Who uses scouts? Everyone except me?

[gezeder]

Andrew,

In response to what I would do in that scenario, I loaded Fear in the Fog as Americans, and your plan sounds pretty good to me, assuming there are no major gaps through which your opponent could move through without your noticing & reacting to(including your deployment zone!)

As for how I would have scouted the scenario:

(Mind you, I never claimed to be Good at scouting, or even commanding! I just happen to believe scouting with half squads etc to be beneficial to your success... )

I think this battle Seems to be an odd meeting engagement, where your job is to seize good defensive positions, then hold back the German forces.

If I were playing this scenario, I would probably use scouts less than, say, an attack scenario against a prepared defensive position. I would use a couple of half squads to make sure the enemy is Not where he's Not supposed to be (for example, Behind the defensive lines you seek to establish!) and would definitely be cautious, sending in scouts to the town furthest from your deployment zone. (As it may well be full of enemy troops by the time you get there!) Though in such dense terrain, you could keep the rest of your platoon a mere 50-55 seconds behind and still be safe IMHO.

Once (if) your defensive positions are set up and awaiting the German attack, I don't feel that any more scouts would be needed, if you can get into that position without worries it seems to me that you now have to simply ambush the Germans in the woods as they move to the exit zone, then re-enforce any position in danger of being overrun....

But during the initial stages I would definitely scout any position which I felt May contain enemy.

But hey, that's just what I'd do - maybe I'll challenge my regular opponent and we'll see how it goes!

[Guest Pillar]

Mark IV,

Thank you.

Andrew,

I loaded Fog of Fear and tried it out. I decided to opt for an active recon (slightly agressive) in order to mimic what you tried to do. Perhaps this will help show you how to conduct the screen as I would in this type of fog.

NOTE: Some pics have trees and fog turned off for visual purposes. Also, SPOILERS!

First off, I designated a scout platoon and sent them running down the edge of the map closest to where you start. The idea is to get ahead of the main body and claim some territory to trade later for intel.

By turn two (really the first movie) I had made contact with the enemy:

So much for the argument that recon takes too long, especially in fog.

Now the great part about this as you can see is he hasn't seen me. I've located what looks to be at least a platoon of infantry. There is probably more following it.

In order to be sure that nothing is guarding it's flank (and about to meet me head on), I spread out and get into a defensive posture. If something is advancing up the far edge, it will meet me within the turn:

Now that I am sure that my flank is secure, I begin a major shift in my defence to account for the new intel:

As you can see, I funnel the enemy into where I have my infantry in ambush. Since I now know his route of attack, I can plan for it and prepare a slaughter. Without this intel, I would be guessing -- and a wise prince does not rely on fortune

Notice I also begin to envelop the enemy position with my forward recon detachment.

I will either

A) run into the enemy support weapons in their flanks, delivering an early crushing blow

find nothing, and note that his infantry have already moved up

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

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

[Guest Pillar]

-----

While my forward recon detachment moves into position, my defences are firmly set in place and arty is called in onto the enemy axis of approach (note spotter on flank). I've also identified a company sized attack now onto this flank. Perfect.

By turn 6, the enemy has walked into my ambush probably wondering how the hell I knew he would approach that way. The AI is following the recon strategy of ScoutPL -- that is, he has his main body moving in unison with a very small distance between his forward recon and his main body..Take a look at the casualties incurred in only one turn with this recon technique. So much for preserving the lives of the men.

Note my forward recon detachment has now enveloped the enemy rear flank and has found nothing:

By turn seven I have the enemy company pinned with only a single platoon. Not only that, but I've spotted a bonus prize -- enemy armour. I move three bazookas into an ambush position. His armour will be toast by next turn:

The tank dies and I later find out it was a STUGIV. The unknown vehicle you see in the pic below turns out to be a half track, which also buys the farm.

The 81mm has been falling hard for some time now, and my spotter is just about out of ammo. I suspect I have eliminated TWO enemy platoons of SMG squads and forestalled an entire reinforced company, possibly TWO companies. My losses? 2 Medium MG teams and *ONE* Paratrooper (note, ONE PERSON, not one squad). As for my "suicidal recon element" , they have taken no losses and yet have gained me valuable intelligence.

Further, as you can see in this diagram, they have fully enveloped the enemy rear. All area outlined in green has been POSITIVELY identified as safe maneuvering area for my men.

In the next turn or two, I end up withdrawing my ambush platoon (after taking out 3 enemy platoons) with a total platoon loss of 2 men. They live to fight again, and setup further ambush positions.

While they withdraw, my forward recon detachment strikes into the rear of the enemy advance with devastating results.

In sum, simply by using this forward reconaissance element to:

A) Tell me where the enemy is

Penetrate the enemy rear and determine the weak area

I have destroyed an entire enemy company (confirmed) and two pieces of his armour. All at the expense of two MG teams and 2 individual men from one of my Paratroop squads.

Morale is sky high, as you can imagine

Cheers!

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

[Guest Pillar]

One thing I forgot to mention, and I want to *stress*, is that the above is only 8 TURNS into this battle.

In fog, in eight turns, in a meeting engagement, I was able to eliminate one entire company of Axis Volksgrenadiers, stall another, and take out two vehicles (one being armour). With losses of 2 MG Teams and 1 man from a glider squad, that ain't bad at all.

The reason I could develop the situation so quickly and take the initiative was because of my recon. I stunted the enemy advance before it sprouted leaves and dug roots.

Too many people seem to think that in order to use good recon you must commit 20 initial turns... that is simply not true. Forward Recon Detachments are just that -- detachments. They are seperate from the main body, unhindred by it's bulk, and *fast*.

Now it's time for me to go to sleep! (Tara is going to kill me)

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

[Bobbaro]

I suppose terminology is a good part of the differences that appear here. The differences among intelligence gathering, reconnaissance, scouting, patrolling, using point units while maneuvering larger units, and setting outposts each qualifies for a different understanding. There is the also the technique of recon by fire and recon by deliberate exposure to draw fire.

We don't always call each function by the correct name as we engage in our discussions.

It seems to me that reconnaissance during a tactical engagement is generally confined to

running point during advances and other movements and to using outposts during the defense. That is not to say that it is not appropriate for a commander/player to check out questionable situations on the fly. You read about it a lot in combat accounts where the situation is dicey.

An attack may be approached with a certain caution, when a commander is properly left to manage the details himself in the absence of adequate intelligence or when the situation is so fluid as to justify such caution. Given that the quality of intelligence is lacking enough of the time, caution is always advisable providing one has the luxury of taking a little more time. But, there are numerous accounts of companies being sent on to another objective when their original is taken, sometimes several in succession. Perhaps the first one did receive adequate treatment in preparing for the attack; but, moving on the those others had to be a lot more hairy.

Incidental to such experiences is what the front line commander thinks of his boss,who likely is rather more comfortably situated and certainly much less subject to taking fire personally as a result of his sometimes, uh, impulsive decisions. I would hate like hell to venture out on the basis of a hunch or a scrap of sketchy, uncorroborated intel. But it was done. "There are no enemy in those woods. Just move on up there and you can make bivouac there so you won't have so far to go when you continue your attack tomorrow." If the commander is lucky when he gets there and there are indeed no enemy, he is even more lucky if tomorrows attack is not ordered to proceed immediately regardless of the condition of his men.

Many of the more spectacular achievements of forward encounters with finding out where the enemy is, happens by someone getting lost or finding that a once secure route is not no longer secure. My father-in-law once related a "lets get the hell out of here" experience when he was driver for an officer of the 2nd Div. during the Bulge. They drove out into an intersection and paused. A glance up the intersecting road revealed a panzer in wait. The decision was easy and obviously timely as well. You do hear of jeeps getting into such scrapes and escaping due to their maneuverability and speed. They make for interesting stories. Do rolling stories gather moss? At least some of the time. The ones that don't make it seem to most often appear in accounts where the aftermath is sadly encountered and incidentally mentioned. I have no idea of the proportions of success vs. failure.

[ScoutPL]

Everyone go back and read Pillar's initial comments on his movement to contact tactics then reread the AAR he posted here. I dont think they are the same.

We might not agree but at least he's using tactics that make more sense then he was advocating 72 hours ago.

Pillar, just by looking at the short distances you covered with your recon demonstrates that you followed the same common sense rules that guide real doctrine. I would never mass my forces like the AI does (you didnt really expect the AI to have a chance anyway did you?). BUt at the same time I notice you didnt break your guys into a bunch of fire teams and send them helter skelter across the map. Which, by the way, is the tactic I took such offense to earlier. I have no problem with pushing a strong element out in front to develop the situation prior to committing the main body. When nothing is known about the enemy that is what you should do. Its called traveling overwatch. Your flanking tactics are nothing more then bounding overwatch performed by a company.

As far as Mark 4 is concerned he often has a problem with jumping into a thread without doing his reading. All of the things he said are things that I have said in earlier posts. I dont advocate launching an attack into the unknown without taking some precautions. I just dont advocate doing it the way Pillar described in his original post. Everything else since than has worked to drive us away from that main point. Anyone else not surprised? Also, Mark 4, the Beehive was metaphor and the "hours" was an exaggeration to make a point. I'll try to make things simpler next time.

[Chupacabra]

Whereas you, ScoutPL, have a habit of taking things, and yourself, a bit too seriously. It's a game, lighten up. If you employ tactics which differ from someone else's, fine, where's the problem? You seem to be taking considerable offense that others could dare to be ignorant of, or act in contradiction to current US doctrine. If you are running out of metaphors, as you say, why bother with the barbed comments and "Nobody knows the trouble I seen" attitude? Just let it drop.

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

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[ScoutPL]

One more thing. Alot of you seem to think I might be taking this too personnaly. Well it is personal for me guys. Everytime you tell me I've got it all wrong you're saying one of two things. Either the US Army/USMC have their battle tactics all screwed up or I havent done a very good job or learning/implementing them. I dont think anyone can say the US has poor battle tactics and I will be glad to scan in some Officer Evaluation Reports to show that I'm not a dunce either. This has practically been my religion for the last 12 years, so yeah, I get a little huffy when someone tells me I dont know what I'm talking about. If you have anything that important to your life and you dont get upset then you should check your pulse. Actually compared to my usual demaeanor, I've been down right civil!! I apologize if anyone thinks I'm being rude or obnoxious, but sometimes I just cant keep my mouth shut.

As a side note. The best "common" source I can thimk of that the average layman might get his hands on that really portrays what we've been debating about here would be Rommel's Attacks. He consistently used scouting parties for his attacks, yet they were closely followed by the main body and were given a specific objective to advance toward.

[gezeder]

ScoutPL,

So, you think Pillar handled the AI well in that battle? Perhaps this conversation is primarly confusion, both semantic and good old fashion misintrepting what we've all said...

(As pointed out by MarkIV, Brian Rock, and Germanboy way back on page 3!)

As for whether Pillar's AAR fits in with what his first post said, I believe it fits in fine -

(forgive me but i'm not sure how to quote properly )

**Your scouts will tell you one very important thing: Where your enemy IS NOT.**

Yep - he did this - even outlined it for us all in green!

**As the defender, you want to know where the enemy is approaching in order to commit your reserves there.**

Yep - after finding the route of attack he set up a nice warm ambush for the AI.

**Just as crucial in defence is the role of a forward security element to defeat the enemy reconnaisance.**

- Well, recon isn't really the AI's strong point, this I guess applies more to PBEM

These quotes were from Pillars first post - unless you were referring to his more detailed post on scouting from page 2? (Which I think may have been talking more about scouting on the attack, not when playing an agressive defence.... though I could be wrong!)

[Mark IV]

Originally posted by ScoutPL:

Everyone go back and read Pillar's initial comments on his movement to contact tactics then reread the AAR he posted here. I dont think they are the same.

Here is the meat of his first 3 posts on the first page:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Your scouts will tell you one very important thing: Where your enemy IS NOT.

During an attack this information is absolutely *crucial* to success. If you commit your main body into his defence, you'll be looking at kill ratios of 3:1 or higher for the defender.

As the defender, you want to know where the enemy is approaching in order to commit your reserves there. Just as crucial in defence is the role of a forward security element to defeat the enemy reconnaisance.

Poke his eyes out, and he can't hit you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and then:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I prefer to have my scouts FAR ahead of the main body (reserves). The scouts job is to find the enemy, pin him if he can, breakthrough if he is weak, but most of the time just die.

In my opinion, and I feel quite strongly about this, having men only slightly ahead of the main body does *not* make them scouts -- only the first to die.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and finally:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Although I disagree with having your main body close to your scouts, the reserves must be highly mobile if you are going to exploit anything your scouts tell you.

Usually a Platoon in Half-tracks or on the back of 4 STUG's can accomplish this *very* nicely.

On the other hand, I find that if you keep your main body close to your scouts you sacricfice a ton of space to manuever and can find yourself pinned by the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You began your response to this with:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Scouting the last few hundred meters of an engagement (which is the whole focal point of a tactical game like CM) is a waste of assets and very gamey.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and off we go.

As far as Mark 4 is concerned he often has a problem with jumping into a thread without doing his reading.

Actually I was in this thread on page 1 and have read every word of it all along, as I do with any thread that interests me. I did try to point out that some of the confusion might be semantic, related to the use of the word "scout".

Now Pillar is a big boy and can fight his own battles. I don't belong to his religion any more than any other. If you "dont advocate doing it the way Pillar described in his original post" that's just fine.

the Beehive was metaphor and the "hours" was an exaggeration to make a point.

The metaphor was fine, but the exaggeration was the difference between a ridiculous position and a reasonable one. Therefore, it was also a misrepresentation, one of several in your characterizations of his argument. I can't be sure which are polemical devices, and which are flaws in your interpretation.

It mostly bothers me that there are so many secret rules about "gaminess" based on increasingly obscure moral perceptions. If you are mostly interested in using CM as a training sim for your own role in modern combat, cool. It doesn't confer any moral superiority, however. Some of your language suggests that it does.

Oh, well... I guess this means we're off each other's PBEM lists. We'll each just have to fill the void in our lives somehow!

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

[joeski]

Just jumping in again. (Yes I read every word) Don't scratch each other off the pbem lists. Scout and Pillar should play best 2 out of 3 or something. And post the results here. With screen shots. Seriously think of all the tactics I could learn. I mean we could learn.

Pillar: Thanks for the 1st 8 turns there I love that stuff. I actually clicked on screens a couple of times trying to access the info.

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

"If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them." - Jack Handey

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

[Croda]

Pillar, I've been following this thread from afar, and I think I like both doctrines being presented. It would seem that sometimes the situation dictates one over the other.

I have a question however on your AAR above. It certainly worked great for you, everything falling into place perfectly. A problem sticks out to me, however: the entire encounter was a success solely because your lead element did NOT make contact with the enemy. Had contact occurred, I can see only 2 potential outcomes.

1)Your lead element is routed or defeated in detail by what you now know is something more than an enemy lead element, but have gained very little other intel.

2)You attempt to bring up reinforcements to support your scouts. What worked great as an ambush, is not enough to assault what you have described as 1+ companies plus armor. You have no idea what is before you and you commit and lose a good portion of your advance with what outcome? You have attrited and delayed the enemy somewhat, but now chances are that their numerical superiority is increased and your defense of the VLs is weaker. While having gained a good deal of intel about the makeup and direction of the accompanying force, you were not present in enough force to truly do anything more than bruise him a bit.

It is for this reason that I would have advocated a couple of small garrisons a small ways out from the 1st VL. These would serve as an advanced warning of the enemy approach, allowing you to concentrate for the defense. The garrisons (each a squad from a spaced out platoon most likely) could retreat through the thick woods after contact.

Anyway, my two cents worth, and my concern over what would have happened had your plan not gone off as planned (the norm).

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

"Nuts!"

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Thanks, everyone for replying to my post, and especially Pillar, who went to the trouble of actually *refighting* the scenario I was talking about, and even provided screenshots. I think that this is a very productive way to discuss scouting because it is very concrete.

So I have a couple of observations. One is that Pillar used a whole platoon to scout. I would be much more comfortable doing that (as opposed to half squads) because a platoon has more fighting power and is more flexible. Pillar made great use of this flexibility because after he located the enemy units, he was able to send the platoon around to the rear of units he located.

Second, Pillar's strategy was keyed into the use of his scouting platoon: that is, once the platoon located some enemy units, Pillar had other units ready to move up and take advantage of that information by setting an ambush.

Here are some of the flaws I see in my use of scouts in this scenario. First, my blocking strategy, while not as tactically smart as Pillar's, wasn't *bad.* However, given that my strategy was to wait for the enemy attack to develop along likely lines, hold it with my blocking forces, and then reinforce, my use of scouts was *bad* because it was inconsistent with the strategy. That is, if my scouts *had* identified approaching enemy units without dying immediately, it would have satisfied my curiosity, but I probably would not have been able to take positive action on this info because I was already committed to the "waiting" strategy. So an appropriate use of scouts given my strategy would either have been to use no scouts, or to send scouts out to the side of my main body to make sure no one slips through just beyond los of my blocking forces. (This would have the advantage that I could easily pull the scouts back in an reintegrate them into my defensive force).

The other thing I found interesting about Pillar's scouting platoon is that he sent it up the side of the battlefield (as opposed to say, my scouts, which I sent up what looked to be a likely main avenue of enemy approach). This not only increased the likelihood that Pillar's platoon could find the enemy without having to fight the enemy (although it's always possible that the enemy could have advanced down that flank, I thought even before I did the battle that the enemy would be more likely to advance directly toward a VL), but it also permitted the scouting squad to (1) make sure that there were no enemy units on this flank, and (2) to then use the scouting platoon as a flanking platoon.

And once again, I appreciate the detailed responses on this topic. The AAR-style comments, plus screenshots, make this topic much more comprehensible for me, and I think for everyone. It's also nice to see scouting applied to a smaller battle, as most scouting discussions, or Fionn's AARs, for that matter, tend to concern >3000 point battles that are larger than I tend to play and that also seem to require/permit scouts to be used differently than in smaller battles -- i.e., perhaps in a large battle it would make sense to have half a dozen half-squads running around scouting, but in a smaller game, that makes less sense. Scouting platoons, as Pillar showed, do make sense.

[Reno]

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

Now the great part about this as you can see is he hasn't seen me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great AAR of the first few moves, Pillar. Thanks. What I don't understand is, every time I try to do a stealthy move to contact followed by an envelopment, my trigger happy guys open up at the first sign of the enemy and bust the whole plan. How come your's didn't? Judging from the first screenshot none of your guys were in hiding.

I think it would be great to be able to move parallel to an enemy force without being seen, kind of like a submarine moving on the edge of a convoy, and then race up ahead or behind for the attack, but CM doesn't seem to allow for this. There's no "hold fire unless fired upon" command that I know of and the hide and ambush commands are not quite the same thing in this kind of scenario. Was it just luck that your scouts didn't open fire? And what if they did? Wouldn't that have given you an incomplete intel picture and seriously compromised your strength at the sharp end of the stick?

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

[Guest Pillar]

I don't have the time to write one of my infamous essay-posts in repsonse to everyone, but I'll make a few quick points:

<LI> My main body isn't even pictured in these screenshots. It is in fact, as my doctrine perscribes, quite a bit back on the map in and behind the town seen in the background. It has not been committed yet.

<LI> The Platoon that did the majority of the killing was in fact an outpost.

<LI> The only reason my forward recon detachment (platoon) hadn't spread out more was due to the simple factor of how the scenario began. I was not on opposite sides of the map with the enemy, and was in fact quite close. In a deliberate, frontal attack, I would have spread out significantly more. Still, the idea is that the Platoon can converge in on itself again and call in 81mm if need be. That's exactly what happened here.

<LI> If my scout platoon had of met the enemy head on right from the beginning, my other platoon would take on the role of recon and would have developed the enemy the same way. 81mm would have been called in and off we go to the races.

<LI> Croda -- I would never assault the enemy head on with inferior numbers, equipment, and in this case position. As the defender my goal once the enemy is found is to setup defence outposts and ambushes along his line of advance, while bringing in artillery to soften him up. This could have been accomplished just as easily if the Scouts had found the enemy advancing up the far flank. (Maybe easier, since my starting position sort of favoured defending that apporach)

Sorry for being so brief, but I've got lots of stuff to do today. I'll be around later.

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

[ScoutPL]

I have to acquiesce guys. Everytime I get on here I end up defending a perfectly logical position against the same three or four guys. They either think I'm a moron or take myself too seriously. Thats fine, I'm tired of geting my heart rate up from reading this stuff. Play the game the way you want to play it, post it on this site if you feel like its the next best thing since the catapult. I'm staying out of it. If any are interested in how a professional american soldier would handle the tactical problems presented by this game then feel free to read my tutorials or email me for advice. I've gotten plenty of support from other players on this thread and email, including the game developers by the way. I welcome all of it good and bad. But I'm not going to debate something I have no real interest in ever trying or fooling with anyway. I should have left this thread after my first initial post stating my opinion about Pillar's recon tactics. Lesson learned.

[Guest Pillar]

ScoutPL,

Just because you disagree with my tactics, I hope that doesn't mean you have any hard feelings against me personally.

[Chupacabra]

SPL -

I'm sorry you feel that way. I did appreciate your input in what I thought was an interesting thread. Interesting in an academic sense only, in fact, because I employ the same tactics you put forward. I had no idea they were current American doctrine until you and others brought it up, but there you go.

I am a bit baffled however at your claim of being called a moron, or that anyone on this thread has in any way belittled either you or your experience. I did suggest that you not take the subject so seriously, and in light of your last post, I stand by that. This is, after all, a forum for discussion, made up of (for the most part) highly intelligent, well-educated people. If you post an opinion on an intensely debated topic such as tactics, I feel you have to expect to have that opinion questioned.

I realize that it's easy to become frustrated in such situations, God knows I get frustrated with certain people/topics very quickly. But as you say, it's best IMO to realize what topics are going to set you off and get out quickly.

Cheers,

Chup.

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

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Mark IV]

Not sure where I've annoyed SPL before? ...coulda been anywhere, I guess. Damn me.

[Jackson]

Hey Pillar,

It’s deja vu all over again. I just stopped by http://www.combat-mission.com/ to see if Todd (aka ScoutPL) had anymore tutorials, and what do I see? Your new article! Congrats. I hope this is just the start of a trend. Good tactics articles are few and far between.

It’s interesting that SPL agreed with your tactics in the scenario. At least, it sounded like he agreed. Perhaps your positions are not so far apart.

Now, seeing as how you cranked out that AAR in record time, would you consider doing a more standard attack? One where you can more clearly show scouting ahead of your main forces? You know, like in a quick battle?

One more question. Do you only use scout teams as split squads from your assault platoons, or will you sometimes dice up a platoon for dedicated scouting?

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

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

[Croda]

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

<LI> Croda -- I would never assault the enemy head on with inferior numbers, equipment, and in this case position. As the defender my goal once the enemy is found is to setup defence outposts and ambushes along his line of advance, while bringing in artillery to soften him up. This could have been accomplished just as easily if the Scouts had found the enemy advancing up the far flank. (Maybe easier, since my starting position sort of favoured defending that apporach)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pillar, I assume by your initial statement here that you mean that had your lead scouts run head-on into the enemy advance, you wouldn't have thrown your support group into the fray, knowing that they were outnumbered. Which would lead us to scenario 1 in my above post. In this case, your scouts are decimated (either slaughtered where they stand, or routed and captured or reduced in numbers to be of little fighting effectiveness). You have learned the approximate axis of advance (which you already must have had some idea of, considering that was where you were scouting), and you have learned that there is enough might in the advance to slaughter your scouts. You may or may not know the number and type of enemy armor.

Is that worth while? If you're on the defense and need every man when up against a superior number assaulting you, is the trading of this scout element for an amount of intel that you could have made an educated guess at worth while?

I agree that the way it played out for you is fantastic. You have now most likely ruined the attacker's plan while attriting his forces greatly. According to your doctrine, how do you proceed if your lead element is hit hard and wiped out with little gain of intel? Do you re-scout the area again? Do you suck up the loss and change plans? Do you operate off of the incomplete intel and plan your defense as best you can?

I like the "active ambush" that you present here. I may try to use it more myself. I'm just curious how you would have handled this scenario had your initial contact gone against you.

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

"Nuts!"

[Guest Pillar]

My love Tara just went into the hospital unexpectedly. I may be a while replying to these. Sorry, but I just wanted everyone to know so they didn't think I was ignoring them!

[joeski]

Sorry to hear that pillar. Hope everything goes ok. Best Wishes.

[Jackal]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I prefer to have my scouts FAR ahead of the main body (reserves). The scouts job is to find the enemy, pin him if he can, breakthrough if he is weak, but most of the time just die.B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was a scout on active duty (Army) both ground and armor. Don't confuse small scouting units with a Cavalry Unit. A relatively small scout unit is not there to pin the enemy much less to attempt a breakthrough. Small scout units should be used to locate and get a fix on the enemy force and report its findings. The engagement by these small units would be call for fire (arty or air strikes). Once the enemy is getting pounded the scouts will need an escape plan because the enemy knows at that point that eyes are on them. If at all possible, I would reccommend sending an arty spotter with your recon element in order to do this correctly, moving the spotter once the route is clear. Should the recon element come in contact with the enemy they need to smoke and get out of the area because the enemy will have superior numbers closer if the scouts are used correctly. Keep in mind that the scouts ARE NOT a true combat element. They just don't have the firepower. But, used correctly will they will turn the battle into your favor.

[CavScout]

I'd hesitate to call anything so close to the main body a "scout" elements.

They seem to be more of a "screen" or "security" element.