Why no ETACs/FACs?

[Dietrich]

I claim no intimate knowledge of any branch of the US armed forces, nor am I calling for a change to CM:SF. I'm simply puzzled about a seeming discrepancy between CM:SF (in terms of TO&E) and what I've read in various books about combat operations involving US forces in the past decade. That said, I'm not saying CM:SF is inaccurate or incorrect with regard to TO&E.

In CM:SF, the only US air controller units are the US Army JTAC and the USMC Fire Control Team (which includes an air controller as well as an artillery observer). Both of these are battalion-level assets. Would a battalion's JTAC/FCT (in CM:SF, the standard USMC infantry battalion has two FCTs, whereas an MEU has only one) be kept at battalion level (i.e. with battalion HQ) or would it be sometimes/often attached to one of the forward companies?

In US Marine in Iraq: Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2003 (Osprey Publishing) by Richard Lowry, the description of 1/2 Marines' assault on An Nasiriyah mentions "Team Tank's FAC" and "Bravo Company's FAC". In an earlier chapter, the book reads: "The FO is attached if there is a Marine artillery unit taking part in the operation and tw of the three infantry companies have an FAC attached."

Basically, I'm wondering how to use the available TO&Es to accurately (within reason) simulate such tactical situations in terms of OOB and corresponding capabilities. If a Marine infantry battalion's FCT were attached to one of its companies, would one or both of that company's FO teams be attached to one or two of its platoons? I find that FCTs are much more effective than FO teams at getting CAS on target promptly; but rare is the USMC scenario that includes an on-map FCT.

Also, is the USMC Fire Control Team anything like an ANGLICO team? Could an FCT be used to simulate (stand in for) an ANGLICO team?

Perhaps CM:SF 2, using (presumably) CM:N's more dynamic force-selection capability, will provide for purchasing alternate units/teams, such as an ETAC in place of a JTAC, etc.

[Battlefront.com]

We don't have ANGLICO because we didn't simulate ship to shore fire. I suppose we could have, but oddly enough this is the first time I can recall anybody asking about it. Including Marines, and those guys ask for all kinds of stuff

You are correct that special assets, such as JTACs, are generally used one level down from where they are organically assigned. Which means a Battalion's higher level assets are usually assigned to a particular Company, a Company's assets are usually assigned to a particular Platoon. A HQ may direct the asset itself, of course, or hold it in reserve. During a high tempo attack scenario (like CM:SF) I'd guess the norm would be task assigned.

From a Command and Control standpoint the asset still reports up the food chain. In other words, it takes direction from the lower unit it is assigned to BUT only within the parameters set by the higher up leadership. For example, a Company commander could request that the JTAC put a strike on a mosque, but the JTAC may override this request because the Battalion commander said no-no to hitting civilian structures. An asset of that Company commander, however, would have to do whatever it was ordered to do (within the usual legal guidelines, of course).

So the way thing work in the game now effectively mimics real life. However, it will be nice to have task assigned units explicitly determined and displayed.

Steve

[finalcut]

If you have ever been in the Military you should know the real answer.Things in the Military never work the way they are designed on paper.

[Dietrich]

Thanks very much for the elucidation. =)

We don't have ANGLICO because we didn't simulate ship to shore fire. I suppose we could have, but oddly enough this is the first time I can recall anybody asking about it. Including Marines, and those guys ask for all kinds of stuff

Judging from what little I've read about ANGLICO (Wikipedia =P) and from the size of the in-game FCT (five men, including an air controller and an artillery FO; pretty much all the other such teams in the game are two or three men, though I believe some IBCT formations have a four-man FiST), I wondered if the FCT was in any way akin to ANGLICO. I'm surprised no one brought it up before; but I suppose those who might have asked about it knew beforehand that there wasn't going to be simulating of ship-to-shore fire and thus knew there wasn't much point in asking about it.

On reloading a "Battle for Objective Pooh" save and checking the unit designations, I noticed that the on-map FCT was renamed "FAC Team".

You are correct that special assets, such as JTACs, are generally used one level down from where they are organically assigned. Which means a Battalion's higher level assets are usually assigned to a particular Company, a Company's assets are usually assigned to a particular Platoon. A HQ may direct the asset itself, of course, or hold it in reserve. During a high tempo attack scenario (like CM:SF) I'd guess the norm would be task assigned.

Ah! That opens up the possibilities. =) CM:SF scenarios typically involve forces equivalent to a company or less (usually less), and with how infrequently one sees an actual JTAC/FCT, rather than "just" the company's organic FO(s), I had come to the conclusion that such battalion-level assets are often kept at battalion level. Granted, any given scenario designer may wish to not make it "too easy" for Blue to get CAS on target promptly; and many scenarios don't include air assets anyway. But I've got some high-tempo attack scenarios in mind that could certainly benefit from having a JTAC or FCT on map. ;-)