Small Unit Tactics AAR

[Midnight Warrior]

Some more thouhts on assaulting buildings:

1. In addition to suicide units and Geurilla units there sould be regular units. The first two seem to operate as small independent units while the regular units would be more conventional and fight more under a fixed C2 structure.

2.This idea that Geurila forces have a planned retreat sugeest that perhaps there should be a new movement order in CMSF where an escape route can be defined by a player but it is not executed until some trigger event occurs. The command delay from defining a new escape route can be large (simlatd that it needs to be scouted out) but once it is defined the execution delay could be very short. (Also, in principle more than one escaperoute could be defined with different triggers but that may be too much).

3. Whether an assault on a house is "top down" or "bottom up" could derived based on where the player defines the breach point.

4. The "flood house" tctic might be a rough equalvalent to the "assault" comand in the CMx1 series. The stealth tactic perhaps is anqalogous to the sneak comand. The hybrid (I forgot what it was caled) may be roughlyanalogous to the "advance" command. However, if this is the case the execution of these coands may be very different in a MOUT situation than in open country or woods, etc.

5. Th level of player command in CMSF may be more in coordinating the assault squad with otherassest like tanks, arty, CAS, etc than micromanaging an assault on a house. Perhaps the human player decides whether to assault the house or attack it with firepower and if he assaults where to make the breach and what tactic (e.g. stealt, flood house, etc) to use and the TAC AI does he rest.

6. Urban aeas compartmentalize terrain so that assaulting a house in in effect a game within a game in that one could defne a whole new game with 1 meter resolution 10 seconds turns and command of each soldier to immlement the tactics cited in the AAR at a player corlled level. CMSF could implement this game withing game and have it under the TACAI control. Or CMSF could largely abstract these tactics. It will be very interesting to see how BFC goes about doing this!

7. It wud be iteresting to have a AAR from the deenders point of view (assumingthere where any surviors of such assaults to give one). What tactics will the defender be able to employ, how will these be invoked by the defending player, and how will these affect combat resolution?

8. I ca see that one of the advantages of doig a contemporary sceanrio is that is a wealth of information to draw. I would be willing to suscpet that once this information is moned and translated into gae mechanics that there might not be both insights and gae mechanics that can be "retrofiteed" back into a WWII seting. Perhaps when assaulting houses in WWII soeof these same tactics were used (adaped to their equipment at the tme) but where called somethig slightly different or where invented localy and not recorded for posterity as these modern tactics are. And 50 years from now these modern AAR's may be lost too as far as we know! Thus it is nice to have a fresh view of the problem of small unit combat from a different perspective. I bet in addition to us all learning a lot of new things that these newly leared things will alos give us even that much ore insight in what happened in the past.

[mattwagner]

While I was in a Stryker Brigade, my platoon did some very fun MOUT training with 1st Special Forces Group. We were using Sim Rounds, which are basically 9mm paintball rounds... you simply replace the upper reciever on the M4/M16.

We thought we got our asses handed to us, but during the AAR, we were told that we did rather good... all things considered. They told us how in the same MOUT village(about 8 or 9 buildings), they(one SF team) defended while the 2nd Battalion, 75th Rangers attacked. After a day, the Rangers had 70% casualties and had just established a foothold in the village.

Thats how ****ty MOUT is. We were told to always expect at least 50% casualties.

[Zemke]

Excellent AAR

[Edward Wehrenberg]

So don't buy it.

Mazex wrote: Is it only me having a hard time seeing anything interesting in simulating this? Yes I AM sorry for the hard words but I really don't like the idea of M1A2 crews at safe distance popping off 14 year old kids with an AK and a plastic key to Allahs heaven around the neck. It's a heck of a difference from directing the Marines against the SS troops in Europe, or the IJA in the PTO.

[Snow Leopard]

I don't think radicals group have enough men to manned all T-72 tanks but few as most Syria national may will use most T-72 against radicals group.

For Terrain and Enemy: I was think of build extra heavy armor assult bulldozers to take some buildings down as radicals may change their mind about try luck kill many marines and run out building as bulldozers creep on them. I am sure US will happy to afford and help building new building to replace loss as can not want lost marines. US may afford building special designed 10-20 extra-armored bulldozer as it is too simple than battle tank and so easy to train crew. Maybe they can fitted with special long strong pipe for ram in and generate tear gas in, pipe in stun grenades, flame (flamethrower), music and even rubber chickens (look real) with hanging sign from their neck said "bird flu". LOL

[ October 14, 2005, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Snow Leopard ]

[Nadir_E]

Originally posted by Midnight Warrior:

Some more thouhts on assaulting buildings:

2.This idea that Geurila forces have a planned retreat sugeest that perhaps there should be a new movement order in CMSF where an escape route can be defined by a player but it is not executed until some trigger event occurs. The command delay from defining a new escape route can be large (simlatd that it needs to be scouted out) but once it is defined the execution delay could be very short. (Also, in principle more than one escaperoute could be defined with different triggers but that may be too much).

I'm not sure I agree this should be modeled. With the standard 1 minute turn, it would be possible for the owning player to direct the unit's retreat following the turn. At that point, the path selected is player-specified (and can ignore danger areas like the intersections the article described).

4. The "flood house"...a rough equalvalent to the "assault" comand .... The stealth tactic ....anqalogous to the sneak comand. The hybrid (I forgot what it was caled) may be roughlyanalogous to the "advance" command. However, if this is the case the execution of these coands may be very different in a MOUT situation than in open country or woods, etc.

I agree completely - utilization of existing commands would be best, with some means of the AI indicating whether it thinks we're asking for "open field" or "urban" execution of the order.

6. Urban aeas compartmentalize terrain so that assaulting a house in in effect a game within a game in that one could defne a whole new game with 1 meter resolution 10 seconds turns and command of each soldier to immlement the tactics cited in the AAR at a player corlled level. CMSF could implement this game withing game and have it under the TACAI control. Or CMSF could largely abstract these tactics. It will be very interesting to see how BFC goes about doing this!

I think this is where the biggest challenge lays - under CMx1 I can enter a building from 360-degrees, passing through walls with ease. In reality, of course, I cannot and that is where the urban environment generates its "fatal funnels." Without some means of creating these problems (where do I breach, how else can I get in/out of a building, is there a way out of this street?) we really shouldn't be thinking about the specific tactics in the article. For this to work right (IMHO) the modeling of buildings needs to be radically changed from CMx1.

$0.02 deposited,

-Nadir

[Snow Leopard]

"Flood house" that's good word...we can flood house with tear gas or rubber "flu bird" chicken or whatever.

[mazex]

Originally posted by Edward Wehrenberg:

So don't buy it.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Mazex wrote: Is it only me having a hard time seeing anything interesting in simulating this? Yes I AM sorry for the hard words but I really don't like the idea of M1A2 crews at safe distance popping off 14 year old kids with an AK and a plastic key to Allahs heaven around the neck. It's a heck of a difference from directing the Marines against the SS troops in Europe, or the IJA in the PTO.

</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, as I've said a million times I don't mind people being critical about the setting and how it will play out in game terms. That's fine and very healthy. It was all the other crap, about us selling out and lying about this, and that thing, etc. that we deserve to do without.

Steve

[Midnight Warrior]

I found a video that depicts breaching a door similar to what was described in the AAR.

video

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Edward Wehrenberg:

So don't buy it.

what an excellent reply,, what a stunning, convincing string of thought and argument.

....now, somebody remind me, what was this board all about?

[M Hofbauer]

somebody set us up the bomb:

Originally posted by Snow Leopard:

I don't think radicals group have enough men to manned all T-72 tanks but few as most Syria national may will use most T-72 against radicals group.

For Terrain and Enemy: I was think of build extra heavy armor assult bulldozers to take some buildings down as radicals may change their mind about try luck kill many marines and run out building as bulldozers creep on them. I am sure US will happy to afford and help building new building to replace loss as can not want lost marines. US may afford building special designed 10-20 extra-armored bulldozer as it is too simple than battle tank and so easy to train crew. Maybe they can fitted with special long strong pipe for ram in and generate tear gas in, pipe in stun grenades, flame (flamethrower), music and even rubber chickens (look real) with hanging sign from their neck said "bird flu". LOL

...or with a sign saying:

you have no chance to survive make your time.

or, like the mayors of the cities where the US military is closing their installations are chanting:

all your base are belong to us !

[GSX]

FIBUA is a long and complicated process. Just to take 1 reasonably sized builing may take an hour if done properly. The slower and more methodical the better. So in CMSF, will we see the scenarios move to hours rather than minutes? To give the whole subject justice, fighting in buildings will necessarily have to take time. So to take a small town may take 24 hours, will this be reflected in the simulation? Will I have to go from building to building clearing every room and then go onto the next block?

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

Most historical battles simulated in CMx1 games took hours or days to complete as well. The scenario just focused on one particular point in the battle. This is similar to CM:SF. In the campaign you might play out a single battle as part of taking the small town, but then "skip ahead" to the next mission.

Steve

[GSX]

Cheers Steve, so are you saying I would just have to take a street corner etc, rather than the whole town then. That makes sense I think.

Will ladders be available in FIBUA? Its our preferred method of ingress.

Oops, sorry there. Its not UK, US have diffrent methods. Ignore that.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, a scenario might indeed involve trying to take a single part of a street. However, you might not know which part when you start. For example, you're instructed to proceed to the center of town and secure an objective. You have to assume everything in between your starting point and the objective is potentially hostile, but then again it is impractical to kick in every door just in case. So you must move your forces in such a way as to respond to whatever threats present themselves wherever they present themselves. The size of your force and the type of enemy force will also have a big impact. All sorts of possibilities, so there is no one right answer.

Actually, from what I've read "Top Down" building clearing process is the preferred method for at least the Marines as well. Not sure which way the Army chooses if it has a choice, though I suspect Top Down is also desirable. Ladders are tough to simulate. We're going to try, though we might have to abstract it somewhat.

Steve

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Ladders are tough to simulate. We're going to try, though we might have to abstract it somewhat.

Steve

You'll need them for CM:Caesar at Alesia anyway - so you might as well work on them now

[Waleed]

Why didn't the US Militay liaise with the British military ?

I was taught FIBUA (Fighting In Built Up Areas) as a teenage military cadet, and again in the reserve Military in the early 90's.

[Battlefront.com]

Why didn't the US Militay liaise with the British military ?

Who said they didn't?

The US has been doing serious MOUT (as the Yanks call it) training for many years now. With every passing year from the end of the Cold War it became more and more a part of military thinking in some ways, totally ignored in others. Training materials were allowed to lapse, other materials that should have been introduced weren't. There is no legitimate excuse for this since the need for such written standards and expectations were so obviously lacking and yet so blatently needed.

One reason was that focusing on MOUT meant acknowledging that what was considered standard doctrine for the previous 50 years was no longer of central importance. Some officers had to retire and others pushed out before things could really shift to smaller more urbanized ops. I am sure this was similar in other militaries. Change isn't something peacetime militaries handle very well.

From what I understand 1980s was still "bypass" urban terrain, 1990s was the wakeup call for some that the old doctrine was no longer feasible, but it took Afghanistan and Iraq to make it clear to everybody that there was nothing more important than figuring out how to best handle MOUT environments. I'd be curious what armor guys, in particular, have to say about MOUT emphasis in the 1980s vs. 1990s, vs. 2000s.

Steve

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Actually, from what I've read "Top Down" building clearing process is the preferred method for at least the Marines as well. Not sure which way the Army chooses if it has a choice, though I suspect Top Down is also desirable. Ladders are tough to simulate. We're going to try, though we might have to abstract it somewhat.

Steve

That's true. We were always taught that top down attacks on buildings were preferred, though we only practiced them about 25% of the time. The only times we did was when we had proper MOUT gear like grappeling hooks and assault ladders.

Theory was you'd come from the top and flush them out into the street (and, presumably, into the waiting maws of the rest of the platoon's weapons). That might work against enemies that value their lives, but when you're fighting someone resolved to die in place, it could be tricky.

I always thought ground level entires made more sense myself, as you could use direct fire weapons (we had AT4s and M203s - mech guys could easily use 25mm, TOW or 120mm fire) to make your own entry points, confuse/blind/deafen/scare the guys inside and it wouldn't tire your troops out as fast. Scaling ropes and ladders with all that gear on can get tiresome pretty quickly.

[Battlefront.com]

The main problems with top down appear to be logistical. How to get up there in the first place, then how to do it without being shot at, are two of the things I've read about. The other is how to evacuate wounded. It's hard enough to do in a firefight, but when the only means of evac are up and back down again, that is the sort of thing a squad really doesn't have the manpower to deal with. One serious WIA case could stop a squad's forward momentum in its tracks. And one thing is for sure... loss of momentum in an urban structure is not a good thing at all.

Steve

[Waleed]

Hi Steve, thanks for the quick reply - just got back to the Forums.

I assumed no co-operation as the AAR infers all the lessons were learnt by the USMC in recent combat. Most of what is in there I knew in 1992, an example, the following...

"The Marines should have some dispersion, and the pace of the running should not be so fast that the Marines are uncontrolled and not maintaining all around security"

...the British Army was teaching this 20 years ago...why didn't our US allies learn from us?

I was in the Reserves so I never had to serve in Northern Ireland, but all my PI's (Permanent Instructors) did, and they weere always willing to teach...hell, we were all taught that the guy who gains the first entry gap and lobs the grenades is NOT the guy who then ebters the room first.

I am astonished that the USMC needed the AAR and the lessons learnt therin - surly it must have known all of this BEFORE Fallujah ?

[hellfish]

I'm sure they did, but AARs are a constant process. At some point tactics and techniques become less effective. AARs help identify what is, what was, and what might work for operations. The Marines didn't walk into Fallujah not knowing what they're doing - but they're walking out of it with a better understanding of what they did.

[John Kettler]

Steve,

If you're really going to model MOUT in any kind of fidelity, then I shall be most interested to see how you handle one tactic already being used by OPFOR in U.S. MOUT exercises. The tactic? Blocking the stairwells with truck tires and interlaced barbed wire. As I recall, this was a big shock to the entry team and resulted in lots of casualties when "grenades" cascaded down on the hopelessly logjammed troops.

Regards,

John Kettler

P.S.

I'd think that the propane bomb tactic would, with a few changes, make a great defensive weapon for the Syrians.

[Treeburst155]

It would seem to me the computer opponent just might be quite good at playing the Martyr type of defender.

Against a human, I would prefer to play the Syrian guerrilla type over US forces. Their tactics seem to better reflect my tactical personality.