Night Combat

[Doug Beman]

Here I go reading again lcm, but as I've no real-world experience reading is all I have.

Ken Macksey's book Tank v Tank recounts an East Front action that started in late afternoon and went into night. During it, IFF became so difficult that tanks were ramming each other b/c the crews needed to get that close to tell a Tiger from a T34.

Night fighting in WW2 was very rarely done by plan. There are many reasons for this: fatigue, use of night for resupply, no pressing need for a night attack. HOWEVER, I'm certain that one reason is that night-time IFF is friggin hard.

DjB

[Doug Beman]

from lcm <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't believe I said I could tell the difference between friend and foe at 100 yards. We were talking about soldiers firing on friendly troops at night and how much that happened, were we not? Please show me where I said I could tell the difference between friend and foe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lcm, that's EXACTLY what we're talking about here: how hard is it to tell friend from foe. We're not talking about "how hard it is to see SOMETHING at night." If you have to worry about IFF, then you've ALREADY solved the problem of seeing something in the first place. You were the first one to start talking about how far away you can see things. We're talking about IFF at night in combat conditions; the problem of detection is moot.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Soldiers are well aware that friendly units are always on their flanks and rear and just don't open up without regards to other units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soldiers always have friendlies on their flanks? Is it common military practice to teach soldiers "just assume there're friendlies on your flanks?" That sounds like a great way to teach people to find ambushes the hard way

DjB

[lcm1947]

Triumuir, you asked me what I did in Nam. I was a combat engieer when there. I assume you are or were in the army and probably know what combat engineers do or did. I thought I was being smart when I joined -yes I joined and don't ask me I have no idea what I was thinking by joining. Anyway, I thought I'd be smart and join so as to avoid being an infantryman. Not so smart they made me a combat engieer. My luck never was good - well I'm writing this so maybe it is. If we get locked on this post for shooting the breeze I would like to talk to you guys that are presently in the army on the general forum.

[Guest Babra]

How did your romp in the hay -- errr, walk in the woods turn out?

[lcm1947]

Well, I went out but was running real late for a party we were throwing for a friend and didn't have time to check it out but am planning on it tomorrow night and will let you know. Damn, I hope I'm not wrong. But I'll be fair- either way. I am hoping to take a friend and use him as the enemy. By the way the list of casualties was very interesting. If you do the figures it looks like 7.4% from friendly fire. That is far more then I ever would have believed. Guess I don't know everything yet.

[Triumvir]

lcm, I was in the army but not the US army. I do know what engineers do and you would not believe how thankful I was and am not to be one -- I sure as hell don't envy you. The castle may be strong, but it takes a ****load of sweat to put it up.

I had a friend in my batch who was drafted into the engineers, and when I saw him after our sergeants course, he was obscenely built. He told me it was from building Bailey bridges... fun fun fun!

And congrats on making it through Vietnam. It can't have been easy or fun.

I hope your experiment goes well, but honestly; it'd be better if you _didn't_ take a friend, and just had the friend show up whenever he liked. Because you'll definitely be more likely to ID him if you know that he's going to be there; whereas if you don't know if he's showing up or not, it'll be a bit harder to do an ID.

Me, I still vividly remember being raided at night by a "friendly" infantry unit in the neighbourhood that was supposed to simulate the enemy. We were using blanks, and lemme tell you, I'd been over every inch of that deployment ground the in the past six months; and I still couldn't tell where the heck targets were moving if we hadn't seen the muzzle flashes.

By the by, it really did feel like being back on the qualifying range, with the muzzle flashes everywhere and only being able to spot a target by the flashes. If I hadn't known exactly where each of the guns was deployed and where our perimeter MGs were, I'd have been blazing all over the place at the nearest muzzle flash.

[Guest Babra]

Don't forget to randomly pop white phosphorus flares. Really helps the night vision that

[lcm1947]

Yes, I can say I built more Bailey bridges then I ever cared to stateside. Nice work if you can get it. Well, it sure looks like everybody seems to think I'm wrong on this suject except me but even if I am wrong about being able to see a fellow at that distance the main point was that even if you couldn't see if enemy or foe you wouldn't just shoot him. It never happened to me and that's all we did in Nam was guard bridges for you infantry guys. So you wouldn't get your feet wet. I've spend many many a night out in the Delta guarding a bridge while the infantry were out trying to shoot our little friends and I never once shot our own troops when they were coming in. And it was plenty dark out there. Course we used passwords but even so never had a problem and nobody I was ever with had a problem or at least mentioned it and they would have. But anyway, I did say "in my opinion" so I'm covered. But now it's just a point I need to get clear for myself. But I do apologize for getting upset and sounding like a wise ass in a couple of my posts and Babra if you are reading this the apologize goes for you too. I normally don't act like that.

[Guest Babra]

No hard feelings. Would it make you feel better to know I was one of those guys blasting away at my friends for a couple of hours? I can only hope I didn't hit any, but there's no way to know, is there?

[lcm1947]

No, doesn't make me feel better but I see why you believe the way you do. So, to put a lighter side to it - maybe you're a really bad shot. I'm calling it a night. I'll let you know tomorrow about the vision thing. Night all.

[Mark IV]

The real issue, getting back to the original question, is not just whether you can see a guy at night at 40-100m, but whether you can tell which side he is on.

I was in the peacetime army as a tanker (buttoned, we couldn't see s**t in the daytime). I gun and bow-hunted a lot. I have spent a lot of time in the woods in the dark, mistaking the wind and the ground squirrels in the leaves for Mr. Deer, mistaking twigs for antlers, losing and finding buddies, tracking blood trails by flashlight, etc. There are many kinds of night, and full moon on snow is a lot different than inside-a-hairy-goat dark, dark.

I have been around "hunters" taking "sound shots" in the dark (that's when bowhunting became really attractive to me). Dark as in pine forest, no moon, no snow, couldn't see 40m with a million candlepower searchlight. If, instead of a deer, I was expecting enemy soldiers, I would definitely regard a shot in my direction under those conditions as hostile. What would a jumpy squad do?

One of the funniest things I saw in the army was using passive night vision to scope a Pershing battery, and watching an MP (probably going to take a pee) wander into the triple-strand. I knew they were MPs because that's who was guarding the Pershings. Otherwise, he was just a dim green sucker in a world of hurt. Hated driving jeep with those damn things, they had no depth perception....

The historical record is full of friendly fire incidents in no, or failing, light conditions. Stonewall Jackson springs to mind. Many of these incidents are glossed over, and for obvious reasons don't make the unit histories or published memoirs.

[Binkie]

I am enjoying all of the information on this subject from people who have been there and tried that. I certainly haven't. But I think the night "spooking" should be toned down a bit in future CMs.

I too played Bruyeres, and had an American squad who was actively engaged in a firefight with an enemy about 40 meters in front of them. As I posted to this forum in complaint at the time, this squad turned to fire on friendly troops moving in a building 150 meters directly behind them.

I don't care if there are spooky sounds coming from a building, I don't think it's realistic to turn your back on a known enemy at close range like that to take pot shots at troops in a distant building behind your lines.

[Guest Babra]

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

I don't care if there are spooky sounds coming from a building, I don't think it's realistic to turn your back on a known enemy at close range like that to take pot shots at troops in a distant building behind your lines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, that's a bit out there. Too bad squads can't target multiple targets simultaneously.

[F_Paulus]

That last example reminds me of something that happened during the battle I was talking about in my opening post for this thread. During one instance of friendly fire, I had sent a platoon of guys to rush the hill in the center of the map. The American force there was very diminished, and it seemed like a "gimme". I had moved another platoon up to give covering fire to the platoon that was taking the hill. As soon as platoon #1 reached the hill where the remaining Americans were, platoon #2 (the covering platoon) opened up on some of the friendly squads on the hill! This wasn't a situation where platoon #2 didn't know that platoon #1 would be out there. Then again, perhaps the idea there would be that platoon #2 had a hard time telling the difference between friendly and enemy figures on the hill. If anything, perhaps platoon #2 should have stopped firing when platoon #1 actually reached the hill itself.

Binkie's example seems to violate one of the more important "rules" that BTS has emphasized about squad targetting. Regardless of whether it is day or night, if a more threatening enemy is right in front of you bearing down fast on your position, you would target them FIRST before targetting other imaginary or real enemies further away.

Does anyone know if this phenomenon of getting "spooked" in CM is influenced by the experience of the squad? For instance, do veteran or crack squads spook less?

Paulus

[Mannheim Tanker]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

...tell me you can't see a person at 100 or even further, let alone a squad or bigger unit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can tell you from personal experience (in training - the real thing is likely even more exascerbated) that as Babra said, it's damned near impossible to tell friend from foe in the dark (especially on moonless nights). Muzzle flashes, flash/bangs, etc further ruin your night vision. It gets confusing really fast, and I can certainly see how people get twisted around and mistake their flanks for the front! Without NVDs or a lot of flares on a moonlit night - I challenge you, lcm, to identify friend from foe in the middle of an intense firefight.

BTW: Nice to see another 12B around (I changed MOS's after being a 19K in Germany). I have to say I liked it better as a tanker, but the engineers I met were a really good group of guys.

[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: Mannheim Tanker ]

[YECoyote]

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

I was talking to someone else about this scenario, and they said they thought that that was completely bogus. My question to the forum is: was this bogus? I'm sure that BTS used historical references when they coded this "feature" into night combat (i.e.-night time battle confusion, fatigue, friendly fire, etc.). Does anyone know of any historical references for this subject? I'd also like to know your opinion as to whether this sounds realistic or not. I don't doubt that BTS has good reasons for coding it this way, I just have no personal knowledge to use to defend it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Getting back on topic. If you think it's bad for grunts at night, try playing night mission with heavy fog. Tanks engage each other at about 50m (this is when you keep your KTs at home, and bring along a ton of Hetzers). I think CM does a good job at similating night combat for WWII era.

[Enoch]

I recall running across a reference a while ago stating that when General Terry Allen took over the 104th Infantry (Timberwolf) Division he started intense training in night operations and night fighting. I've since spent some time looking for more info on what that training involved and to what extent the 104th actually engaged in night fighting without much success.

[JoshK]

Enoch, et.al.,

While in no way a unit history, The GI Offensive in Europe: The Triumph of American Infantry Divisions, 1941-1945 by Peter R. Mansoor covers night fighting from the U.S. perspective pretty decently and also goes into some detail about the 104th under Gen. Allen.

[Enoch]

Mansoor may have well been where I first read about the 104th and night fighting. I should go back and look at that since I haven't picked it up in a year or two.

Thanks.

[RCHRD]

This to the VietNam guys. If you were under fire by M-16's, wouldn't you realise it sooner than later? Don't M-16's sound different than AK's?

[Guest Babra]

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

This to the VietNam guys. If you were under fire by M-16's, wouldn't you realise it sooner than later? Don't M-16's sound different than AK's?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

M16s sound different and they also use a different coloured tracer. It's not so easy to tell incoming from outgoing though, unless you want to stick your head up and watch what's going on for a while -- not recommended. Sound also changes with angle. A rifle aimed at you sounds a LOT different than one aimed away from you. For the IDF it's even tougher since there is no standard issue rifle. Different units use different rifles, including a large number of units with AK47s.

[Mark IV]

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

If you were under fire by M-16's, wouldn't you realise it sooner than later? Don't M-16's sound different than AK's?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

M16s have no particular allegiance. Charlie used scads of them. Any rifle pointed your way is enemy, regardless of country of origin.

[Enoch]

Well, I dug out my copy of Mansoor to see what he said about the 104th and night fighting. Terry Allen actually wrote a pamphlet called "Night Attacks" that he distributed to his officers and non-coms. Mansoor says that units were to conduct attacks on narrow fronts in column formations to facilitate command and control.

Mansoor quotes from Allen:

"The skillful use of night attacks indicates smart, agressive leadership. Properly executed night attacks will frequently attain difficult limited objectives, with comparatively few casualties. The attacking troops must be highly trained and imbued with a determination to close with the enemy and destroy him with the bayonet."

Apparently this training worked as the 104th sucessfully used night attacks during its operations in the Scheldt estuary between October 23rd and November 7th. The 104th crossed the Mark river at nightand continued to conduct night opertations afterward.

What I take from this, and from what everyone here has been saying, is that night operations were very difficult to execute properly. The 104th was successful because they trained specifically for night operations and developed techniques for minimizing the problems of command and control in the dark.

[Subvet]

I was never in the army or in combat. I do have a lot of experience in the dark out in the countryside though. One time two friends and I were running toward a barn. I ran straight into a pile of dirt. I did a face plant, a flip, and landed on my back on the opposite side. I was stunned and I had no idea what happened. A couple of seconds later one of my friends does the same thing and lands on top of me. A couple of seconds after that, you guessed it, number three lands on top of us. It is damn hard to see at night! I did a complete wipe out just a few yards in front of these guys and they didn't even see it happen. Another time a friend and I collided in the dark haad on at a full sprint. Man, when I recovered ehough to feel it, that was some pain! :eek:

So yeah, I believe friendly fire at night was a real possibility.

[Triumvir]

The IDF uses AK-47s? In regular units? I thought that they'd all standardized on M-16s.