Who uses scouts? Everyone except me?

[Fellonmyhead]

Well I must say that regardless of what 'doctrine' you typically follow tactically (or strategically), all have their good points and bad points.

As so many have stated, there must be some sort of fluidity in the advance, and the good commander will be flexible in his approach.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and both 'doctrines' have resulted historically in successes and failures.

What I am trying to say is there is no sure way of approaching this. Either could produce a success in probing the enemy prior to the attack.

But personally, I would probably take an adapted version of ScoutPL's approach; solely because there is generally little time to play with.

Oh by the way, I do advocate the use of so-called 'gamey' tactics in so far as this is a game and will have its shortcomings as a simulation of real warfare.

As in real life, therefore, the commander must expect the enemy to 'know' his whereabouts if one 'scout' susses him out.

Fellonmyhead

Mother dropped me first.

[ScoutPL]

Cite me some examples of where the "Pillar" brand of deliberate recon on a broad front DURING a battle has occurred and proven successful and we'll have a debate.

Inevitably, your attack would have unfolded pretty close to one of our solutions (flank sweep right or pincer with assault from the left flank). Only you would have wasted precious minutes (turns) confirming what the intel brief and a good terrain analysis gave me from the very beginning. Not to mention the substantial loss in combat power when you detail a platoon to break down in to fire teams and conduct a recon by range walk. You only get a company to start with remember? I'm sure no amount of example and explanation will get you to change your mind, since the fact that I'm preaching from an infantry bible (FM 7-8) that has evolved for over 100 years of modern warfare isn't enough to convince you straight out. Give me some examples from outside the CM playing field and I'll bite!

[Fellonmyhead]

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

Cite me some examples of where the "Pillar" brand of deliberate recon on a broad front DURING a battle has occurred and proven successful and we'll have a debate.!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume this was directed at me, please stop me if I'm wrong. Such examples occurred during the Falklands War in 1982. But 'recon' was not the word I used; I referred to scouting, or rather the act of probing the enemy during the course of a battle. If you want a specific battle, will Goose Green do? Little formal Int of enemy, yet with probing attacks a success for British forces.

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

Inevitably, your attack would have unfolded pretty close to one of our solutions (flank sweep right or pincer with assault from the left flank). Only you would have wasted precious minutes (turns) confirming what the intel brief and a good terrain analysis gave me from the very beginning. Not to mention the substantial loss in combat power when you detail a platoon to break down in to fire teams and conduct a recon by range walk. You only get a company to start with remember? I'm sure no amount of example and explanation will get you to change your mind, since the fact that I'm preaching from an infantry bible (FM 7-8) that has evolved for over 100 years of modern warfare isn't enough to convince you straight out. Give me some examples from outside the CM playing field and I'll bite!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My apologies; I did not post my prior message to rile you

I am quite sure your manual is adequate; so was mine. The inherent point I was making was not meant to upset or offend, but the truth of the matter is all tactics are not cut-and-dry and the individual commander/soldier, at whatever level and/or role must adapt a solution to a myriad of possible situations.

I do not (and did not) doubt that your method has been tried and tested by the (US?) military for years; and as I stated your method would be the preferred one given the situation the game simulates (though I would be flexible with it). So your example and explanation has not been wasted

As for the question of 'doctrine', (something 'Pillar' rants on about) I believe there is no solid East or West 'doctrine'. The changing face of the modern world has seen to that.

BTW I haven't read your tutorial, ScoutPL, so please don't take any of this as a critique of something which I can't possibly critiue ATT.

[ScoutPL]

Fellon whatever, I wasnt directing my challenge to you. You actually posted your message while I was typing my reply to Pillar so it came out after yours.

You should go back and read Pillar's concept. I dont think you would want to associate the Parachute Regiment with it, as its rather unorthodox and unrealistic in my opinion. I served with a British Para NCO for awhile with the 82nd ABN DIV who was a Falklands vet. I know they use the same traveling overwatch/bounding overwatch movement techniques that we(the US) do. Since the Falklands were so open I'm sure the distances between the lead elments and the main body were greater then usual but the same tactical formations and movement techniques are used by both armies. A very good example of the flexibility you advocate so strongly.

[Fellonmyhead]

Okay, Scout; I just assumed... something one should never do about anything

Yes you are correct as per the 'bounding' system; it is termed 'pepperpotting' on this side of the pond (or it was last time I checked ).

A similar method to the so-called 'advancing screen' is often employed during the advance to contact, particularly where terrain dictates (a key point you made about terain earlier, BTW). But admittedly, this is not a 'screen' as such, due to the fluidity of modern warfare (and the same could be said of Blitzkreig).

Yes, if a Para (or indeed any squaddie) heard me say he was employed as cannon-fodder in the fashion in which Mr. ( I assume it's Mr.) Pillar dictates, I would likely get a punch in the mouth! After all, it's their bread-and-butter.

There have been successes with other 'doctrines', but not many where it can be too significantly attributed to unorthadox scouting or recon strategies. But success has been the result.

Though looking at my last posting, perhaps you are right in that the Goose Green example probably exemplifies the pepperpotting much more than the alleged 'Eastern Doctrine'.

Thanks, Scout, it is good to benefit from an experienced discussion.

Fellonmyhead.

Tripped on the top step!

[Guest Pillar]

ScoutPL,

Are you trying to get into a formal debate with me? If so, you must name the topic clearly and present yourself with a clear thesis. Your thesis shouldn't be one of methodology, but one of principle. Your methodology should reflect that principle.

Do you agree with the following principles?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From US Army Field Manual 7-8, and 7-10

"The concept behind the approach march is to make contact with the smallest element, allowing the commander the flexibility of maneuvering or bypassing the enemy force. As part of a larger unit using the approach march technique, platoons may act as the advance, flank, or rear guard. They may also receive on-order missions as part of the main body. "<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You probably do as a former US Army Platoon Leader. Assuming you do, why do you feel your approach meets the criteria set out by these principles? Certainly you aren't making contact with the enemy with the least possible force. You also aren't making use of a platoon as the "advance, flank, or rear guard." You also didn't make an attempt to bypass the enemy force, as recommended in sentence one. I think you have further explaining to do, either in terms of showing why your methodology follows these principles, or by disagreeing with the US Army's principle of the approach.

Would you like a full critique of each of the points you made (numbered) in your last post of page 3?

I look forward to hearing from you.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 11-06-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Pillar, I see an awful lot of may/can/or in there and very little that is prescriptive. Would it be right to assume that this signifies a willingness on the part of the US Army to give their lower ranked officers flexibility, or is that just language, and the real meaning is 'we may not say it outright, but you have to do it our way'

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

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 11-06-2000).]

[gezeder]

Well, referring to the operation I'm playing at the moment, I wish I had scouted more before committing the majority of my forces, despite the battle only being 15 turns. I picked a point of attack, and, unfortunately, a bad one. I am now resorting to scouting out other areas on the map, and finding, much to my dismay, little resistance.

This suggests to me that a little added recon before deciding my path of attack COULD have led to a more successful battle.

I recognize the easy response, "you should have picked a better attack position, it was your bad call that led to this" - and I agree, however, if I had of scouted more, and Not made decisions about what to do before scouting, perhaps I could have been more flexible, and thus, changed my attack.

I'm not sure Pillar is suggesting that these screening half squads SHOULD die, only that you have to accept they are likely to die. (If I'm wrong about this Pillar, I apologize )

In this case, it seems to me mission briefing was a little misleading (or simply misinterpreted by me) and more comprehensive scouting Could have helped my position.

Of course, there's more to the battle than this one thing, nevertheless - I can't see what's so bad about an advance screening force of half squads, detecting and uncovering enemy strong/weak points......

[Jackson]

ScoutPL,

I have a couple of thoughts regarding your tutorial. First of all, I thought it was very good. In “Closing with the Enemy,” Michael Doubler discusses the difficulty the Americans had with developing and implementing the combined arms team. One of the most important elements of this, if not the most important, was bringing all of the firepower to bear on the enemy positions at the same time. Also crucial was a fast infantry advance following the preliminary artillery barrage.

I thought that your tutorial did an excellent job in demonstrating this. Your SBF started moving into position before your ME, and was laying down fire at expected enemy positions just as the ME reached the jump off point. You then dropped smoke, cleared the mine/wire obstacles, and established your foothold in the village. It was pretty much over by then.

What I would really like to see, and I know this is asking a lot, would be for you to do another, larger tutorial. Say, a 1250 or 1500 point QB, American attacker, combined arms, where you choose your units and the computer chooses the AI’s. Random map (village/heavy trees) with five or six VLs, 30-35 turns. That would be damn entertaining and an extremely useful learning tool for those of us who would like to employ more real world tactics.

Thanks.

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

"One lesson I have learned in combat is 'there is no fox hole better than the one you are in'." Staff Sergeant H.F. Muschamp, 133rd Inf., Italy 1943

[Samhain]

I'd like to second that request, having enjoyed the tutorial and having been asking about assault tips for QB's with similar conditions on the Tips & Techniques forum.

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

Hope you got your things together,

Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

[Guest Pillar]

Andreas,

In regards to what you said...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Would it be right to assume that this signifies a willingness on the part of the US Army to give their lower ranked officers flexibility...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, there is flexibility. One thing I often come across in studying the US Army doctrine is their refusal to adhere to any given method of accomplishing the goals. Often when studying a particular approach, they will say this is "A" way to do it, but not the only way. However, the methodology while flexible *MUST* adhere to certain principles. The principle of the approach is described quite clearly as:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The concept behind the approach march is to make contact with the smallest element, allowing the commander the flexibility of maneuvering or bypassing the enemy force.

Field manual 7-8,7-10<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Therefore, any methodology used which does not emply economy of force and the use of maneuver to maximize exploitation of the enemy defence is incorrect as judged by US Army Doctrine. Throwing your forces into the enemy without a screen is a waste of men and resources -- especially into the enemy strongpoint. Thus, I disagree with the approach being taught by ScoutPL. Others are free to make up their own mind.

[Guest Germanboy]

Thanks Pillar - I guess I have to dig out the Major's CD and have a look at it tonight. Hope it is not in storage. I was just wondering because that would make the language in the FM dealing with the employment of LATWs very prescriptive, IIRC. Haven't read the tutorial by ScoutPL, so I would not want to comment on the specific issue here. I have a sneaking suspicion though that a lot of this debate could come down to personality and temperament of the CO.

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

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 11-06-2000).]

[Guest Pillar]

Gezeder,

You are correct in your assesment.

Scout units, such as half-squads, are not sent to die in any sort of kamikazie attack. They are supported by light artillery and mortar closely behind the screen (flexible resources designed to pin, but not kill the enemy). This is for the simple reason that the scouts job is not just to FIND the enemy, but to try and pin him. I'll often accompany my forward screen with LMG's or 81mm Spotters, even better a Lynx or Greyhound. I've had great success using half-squads combined with light arty and/or light vehicles to pin the enemy while my main body moves quickly into the gap.

I also feel quite strongly that the lives of the point men is far more secure using this technique.

Really, there is no avoiding a forward element. You don't have a choice since when you do finally meet the enemy, it is inevitable that *some* part of your force will meet him first. You have a choice, you can make this a small unit specificly set aside for the task with light support *or* you can make it the forward elements of your main thrust. Either way, these men are going to get chewed up a bit, it's inevitable and that's warfare.

However, using a blind (no forward screen) schwerpunkt into the enemy defence will not only get your first echelon slaughtered, but it will force your second echelon into the support of an unsuccessful operation and that is *exactly* what the enemy wants from you.

The only success players will have in my opinion with ScoutPL's approach is with green opponents, or with good luck (picking the enemy weakpoint by chance). And in either case, those forward elements are going to get hurt.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 11-06-2000).]

[Jackson]

Pillar,

While I’m the first to agree with your scouting tactics in QBs, I think you’re being a little harsh in your characterization of ScoutPL’s tactics. We have nothing to go by other than speculation as to whether or not his tactics (sound as they are IRL) would work in a blind QB. Personally, I have no reason to think that he wouldn’t smoke the AI or a PBEM opponent using his tactics and planning. He brings a lot of firepower to his point of attack.

However, having said that, I think that you’ve been rather harshly treated in this thread as well. As you’ve said, these scout teams are not necessarily cannon fodder (mine aren’t), and should not be assumed to be so. They allow maximum flexibility in executing your plan by fixing heavy enemy resistance before your main effort is fully committed, and when accompanied by ‘zooks, LMGs and/or FOs they can be a potent force in their own right. I should never have used the term “expendable” in an earlier post, as I think it has contributed to some of the misunderstanding here.

Perhaps if I was better at planning my attack during setup, I wouldn’t have to rely so much on scouting.

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

My plan is the ultimate in “flexibility,” since I make most of it up as I go along!

[Guest Pillar]

Jackson,

It's not about smoke usage or attack support, it's about developing the situation.

When I made my proposition that developing an attack should involve a recon screen, ScoutPL pointed out that he believed the method is unrealistic and ineffective in real life. I think I've made a decent retort showing that the tactics are quite sound, realistic, and effective.

None of that was meant to sound harsh. Your comments are appreciated though, because I'd like to clear up any potential "tonal" misinterpretations before ScoutPL gives his reply that way this stays focused on facts and not posters.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

I couldn't help but notice that the smallest unit of contact mentioned in the FM was the platoon, not the half-squad. To me that makes much more sense. I don't see how you can "pin" the enemy with a half-squad, even if backed by a LMG. Here's an example from the scenario Fear in the Fog played against the AI (I think that's the name of the scenario; paratroopers in Bastogne). There's a small possible *spoiler,* so I'll leave a screen.

In this scenario, US paratroopers have to occupy certain villages on the road to Bastogne, and also keep German units from exiting the map toward Bastogne. Germans enter from the south [these directions are correct relatively, but I'm not sure what the actual directions are] end of the board and head north, germans enter (or start onboard; I don't know) from the east and head west. There is a lot of tree cover on the East end of the board, and, as you might imagine, a lot of fog. Anyway, so the basic idea is that the troops are heading toward each other in a perpendicular way.

As I sent my troops northward to occupy the various villages, I decided that it might be worthwhile to scout the woods where the Germans were likely to approach from, so I took a veteran squad, split it into two half squads, and sent it to explore the woods east of the village.

Result? I ran into a Volksgrenadier platoon that killed both half-squads in one turn. The sound of their SMGs sounded like a chainsaw. I'm not sure that I caused one casualty. I didn't come *close* to pinning them. I didn't even perform a successful recon-by-death, as all I discovered was a platoon of VG -- I have no idea whether that was the Schwerpunkt or just flank security.

My men weren't too close together, either; they were about 100m apart from each other. One half-squad got hit by two squads, and the other got killed by one plus, I think, the headquarters.

So I remain skeptical of scouting's benefits.

[Guest Pillar]

...and you could have just as easily sent an entire platoon into those woods with the fog, straight into the Volksgrenadiers SMG's and lost a helluva lot more than just a squad.

Also, under the assumption you are defending, you did your scouting wrong. Scouting on the defence should involve trading terrain (falling back) for intel, not offensive-style halfsquad attacks.

I don't mean to pick on you, but these "I tried rushing a halfsquad forward and it died, therefore recon is useless" posts are starting to get on my nerves!

[gezeder]

Hi Andrew,

Were you expecting to find troops there? If you weren't, I'd argue that you do have a better knowledge of enemy forces now, as you are now aware of a threat you previously didn't even know was there....

If you already expected troops to be there, why on earth were your troops running?

If you expected troops there, you might have been better off only crawling fowards, or moving very short distances, and hiding in the interim between movements....

Again, I don't think anyone is suggesting only recon by death, your scouts don't need to be running ahead to be scouting, and I tend to only run my recon when i'm sure they're in a safe place (or running across a small, dangerous gap in the hopes of moving too fast to attract fire), slowing to move in mildly risky places, and slowing to crawling or even periods of hiding where i feel the enemy MAY be......

[ScoutPL]

Ok I'll bite. But hey, Pillar I left college more then a few years ago so I'm not going to get into a "formal" debate with you. I dont have to, to make my point.

I think the major obstacle we're running into here is one of perspective. The tactics I use and advocate are those taught by the US Infantry School for use on a 360 degree battlefield with no boundaries or restrictions. Your tactics, Pillar, are based on a 1000m square gaming surface. Its very easy in such a situation to throw out a few small patrols and see what they run into. Try doing that in an operational area that is several klicks wide and twice as many long. As a company commander I had at my disposal 9 rifle squads. Even if I split them up into fire teams (which I would never do, the smallest element we fight with is a squad), that only gives me 18 fire teams. Now spread them out over three klicks, which is a typical area for a company to clear for a movement to contact type mission (i.e. quick battle). Each fire team would have to cover an area approximately 150-200 meters (2 football fields) wide. And thats just to recon the assigned area. What happens when I actually find the enemy and have to mass to attack him? There's alot out there that a fire team couldn't handle that a squad or platoon could. Beginning to see my point? My tactics are based on real world situations, not CM situations. All of your tactics are based on knowing that somewhere within that box are some bad guys. And that no bad guys are going to be showing up on your flanks, or in your rear. The real world guy doesnt have that luxury. He has to be ready for anything, anywhere, anytime. He has to be ready to flip over to the defense if the enemy counterattacks, or to shift his point of attack if something proves incorrect about his assumptions or the intel.

Another thing on perspective. Read the tutorial, knucklehead. It describes tactics for a deliberate attack. A preplanned, rehearsed, coordinated deliberate attack. I had a good idea where the enemy was, friendly scouts were in the area or had been very recently. My formations were for speed and control, not to do an approach march. All of this is explained in the tutorial. I wasn't describing how to conduct a movement to contact (quick battle). So my tutorial really has nothing to do with this discussion. If you still think it falls out side of sensible doctrine and tactics then you are definately in the minority and I've done everything I can to explain it to you.

Since you have the FM on hand I wont bother with quoting them. Look up the differences between traveling, traveling overwatch, and bounding overwatch. Look at the purpose and characteristics of each. Check out the movement formations. I think they more then amply detail how to move into enmey territory, regardless of how much info is known about the enemy. Used correctly they allow the commander all of the flexibility in the world while still making contact with the smallest element, the squad.

You seem to be missing the whole point here. A rifle company's job is to make contact with the enemy and destroy him. If you have time then you conduct a leaders reconnaissance. If not then you rely on battalion scouts or other sources of intel. Sometimes, very rarely, this may be nothing more then speculation on the S2's part. The bottom line is its your job to get out there and smack the bee hive and then deal with what comes out. You advocate walking around the beehive for a few hours. You're going to get stung and all you're going to be able to say about is "Yep, that's a beehive allright." Get in there, knock it down, grind it into the dirt and smoke the bees. Sure you'll get stung, but you'll have to go in there and scrap with the bees eventually no matter how long you stand there and look at it. Now what if there were 10 more bee hives to get rid of before supper?

This is getting to the point of being ridiculous. I'm repeating myself and running out of metaphors. Like I said at the beginning, it all comes down to how you want to play the game. Real world tactics or CM gamey tactics. I've made it obvious where I stand. Pillar has made it obvious where he stands. I could really care less. Just more criteria to add to my list when I look for new PBEM partners.

[Guest Pillar]

ScoutPL,

Have you ever read anything from the East? (i.e. Russia) If so, what?

"Real World" tactics include more than just US Army doctine.

You are making all sorts of assumptions about my thought process that are unwarranted. Further, I haven't mentioned your tutorial since page 3, and that was only a quick question regarding your chosen route of attack. You answered, asked for my comments, I gave them, and that was that. Why do you keep bringing the tutorial back into this?

Nice Strawman...

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 11-07-2000).]

[ScoutPL]

I'm still repeating myself. Cite your sources and I'll be lot more inclined to jump on board.

Also another thing to keep in mind, in Pillar's favor. Most guys playing CM dont really understand how to doctrinally set up a defense anyway. So, logically, a doctrinally sound attack might run into problems in the total randomness of an amateur defense. The same goes for a doctrinally sound movement to contact vs. an amateur advance. The key is dealing with the randomness of an amateur opponent while still maintaining doctrinal integrity. A real challenge!!

[Guest Pillar]

Most of my knowledge comes from personal discussion with Fionn and many many various readings.

One source I can name off hand is David Glantz's "Soviet Conduct of the Tactical Maneuver". I finished reading this recently.

However, the fact that I can reference some important people and/or books is irrelevant. We should be judging these ideas based on their own merit, not based on who agrees with them.

I'd love to get my hands on some Russian field manuals, the equivalent of 7-8 and 7-10... If you can get them or know how I might get them, please point the way.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Pillar/gezeder, thanks for your responses. I'd be interested in hearing how you would have scouted this scenario. Let me describe it a little more.

I *think* it's a defensive scenario, but I'm not sure. I'm going to use directions relatively, and differently than I did in my other example.

I start at the extreme east edge of the map. There are three VL's in a line running roughly east to west. I don't occupy them at the beginning. Also, Germans get points for troops that exit. Turn length is 25 turns. Heavy fog. So, basically, Germans will be moving from north to south trying to get the VLs and exiting; I am moving east to west to try and get the VL's and stop them from exiting.

Here's some possible *spoiler* stuff, although not really.

I have about a company, with a single tank. I will get reinforcements. VLs are a small village, a crossroads, and a small village. There is a road that runs e-w across the map behind the villages.

My initial assessment is that the Germans can concentrate anywhere, but I can't because I don't know where they will attack (I haven't played much more than the parts I described to you, so I don't know how this plays out). My basic plan is to hold each of the VL's with a platoon (I only have about 9 squads plus some HWs/Zooks/etc), put my reinforcements in the center of the rear road as a reserve, wait for the Germans to commit themselves to the attack, and then counterattack/reinforce with the reserves, and perhaps other troops, if that's safe. I anticipate that the rear road will give me more mobility to move my troops around than the attackers, who will be pretty much committed on whatever axis they choose.

The difficulty with this strategy is that I don't *hold* the VLs yet, and the farthest one is pretty far away. But I still have to send troops there because the Germans could filter all their troops off the map without me seeing them at all if I don't.

Anyway, so I proceed with my plan and pretty quickly have troops in the northernmost buildings of the first VL, in a decent defensive posture; my other troops are still moving westerly toward the other VLs.

It's at this point that I decide that scouting might be useful. I have no idea where the German troops will be making their main thrust, but of course that's vital knowledge, and I can't see very far in the fog, so scouts seemed called for.

So, as I described earlier, I split up a veteran squad, sent the half squads north into the woods to see if they could find out where the main thrust was coming from, and after two turns or so, they encountered the enemy and were chewed up and spit out.

So, anyway, it seems like the best thing to have done would have been not to have tried scouting at all (and, I agree with Pillar that a platoon would have been in bad shape after meeting SMGs in the woods).

I don't think I sent the squads out blindly -- they had a specific mission, which was to locate the main thrust of the enemy attack; I sent them into a reasonable location, not too far away from my other units (although out of line-of-sight due to the woods and fog), and not too far away from each other, although not bunched up, either. I also sent them out in a situation where there was a very short LOS and no sound contacts. In other words, the situation seemed like it would be ideal for scouting, but ended up being a very bad day for scouting indeed. Yet this type of situation is precisely one where scouts would seem most useful...on a clear day, open map, you can see infantry 1000m away.

So I guess I'm still a scouting skeptic. It is true that I found out where some troops were, but it cost me about 10% of my manpower to do it (not counting reinforcements), and it didn't tell me whether this was a main thrust or not.

[This message has been edited by Andrew Hedges (edited 11-07-2000).]

[ScoutPL]

Andrew, I'm going to throw my two cents in, I apologize if it brings the other guys off topic so far they dont answer your question.

As with any deliberate attack (I will argue that what you are doing is pretty much a deliberate attack - seizing ground then defending it), it all comes down to time and space. In your analysis it sounds like you didnt think you would be able to get units into all three positions before your opponent could. But its still a sound plan. After all, any time he spends fighting you reduces the amount of time he has to push further south. After you consolidated your gains in the first village you should have moved your entire main body forward. Speed is essential in the situation you find yourself in. In my opinion your only mistake was not keeping your main body close enough to your lead elements to help them out if they ran into trouble. Your advance squads could be used to suppress the SMG units as soon as they made contact while another platoon flanked the enemy unit. Yeah, you'll take casualties but now the copse of trees belongs to you, not the enemy and you still have the momentum to continue on to your next objective. Textbook!! If anything, the fog simply allows you to stay better consolidated and massed. In actuality your units would all be nut to butt simply out of fear of getting lost or seperated in the dense fog anyway!!

[Mark IV]

Originally posted by ScoutPL:

Each fire team would have to cover an area approximately 150-200 meters (2 football fields) wide. And thats just to recon the assigned area. What happens when I actually find the enemy and have to mass to attack him?

There are more and less likely places for the enemy to be. A good portion of the map has been eliminated by the overall plan you go into the engagement with (the "working hypothesis") based on previous recon and your assessment of the terrain.

One needn't recon every square inch, unless cover and terrain are equally dispersed, which would have changed the working hypothesis to begin with. At 150-200m you mightn't see a camoed ambush but you'd damn sure spot an enemy tank lager, or an OPFOR advance. So you can push up your own proposed axis of advance and adjust, if the beehive turns out to be bigger than your flyswatter.

There's alot out there that a fire team couldn't handle that a squad or platoon could.

Lay low and call the platoon/company. No need to sacrifice unnecessarily.

All of your tactics are based on knowing that somewhere within that box are some bad guys. And that no bad guys are going to be showing up on your flanks, or in your rear.

Isn't this part of what the pre-QB battalion-and-up recon established?

In WWII CMBO we assume that there is a friendly unit on either side, as companies did not operate within a vacuum. You operate within established lines of advance (I know this often goes haywire), and can generally assume that the enemy has not circled about and will be coming from the English direction.

The West front was by and large a frontal-type situation, neither Afrika, nor the Gulf, nor Vietnam. Food came from west, bullets came from east. Sometimes that was north-south but the principle generally held.

You advocate walking around the beehive for a few hours.

There's a big part of the problem here- no one has has said anything like a "few hours". No need to polarize this unnecessarily.

Now what if there were 10 more bee hives to get rid of before supper?

All the more reason to preserve the old assets (people) to deal with them?

I always like how the FMs say that, after contact, you are to "develop the situation". I guess that could mean anything from digging a hole in which to file a report, to driving to Berlin. My guess would be that, as a lead element, I am to overwhelm or bypass anything I can, and call for support for anything I cannot. I am eyes and ears for the guys behind me, via the CO.

I'm not sure you're fighting the same war that the Allies in WWII did, but it's obvious you feel very strongly about it. The discussion seems to center about the fact that you view some tactics as vaguely "gamey", by a more obscure measure than any I've seen here yet, and that your criteria are subjective enough to allow you to place an asterisk after almost any defeat.

I contend (speaking only for myself) that poor tactics usually bring their own reward, and that an opponent who spends "hours" scouting his approach will find that the clock has elapsed long before he siezes the first VL. Those who spend 5-10 minutes feeling out the square klik or two they are charged with occupying may find their success ratio somewhat higher than 50/50, in real life as well as CM. But I may be a knucklehead.