Room clearing and more

[Capt. Toleran]

Enjoy!

http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=true&token=6fb_1175816707&p=57253&s=1

Just curious, in the last 30-45 secs, is that an auto nade launcher pounding that building? Looking forward to using those in CMSF.

[Imperial Grunt]

Yes, that was a 40mm Mk-19, probably fired from an AAV. There was probably .50cal being fired as well.

This video shows how difficult it is to clear out jihadist from buildings with interior fortified positions, not to mention all the hiding places of the interior construction itself making every angle very dangerous. And hearing "Allah Akbar" being chanted can mean that the jihadists were getting ready to go "boom", time to leave.

Its a tribute to the Marines who were clearing 10-20 of similiar structures like this every day, over and over again, throughout the Falljuah offensive. Every structure in Fallujah was cleared, then backcleared.

[PLM2]

Room clearing always seemed to me to be too dangerous if the enemy knows you are coming. They could just hear you and shoot through a lot of walls in the building at you. Wouldnt want to have to do it

[Imperial Grunt]

Actually shooting through walls works both ways.

Most Middle Eastern exterior and interior construction is very resistant to small arms. And it is very dangerous.

[mr.bean]

poor dog got caught in the firing there. i think it was killed

[Moon]

Yeah, poor dog.

CMSF will have HUNT and ASSAULT commands which, for infantry, should be useful for clearing out buildings. HUNT means slow walk, weapons ready, ASSAULT is an automatic split of a squad into a moving element and fire support element who are moving by bounds.

Martin

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by PLM2:

Room clearing always seemed to me to be too dangerous if the enemy knows you are coming. They could just hear you and shoot through a lot of walls in the building at you. Wouldnt want to have to do it

It's about the most dangerous thing you can do. That is why city fights tend to go through infantry like dirty underwear, especially if you lack heavy support. It is tiring, dirty, terror filled work and you get to do it over, and over, and over.

[Battlefront.com]

I've read some Iraq AARs where an entire Company sized force was used to clear out a single house. One platoon did entry, the seconds provided direct support, and the third blocked off escape routes, kept civilians away, etc. The operation lasted quite a while too, like over an hour.

This sort of thing is possible to simulate in CM:SF, but it isn't the intended purpose of the game.

Steve

[Axel]

Can you people tell me more about the commands you can do?

[Battlefront.com]

Commands are pretty similar to CMx1's Orders for the most part. New Commands have been created for specific reasons, so it's kinda hard to describe them without also describing the whole purpose behind them. Ain't got time for that right now

BTW, US Amry's rule of thumb is one Squad per floor. That means a 3 story house should be assaulted by an entire Platoon. Boy that sucks combat power up pretty darned fast when you are in a built up area!

Steve

[Sergei]

Also sounds like a terribly costly method in the case the whole building is wired to detonate (and I don't mean thermite).

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Capt. Toleran:

Enjoy!

http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=true&token=6fb_1175816707&p=57253&s=1

Just curious, in the last 30-45 secs, is that an auto nade launcher pounding that building? Looking forward to using those in CMSF.

Might also be a 20mm chain gun on a Bradley, the Marines in Fallujah had support from Army Mechanized units during the battle.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Also sounds like a terribly costly method in the case the whole building is wired to detonate (and I don't mean thermite).

Don't take Steve's comment the wrong way; based on my layman's understanding, I'm pretty sure Steve's "one squad per floor" rule of thumb was not intended to give the impression that US Army doctrine is for an entire platoon to charge into a 3-story structure all at once. As you note, this could potentially lead to a very high casualty count from a single ambush or booby trap.

Clearing a building is a complex tactical maneuver, involving many small teams with different responsibilities -- perimiter security, supression fire, holding rooms/floors already cleared, etc.

I'm sure guys with real experience and training like Imperial Grunt can give a better description than I, but, AIUI, at any given time, the team that is actually physically entering an uncleared interior area is quite small, usually only ~4 soldiers. But there could eaily be 30 other soldiers in the general vicinity involved in the same mission.

You guys who have "walked the walk," please do correct.

One interesting tactical tidbit I learned from a conversation with a Iraq vet recently: whenever possible, it's better to clear a building from the roof down. He said that they sometimes carried a ladder with them for this reason. Apparently, rolling grenades down staircases is a very effective tactic, that's difficult to counter from below. Makes sense to me. Then again, maybe he was just BSing me, in hopes that I would buy him another drink. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Sergei]

Thanks, YD.

Going downwards sounds logical. If you have explosives to blow holes to floors, you don't need to use the stairs at all, which is great if a defender has barricaded a kill zone there. And if you are rushing the stairs and the front man collapses, it's better if he collapses forwards than backwards (and takes everyone behind with him).

[Other Means]

In about 10 years there's going to be some kick ass SWAT teams about.

[vincere]

Going down may overcome improvised defences aimed at ground entry.

Also it give defenders an option to retreat rather than fight on in a cornered cituation.

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Also sounds like a terribly costly method in the case the whole building is wired to detonate (and I don't mean thermite).

Is it known whether this has happened yet?

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Dr. Zoidberg:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei:

Also sounds like a terribly costly method in the case the whole building is wired to detonate (and I don't mean thermite).

Is it known whether this has happened yet? </font>

[Sergei]

This is from some Senator's letter, other sources seem to support it:

Having spoken with his family and having read press accounts, it is my understanding that SSG Ross’ squad was operating jointly with Iraqi forces. During the mission, the reported plan was for Iraqi forces to enter the building first, followed by U.S. troops but “this time, the Iraqis refused to go.” In order to complete the mission, SSG Ross’ squad “kicked in the door” but the building was booby-trapped and three U.S. soldiers were killed, another four wounded severely enough to warrant evacuation to Germany for medical treatment, and others bandaged and returned to duty.

Based on the description it would sound like the door was booby-trapped, although it isn't exactly clear. But presuming that, it illustrates why it's a good idea to enter a suspect building from a different direction. Second, if there was more explosives, there wouldn't have been 3 dead 4 wounded but 7+ dead. And then, is it too difficult to set it up in the second floor so that more men will be within blast radius when it goes off.

[Splinty]

My company recently did a cordon and search on two three story apartment buildings just out side our FOB. We had one platoon do a cordon around the target buildings, another block both ends of the road,two squads from my platoon actually did the searches. My squad did one and our 3rd Squad did the other. Because this was just a search for contraband and not an assault we did it from the ground floor up. It still was very tense as we did not know what to expect. I divided my squad (a 12 person MP squad)into 3 teams a security team to cover the hallways, an entry team to open or breach the doors and clear the room,and a search team to actually search the apartments. We also brought along a team from the HQ section which had an RTO and our in- terpreter. I rotated out the teams from apartment to apartment to prevent burnout and to give everybody a chance to do the various jobs. The whole thing went off pretty smoothly, the residents were cooperative once they saw we wern't just kicking in the doors and detaining people, and we did find one machine gun, a map of our FOB and a guy with a kit for making counterfeit Iraqi I.D.s. Best of all we took no fire and no casualties. The guy with the MG claimed that he needed it to defend his bakery (can you say militia?), but he didn't have any paperwork on it, so we confiscated it. We detained the guy with the map.It was scarily accurate, was probably used for calling in mortar fire, which happened alot here. He also was the guy with the counterfeit kit. We think he was providing IDs to people who would use them to get day jobs on our FOB and pace off the distances used to make the map.

[sross]

Top down is good because most defenses are set to repel from ground level. It is also easier to fight down then up. The down side is if there is a strong element or you are ambushed and take casualties, evacuating the building and especially casualties can be very slow and difficult.

The standard tactic if resistance is met and not overcome in the initial flood is to back out and use heavy weapons. For this the ground level approach is much easier and efficient for the in and out.

The preferred method of entering any structure is through a self created orafice. Breaching charges to make holes in the walls or roof, avoiding all windows and doors. However, this is not practical on the scale of operations conducted on a regular basis and the ramifications from the civilians and politics just wouldn't make it worth it.

Most of the time where you will see the top down and thru the wall approach is with your operators going after certain targets. They aren't going to collapse the building because they want the intel and they aren't going to back out. Usually have simultaneous entries from multiple points and levels with a well planned, well choreographed assault. Those aren't luxuries that most of the soldiers and marines have for the 20 entries they make a day.

[NoxSpartana]

Just wondering but, wouldn't MP5s and such be much more effective in these CQB situations? Do ordinary marines simply not have access to anything other than M16s or M4s?

[Battlefront.com]

Sross beat me too it, but I'll just recap his points...

Top Down is great when things go right, but when thing go wrong it is much harder to extract. Even harder if there are immobile WIA. Much easier to drag a buddy down the stairs than pull him up a ladder. Then once on the roof things likely become even more interesting since chances are it was not physically easy to get up there without any wounds. There is also more exposure and less options when climbing the outside of a building vs. the inside.

So yes, from what I've read Top Down is generally thought to have more advantages than disadvantages. But it is more energy intensive and becomes more risky when the overall environment is hostile. That makes it less practical, and perhaps less desirable, when conducting full scale MOUT operations where manpower is stretch thin, energy is at a premium, and the threat level is generally high.

Which is why we chose not to include special "rules" for scaling buildings to do Top Down assaults. You can, however, do a Top Down assault from an adjacent building's roof or if you blow a hole in a wall from an adjacent building's upper floor.

NoxSpartana,

Regular Army and Marines don't use things like MP5s as far as I know. The M-4 was designed to give similar compactness without sacrificing medium range capability. The MP5 is a fantastic weapon for clearing rooms, but even out in a street fight, not to mention out in the desert, it isn't what you want.

Steve

[NoxSpartana]

Battlefront^

Yeah I know MP5s aren't their standard issue and such, but it seems to me it'd be logical to issue a few to platoons involved in room clearing... also, Marines don't use M4s correct? Using a full length M16 seems like it'd be a real pain in CQB.

[Beastttt]

9mm anything is not going to have the punch should you need to shoot through a hvy wood doors

barricades and such

also it will take more hits to drop a drugged up fight till dead opponent