20FINAL%20WEB%20INCL%20C1.pdf

Cavalry Squadron

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ATP%203-20x96%20FINAL%20WEB.pdf

If you’re genuinely interested about who does what, along with lots of other stuff then read the above.

Otherwise there is a discussion about emulating real life in the game. Very laudable but entirely impossible because one of the oft-discussed functions is the treatment of casualties and resupply.

As an example, at platoon level, taking the two armies I’ve served in (British and Australian), it is the Platoon Sergeant who is primarily responsible for policing up casualties and sorting out ammo replens in battle as well as being prepared to step up if the Platoon Commander goes down. In CMSF British Forces, the Platoon Sergeant is grouped with the Platoon Commander making it completely impossible to employ the Platoon Sergeant realistically if you are employing the Platoon Commander realistically and vice versa,

Moving up to company level and higher, CM does not include a lot of the CSS assets that are in the real life TO&E. Again, taking the British Light Role Battalion in CMSF, the Company Sergeant Major (CSM) is nowhere to be found. He is there but is grouped either with the Company OC or the Company 2IC teams (Company 2IC Team if memory serves me right but I would have to check). As with the Platoon Sergeant at platoon level, the CSM would be the person responsible for gripping up the CSS in combat. The result is that if you want to conduct CSS functions in CM, you have to use people or assets that, in RL, would not be performing those tasks.

Discussing accurate ammunition loads is trickier but again governed by the game. The TO&E issues troops with their known (or best guess) SOP loadouts. The game also places limits on what can be carried and/or penalties in terms of movement and fatigue if you load your troops up with heaps of ammunition. This is a case of knowing what those are, deciding whether the extra load is worth the slower movement/higher fatigue and your own style of gaming. Ultimately though the game, albeit imperfectly, will generally not allow you to do something that is not possible in RL. As to how to play the game, if you want to limit your troops to 400 rounds then fine, fill your boots. I might bang on about realism in board discussions about military matters because

  1. I feel it is important and I have considerable experience and first hand knowledge to add.
  2. There is a lot of ignorance or a lot of misconceptions being bandied about which need to be countered.
  3. It is something that underpins the design philosophy of these games.

When I play the game, I never touch Iron mode and only play Elite mode when I am testing scenarios. That is because my impression from forum discussions is that most people play on this setting and in scenario design you have to ensure that the experience is going to be optimised for the majority of players. When I play for fun, I usually play Basic Training mode because I just enjoy playing that way.

I’m unconvinced about the practice of keeping the best units back until achieving a breakthrough. The breakthrough is the hard task so it makes sense to use your best troops to achieve it. Let’s say this is a battalion attack and you decide to use B Company commanded by Major Nice-But-Dim rather than A Company commanded by Major Average or C Company commanded by Major Achiever to kick off the breakthrough. Major Nice-But-Dim’s company steps off and doesn’t achieve the mission because they’re a bit sh1t, this means that you have to commit A Company (if they’re not doing anything else averagely) or Major Achiever’s C Company to get the job done. In this instance you stand a greater chance of failing at the first hurdle and having to commit two or three companies when one could have done the job. If you commit Major Achiever’s C Company in the first place, you stand more chance of getting the tricky bit done leaving the other companies to exploit, which is a whole bunch easier than breaking into the position (US readers should delete Major and insert Captain in the above example by the way). In my six years’ experience as an Observer/Controller at a Brigade and Battlegroup trainer in the UK, the best unit/sub-unit always got the main effort task (not necessarily the most difficult by the way).

Returning to Passage at Wilcox, the scenario and two solutions are at PP 52-56 here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByottM1hQ47jUV9wZ1ZXeVVvTWs/view

Edited by Combatintman
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Erwin said:

You misunderstand.  Have no aversions to anything that is done in RL.  I simply am not familiar with current SOP's for these teams' roles and am trying to (admittedly very belatedly) trying to learn them so I can use these teams in as realistic as possible manner in the CM2 game.

All am doing is seeking accurate info.

My understanding was that the Co HQ the one who needs to have eyes on the attack so he can issue appropriate orders, and is therefore put in more danger.  My assumption was that the XO has to stay relatively safe back at a command HQ location so he is available to take over if the Co HQ goes down.  You are saying that this is not correct?

So, what are the roles for the XO and 2IC?  Medics?  FO?  Recon?  Reserve for assault force?   Anything else?  (Are the US XO and UK 2IC roles different?)  Am simply looking for clarification.  

 

Others have already commented generally on the differences, or the typical roles. You'll see the recurring theme: XOs, Platoon Sergeants (or Platoon Warrant Officers depending on the nation) tend to have overlap in roles regarding cas evac, combat service support and first echelon supply (e.g.: scooting around with a jeep full of ammo). If you want to get lost in the sauce and split hairs over branches, different countries whatever, then that's your prerogative but I think it's an exercise in futility. The bottom line of all these points is that there's more similarities than differences in how Western countries operate their armies.

Now to confuse you: If you're looking for clarification, let me make something perfectly clear, none of this is perfectly clear.  

Seriously, 'SOPs' are all well and good but the best commander will think on his feet. SOPs are only there for the most general of general situations. Ultimately: the goal of an XO, a 2IC, PSG, PWO or whatever meaningless acronym to say "Number 2" you wish to use, is to help ease the burden of command on his Number 1. This can, and often is, done through the aforementioned means of policing up the rear of a unit or helping evac losses, etc. Now as @Combatintman has already mentioned some limitations in the game (especially regarding platoon NCOs), as well as the fact that CM's mission-oriented scale means you rarely have to deal with Combat Service Support I'll use another example of how a 2IC/XO/Yadda yadda can help ease command.

What CM does get right is the information aspect of battles. A commander, as you said, needs to be up front and aware of the situation to effectively command. The flipside of this is he is only seeing a small slice of the pie. Use your Number 2 to help paint a complete picture rapidly. Lets say this: If the Company leader is with say, Platoons 2 and 3, which is making the main effort, keep the XO with Platoon 1 and its attachments. You accomplish several of your desired goals at once: You are putting your XO to use and not putting your entire command network in the same place to die at once. It also means the XO can keep the Commander 'in the loop' about happenings elsewhere on the tactical battlefield, and exert some authority. 

You're looking for clear answers where there are none, is the gist of what I'm saying. Exert a bit of common sense and do not let an asset as useful as a second in command go to waste sitting on its thumbs.

21 hours ago, Erwin said:

 

...

If you are a platoon or Co CO:

1)  When deciding which units of a platoon do what, would one lead with the Crack units and have the lesser experienced troops follow as support?  Or, send in the lesser experienced units first to assault and keep the Crack units back in reserve to reinforce a successful assault?  

2)  In equipping one's inf units from their Bradleys, what considerations determine who gets what?  My thinking has been that units that are expected to assault buildings do not want to be weighed down by Javelins. So, the assault units would be given an extra 1K rounds plus extra 40mm grenades plus extra AT4's for use vs buildings, but no Javelins.  The Javelins would be given to only one (or at max) two of the platoon's squads who would be used in more of a supporting/overwatch role.

3)  In this case, would the Crack units be given the Javelins - since one wants those to function at optimal capability?  Or, would one give the Javelins to the Regular chaps, so they can hang back and be used in a support role rather than as assault units, while the more highly experienced units make the assault?  

Thanks again - your tactical recommendations are very useful.

Again you're asking for clear answers where there are none. For the sake of brevity I'll just tell you to look at @Howler's posts again because all I'd do is repeat what he had to say.

There is no cut-out answer you can simply paste on to a situation. Identify the problem you need to solve and plan accordingly. If I am absolutely forced to give you a few spitball examples, I might make the best/best lead platoon the main effort in a situation where C2 is likely to be dodgy, such as in built-up terrain. I may be less picky if I'm attacking in open terrain and the virtual CO can exert his influence with greater ease. I'm not even going to address the minutiae of 'which weapon goes into which hands' because it is, to me, trite. Such decisions like that rarely make a meaningful impact past the smallest of unit scenarios, a coherent plan is much more important than which nineteen year old has the HAT. 

Otherwise, if you are still starving for a general rule you want that is most applicable, refer to @Combatintman 's post: Put your best foot forward for the toughest issues. 

Edited by Rinaldi
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Howler said:

Where did you get 400 rd/man for modern US troops? Standard is usually six 30 round mags plus one in the weapon.

Some chap told me to Google this subject and there is info online that while 7 mags is the norm (210 rounds), troops expecting combat say that they load up.  

https://www.quora.com/How-much-ammunition-do-modern-infantry-soldiers-carry

eg: "For infantry soldiers who might reasonably expect to be aggressively engaging the enemy about six magazines plus one loaded in the weapon is fairly normal but that could easily double depending on what other equipment needed to be carried."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Combatintman said:

If you’re genuinely interested about who does what, along with lots of other stuff then read the above.

Unfortunately, one gets "privacy warnings" on every one of your links and cannot access any.

Am simply trying to take my CM2 gameplay to a more "realistic" level.  eg: Determining "reasonable" ammo loads and yes, the thread started about the role that recon teams play in RL vs in the CM game. 

Since we seem to have dealt with appropriate recon roles in the game vs RL, now am asking same question re XO's, 2IC's, and the plethora of other HQ units we often get in a game - eg mortar HQ's and other HQ's which sometimes do not have an obvious role (in the game) and determine how they would be used in RL and how to more realistically use these units in the game vs simply using them as extra combat units, or other...   

"I’m unconvinced about the practice of keeping the best units back until achieving a breakthrough. The breakthrough is the hard task so it makes sense to use your best troops to achieve it. ...If you commit Major Achiever’s C Company in the first place, you stand more chance of getting the tricky bit done leaving the other companies to exploit, which is a whole bunch easier than breaking into the position (US readers should delete Major and insert Captain in the above example by the way). In my six years’ experience as an Observer/Controller at a Brigade and Battlegroup trainer in the UK, the best unit/sub-unit always got the main effort task (not necessarily the most difficult by the way)."

Yes, this has always seemed like "common sense" to me as well.  However, in many complex organizations things don't always make common sense - maybe for good reasons that are not clear to the rest of us.  If you are saying that this is the definitive answer then that's what I have been looking for.  Thank you. 

Plz clarify by example what you mean by "main effort" vs "most difficult"?  Do you mean that the "most difficult" may not matter as much?  If the main effort can succeed regardless of the "most difficult" task, then why do that task?

Re Rinaldi:  "make the best/best lead platoon the main effort in a situation where C2 is likely to be dodgy..."  

Yes, this is what have been doing.  The reason I pressed this question is that "leading with the best" may be a fairly modern tactic.  In Napoleonic and perhaps ACW days, it seemed like one led with the less experienced and kept the best guys (eg Napoleon's "Old Guard") in reserve for the final push.  

Re use of XO and other HQ (and specialized) units in the game, in a similar manner as in RL, the above answers seem to say that there are so many abstractions in the CM2 games that this is not always or even generally possible, and one should simply make a best effort attempt not to do anything too gamey. 

 

*************

PS: To other players:  Ultimately, this is an entertainment game and we're all here to have fun.  If another player wants to play the game loading up units with ammo to the max and using them in whatever manner they want, that's totally fine.  Am not trying to criticize how anyone wants to enjoy their games.

 

Edited by Erwin
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Unfortunately, one gets "privacy warnings" on every one of your links and cannot access any.

Am simply trying to take my CM2 gameplay to a more "realistic" level.  eg: Determining "reasonable" ammo loads and yes, the thread started about the role that recon teams play in RL vs in the CM game. 

Since we seem to have dealt with appropriate recon roles in the game vs RL, now am asking same question re XO's, 2IC's, and the plethora of other HQ units we often get in a game - eg mortar HQ's and other HQ's which sometimes do not have an obvious role (in the game) and determine how they would be used in RL and how to more realistically use these units in the game vs simply using them as extra combat units, or other...   

But, ultimately, this is an entertainment game and we're all here to have fun.  If another player wants to play the game loading up units to the max and using them in whatever manner they want, that's totally fine. 

At the end of the day I agree, there is only one tactical maximum I really follow: "More Weight Gets The Job Done." Semper Fi.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Erwin said:

Unfortunately, one gets "privacy warnings" on every one of your links and cannot access any.

Am simply trying to take my CM2 gameplay to a more "realistic" level.  eg: Determining "reasonable" ammo loads and yes, the thread started about the role that recon teams play in RL vs in the CM game. 

Since we seem to have dealt with appropriate recon roles in the game vs RL, now am asking same question re XO's, 2IC's, and the plethora of other HQ units we often get in a game - eg mortar HQ's and other HQ's which sometimes do not have an obvious role (in the game) and determine how they would be used in RL and how to more realistically use these units in the game vs simply using them as extra combat units, or other...   

But, ultimately, this is an entertainment game and we're all here to have fun.  If another player wants to play the game loading up units to the max and using them in whatever manner they want, that's totally fine.

Err … both my last and @Rinaldi's post have covered off on the XO/2IC question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, sid_burn said:

At the end of the day I agree, there is only one tactical maximum I really follow: "More Weight Gets The Job Done." Semper Fi.

When I was in the U.S.M.C., the TO&E weapon for Officers and Staff NCOs was the M1911 45 caliber pistol. That was because the Marine Corps felt that if we had an M-14 or M-16, we'd be more apt to actively participate in the fight instead of managing the fight. Of course, since the first person Marines would shoot was one without a rifle, we all drew a rifle from the armory. Our basic allotment (BA) of ammo for the M-14 was 180 rounds (nine 20-round magazines). The BA for an M-16, was 240 rounds (eight 30-round magazines) which weighed about the same as the 7.62 BA for the M-14. 

When playing CMx2, I don't remember ever acquiring additional ammo for my Squads, but I do take additional ammo if I have MGs attached. When you do the math, a BA for each man (Marines of course) equates to 1,120 rounds per Fireteam or 4,480 rounds per Squad! If I burn through that much ammo in a fight, I'll resupply from a vehicle when I reach about 25 % ammo remaining. The closest I've come to running out was in the first mission of the Semper Fi: Syria campaign where I had no opportunity to resupply, and two of my Recon Squads were down to fewer than 100 rounds each (that's about 15 rounds per man) at the end of the mission. In that mission, you just have to suck it up, because you start on the beach with no vehicles, so no opportunity to "load up" on ammo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the most effective use of XO and 2IC has been to shore up the morale of nervous, panicked, or broken units, an also medic. The Weapons HQs help to maintain comm between the CO and the weapons squads. I honestly don't know the purpose of the 2IC. Is that a unit specific to the Army?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2IC (2nd in Command) seems to be what the Brits call their XO.

I understand the most effective use of these units in the game.  But, as I have been playing versions of CM for 20 years+, am seeking the challenge of using the units in roles that are as realistic as possible given the game system's many abstractions.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Erwin said:

I understand the most effective use of these units in the game.  But, as I have been playing versions of CM for 20 years+, am seeking the challenge of using the units in roles that are as realistic as possible given the game system's many abstractions.

If you've been using them according to @MOS:96B2Pexcellent post regarding information sharing [INSERT BOARD POST LINK HERE]then you have been using them effectively "given the game system's many abstraction".

You're leading. Be it a team, squad, platoon, etc. or, everything. What, in your research, leads you to believe you haven't been using them effectively or realistically?

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Erwin said:

2IC (2nd in Command) seems to be what the Brits call their XO.

I understand the most effective use of these units in the game.  But, as I have been playing versions of CM for 20 years+, am seeking the challenge of using the units in roles that are as realistic as possible given the game system's many abstractions.  

I think the confusion comes from the fact that @Rinaldi spent some time in the british army. He probably still uses some terminology from his time there.

Edited by sid_burn
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sid_burn said:

I think the confusion comes from the fact that @Rinaldi spent some time in the british army. 

As did I, but there should be no confusion. I have never served in the US forces but it is blatantly obvious that a unit marked as XO is the second highest in the chain of command in a given US TO&E as displayed in the CM UI. Likewise, British 2ICs are thus labelled in the game UI and again it is blatantly obvious that any unit with that designation is the second highest in the chain of command in a Commonwealth TO&E.

Additionally @Rinaldis post covered off on the nomenclature and its relative unimportance - call it 'second group', the 'not quite the Boss group' or whatever those terms are in French and Italian, it doesn't matter because the functions are essentially the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

Of course, since the first person Marines would shoot was one without a rifle, we all drew a rifle from the armory.

The officers don't get rifles standard seems to be very common policy and officers getting them anyway seems pretty common too. My dad did the same in the 60s and 70s for the exact same reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IanL said:

The officers don't get rifles standard seems to be very common policy and officers getting them anyway seems pretty common too. My dad did the same in the 60s and 70s for the exact same reason.

Ok let's nip this one in the bud. A British Warrior equipped Armoured Infantry Battalion is established for 6 x 9mm Pistols. Looking at the composition of the Bn HQ, which has 10 x individuals including the Commanding Officer, who you might expect to carry a pistol, there are 9 x L85A2 and no pistols established As the Chaplain/Padre is one of those 10 and does not bear arms, you can see that everyone in that group carries a rifle. Likewise there are no pistols established in any of the rifle companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Combatintman said:
1 hour ago, IanL said:

The officers don't get rifles standard seems to be very common policy and officers getting them anyway seems pretty common too. My dad did the same in the 60s and 70s for the exact same reason.

Ok let's nip this one in the bud. A British Warrior equipped Armoured Infantry Battalion is established for 6 x 9mm Pistols. Looking at the composition of the Bn HQ, which has 10 x individuals including the Commanding Officer, who you might expect to carry a pistol, there are 9 x L85A2 and no pistols established As the Chaplain/Padre is one of those 10 and does not bear arms, you can see that everyone in that group carries a rifle. Likewise there are no pistols established in any of the rifle companies.

I should have been clearer. I was *not* commenting on the pistols part of the previous post. I was referring to officers taking rifles when they were officially assigned an SMG.

Until about 1988 the battle rifle used by Canadian infantry was the FN C1. It was a large 7.62 semi automatic and officers were officially assigned a much smaller SMG - the C1 SMG which was basically a Sterling. They didn't like having the different weapon even if it was smaller. It was just to different and they would stand out because of it. Or perhaps some of them just liked the FN a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IanL said:

I should have been clearer. I was *not* commenting on the pistols part of the previous post. I was referring to officers taking rifles when they were officially assigned an SMG.

Until about 1988 the battle rifle used by Canadian infantry was the FN C1. It was a large 7.62 semi automatic and officers were officially assigned a much smaller SMG - the C1 SMG which was basically a Sterling. They didn't like having the different weapon even if it was smaller. It was just to different and they would stand out because of it. Or perhaps some of them just liked the FN a lot.

The FN was nice. Reminded me of our M-14s. (we did an exchange with an artillery battery of the Parachute Regt - traded people for 40 days). As a 2LT and 1LT I had an M-16 issued. Only one .45 per battery and that was the battery commander's. As a CPT I had a M-16 as a Brigade Fire Support Officer, in spite of being back in the Bde TOC. Later as Artillery Bn, Asst S-3 and S-3 had a .45, AND an M-16. 

The difference with some of the previous accounts about .45s might be that I was in the 82d Airborne. We tended to be always ready to suddenly become the front lines. You know the line from Maj. Dick Winters "We're paratroopers son. We're supposed to be surrounded."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Passage at Willcox.

The 'MOUT Phase' was expensive. I used the scouts to read the terrain, the interior of the buildings etc (they don't need to move at all). Abrams they don't have canister or conventional HE! The FiST Bradley was perfect for MOUT operation. Approach Platoon of Bradleys and the FiST Bradley on the far left take the barrier near the mosque (Lost a Bradley) You need engineers to clear it. The Abrams used for breaching buildings the Kornet's were no problem, they tell you in the briefing where they are. The scouts already did their work. I need some tips for MOUT in this scenario as I had only a tactical victory. Next time I would use the Javelins against buildings. One scout team recon the far right for in case enemy was located there. (They were not). Once at LOA the FiST Bradley can call the artillery to assist with mopping op. 

Edited by chuckdyke
MOUT operations. Always lose some troops.
Link to post
Share on other sites

To my mind, I wouldn't bother trying to apply RL to this question, the only question is how to use them to help you win the game. If casualties are not a concern, for instance, they may go places where they could well die, if that helps you spot and terminate the enemy.

And if you're playing a game against the AI its just practice for when you play H2H. Against AI, you can try using Recon assets every which way and over and over again until you find a way that works in the scenario.

If you do apply RL SOP and so on, then you're just using the software to simulate something (miniatures?) against AI which might be programmed to do some other thing entirely (not on the same wavelength as you).

And of course the game itself may be quite a bit different from RL, except maybe in weapon physics, 'cos you dont have to deal with bad commanders or bad subordinates.

THH

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 12/6/2020 at 7:45 PM, THH149 said:

To my mind, I wouldn't bother trying to apply RL to this question, the only question is how to use them to help you win the game. If casualties are not a concern, for instance, they may go places where they could well die, if that helps you spot and terminate the enemy.

And if you're playing a game against the AI its just practice for when you play H2H. Against AI, you can try using Recon assets every which way and over and over again until you find a way that works in the scenario.

If you do apply RL SOP and so on, then you're just using the software to simulate something (miniatures?) against AI which might be programmed to do some other thing entirely (not on the same wavelength as you).

And of course the game itself may be quite a bit different from RL, except maybe in weapon physics, 'cos you dont have to deal with bad commanders or bad subordinates.

THH

Sorry for coming so late to the game this time, but here is my take on this whole question. I agree with @THH149 above.

First to set my level of knowledge, "0369" was (since I've been out the the USMC for almost 40 years and the TO&E has probably changed) the USMC Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) code for "Infantry, Small Unit Leader" (or Platoon Sgt). Starting at the company level, we had the Commanding Officer (CO) and the Second in Command Executive Officer (XO). who controlled the battle and movement in a general way. They didn't evacuate the wounded, distribute ammo, or anything like that. They didn't issue specific instructions, just something like "First platoon is the base of fire and second platoon is the maneuver (assault) element." The Platoon Commanders of those units would provide more specific instructions to the Platoon Sgts and Squad Leaders. We would ensure that those orders were carried out. After the assault (using bounding fire), the Platoon Sgt would consolidate the position, prepare for a counterattack, collect and redistribute ammo and food, ensure that any casualties were brought in from the assault path (we NEVER stopped in our advance to give aid to casualties. that is why we had Corpsmen), and emplace any Company level attached weapons such as MG's, Mortars, and Antitank/Assault teams. When we had M-14's, we each carried 180 rounds in nine magazines, and for M-16's 280 rounds in eight magazines. if we had weapons attached such as MG's and 60mm mortars, we'd each also carry 200-400 rounds of 7.62mm (we had M-60s) and two 60mm mortar rounds. Finally, we'd usually also carry 40mm grenades for the M203s and at least one or two claymore mines. Kind of why Marines are considered "Heavy" infantry. I never even heard of a 2IC team until I started playing CM. I honestly don't know if the US Army designates one or if it's just one of those things that BF uses to give us to simplify buddy aid. Recon Teams are usually at Battalion level, the same as Javelins. We never saw them at the Platoon level. We would assign a fire team or squad to perform the recon for our advance, and to keep our flanks secure. We ALWAYS maintained our scouts in front. They are useless in the rear.

I always try to use the above to equip and organize my Marines (and Army even though I know they are not trained the same) in CM. For me, they are tactics that I know best.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vet 0369 said:

the Platoon Sgt would consolidate the position, prepare for a counterattack, collect and redistribute ammo and food, ensure that any casualties were brought in from the assault path (we NEVER stopped in our advance to give aid to casualties. that is why we had Corpsmen

Very useful to know the "normal" ammo load-out.  Thanks...   Am thinking I may try to only have a "realistic" amount of ammo per man.  The main problem is scenario times limitations.  If you have to stop for ammo resupply, it's easy to run out of time.

Because in the CM game we don't have the ability to split off a team or squad to carry ammo for the whole platoon or company (only for their squad) and we don't have dedicated medics - probably a good thing from the unit overload perspective - but it easily leads us gamers to non-RL play where we load up our squads with maybe a thousand rounds each at set-up and then use our XO's etc as medics, use vehicle crews for assaults etc etc.  But, then it is a game and there is a limit to how high fidelity we should expect from a COTS game that costs $60-$70.  Many folks have unrealistic expectations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go back into an earlier part of this thread (January 22, 2019), you’ll see from my calculations for squad and fire team ammo, that what you start with is about what an actual Marine squad or fire team actually has. Also, a mission usually lasts only one to two hours, and if your Marines run out of ammo in that amount of time, than you’re failing to enforce fire discipline and allowing your Marines to waste ammo. Only after we secured the position would we receive resupply by AAV, truck, helicopter, or HMMV (or in our case, Jeep). Whenever possible, you conserve your rounds for the base of fire and assault by bounding fire (leapfrogging fire teams using the assault command). Be sure to assault THROUGH the objective and have the last action point beyond the objective.  Bottom line, I don’t find CM too out of step with reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

If you go back into an earlier part of this thread (January 22, 2019), you’ll see from my calculations for squad and fire team ammo, that what you start with is about what an actual Marine squad or fire team actually has. Also, a mission usually lasts only one to two hours, and if your Marines run out of ammo in that amount of time, than you’re failing to enforce fire discipline and allowing your Marines to waste ammo. Only after we secured the position would we receive resupply by AAV, truck, helicopter, or HMMV (or in our case, Jeep). Whenever possible, you conserve your rounds for the base of fire and assault by bounding fire (leapfrogging fire teams using the assault command). Be sure to assault THROUGH the objective and have the last action point beyond the objective.  Bottom line, I don’t find CM too out of step with reality.

The error of setting too many waypoints and try to win battles with area fire. Use the Sniper's acronym DOPE Data Of Past Experiences. This time it is your PC and not a sniper's rifle. I checked yesterday when my riflemen kill enemy combatants. +2 in leadership and motivation do it reliably, rested condition and no combat stress or shock. @Josey Wales has some excellent YouTube videos. Have those guys in selected terrain and they are more effective than a platoon in a fire fight. The squad's role need to be checked inside their platoon. You find these things out on WeGo and play a wargame with RL purpose. To come up with a model which may work in real life. At least in SF2 if you give your troopers too much ammo they lose their ability to sprint. A battle without casualties has not been fought yet. You have people who value an APC higher than a squad. Their .50 Cal machinegun is often put in an offside position, it is the tool for a MOUT operation at least in this game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

a mission usually lasts only one to two hours, and if your Marines run out of ammo in that amount of time, than you’re failing to enforce fire discipline and allowing your Marines to waste ammo

That's good info re RL.  However, in the CM game, am not sure if one can win some scenarios without masses of Area Fire.  Most tutorials advise "several minutes of suppressive fire, then add a lot more" to be effective.  My sense is that in-game units do not suppress as easily as in RL.

BTW:  "Passage at Wilcox" is one of the best/most enjoyable CMSF2 scenarios.  Kudos to the designer.

Edited by Erwin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...