Preview

[coralsaw]

Pillar,

I think I was not clear. What I really meant was using armoured cars or halftracks as SRE.

The main purposes of SRE as I see them are to:

- Destroy OPFOR recon elements.

- Provide counter-recon.

- Throw the enemy attack off-balance.

- Get the hell out of there.

Now, I understand your points about vehicle rerity and vulnerability, but I don't agree entirely.

ACs or HTs can, if used appropriately, perform all the above tasks at low risk. In principle, I agree that soft vehicles are at risk unsupported. However:

- A competent OPFOR usually refrains from committing AT guns and armor elements right from the start, e.g. by putting tanks out in the open with long FOFs, as they may be in danger from AT fire and arty, also giving away the surprise element.

- OPFOR attack recon or first wave is usually conducted by infantry.

If friendly ACs correctly engage OPFOR first wave or recon infantry from >150m, then man-carried AT weapons are out of range. Long range guns will also be probably hidden at the start of the battle.

As long as ACs fire for a round or two and get out of there, they will not be in any great danger, and can then withdraw to form a tactical reserve.

As an added benefit, the defender does not offer any dug-in positions to the enemy, if an infantry SRE is employed, which can be used as assaulting or supporting positions.

I believe that the use of vehicles as an SRE is guerilla warfare, and does not violate the rule of thumb that vehicles should not fight unsupported.

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

My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

[Gremlin]

A basic problem I could foresee with the idea is that in many types of terrain

a) the vehicle lacks the maneuverability of infantry (though it has greater speed) or even the means to enter the terrain at all

if it's to stay far away from possible anti-tank teams advancing through woods, it increases the already large chance of exposure by ending up in the middle of an open area.

While an AC has better firepower (in some regards) than infantry, it largely lacks the ability to hide or pass through any terrain, limiting its use in such a role.

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

When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans.

--Marcus Aurelius

[Guest Pillar]

Coralsaw,

You are correct in that there are some valuable things to be gained from using vehicles in the SRE.

I'm not going to "thou shalt" the whole idea, but I'll point out a few more reasons brought up by your own post why I prefer not to use vehicles (initially) in the SRE role.

Notice in both your points the word "usually" was the hinge factor on whether the use of vehicles in the front lines would succeed?

a) "A competent OPFOR usually refrains from committing AT guns and armor elements right from the start, e.g. by putting tanks out in the open with long FOFs, as they may be in danger from AT fire and arty, also giving away the surprise element."

Not always true. It's not unusual for a good player to support his attacking SRE with heavier weapons, including tanks (from a distance). They also will be able to bring armor out of it's deployment within a single turn of spotting your vehicles. Can you get the armor out safely, without having it pinned in location for the rest of the match, without it getting killed? Are you SURE?

"OPFOR attack recon or first wave is usually conducted by infantry. "

Again, it's not unusual for the attacker to support his SRE with vehicles. Look at Fionn Kelly's "Open Terrain" AAR, in which he used Lynx's to support his recon efforts. The modern Soviet army will support their recon with IFV's and even Tanks. If you use Half Tracks or Scout Cars in the defensive SRE they stand a significant risk of being destroyed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against using vehicles to help your SRE out. I'm just not enthusiastic about commiting vehicles UNTIL the dismounts (infantry in SRE) have identified the enemy.

The same holds true in the attack. If I spot enemy vehicles with my SRE which I can kill easily, I'll bring a small (smallest possible) amount of forces out of deployment to do so.

To understand why I feel this way, you have to understand that I am very reluctant to commit anything unless I have a solid reason to do so. By "solid reason", I mean identified enemy forces, and favourable conditions for my own forces. I would feel like I was taking a huge risk by putting vehicles on SRE duty as *default*, without knowing *what exactly* I was going to run into with them: MAYBE the enemy will only use infantry, MAYBE his AT guns will be hiding, MAYBE his SRE will be unsupported by armor, MAYBE he won't drop 81mm on my HT's, MAYBE his infantry will cross open ground and I'll be able to shoot them, MAYBE I'll be able to make it back safely to the MLR...and so on. Just too many "maybes" for me to feel comfortable using them in the SRE element defaultly.

I'm not knocking your idea or anything, I just don't prefer that method personally.

[Guest Pillar]

PS -- Coralsaw, you realize I'm refering to the SRE on the defense right?

[ScoutPL]

I have to say this Pillar, and please take it lightly, but its obvious you 've never had to fight a battle with the clock racing against you. It sounds to me like you'd like to spend just as much time reconning a company or battalion objective as you would actually attacking it. A smart way to go for sure, but a luxury a real commander will never enjoy. But at least the theory sounds good right?

Aren't most of the works you've studied on broad front recon concerned with operational (brigade and up) level operations? I think that is an important distinction that has to be made for the less experienced or knowledgable guys here.

The one thing I carried away from my military experience (both in training and in combat) is the total randomness and fast forward sensation of battle. As a leader I was often faced with four or five decisions and only had time to make one or two. By the time I got to the third they were either moot points or five more problems had sprung up. Who to maneuver against that machinegun? Do I send some one after the retreating enemy? Could it be a trap? How can I assign supporting fires? Do I use them to suppress the gun or to provide support for the platoon in contact? What does the colonel need to know? How is the casevac going? Do I need to send someone back for ammo? Who is that shooting at me? All within a few seconds, all desperately in need of a solution. The good commanders could pick out the key problems and let the rest slide, or better yet ensure they had well trained subordinates who could lighten the load (a good RTO who could update the colonel, a good casevac SOP that the lead medic could implement, an FO who knew how you thought and could call for the fires you wanted before you had to ask). The thing about CM is that is does a very good job of simulating that, unless you look at it as a chess match and spend hours going over the possibilities between each PBEM turn or want to apply operational doctrine in a klick square box.

I'm sure you disagree, which is fine, we've discussed it before. I just like throwing it all out there again for the new guys to think about.

[Guest Pillar]

That's fine Scout, so what *DO* you advocate?

Do you not use an SRE? Do you wait until the enemy has hit your MLR before you commit reserves? I'm still totally in the dark as to your own concepts of the battlefield.

I certainly have faced situations in CM where I couldn't do a sufficient recon with the forces and time at hand, but that doesn't mean I'd ever change my doctrine. It just means I didn't have the resources to perform what I wanted. I still am very flexible. Not ALWAYS will one have time and resources to do a broad front reconaissance before an attack, BUT I am far from advocating this as the ideal, and I certainly wouldn't advocate it in an article.

It should be held in perspective that your military experience is limited to the US Army, and you have said before you have virtually no knowledge of foreign military doctrine except what you encountered during training exercises.

No, my studies of broad front recon are not limited to Operational level activity.

I don't know what you are talking about when you say: "unless you look at it as a chess match and spend hours going over the possibilities between each PBEM turn or want to apply operational doctrine in a klick square box." I think you are guilty of a little exaggeration here and it sounds like you may be being intellectually dishonest. I know you mean well, but do be careful how you word things!

The SRE concept is far from a complex principle, and it is not "applying operational doctrine in a km square box"... You'd be surprised how simple the principles in my article are applied. Identify the enemy avenue of approach, shift reserves, use forward elements to counter attack the enemy. 1, 2, 3.

Most of the things you mentioned in your post are micro-level decisions which, while important, are not what my article was addressing.

And for the record, I haven't been in any battles. I haven't experienced directly what you call the "fast forward" and "randomness" of the battlefield.

However, if I was in that situation, I would hope my battalion/regimental commander could keep things in perspective and carry out the battle according to concepts like the ones I described in my article, while maintaining the flexibility to deal with any new situations that may arise.

[Bil Hardenberger]

It sounds to me like you'd like to spend just as much time reconning a company or battalion objective as you would actually attacking it. A smart way to go for sure, but a luxury a real commander will never enjoy.

That may be true ScoutPL... however, often a real commander will have some Intel as to the enemy dispositions, force makeup, etc... so this type of recon will have already been performed, perhaps via tactical signals intercept or some other means.

Besides, is there not a recon made of the objective before an attack is launched? Maybe not by the attacking unit, but it is done regardless. The attacking unit will take that information into account when planning it's attack... this is what performing recon simulates in CM, at least to me.

Just my 2 cents.

Bil

[This message has been edited by Bil Hardenberger (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Gremlin]

Recon has been beaten to death in the forums before, but that's a vital point people tend to miss. In a large QB, you have only rudimentary info about the enemy forces and terrain (unlike a scenario with a good briefing). That info may suffice for some, but I'd like a little more intel from active recon if possible before just marching a company into an ambush. Gaining that info doesn't necessarily entail lots of dedicated scouting parties laboriously sneaking through the woods, though

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

When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans.

--Marcus Aurelius

[ScoutPL]

"Most of the things you mentioned in your post are micro-level decisions which, while important, are not what my article was addressing."

I realize I came over a little heavy handed but these discussions are supposed to be within the realm of CM right? Which means we're discussing actions that take place at the battalion level or lower. Actions that take less then an hour (at most) to fight. Usually less then half an hour. Please produce an authoritative example of broad front recon tactics at the company level (from any country) and I'll shut my mouth. I just really think your taking "big picture" doctrine and applying it at the level where the only things you should be concerned with is MG placement, supporting arty fires and movement routes, to name a few. In my opinion you're over complicating an already complicated window into battle. To put it a different way, when a soviet rifle company attacks a town, they do it exactly the same way we would, or the Germans would or the French would or anybody else. SBF element in overwatch, smoke screen for obscuration, and an assault element advancing across the objective by bounds. Thats what CM is all about. Not reconning to find the hole in the line. There is no "line" at this scale, only defensive positions that are focused, usually, on defending key terrain!

"Do you not use an SRE? Do you wait until the enemy has hit your MLR before you commit reserves? I'm still totally in the dark as to your own concepts of the battlefield."

First off read the delay defense tutorial, it'll shine a little light on "my" concepts. If you've read up on US doctrine like you claimed to you should know very well that we use what you call an SRE. But in US doctrine its treated as a seperate fight from the main battle. As a scout platoon leader I was always involved in the counterrecon fight in the defense. My primary mission was usually to watch suspected dismounted infiltration routes and call for fire or air to engage any enemy we spotted. The battalions AT company (armed with HMMWV's with .50 cals and TOWs) had the primary responibility of screening to the battalions front and catching the enemy's mounted recon assets. We all had pretty much the same tasks and purposes you laid out in your rundown on soviet style counterrecon. You know why they're so similiar? Because everyone knows that defenses in depth are the way to go. No big "doctrinal" differences here. For that express reason I didnt include the counterrecon assets in my battalion defense tutorial. Since the enemy will conduct his recon hours prior to making his attack and at the expected hit time my counterrecon assets will either go to ground or withdraw back to their primary positions for the actual battle it didnt make much sense. So my tutorial starts when the actual main battle is joined. Which is what CM is all about.

Our reserve is usually committed late in the fight after the enemy has been severly attrited and when it would do the most damage to the enemy. If all an infantry battalion can hope to do is delay and attrit, then a good hard tank platoon counterattack against the enemy regiments third echelon can be devastating and demoralizing enough to give the task force a hard won victory. Tell you a secret though, I never once in eight years, saw a light infantry battalion (usually supported with a tank platoon, but sometimes a tank company) successfully stop a motorized rifle regiment supported with tanks. They say the javelin will make a significant difference, but we could never really play it to its max effectiveness in training so I cant say. But I would not want to be in a light infantry battalion that gets tasked with stopping a chinese armored regiment, no way jose.

Which brings up another point:

"Identify the enemy avenue of approach, shift reserves, use forward elements to counter attack the enemy. 1, 2, 3."

The strength of the defense, to withstand direct and indirect fires, is the dugin position. In most cases, once you leave those positions you give up any advantage you may have had. If you have the assets to counterattack the enemy's lead elements then you are probably defending a piece of terrain that is much smaller then what you would in reality. Something I have noticed in Fionns posts, by the way. He's always heavy on the assets and they read like Santa Clauses wish list. If you are defending a piece of ground that was doctrinally assigned by your higher headquarters, you're probably going to be stretched to the breaking point anyway. My tutorial map is extremely narrow by doctrinal standards for a battalion defense but I had to do that to keep my map a manageable size. Even so, I barely have the assets to cover the necessary AOA's. Take a look at your own soviet model template you posted. How big is their reserve? Where are the counterattack routes? I bet they're not that much different from my own. Which goes back to my original point. At the pointy end of the stick (battalion level or lower) the subspecies just arent that much different on the tactical DNA chart. Trying to find huge differences just complicates things.

[ScoutPL]

Let me reiterate a point I've made before and its been made by others. If you want to have a realistic playing experience with CM, stay the hell away from QB's. Talk over with you're opponent what you want to do and take a few minutes to set up a scenario. Make sure the one setting it up is on the defense and provide a good intel dump based on what you guys predecided the level of intel would be. Then fight a damn battle! And quit p-footing around! Your attack plan should be based on the intel paragraph you received from "higher", not on the first ten turns of you stumbling around toward the enemy positions like Elmer Fudd!

[Gremlin]

If I can interject, I don't care about any real-world doctrine or tactics except insofar as they can be well integrated into CM to let me play a more successful, interesting, and fun game.

QB's can be great fun, even if not particularly "realistic," and I and many players (like my opponents ) don't care about that lack of realism. I certainly respect other views on the matter, however.

Why do people think recon in CM involves tediously sneaking about for half the game? As ScoutPL says, these are small-scale battles. I prefer to think of intelligence, rather than formal recon or scouting. I also find it helpful not to strictly differentiate force groupings and tasks, but rather treat them fluidly (in as much as their composition allows it). A scout party can be or turn into the point element of an ME, or into an SBF element, etc. as needed.

I understand the joys of theorizing--I used to be an academic --but perhaps a greater focus on what goes on in a typical CM game would be helpful too? No disrespect meant; hopefully you take my point.

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

When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans.

--Marcus Aurelius

[coralsaw]

Pillar,

Thanks for the answer, I think you have a fair point re/ vehicles in the SRE, but I would still not opt out of it, if not for anything else other than unpredictability.

SPL,

I have followed in previous threads and continue to see your point about the nature of CM battles, and how doctrinal issues of the sort that Pillar talks about can be operational. I thought the same of his SLR concept.

Nevertheless, I don't find it harmful to look into doctrine even at the tactical level, since the perfect "intel paragraph" a scenario gives can vary from rubbish to useless sometimes. There is also this damn free-setup thing, that means that you really don't know how the enemy is deployed. Of course the problem is bigger in large maps, but I don't see anything wrong with planning ahead.

Time is a critical factor in the analysis, but, for better or worse, CM gives to one the option of taking one's time to plan. If the scenario gives me time to recon and I have the troops to do it, I'll do it, if not, I'll just deploy and wait. And what is exactly wrong with thinking a PBEM round for hours? It's just a way of playing, and it can be a very individual thing. I personally prefer PBEM for this particular reason, because I like analysing situations, and coming up with good plans. Maybe I'm dumb that I just don't support, smoke, assault, hit GO, but heck, I like it this way.

I think you two guys represent different attitudes. Pillar likes to plan, you like to go for it. A bit simplistic perhaps, but that's IMO.

In terms of military realism, you're probably closer to the truth. The commander in defence has to stretch his troops, will not have time to make most of the decisions required, will not be able to form an elaborate plan.

Personally though, I don't care to recreate this aspect of battle. I can do without the battle stress...

Regards

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

My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

[This message has been edited by coralsaw (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Guest Pillar]

Which means we're discussing actions that take place at the battalion level or lower.

The article was describing a Battalion or bigger. CM *can* handle it.

Please produce an authoritative example of broad front recon tactics at the company level (from any country) and I'll shut my mouth.

First, I never think in terms of a company operating on it's own UNLESS it is a forward detachment (peredovoi otriad).

Second, ALL companies in a battalion or regiment use broad front recon assets organic to the unit. The whole purpose of an SRE is razvedka (reconaissance) and pokhodnoe okhraneni (security). Peredovoi Otriad perform many tasks, and can be operational or tactical in nature. During World War 2, they had a primarily tactical role. Peredovoi Otriad can themselves be as big as a battalion! Are you confusing Peredovoie Otriad with golovnyi pokhodnyi zastav (advance lead march party)?

I think you are, based on your references to operational doctrine.

To put it a different way, when a soviet rifle company attacks a town, they do it exactly the same way we would, or the Germans would or the French would or anybody else. SBF element in overwatch, smoke screen for obscuration, and an assault element advancing across the objective by bounds.

To add a few: every military similarly uses "hull down" tactics, flanking maneuover, ambushes, MG cover and fire support, air support, movement by bounding, etc. I'm not surprised in the least by your point. It's basic military fundamentals.

Thats what CM is all about.

I've found it can do far more than just simulate the assault, and players that simply jump right into an attack end up getting slaughtered in my experience.

the enemy will conduct his recon hours prior to making his attack.

That works on a larger scale, locating where the enemy formations (battalions etc.) have deployed. It will tell the enemy which sector (cm battlefield) to attack, it will not tell him how to conduct the attack in that sector.

Another advance party will however succeed in revealing the local composition of the defence, and aid the commander in deciding how to penetrate and destroy the enemy in that locale.

For example, in your Battalion defense tutorial, he would discover where you had setup engagement areas and in what strength approximately you had defended each. He then would have more information he needed to decide how to go about that attack immediately.

As far as your advice on quick battles go, I agree, though I don't agree that one should just go right ahead and attack right off the batt. Some situations call for it.

Finally, and most importantly, I want you to sit down some time and really explain what you dissaproove of regarding the tactics I use.

Is it just that you can't concieve of them being used in your battalion? A soviet battalion? A german one?

Is it that you feel that they are gamey, and only work in a computer game?

Is it that you think they won't lead to success?

For me the only factor is "Does it work well?" and "Why does it work well?"

In my experience, it works very well and has nothing to do with game factors. It has to do with information management and hence better tactical decisions.

And while I have read a lot on foriegn military doctrine, and while I have a leaning towards Soviet conceptions, I *still* am completely flexible AND I don't care exactly what the real world armies are doing right now. I find that in both Soviet and American armies there is far to much rigidity and "that's not how it's supposed to be done" etc.

If it works, DO IT. There is no law of physics that says a group of 20 guys can't head up ahead of the MLR and report back what's going on. There is no military law that says you can't use small groups of highly equiped men in ahead of the MLR to conduct strokes against the enemy.

Americans were taught it hard in Vietnam, Russians were taught it in Chechnya:

THERE ARE NO RULES.

[JoePrivate]

Pillar,

Not meaning to intrude but I have an observation. While I enjoy and appreciate the work you have presented as well as ScoutPls, I think there is something fundamental you are missing that is directly related to your discussions with ScoutPL.

To you it is a game, an intellectual exercise at best, you talk in terms of advocate, or debate, or doctrine, or my concepts etc, ie 'choice'. That's fine but it isn't relating on the same level with ScoutPL, who is/was doing these things as a way of life. His background is based on the practical reality, of doing and the descisions and responsibilities that go along with it. I doubt very much if the mindset you are presenting would be favoured or advantageous for the commander on the ground, something entirely different may be required.

Not sure if I am being clear but just wanted to present another viewpoint for your benefit so the discontent or misunderstandings evidenced before in the scouting/recon thread wouldn't be repeated. If I am way off base then I apologize.

[Guest Pillar]

Joe,

Do you mean that ScoutPL's perspective will be different than mine since his experience relates mostly to commanding a platoon on the field? I.E. As opposed to a Battalion commander or Regimental commander?

[ScoutPL]

What I gleaned from that, Pillar, is that you're working on a doctrinal and TTP base for playing CM, a computer simulation. Thats great. I should keep that in mind, that way I wont get so upset when I see things that conflict with reality.

"The article was describing a Battalion or bigger. CM *can* handle it."

I dont think BTS meant for CM to handle regimental sized defenses. Ever look at what the doctrinal coverage is for a regiment? Has to be at least 8 km, probably bigger. Thats with two bn's forward and one back. CM wont even handle a map bigger then 5km square. Not on the majority of machines anyway. Want to fight a regiment/division? Update your copy of TAOW and we'll go at it.

"First, I never think in terms of a company operating on it's own UNLESS it is a forward detachment (peredovoi otriad)."

Then you're missing whats really great about CM and are trying to mutate it into something its not. Company fights are what CM is all about. If I'm wrong someone from BTS please jump in here and correct me. Actually I'd refer you to the design note on page 18 which states that the scope of CM is battalion level, hence the three man icons representing squads. This to me says the intended scope of CM is a company in the defense with a battalion attacking. I know I'm stretching it with my battalion defense tutorial but there was so much interest in it I couldnt refuse. I did manage to keep the unit count down however by echeloning the attacking forces by entering 5 seperate combined arms teams at different intervals, just as they would be in real life, rather then piling up an entire Kampfgruppe on the german board edge.

"Peredovoi Otriad can themselves be as big as a battalion! Are you confusing Peredovoie Otriad with golovnyi pokhodnyi zastav (advance lead march party)?"

Either one represents the forward element of a larger body and if that larger body stumbles onto a CM mapboard then you just blew the scope of the game all to hell. So we're back to CM being about company level fights.

"I've found it can do far more than just simulate the assault, and players that simply jump right into an attack end up getting slaughtered in my experience."

Then they need to learn how to conduct an assault.

[ScoutPL]

Ok, Pillar, dont be calling me out. JoePrivate's comments may have cut a little deep but I have to respond.

"Do you mean that ScoutPL's perspective will be different than mine since his experience relates mostly to commanding a platoon on the field? I.E. As opposed to a Battalion commander or Regimental commander?"

I spent three years as an enlisted man, most of it as my battalion commanders RTO. He issued the orders, I repeated them over the radio. I watched, I learned. Its what influenced me to return as an officer. I watched everything about how a battalion/brigade (since I went to every brigade oporder) operated in the field. Both in training environments and in combat.

I spent a year eating dirt with my guys as a rifle platoon leader then came back up to battalion level operations as the scout platoon leader. You think I didnt have to know what the rest of the REGIMENT was doing, and understand it, to do my job as a scout? After that came rifle company XO time. During which I commanded the company in tactical situations in the field a number of times. And that doesnt count all the times I assisted my company commander in his oporder process by discussing COA's and offering ideas. Then came another year as a battalion asistant operations officer, during which I sat in the TOC during battles and tracked the big picture for the operations officer and the battalion commander. When we weren't training I was back in the rear planning the next training exercise. Think I didnt need to know the ins and outs of that battalion and how it worked to plan training events?

Pillar, the only thing keeping me from commanding a battalion right now is time served and a few official schools. I think I'm qualified to talk about company/battalion level ops even though my "experience relates mostly to commanding a platoon on the field"

[Guest Pillar]

What I gleaned from that, Pillar, is that you're working on a doctrinal and TTP base for playing CM, a computer simulation.

If that's all you gathered then you are missing out.

Why is it always "If you aren't using ScoutPL's tactics you are simply playing a computer game"?

I wont get so upset when I see things that conflict with reality.

You still haven't explained to me what "rules" say my tactics conflict with reality? Which law of physics?

Then you're missing whats really great about CM and are trying to mutate it into something its not. Company fights are what CM is all about.

And because I like to use it for larger battles I'm missing out? On what?

This to me says the intended scope of CM is a company in the defense with a battalion attacking.

On the contrary Scout, I think CM is mainly a system of mechanics. I've tried much larger engagements on CM and it really shined through. I think it's the best we have right now for anything at the tactical level for WW2. I happen to have the horsepower to run larger engagements.

Want to fight a regiment/division? Update your copy of TAOW and we'll go at it.

TAOW is fine for Operational level strategy, but it does NOT allow a player to play tactics out.

Regiments and Divisions conduct Tactical maneuver, not JUST operational.

Either one represents the forward element of a larger body and if that larger body stumbles onto a CM mapboard then you just blew the scope of the game all to hell. So we're back to CM being about company level fights.

This must be the crux of your disagreement with me. You can't see past the company level fight. You don't think CM has any place in anything larger.

Can you give me some solid reasoning behind why CM can't handle anything larger, other than CPU power?

Then they need to learn how to conduct an assault.

Indeed.

[Guest Pillar]

Pillar, the only thing keeping me from commanding a battalion right now is time served and a few official schools. I think I'm qualified to talk about company/battalion level ops even though my "experience relates mostly to commanding a platoon on the field"

It was never a question of qualification Scout. Sorry if I sounded that way. It was about bias.

Careful how you interpret things.

[ScoutPL]

Since I have trouble reading peoples minds (I cant seem to interpret their writing correctly), suffer from penis envy (my computer isnt fast enough to run REALLY BIG games), and cant seem to grasp higher concepts of learning (I'm to forever fight my battles in the trenchs, just me and my boys), I obviously have nothing more to contribute here. I honestly dont know why I keep making this same mistake. Some people like oranges, some like apples. Thats just the way it goes.

Dont call me, Pillar, I'll call you....

[Guest Pillar]

Those of you interested in the use of reconaissance, and in general the conduct of a Soviet attack, should check out this article.

It summarizes an attack by a tactical combined arms force (5 tank platoons, 5 infantry platoons I think) on a german defence in forested terrain.

The main reason I reference it here is because it shows that the recon techniques I am so fond of are *not* simply operational maneuvers.

It's a great read, and can be easily applied to Combat Mission. I think you guys will like it.

Here is the link:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015509.html

Enjoy!

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 01-25-2001).]

[Bil Hardenberger]

Thanks Pillar, great read.

It isn't like we needed justification for how we play CM... some of us learned the hard way the value of good recon, no matter what level of operation we are talking about.

Bil

[ScoutPL]

Sorry but I'm still not convinced. What you have here is a commander who's first COA was to go up the roads, so he directed his reconnaissance there. They came back with the intel that showed the roads were impassable, convincing him to find an alternate route.

So he task organized his combined arms units to create a rather standard marching order for tank/infantry teams operating in wooded terrain. They advanced, staying away from the roads, with a small dismounted advance party to warn of enemy positions to the front. Look up traveling overwatch in FM 7-8. It'll look real familiar to you.

The broad flanking maneuver to the left is simply a factor of outnumbering your enemy to the point he cant cover his flanks. Since this was basically a clean-up operation of a surrounded german force, thats not surprising.

What we dont have here is a commander splitting up his infantry forces into "recon" teams, distributing them relatively evenly across his front and sending them forward to make contact with the enemy surfaces and hopefully discover his gaps. This commander had a very good idea where the enemy was located from the very beginning and developed a very sound plan on how to bypass the enemy's strength. Great read on using good intel to come up with a plan and then ATTACKING.

As far as broad front recon? Sorry, no sale.

[Guest Pillar]

Originally posted by Bil Hardenberger:

Thanks Pillar, great read.

It isn't like we needed justification for how we play CM... some of us learned the hard way the value of good recon, no matter what level of operation we are talking about.

Bil

Amen to that Bil.

[ScoutPL]

"for how we play CM..."

As long as we keep that distinction, we should all get along peachy!