Splitting Squads - when is it worth it?

[DaveDash]

I loaded up Rural Map 2 to test around with real life formations to see how effective they were.

What I ended up discovering was a key fundmental factor to consider when using split squads.

At first, I just wanted to test a real life formation on patrol vs a Syrian ambush.

I chose the wedge formation because it is one of the more robust real life formations, good fires to the flanks and rear, decent fires to the front, good manouver elements.

This U.S. platoon is patrolling an area where enemy contact isn't to be expected (Hence no bounding overwatch movement). I gave the guys the hunt command and told them to be on their way.

Contact! The lead element takes fire from a well hidden trench on the hillside, and they don't even see it.

The lead element hits the deck, so far no casualties, and the manouver elements move to take up positions of fire. One section providers covering fire in each platoon while the other section manouvers. The weapons sections try to spread out and make for cover to bring surpressive fires upon the enemy.

RPG's come flying in everywhere, everyone hits the deck. Screaming can be heard over the sound of gunfire, and when the smoke clears 1st Squad is cut up bad and the M240 gunner of 2nd section is badly wounded.

More incoming RPG fire causes more casualties in the now bunched up HQ and weapons sections, no surpressive fires can be bought to bear up on the Syrians as the last M246 gunner is seriously wounded.

The U.S. platoon finally starts gaining fire superiority and manouver elements close with the enemy to engage. 3rd Platoon's fireteam is cut up pretty bad advancing on the right flank however by an undetected Syrian squad hidden in the trees.

The firefight rages on, 1st squads situation is dire, unable to move from their open position, 3rd squad has been cut up badly, and HQ and weapons have all taken hits. Even though the U.S. Platoon has the Syrians surpressed, their terrain advantage is keeping them safe. The U.S. ammo situation is getting serious and they will have to break contact soon.

[DaveDash]

More deadly RPG fire rains down on HQ/Weapons, more screams are heard in between bursts of gunfire. Not enough surpressive fires are being laid down on the enemy. It's time to get out of here.

Smoke is popped, and under some covering fire, most of the U.S. troops back it out of the killzone

U.S. 18 Casualties

Syria 11 Casualties

Note: Even breaking contact after the lead section was engaged would have been difficult due to deadly RPG fire that caused chaos in my ranks, but a real U.S. Platoon probably would have done that in any case, suffering far less casualties. My lead elements also had trouble throwing smoke to help fall back, because of the heavy volume of fire they were taking.

So, to see what would happen doing it the 'noob' way, no formation, full squads, march in a nice line up the middle... the U.S. patrol should get cut up even worse, right?

More to come....

[DaveDash]

So here we go guys. Nice line formation, full squads, up the middle we go with the hunt command.

But wait? Waits this? I saw something move in that trench up there....

Massive surpressive fires are bought down upon the enemy force, they are unable to even return fire effectively. Manouver elements are free to go where they want. The enemy suffers heavy casualties immediately

Left/Right squads close for the kill while M240's blast away at the enemy positions

Eventually the M240 gunners run low on ammo, and it's time to disengage

End result:

US: 1 wounded

Syria: 11 Casualties

The fundamental difference was that the lead U.S. squad spotted the guys BEFORE they got time to ambush them. This is the key difference between split squads and full squads. Their spotting seems to be significantly better, and you can see for yourself the results.

So it seems it does pay to have your lead unit together for spotting purposes.

Next I will test with more 'realistic' tactics, such as bounding overwatch movement, target arcs, split flanking elements, and try and destroy the enemy instead of just disengaging.

[mike_the_wino]

Nice, thanks for that DaveDash.

Have you found any benefit to splitting squads, other than stretching out your units to defend more territory?

[Bil Hardenberger]

I would argue that this is not a good test due to the fact that a real US Platoon would not advance like you did in example 1.

Looks to me they were advancing over ground they know to be safe... (where they should have moved in bounds due to the fact that they expect to run into the enemy) with 2/3rds of their numbers in overwatch position while one squad/team moves up (under cover if possible).. in fact in reality it would look closer to your second example.

For example in this image:

The lead squad should not have moved off unless it had an overwatching element in place in that treeline.

I see you are going to try it again with proper movement procedures etc.. it'll be interesting to see your results.

I really like that map.. where did that come from?

Bil

[DaveDash]

Originally posted by Bil Hardenberger:

I would argue that this is not a good test due to the fact that a real US Platoon would not advance like you did in example 1.

Looks to me they were advancing over ground they know to be safe... (where they should have moved in bounds due to the fact that they expect to run into the enemy) with 2/3rds of their numbers in overwatch position while one squad/team moves up (under cover if possible).. in fact in reality it would look closer to your second example.

For example in this image:

The lead squad should not have moved off unless it had an overwatching element in place in that treeline.

I see you are going to try it again with proper movement procedures etc.. it'll be interesting to see your results.

I really like that map.. where did that come from?

Bil

You are exactly right Bil, covering danger zones they'd use bounding overwatch. But I wanted to simulate an 'ambush' scenario hence the oblivious tactical movement.

Ill test proper tactical movement a bit later on, and see if there is any advantage to it in CM:SF.

The map is available from CMMODS - it's not my map.

> Have you found any benefit to splitting squads, other than stretching out your units to defend more territory?

The main benefit I have found is for greater control over squad movement. Less chance of a squad having half its men exposed, etc. I am currently testing to see if there is any manouver advantage of having a split squad, since the lack of spotting power is a big issue.

I'd say from a defensive point of view however split squads are definately worth while. Im currently working on an Afghanistan mission where your firebase gets assaulted. One of your squads is patrolling the town far below in the valley and is in danger of being encircled and cut off - only supporting MG fires can help them. Splitting squads will be essential in this mission to cover all the defensive points of your firebase and to get your cut-off squad out alive.

[thewood]

I would think that having a squad lead and teams on the flanks might be a compormise.

Also, is wedge the best if friendly fire is not simulated?

[DaveDash]

Originally posted by thewood:

I would think that having a squad lead and teams on the flanks might be a compormise.

Also, is wedge the best if friendly fire is not simulated?

Exactly right. Since the lead squad is your anchor and not manouver element anyway.

I like both wedge and vee. They both have their advantages. In this situation probably vee would have been a better formation, but moving into the great unknown, such as over a ridge, I'd probably prefer wedge.

Even with no friendly fire simulation, LOS blockages such as trees etc means that not all your guys in wedge can bring fires on the enemy. The point in wedge anyway is to shoot to the flanks or have two manouver elements - its not designed to shoot across the anchor squad - so even with no friendly fire you still want to move your manouver squads.

[DaveDash]

Well using proper infantry tactics I managed to outflank and bypass the enemy defenses with only suffering 2 casualties vs 16. My two casualties were from when the RPG team popped out of hiding and fired a RPG at one of my teams. It is also worthy to note the Syrians I were up against were Republican Guard, using trenches, trees, and walls as cover. They proved to be quite hard to route out in the end and due to limited ammo supplies I had to be careful.

All in all not too bad at all for an assault against a dug in platoon sized defender, with no supporting indirect fires.

The end result:

A few interesting points:

The use of cover Arcs managed to spot the enemy in the trenches way earlier than before.

This allowed me to use surpression from the get-go.

I used bounding overwatch movements in fireteams for my manouver units to close with the enemy, but once in position I joined them together again because they had difficulty spotting the enemy even at close range as fireteams.

I shuffled my forces around to the left and outflanked the OPFOR, splitting my squads into fireteams to sprint across open terrain for about 10m, then a pause command, then another sprint for about 10m, then a pause command, while surpressing known enemy positions with M240's and using cover arcs on my squads to overwatch.

Using fire teams allows for more manouverability and protection, but the tradeoff is significantly degrading spotting ability. With plenty of ammo this is a non-issue since you can just area-fire enemy positions and hose them down, but in limited ammo situations its probably worth while keeping your squads together when not moving for better spotting and accuracy.

[SlapHappy]

I would argue to that the amount of damage required to be done to an enemy in a situation is probably substantially higher than what would be required in Real Life. This leads to a higher level of friendly casualties because of a tendency for the enemy to almost literally fight to the death. I often see results something like this:

Enemy Casualties

6 Men OK

46 Casualties

23 Wounded

12 Missing

Those are hardcore enemy combatants! I would like to think almost ANY enemy would have bugged out before it got to this......

[Pete Wenman]

Great thread

Nice to see the map getting some good use.

Dave - What setting (if any) did you set for the AI.

I'd be interested to know whether the AI options effect how easy the units are to spot.

Is the Syrian being "Active" easier to see than "Normal" and is "Normal" easier to see than "Ambush 300m" and so on. I really hope these settings make a difference.

A good ambush should not been seen until it hits you.

[zwobot]

I would argue to that the amount of damage required to be done to an enemy in a situation is probably substantially higher than what would be required in Real Life. This leads to a higher level of friendly casualties because of a tendency for the enemy to almost literally fight to the death. I often see results something like this:

Enemy Casualties

6 Men OK

46 Casualties

23 Wounded

12 Missing

Those are hardcore enemy combatants! I would like to think almost ANY enemy would have bugged out before it got to this......

Good point! Unfortunately there's no way this could be achieved with the current scenario editor. AI plans are based on time only. I really want to have more complexity for the AI plans in the scenario editor like event based orders. For example trigger a movement order when a certain casualty threshold is met or a certain unit is spotted or an enemy unit touches a certain part of the map. Generally a bit more stuff I know from the Operation Flashpoint and Armed Assault mission editor...

Oh and I forgot to say that I want exit zones again like in CMBB or CMAK to be able to simulate withdrawal of enemy troops.

[cmfan]

Oh and I forgot to say that I want exit zones again like in CMBB or CMAK to be able to simulate withdrawal of enemy troops.

A few of us have been asking for this

[zwobot]

Yes but I think exit zones only make sense in conjunction with events like I described. It doesn't help much to have an exit zone active right from the start of a scenario so that the defender can exit his troops through it right from the start. Exit zones should become active after a certain time passed in the scenario or when the defender has suffered a given amount of casualties or the attacker has reached a certain area - like I said before.

[Dietrich]

Using fire teams allows for more manouverability and protection, but the tradeoff is significantly degrading spotting ability. With plenty of ammo this is a non-issue since you can just area-fire enemy positions and hose them down, but in limited ammo situations its probably worth while keeping your squads together when not moving for better spotting and accuracy.

Why would the spotting of a group of 9 guys be better than one group of 5 guys a stone's throw from a group of 4 guys? What real-world factors is this poor spotting by split squads meant to simulate?

I often see results something like this:

Enemy Casualties

6 Men OK

46 Casualties

23 Wounded

12 Missing

Those are hardcore enemy combatants! I would like to think almost ANY enemy would have bugged out before it got to this......

The "12 Missing" suggests to me that there were in fact some guys who bugged out. "Missing" in the after-action breakdown could be assumed to mean MIA, which could also mean wounded/killed without friendly forces knowing about it. I'm inclined to think "missing" includes individuals who fled the combat area.

Im currently working on an Afghanistan mission where your firebase gets assaulted. One of your squads is patrolling the town far below in the valley and is in danger of being encircled and cut off - only supporting MG fires can help them. Splitting squads will be essential in this mission to cover all the defensive points of your firebase and to get your cut-off squad out alive.

Sounds like a scenario I'd like to play. =) I dig company- and battalion-sized combined-arms scenarios, but I find small-scale infantry scenarios more immersive and thought-provoking.

[SFC Kuba]

I've noticed a few differences between what I have been taught in the Army, and how it plays out in the game. The number one thing is how to conduct a movement to contact. By Army doctrine, you should make contact with your smallest element (i.e. a fire team). The rest of the unit should then manuever to establish an effective support (or attack) by fire position.

In the head to head games I play, its best to manuever with all units online. This massed firepower is hard to overcome.

The game could overcome this by adding a "skirmish" or "break contact" command. The fire team could make contact (visual, direct fire, indirect fire), break contact (pop smoke, lay down suppressive fire, and back up 50 meters). The rest of the unit could then effectively react to the contact (flank or establish attack by fire positions) without having to rescue the fire team in contact. This would be most useful for scout units. I'm no programmer though, and I'm not sure if this could be implemented in the game.

[zwobot]

SFC Kuba, I agree on what you said. I often try to move a single Fire Team ahead of the platoon with "Hunt" command. But if this unit makes contact with the enemy they often get pinned or suffer some casualties and then it is hard to make them break contact especially in WeGo. I usually let them pop smoke and then "Fast" or "Quick" back a few meters to get them out of the enemy LOF. But it hard to get them to do this properly in WeGo because they are crawling around to avoid the enemy fire and thus the "Pop smoke" target is shifting around which may result in that the smoke is popped 180 degrees into the wrong direction or so...

This raises another question: I've just played a scenario where I split a US MOUT squad into two teams with the "Assault squad" button. Now I cannot get these two teams to join into a single squad again. I've moved both teams around a few meters and then into the same action spot but they simply refuse to rejoin again. And it did not happen to only one squad, I already have two split up squads like that in the same scenario :confused: