The Debate with ScoutPL continues...

[Guest Pillar]

Please don't lock this thread up.

Tris, another part of America is Private property rights. That is, just because I have the right to free speech doesn't mean someone must provide me with a stage or a newspaper to voice that speech. If Steve does not want a particular topic being discussed on *his* board, that is *his* prerogative.

If a bunch of of pro-censorship adovcates wanted to use your house to make their speeches, you'd tell them to go to hell right? Well, the basis of your *right* to do that is your property rights.

I love what you say about truth shining through, and the value of free speech. I think Steve does too. I love America and her Constitution, her Freedoms and her values. For that reason, I defend Steves right to decide what happens on his board and I defend your right to decide what happens in your house. I defend your right to say whatever you want *on your own property*.

Let's let this censorship issue drop at that then. I don't want to see this thread get locked up (ironicly) due to some off-topic tangent.

It's a great topic I admit, and I encourage you to carry the debate on with Steve via Email or on a pro-Capitalist bbs.

Thanks for the support.

[Chupacabra]

A couple of things-

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>no one man is the end-all to the trickle of wisdom from the fountain of knowledge. If you haven't learned or somehow fail to appreciate that wisdom then you have much to learn indeed, Steve.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would add this: I have much more experience in these matters than the two years you cite for yourself on this board, and furthermore I am rather senior to you in raw years of life judging from a picture of on your site, taken recently, no doubt (correct me if I'm mistaken), and so I think I am qualified to warmly invite you to dismount your high horse, smell the roses and listen to a lone voice of quiet reason: censorship is never a good deal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well then, apparently you are the "end all to the trickle of widsom from the fountain of knowledge." O Wise Tris, I thank you for being the lone voice of quiet reason!

How is your personal knowledge of moderating a BBS any more valid than Steve's? Because you've done it longer? Bull. Or is it more valid because you're older than he? Again, bull.

As a musician and former radio DJ I have very strong views on censorship. But you know what? In many cases it is necessary and even desirable. If I'd gotten on the radio and started reading the Penthouse Forum on the air, here's what the likely scenario would have been: First, someone listening would have called the radio station to complain, and I would've been fired. If the radio station didn't take action against me for some reason, the offended listener would've called the FCC. In fact, they may have done so anyway. Then, both the station and I would have been slapped with extremely hefty fines, I would have been banned from operating radio equipment for a set amount of time, the station's broadcasting license would have been revoked, and both the station and I may have faced addition legal action at the FCC's discretion.

My point is, it's the FCC's show. The rules they set are ones which they believe will benefit and protect the community. My personal choice as a DJ was to either abide by those rules or to not broadcast. Was it censorship? You bet. Was it morally wrong? Nope. Same deal with BTS. This board is their show, not yours. There are other unmoderated fora available if you feel this one is run by the jack-booted forces of oppression. I'd urge you to go to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical to see how much fun it is to wade through a completely unmoderated forum with any sort of posting volume.

I know, I know, I'll smell the roses and get off my high horse now. Cheers.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So what is your message? What is this somethingorother that I mean to say or am "really" thinking behind all of these (clearly implied) veiled words which I've so insultingly "attacked" you with?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you finally came right out and said it pretty well. You are better than me. You are morally superior than me. You live in a perfect and just existance that is beyond reproach, and therefore you have it in your holy power to pass judgement on all those of lesser and inferior value to society than yourself with the "moral high ground" firmly under your feet. And you are never guilty of the "sin" you find in others... like this for example:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You wrote:

And I will add that I do not resort to similar tactics when I hold discussions with others, no matter the subject. I have something to say, I say it, just as openly and directly as I can. I expect the same in kind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet 4 or 5 posts earlier you ended your first contribution to this thread with this line:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You make awful good games, Steve, and for this I am pleased. I don't know about your capacity as the moderator of a board, though. Something isn't right, that's for sure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, no innuendo there. Not even a hint of it.

You also posed a challenge to me:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Me: I make no pretentions that ScoutPL is infalible or should be beyond question, yet that is what you directly accused me of.

You: What? Please cite any relevant passage of mine which supports this claim of yours.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right here for one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think ScoutPL does have much to offer here based on his real-world experience, but no one man is the end-all to the trickle of wisdom from the fountain of knowledge. If you haven't learned or somehow fail to appreciate that wisdom then you have much to learn indeed, Steve.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And another...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You wrote more than that. The thrust of your remarks were directed toward Pillar, not ScoutPL, and on top of that you spoke down to Pillar, both in voice and spirit when you cited ScoutPL's qualifications in a more than little haughty manner with the clear implication that that should persuade Pillar to "know his place."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Then I am satisfied to leave it there, Steve. Feel free to have a last word and I will take no excpetion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good, because it is 4am here and I need to get some sleep

Steve

[Guest Germanboy]

Tris, since you proclaim yourself a free-speech absolutist, and are proud of being labeled one, I would be quite interested how you would propose to deal with somebody asking for members of a certain religious persuasion to be exterminated? What if that person does not only have a clearly deranged world-view but also the means to carry it out or at least to influence a large number of people? As a free-speech absolutist, I would expect you to let such people get on with whatever they do, because such is the logical conclusion of that line of thinking as I understand it. If I got this wrong, I would be interested to see where the absolutism stops.

And don't pull age or whatever on me please.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-10-2000).]

[pkpowers]

A very interesting thread. In a nutshell, US doctrine reinforces failure ; Soviet doctrine reinforces success....

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pkpowers:

A very interesting thread. In a nutshell, US doctrine reinforces failure ; Soviet doctrine reinforces success....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am quite sure there is a serious misunderstanding at work here. Have a look at the 1982 battles between Israel's IDF and the Syrians in the Lebanon to see what havoc Soviet Doctrine wrought. AFAIK the Syrian commanders were Frunse graduates.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-10-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A very interesting thread. In a nutshell, US doctrine reinforces failure ; Soviet doctrine reinforces success....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... yeah, this is one I have heard before. There is certainly some truth to it. But I would much rather be in a situation where the norm was NOT to fail so that success could be discovered through trial and error I don't know enough about modern Soviet tactics, but back in WWII the Soviets did far too much of the "recon by body count" tactics. To be fair, this was not necessarily due to bad doctrine, nor was it avoidable in the earlier years.

Steve

[ScoutPL]

From Pillars "new tactics" post in Tips and Techniques.

"In response to this, I've changed my own tactics. Now, I place a more decisive role on reconaissance, using individual men such as sharpshooters to recon ahead and find the enemy positions. Particularly, these special recon-sharpshooters should be paying attention to locating the enemy armour and avoiding concentrations of enemy infantry. Once the enemy armour is located, the sniper should hide for later use when the attack is conducted. "

These are the tactics I took issue with, none other. THis CP/RP stuff is somthing else he brought into the picture and I have said I wouldnt debate since I know nothing about them. Thats pretty much it.

Tris, take a pill man.

[Croda]

Well I must say that I'm quite disappointed. I entered this thread in the hope that I'd learn a little more about recon techniques, no matter who authored them. I hoped that I'd get a chance to hear both sides championed, and decide which I felt was better suited to my style of play and personal theory. I even offered up what I thought was a valid (though somewhat uneducated) question early on the first page of the thread last night before I left work. And what did I find upon re-checking this post this morning?

GARBAGE.

I am thoroughly disgusted with the fact that what should have been an open discussion on doctrine, policy, and technique, debilitated to mud-slinging and character assesments. My simple question was only briefly addressed as personal attacks took precedence over scholarly discussion. This is also the most that I believe I've ever seen Steve post to a thread in these past few months, where I try to read most all threads.

This has become a horrible example of what this forum (all in all the best I've ever visited) tends to become when the grogs square off. And everyone claims they were the one wronged.

Absurd.

No questions were answered. Nothing was resolved. Everyone is now pissed off at each other, and I will look at later posts by Pillar, ScoutPL, and Tris with not so fond memories of this thread, and will not pay them the attention I otherwise would have. This is a shame, because they are all quite knowledgeable and everyone stands to learn a lot from them. Steve and Matt, I was even embarassed to see you let yourself get dragged into this ugliness.

Let's try to get it back together and continue what started out as a great debate in which people like me, who don't read Field Manuals (foreign or domestic), were learning a great deal about military theory.

------------------

"Nuts!"

[Pak40]

ScoutPL,

I found this manual at a used book store. Pure luck. It even has a person's name in handwriting on the front cover, Pierre Oubre, probably the original soldier who owned it.

It's in good shape for an old manual and it has several maps/illustrations. Not only is it pre-WWII but it is pre-bazooka. It will be interesting to read the AT tactics.

[aka_tom_w]

WOW

I just read the whole thread.....

I think this one is TOO much...

Why don't we all just play a little more CM (Don't worry Head to Head TCP/IP wil be here soon and then our favourite comabtants can go at it in (sort of) real time ) and enjoy the coming weekend and Chill out.

How about something peaceful like hug a tree, or a hand shake, and lets agree to disagree and move on.

Maybe if you are lucky its sunny where you are, because its NOT where I am.

-tom w

[Guest wwb_99]

This is my effort to bring this topic back to what is far more important to most and defintely more entertaining than the pissing contest taking up the previous two pages: reconissiance doctrine.

Thare are fundamental differences in the way in which the Americans (and British) and the Germans/Russians conduct reconissiance. Much of is has do do with the way in which geography and force density in the Second World War.

The Anglo-Americans are first and foremost naval powers protected by oceanic moats. What this means is that they generally choose where and when to fight and for how long with how much of their forces. Did they have to fight in Normandy in the summer of 1944? No. But they could bring far more force to bear against the Germans at that time and chose to do so. And if D-Day had gone differntly they could have easily cut their losses at a couple of regiments and fallen back to the unsinkable aircraft carrier to try again.

But D-Day was a success and the western Allies proceeded to put some 60 or so divisions, roughly 20 Armored and most of the rest mechanized, against the equivalent of 25 divisions, only 8 of which were armored (take these numbers as rough approximations, I am working from memory). This is a very large amount of forces, especially when one consideres that these forces were deployed on a front generally stretching not more 500 miles long, and usually much shorter.

Combine this with the geography of western Europe. While much of it is plain, it is criss-crossed by many rivers and several mountain ranges. One must remeber that by 1944 the campaigning routes of Europe were well worn. Army Group B took the same route in 1940 that Caesar took in 55 B.C. Hannibal and Allied commanders in Italy could have compared notes on avenues of approach. Much of the fighting in northern france and Flanders was on the familliar and hallowed ground fought over in the First World War. The fighting in the Rhineland follwed the same routes that Spinoza marched down in the 17th century. The limited spaces and predefined routes of western Europe made route reconnissiance the much more viable option. The density of forces made it unlikely that there would be a real 'hole' in the German lines. And the geography of western europe meant that trailblaizing a new route was next to impossible.

The Eastern front was a far different story. Much of Soviet Russia was uncharted territory, the rest poorly charted at best. While more men manned the lines on the Eastern front, there were far fewer men per mile than in the west. Also, it must be remeber that while the Russo-German conflict conjures images of Tigers and T-34s, much of the combat was reminscent of the first world war with a high proportion of automatic weapons. This meant that the tactic of searching out the weak point and infiltrating large numbers of infantry was both possible and adviseable. The Russians especially were known to send entire companies through German lines overnight. From the German point of view, the Russians could and would hide anywhere, so every copse had to be examined. Also, Soviet units were poor at coordination, and the edges between Regiments and especially divisions was often undefended, making it a prime place to throw in the very limited numbers of German troops.

One final point: The American Way of War is quite unique in modern times, but bears a definite similarity to the Roman Republican way of war. Both states were not gifted with terribly brilliant generals or especially elite forces. But the infantry they both field could be rated as 'solid.' Both ways do not shrink from the frontal attack, and even in defeat and retreat inflict horrible losses on their opponents. And to each, defeat is only a temporary matter. The army will be back in the next season, and in greater numbers.

WWB

------------------

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salatamus.

[Los]

One thing is clear, Pillar has little or no understanding of Soviet-style doctrine (Or NTC OPFOR for that matter) or tactics. Which is why I suppose he's been scrambling in another thread to get a hold of various manuals, (which by the way I have most of). He's making up terms and concepts slipping freeley between recon doctrine and atack doctrine and applying them to how the Soviets do recon in order to prove some non-point to SCOUTPL. (BTW both PILLAR and SCOUTPL have described many excellent tactics to use in CM, neither being mutually exclusive, this is 90% some personal issue between the two that just won't die a simle quiet death until it's dragged through multiple threads.)

The sad thing is that now when I get home I'll have to avert valuable research/work time from CM2 to rectify these misrepresentations. Sigh...

Los

p.s. Unless of course Steve locks this up between now and then.

[Guest Pillar]

Hehe, Los, you are clever guy but I think you've misinterpreted me!

Quote: My intent in this thread was simply to show that broad front recon tactics, which are practiced by a number of CM players, are not as "gamey" as ScoutPL has implied in other threads

I'm still learning Soviet doctrine, which I've been studying in between schoolwork for a couple months now. There is no doubt that I don't understand it. What I do understand is that CP/RP recon is not gamey. ScoutPL gave me the impression in a few threads, that it was.

He has since 'clarified' his position and said he was only refering to the use of sharpshooters.

Basically, that's all I wanted.

[Guest Pillar]

wwb_99

That was a real interesting post. I especially liked the historic references you drew upon. I know Patton was big on military history himself -- it must have influenced his decisions.

[Guest wwb_99]

Thank you. I should have been able to make it quicker and cleaner, but I was at work so it got interupted about every second sentance.

WWB

------------------

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salatamus.

[Jeff Duquette]

At the risk of diverging from the present thread course and diving back into the discussion at hand, I thought this was kind of interesting. I’m sure it will be misinterpreted as I think the intent of Scout’s tactical guide was aimed at a reinforced rifle company deliberate attack on a know enemy position, and the following is really talking about squad tactical doctrine…but what the hell. From: Joseph Balkoski’s “Beyond the Beachead, The 29th Infantry Division in Normandy”

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The US Army's solution was "fire superiority." The manual stated that "Fire superiority is gained by subjecting the enemy to fire of such accuracy and intensity that his fire becomes so inaccurate or so reduced in volume as to be ineffective." Then the troops could rush forward to dispatch the enemy with grenades and bayonets. "Fire and maneuver" was what the tacticians called this procedure.

An American squad…was trained to overcome an enemy position by breaking into separate parts. According to the manuals (Presumably “The manuals” refers to the 1940’s versions: FM 7-8 & FM 7-10) two riflemen designated as scouts, and known as "Team Able," would locate the enemy position. Then the squad leader would direct his BAR man and three other riflemen, together designated "Team Baker," to lay down fire on the target. The five remaining riflemen and the squad leader himself—"Team Charlie"—assaulted the enemy position. The concentrated, rapid fire of the BAR and M1s was deemed sufficient to maintain fire superiority. If a squad ran into a strong enemy position, it could maintain fire superiority by calling upon neighboring squads for help.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Pillar]

Did the Germans do the same sort of thing with their squad, using the MG42 LMG?

It would be cool if the "Split Squads" feature in CM could be modified to incorporate that kind of tactic.

[RMC]

JD,

I don't have any prime source material, but I think that the three-team organization was adopted in 1942. "On Infantry" talks about this highlighting the difficulty of one squad leader to control the whole thing.

[Jeff Duquette]

RMC:

Balowski is really only giving us an insight into idealized squad performance. For squads to realistically be expected to perform in this manner a relatively high percentage of natural fighters – natural soldiers -- within every squad would have to be present; guys willing to lead and act on their own initiative. Individual initiative was hardly a common trait to the mostly green US ARMY going into France in 1944.

Balowski’s detailing of a “three team” squad was a bit of a surprise to me as well…but there you have. A precursor to more formalized fire teams. However, from reading Gen. William DePuy one would get the impression that much of the green US Infantry going into ETO in 44 were incapable of functioning at a unit levels any smaller than squads and platoons.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From: “Changing An Army”, An Oral History of General William Depuy.

INTERVIEWER: Was there anything in particular that you learned about our soldiers, other than what you've already mentioned, in terms of what you could or could not expect of them?

GENERAL DEPUY: Well, I certainly came away with a feeling that only a small percentage of the soldiers did almost all of the fighting. If you just left them alone then some 10 percent of the soldiers were the ones who actually took the initiative, moved, fired their rifles, threw hand grenades, and so on. The other 90 percent would defend themselves if they had to, but would not do the other things unless an officer or a sergeant directly ordered them to do it, in which case they usually would do it. I learned that you couldn't depend on them doing things simply because there was a plan to do it, or because of some generalized order to do it, and this included the junior officers. You had to say, "do this," "do that," "now fire there," "now do this," and "now move there." You would always end up with a good sergeant or a good officer and three or four men doing all of the work

Unfortunately, the rest of them contributed to the casualties. And, to this very day, I'd rather have a 40-man company than a 220-man company, if I could pick the 40 men. I’d pick sergeants and officers and a few natural fighters if I could. So, what I'm saying is that I came away absolutely impressed with the fact that the average man, like nine out of ten, or eight out of ten, does not have an instinct for the battlefield, doesn't relish it, and will not act independently except under direct orders. If they are in a crew they are better. If they are in a tank or with a machine gun, they are better because there is teamwork involved. If an officer orders them to do something eyeball-to-eyeball, most men, even the ones who don't want to do it, have no initiative, and are scared to death, normally will do exactly what he tells them to do.

INTIERVIEWER: During this time did you start to develop the ideas that later became the "eleven men-one mind"' or "follow me and do as I do" concept, or did that come later?

GEN DEPUY: "Eleven men-one mind" was the articulation of the overwatch concept. The idea was to provide a conceptual framework for the operation of a squad. Of course the goal was to get more soldiers involved in the fighting and to reduce the necessity of stopping to explain how the two fire teams were to provide "fire and movement." That came after the war, but the impetus came from the generally poor performance of wartime squads. Often a platoon leader would give up on squads and run a whole platoon as one mob or as a bunch of individuals. Of course that was an act of desperation. Once the idea of operating two mutually supporting teams has taken hold then the question of how to control a fire team arises. The answer is that the team leader leads. He is in front and his team follows on each side in a "V" formation. That is where the "follow me and do as I do" came from. By the way, Gideon said the same thing — "Observe me and do likewise."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-11-2000).]

[Maximus]

Trying to keep this thread "on-topic", I thought the current US Doctrine towards recon was "recon-by air". If I'm not mistaken the first shots fired in the Gulf War were by Apache helicopters. The US now tends to scout the area with its ground support aircraft even before sending out the high flyers in order to suppress or destroy air defenses.

[Jeff Duquette]

"on topic"...huh? I thought we were talking about splitting up infantry squads for scouting...and the difference between WWII ARMY doctrine and Present? Sorry there has been so many tangents to this topic I have obviously lost track of what the hell is being discussed.

So now we're talking about modern air recon?

[Guest Pillar]

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/012511.html

[Jackal]

Gentlemen:

The reconnaissance issue is a must even at the CM level. As for american doctrine concerning this issue, I spent 4 years in the US Military scouts as a dismount, on bradleys, and on hmmwv's. The recon issue is of such importance at ALL levels warfare that nothing can happen with any resemblence of success until the enemy is known. Expect huge losses every battle you fail to recon the terrain, the enemy, and the enemy's course of action. Now, As for the Russian doctrine on reconaissance. . .lets take a Motorized Rifle Division in march formation. Imagine three Motorized Rifle Regiments (MRR)abreast, followed by the Division HQ and Cbt Spt elems, followed by a Tank Reg't in reserve. The distance end shoulder to end shoulder of the MRR front is roughly 10-25 KM depending on the terrain. In front of each MRR Main body force is a Regimental Advance Guard consisting of, in this order, a Combat Recon Patrol (CRP) with a composition of a Tank Plt, NBC Rcn, and an Eng Rcn Squad; following 5-10 km back is the Forward Security Element (FSE)with a composition of a Tank Co (-), MR Plt, Arty Btry, Eng assets (-); following 5-10 km back is the Advance Guard Main Body with a composition of the Bn HQ, Arty BN(-), Tank Co(-), AA Plt, MR Co(-), Tank Co(-), Spt Elements; following 1-3 km back is the Rear security with a composition of a Tank Plt; Flank security elements on either side of this consisting of a Tank Plt with attached Eng. NOW, the Advance Guard precedes the Reg't Recon Patrols who covers a 25 km front ahead of the Adv Guard; in front of the Reg't Recon Patrols is the Division Recon Patrols covering another 25 km front ahead of the Reg't Recon Patrol. From my readings, ahead of the Reg't and division recon patrols there would be numerous insertions of special recon troops through air assault/airborne methods. Now looking at the recon effort in front of the main body. . .pretty thick. The americans do the same ****, just different mindset. The information is of the same importance and is needed for the same end result. . FIX the enemy. Recon elements are out front to locate the enemy, but are not asked to do so at the expense of their lives at the earliest moment. Recon elems call for indirect fires from mortar, arty, naval, aircraft from the divisional and regimental support. while this is occurring the Advance guard is moving forward to further fix the enemy for an attack, to set up a defense to hold the enemy until the main body arrives, or to flank a weaker enemy and destroy while the recon continues to call for fire, the main body advances to engage, and eventually the determination of whether to continue the attack, set up a solid defense, or to withdraw. CM has a high urgency for recon, and I use my recon elems to their fullest. My tank crews abandon their vehicles. . fresh recon teams. intelligence of the enemy "across the battlefield" is of the greatest importance. US and Soviet doctrine has allot of differences. . .the reason is because they are looking to defeat the others recon elems as soon as possible to take out the eyes and eyes of the main body. Saddam is a prime example of losing "eyes and ears" on the enemy. He had no room to manuever.

[The_Capt]

I have read this very long thread and would like to point out one fact which seems to have been overlooked. THERE ARE OTHER NATIONS IN CM BESIDES THE FREAKIN US!!!

In British and Canadian doctrines use of "recce" was and is often executed at the battalion (or Battle Group) level. Recce Pull vs Recce push is still a bone of contention as is manoeuvre vs attritionist warfare.

Recce is not only planned for but part of a Battle Group in operations providing info on en locations as well as, Fire Base, Attack Posn and Lines of Departure in the hasty attack during the Advance and Assault. Liason and screening during the defence.

I find it slightly offensive that ScoutPl would state that anything other than US doctrine is being "gamey" when decentralized recce is a part of at least to other nations being represented in the game.