NATO: Some questions on TO&E-now in prime time.

[Sequoia]

I accidently originally posted this thread in the Scenario and Mod forum. I hope the Moderators will forgive me for reposting it here in the main forum for more visibility.

I want to start by complimenting the Battlefront staff and Beta-test team on the new module. I am curious however about some of the things about in the TO&E we have. I assume the staff and team know what they are doing but I'm looking for some comment on the following:

In the NATO preview the Germans had the Boelkow Bo 105 helicopter listed under air support. Likewise the Canadians had the CH 146 Griffon helicopter. Neither made the final cut. Did new information arrive that caused them not to be included in the game?

On the other hand the Dutch have the Tornado strike plane which is neither in the preview or the manual so we have something extra. The Dutch are also the only new army with an attack helicopter with the Apache.

In another post someone mentioned the Germans don't use the 81 mm mortar and this corresponds with the game and manual. On the other hand the Dutch do have the 81 mm mortar in the game but not the manual. Interesting choice by the German Army.

With the Canadians we have a 81 mm mortar which is listed in the manual but also a 60mm mortar which is not listed. Also the Canadians do not have a 120mm mortar which is fine, they don't have to be a clone of the other armys but it's also an interesting choice.

Anyway I don't expect the manual to be perfect and I'm happy for the additions but it does have me looking for some designers notes.

Thanks

below are some responses to the original thread:

As for the helicopters, the Griffon is a utility helicopter and not a gunship so it is outside the scope of CMSF. The BO-105, well I'm not sure why that was not included as it can carry ATGMs and as far as I know is still being used by the German Army. Though I'm not an expert on the German Army so some one may correct me on this.

steve-o

QUOTE=Sequoia;1210920]This is true but they did put gatling guns on it in Afghanistan. I bring it up because it was listed as being included in a preview.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

On the other hand the Dutch have the Tornado strike plane which is neither in the preview or the manual so we have something extra.

About that: How much of a surprise is it to the KLu to find these plane in their inventory?

I didn't bat an eyelid to see Tornado support in the Dutch campaign because that is just as likely

(if not moreso) as Dutch F16 doing it. But to see them in the editor under the Dutch, that was a surprise.

The Dutch are also the only new army with an attack helicopter with the Apache.

Yeah, but don't worry about it. We won't actually use them.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/indepth/allies-abandoned-our-diggers/story-e6frewp9-1225941955873

The Dutch MinDef is saying they had four Apache missions there that day. Three for escorting CasEvac, and the last was a CAS request made late in the day, which went unfulfilled because by the time Apaches got there contact was broken and no target could be positively ID'd.

Given the past praised heaped on the Dutch Apaches and the "threat" they faced I'm rather disinclined to believe this Maylor. It's more likely that there were comms difficulties and the guy on the ground couldn't figure out why the Apaches overhead were not getting stuck in.

That or a lying **** had a book to sell.

The reputation being established here isn't the Dutch being cowards, it's the Aussies being great big whingers.

[Sequoia]

The Daily Telegraph strikes again.

I didn't look up to see if the Dutch airforce actually had Tornados until you mentioned it.

In other news there was no mention of the German Fuchs in the preview, so that's a nice addition. We didn't get the Wiesel 2 Pioneer presumably because the Gebirgsjaegers get no engineers.

Also the Canadian LAV I Bison did not make the final cut.

By my count each new Army has 12 vehicles.

[Sequoia]

I know that replying to my own post is akin to masturbation but perhaps this is of interest to at least somebody.

I checked the in game artillery of the new Armies against Wikipedia, however much weight you want to give that, and it all checks out, everyone has what they should whether it was in the manual or not.

The only real issue is the game giving us non-existant Dutch Tornadoes as Elmar points out. I would like to know however, as apparently SD Smack does as well, why the Germans don't have the Bo 105. Can we propose a trade?

I suppose I could make a case that since the US Army gets the Kiowa, the Canadians should get the Griffon but I won't. It's inclusion would still be debatable.

So how about it Battlefront Team? Can we dump the Dutch Tornado for a German Boelkow?

[Noltyboy]

I think that the NATO and Brit Light forces should have trucks like everyone else!

[Boche]

I think that the NATO and Brit Light forces should have trucks like everyone else!

battlefront already explained why this was not possible, too many things to do that were more important

[Noltyboy]

battlefront already explained why this was not possible, too many things to do that were more important

And? Dammit i want trucks!! lmao

I know i just like to complain. Still think BF rocks.

[vincere]

+ 1 for the trucks. I guess it's too late now. Maybe in SFx2

[Carbon-14]

I'm pretty sure the TO&E for the Canadian mechanized section is wrong. Right now there are 8 dismounts and 2 vehicle crew. I believe it should be 7 dismounts and 3 crew. The crew commander wouldn't dismount with the rest of the section (He'd have a hell of a time squeezing out between the turrent and hull.)

As well the company headquarters is wrong. There should be 3 LAVs. 1 for the OC, 1 for the LAV Captain, and 1 LAV CP for the 2IC.

[Shadow Stalker]

Originally Posted by Elmar Bijlsma

"The reputation being established here isn't the Dutch being cowards, it's the Aussies being great big whingers"

Hey I take exception from that at least were still in the fight.

[Sequoia]

I checked the in game artillery of the new Armies against Wikipedia, however much weight you want to give that, and it all checks out, everyone has what they should whether it was in the manual or not.

Correction: According to Wikipedia the Canadian's phased out the M109 self propelled howitzed in 2005. Can any one verify this?

[The_Capt]

Correction: According to Wikipedia the Canadian's phased out the M109 self propelled howitzed in 2005. Can any one verify this?

Gents,

An overall comment on the Cdn TO&E; we never have gone anywhere with the exact force elements our doctrine said we should have.

The question on the table was; if Canada went to war (and here we are talking a symetrical steel on steel stand up fight) in 2008 what could we reasonably take with us? We reviewed the Afghanistan TO&E and then added some leaps of logic and outright fiction to try and come up with a plausable answer.

So we know we have the M777 and the 105mm now but if it was a serious fight would we unmothball the M109 (or quickly get some from the US). Considering we still have a fair amount of people trained on the system we went with yes. Consider that we actually took 40mm Bofors guns out of a museum and mounted them on a destroyer back in '91, I would vote that bringing back the big ol M109 is plausible. Plus it gave added firepower to the Canadians, which is sorely needed due in large part to the fact that our LAVs were not designed for a heavy close combat role (ah the peacekeeping days of yore).

Hope this helps with some of the questions. I am not totally sure (or more probably recall) all of the small stuff, like 8 dismounts versus 7 or where that second M203 went (I think that was a simpleoversight).

[akd]

Hope this helps with some of the questions. I am not totally sure (or more probably recall) all of the small stuff, like 8 dismounts versus 7 or where that second M203 went (I think that was a simpleoversight).

Might want to take another look at some of this smaller stuff. For example, the light and LAV rifle sections have no m203s and only a handful of LAWs, but way too many Carl Gustafs available. And 7 vs. 8 man section is minor compared to the more important issue: the LAVs should not be left short of a crew commander. They should always have 3 crew even if that means the dismounted section is only 7 pers.

Please see this thread for more detail:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=93594

I found some more supporting docs which I can add there, but maybe these are all known issues already slated to be fixed? I'm holding off on the Canadian campaign for now in hopes of that, although they are certainly the force in the module that sparks the most interest for me.

[Sequoia]

Gents,

An overall comment on the Cdn TO&E; we never have gone anywhere with the exact force elements our doctrine said we should have.

The question on the table was; if Canada went to war (and here we are talking a symetrical steel on steel stand up fight) in 2008 what could we reasonably take with us? We reviewed the Afghanistan TO&E and then added some leaps of logic and outright fiction to try and come up with a plausable answer.

So we know we have the M777 and the 105mm now but if it was a serious fight would we unmothball the M109 (or quickly get some from the US). Considering we still have a fair amount of people trained on the system we went with yes. Consider that we actually took 40mm Bofors guns out of a museum and mounted them on a destroyer back in '91, I would vote that bringing back the big ol M109 is plausible. Plus it gave added firepower to the Canadians, which is sorely needed due in large part to the fact that our LAVs were not designed for a heavy close combat role (ah the peacekeeping days of yore).

Hope this helps with some of the questions. I am not totally sure (or more probably recall) all of the small stuff, like 8 dismounts versus 7 or where that second M203 went (I think that was a simpleoversight).

Fair enough, but this leads me to think what the Germans would really do for the 10th Panzer which has no organic artillery of it's own. Would they pull over both PzH 2000 battalions from the 1st Panzer or would they pull out some reserve M109's which were retired even more recently than the Canadian ones? It seems the designers decided on the former.

[The_Capt]

Might want to take another look at some of this smaller stuff. For example, the light and LAV rifle sections have no m203s and only a handful of LAWs, but way too many Carl Gustafs available. And 7 vs. 8 man section is minor compared to the more important issue: the LAVs should not be left short of a crew commander. They should always have 3 crew even if that means the dismounted section is only 7 pers.

QUOTE]

I don't disagree and all of our doctrine also says a 3 crew and 7 dismount SOP. That said, if I was a Coy commander faced with a Syrian 2008 scenario that saw us facing a dug in force with modern AT in urban terrain. I would definitely consider taking the risk and dismount the gunner to provide extra firepower to the section in a streetfight. The LAV III is not designed for close combat support and at best is a stand-off firebase platform so keeping a full crew to fight the vehicle becomes a bit of a balancing act.

This is not a deal breaker in my experience. I managed to take a reinforced Cdn Light Coy (TUA and Mech support) and hold off a Hvy US Coy (M1s and Bradleys) to a draw in early testing. To my mind this felt about right for what I was given a whole lot of unknowns.

I imagine the lads at BFC will be patching and tweaking as time goes by but be careful what you wish for as a 7 man section is pretty light for urban combat. In reality I would fight for 11-12 men sects just to deal with non-combat issues (gut bug etc) to ensure I could muster a Coys full combat power for a fight like we see in game. But hey, combat is never a choice between good and bad. It is choice between bad and worse.

[Allan Wotherspoon]

I see a couple of apparent holes in the Canadian light infantry TO&E.

First, there used to be a version of the Iltis with a TOW launcher. Although the Iltis is, as far as I know, gone, I can't see them going into a situation where there is a threat of heavy armour without a replacement, most logically a mount on the G-Wagon.

Second, once again if they were going into a area wiith an armour threat, I would susepct that there would be a quick off-the-shelf purchase of a medium range ATGM such as Javelin to supplement the Eryx and TOW.

[akd]

I don't disagree and all of our doctrine also says a 3 crew and 7 dismount SOP. That said, if I was a Coy commander faced with a Syrian 2008 scenario that saw us facing a dug in force with modern AT in urban terrain. I would definitely consider taking the risk and dismount the gunner to provide extra firepower to the section in a streetfight. The LAV III is not designed for close combat support and at best is a stand-off firebase platform so keeping a full crew to fight the vehicle becomes a bit of a balancing act.

This is not a deal breaker in my experience. I managed to take a reinforced Cdn Light Coy (TUA and Mech support) and hold off a Hvy US Coy (M1s and Bradleys) to a draw in early testing. To my mind this felt about right for what I was given a whole lot of unknowns.

I imagine the lads at BFC will be patching and tweaking as time goes by but be careful what you wish for as a 7 man section is pretty light for urban combat. In reality I would fight for 11-12 men sects just to deal with non-combat issues (gut bug etc) to ensure I could muster a Coys full combat power for a fight like we see in game. But hey, combat is never a choice between good and bad. It is choice between bad and worse.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, and I don't disagree that more dismounts are always better than less. However, I have to disagree with the plausibility of bringing the LAV into combat and then leaving it blind (or with extreme tunnel vision) and out of comms with the section by dismounting the vehicle commander (who should not be the section leader).

Actual practice seems to bear this out. Of course, Afghanistan is not hypothetical Syria, but LAVs there have been deployed in built-up areas, both in the very dense alleyways and congestion of Kabul and the "urban-rural" terrain of the Panjawi. RPGs are, of course, a pervasive threat in Afghanistan, particularly in dense terrain where insurgents can use them to best effect.

At full strength, LAV deploys with an eleven soldier

compliment. The crew commander is in charge of the

vehicle when all personnel are mounted. When patrolling,

LAV will dismount seven or eight soldiers depending on

the requirement for an air sentry. The dismounted section

commander is in charge of the patrol, including the LAV

when soldiers are dismounted. Given the recent

introduction of LAV and consequently the limited time

available to train crews, there are limited options available

for the conduct of patrols from a manning perspective.

The natural progression in the absence of the section

commander is for the section 2IC to command the patrol.

In most cases, only the section commander and 2IC are

LAV crew commander qualified. Therefore, when section

commanders or 2ICs are on leave, 3ICs often command

the patrol. While this situation is not dire, it may severely

limit patrol flexibility. The same issue is relevant with

regard to drivers and gunners. With HLTA at its peak,

patrols often consisted of a crewed LAV with the section

2IC acting as crew commander and three to four

dismounts depending on the requirement for an air sentry.

...

Communications between LAV and the dismounted

soldiers must be improved. The employment of the

Personal Role Radio (PRR) has been critical for

maintaining communications between dismounted

sections and the LAV crew. Communication is yet

another reason that cohesive sections must crew LAV

and conduct the dismounted patrol, ensuring a

thorough understanding of SOPs and enabling the

predictability of section members actions should

comms fail.

OPERATIONAL DEPLOYMENT OF LAV—LESSONS LEARNED

By Capt Steve Champ 2IC C Coy and Capt Aaron Williams LAV Capt C Coy

Although largely concerned with patrolling Kabul, this also provides some insights on crewing requirement in densely-populated urban terrain:

This configuration does have one major draw back.

Dismounted/mounted patrols are the most manpower

intensive due to the requirement for vehicle security and

maintaining a minimum of six dismounts on the ground,

once again reinforcing the benefit of a full eight-man

section for patrols. For each type of vehicle, the

personnel requirements vary as follows:

...

LAV III—For the LAV, there is a requirement for a minimum

of four personnel in order to crew the vehicle and provide

security. There will be one driver, one gunner, one crew

commander, and one air sentry for rear security.

...

Beyond the personnel required to crew the vehicles, the

dismounted portion of the patrol must be composed of at

least six personnel. This greatly increases the number

of soldiers required for each patrol. This configuration

can be difficult to maintain over an extended period

when manpower issues, such as HLTA, are factored in.

...

No matter which vehicle is being used, it is extremely

important that 360 degree security is maintained at all

times. This is particularly important in densely populated

areas. In order to maintain this security, the Iltis has been

modified so that one of the rear seats is facing to the rear.

In a LAV III or Bison, this is easily accomplished with an

air sentry.

URBAN PATROLLING

By Captain A.J. Gimby, 6 Pl, November Coy, 3 RCR Bn Gp, Op ATHENA Roto 0

The major disadvantage in using the Zulu LAVs (9) (even when they are operating in pairs) is that they have minimal manning. Clearly, this can be dangerous if they encounter insurgents. Where manpower requirements permit, a minimum of one rear security should remain in the vehicle to protect its flanks and rear through the air sentry hatch.

(9)When dismounted soldiers disembark the LAV leaving only a driver, crew commander and gunner, the LAV itself is now considered “Zulu.” Units make use of this prefix when communicating to indicate that the members a LAV section have now adopted the dismounted role. This typically means that the LAV has now assumed the intimate support role, direct fire role or is placed in a quick reaction state.

In the combat operations context, the main role of the LAV vehicle is to serve as an

infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). To this end, it is imperative that infantry leaders

differentiate between armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and IFVs:

An infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) is a type of armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) used

to carry infantry into battle and provide fire support for them. IFVs are similar to

armoured personnel carriers (APCs), designed to transport five to ten

infantrymen and their equipment. They are differentiated from APCs ("battle

taxis") by their enhanced armament, allowing them to give direct-fire support

during an assault, firing ports, allowing the infantry to fire personal weapons while

mounted, and usually improved armour.(12)

In accordance with this definition, the LAV is unarguably an IFV and platoon

commanders should therefore employ it as such.

THE LAV III IN COUNTER-INSURGENCY WARFARE—TACTICAL LESSONS LEARNED

by Lieutenant Benjamin J. Richard

Contact Charlie by Chris Wattie goes into much greater detail on several operations conducted by 1 PPCLI in the Panjawi region of Kandahar province in 2006, particularly several high-intensity ops in extremely dense urban-rural terrain. The author hones in on the experience of several members of the battalion's Charlie Company, in particular Medal of Military Valour-recipient Sgt. Michael Denine. A section-leader, Denine injured his ankle during the deployment and was unable to dismount with his section. He instead remained with the LAV as crew commander when his 7-man section dismounted. This is the only instance in the book of a section, platoon or company commander fighting mounted when the section/platoon/company dismounted. In all other instances, the LAV conducted operations with a full crews (crew commanders in the LAVs and the LAV Captain controlling the LAVs from his own at the company level) separate from the dismounted troops, either as intimate or long-range support for the dismounted unit.

[Lethaface]

Hey I take exception from that at least were still in the fight.

What fight? Afghanistan? Nobody in Holland or Australia is profiting from that fight in my opinion. So still being in there doesn't prove braveness but rather foolishness (in my eyes). I'm glad we left Afghanistan.

Apart from that, could very well be that some Dutch soldiers are cowards. However, since all our soldiers are volunteers, it will be less than countries with conscription.

And if one Australian soldier is a whinger, doesn't mean they all are imo

[akd]

Spearking of the Dutch, I think I may have just discovered the most awesome infantry squad/section in the game (well, except Marines, of course): the Dutch engineers! Are these guys for real? Glancing at the engineer platoon I see:

12 x C7 rifles

16 x C7 rifles with grenade launchers (and plenty of spare ammo in their rides)

4 x FN Minimi

4 x FN-MAG

24 x demo charges

And beefy 9-man sections, too.

And aboard their YPRs

4 x .50 cal M2HBs

4 x Panzerfaust 3 launchers

8 x Panzerfaust 3 AT rounds

I think I know who has been hording the grenade launchers missing from the other formations!

[Battlefront.com]

OK, some answers for you guys:

1. Yup, Dutch Engineers are portrayed correctly. And yes, they DO have a lot of firepower. I checked some old Beta Forum posts and found that I specifically asked if the AG-36 (grenade launcher) count was correct and was told it's correct. I did, however, find that one type of Grenadier had too much ammo so I knocked it down.

2. Dunno how the Canucks lost their Rifle Squad M203 (grenade launcher) guys, but they did I've added them back in. This should go into the Canadian Campaign seamlessly.

3. We never have added speculative weapons purchases to any nation. Canada does not field the Javelin now, so it shouldn't have access to it in the CM:SF timeframe. The fact that it would be nice to have them, and Raytheon would love to sell them to Canada (I'm sure!), isn't relevant.

4. Some issues with low level radio allocation have been fixed.

Steve

[Allan Wotherspoon]

OK, some answers for you guys:

1. Yup, Dutch Engineers are portrayed correctly. And yes, they DO have a lot of firepower. I checked some old Beta Forum posts and found that I specifically asked if the AG-36 (grenade launcher) count was correct and was told it's correct. I did, however, find that one type of Grenadier had too much ammo so I knocked it down.

2. Dunno how the Canucks lost their Rifle Squad M203 (grenade launcher) guys, but they did I've added them back in. This should go into the Canadian Campaign seamlessly.

3. We never have added speculative weapons purchases to any nation. Canada does not field the Javelin now, so it shouldn't have access to it in the CM:SF timeframe. The fact that it would be nice to have them, and Raytheon would love to sell them to Canada (I'm sure!), isn't relevant.

4. Some issues with low level radio allocation have been fixed.

Steve

No worries about the Javelin, but any chance of some ground mount TOW's for the light infantry at least?

[Battlefront.com]

The age old CM question of how to organize dismounted elements is a tough one. In real life there is a ton of flexibility depending on tactical mission and other factors, such as manpower shortages, preparation time, etc. There's no easy way for us to give players the sort of flexibility that exists in real life.

AKD posted some really nice examples to look at. The dismount element ranges from as few as 6 to as many as 8. The logic behind smaller dismounts is that in a COIN environment you're not likely to run into many enemy at any given point. What you do run into, however, will be quite interested in taking out the vehicles since they are easier to hit and, potentially, more dangerous than the dismounts. Therefore, put more men in the vehicle to increase situational awareness and arcs of fire. If a firefight develops then the vehicle can act as a base of fire to overcome targets identified by the crew or by the dismounts. 6 dismounts should be able to then maneuver and/or add fire onto the target while another element maneuvers.

All of this is quite logical. For a COIN environment. We are not simulating COIN

In a typical conventional conflict the enemy should be expected in fairly significant numbers. Dismounting only 6 soldiers leaves the dismount section/squad very weak. If anybody doubts this, try playing with the German Panzergrenadiers for a while and see what a difference 2-3 men can make to effectiveness of the dismounted element. I personally loath using the PzGrens Way too easy to find your dismount force neutralized as an effective force. God help you if you also lose your Marders!

Keep in mind that in a COIN environment even Humvees, and pretty much anything that rolls, is an active part of taking on the enemy. The reasons for that is the primary threat to these vehicles are IEDs, not AT threats. As long as light or medium weight armored vehicle avoids IEDs then it can be an effective base of fire. Throw even the possibility of BMPs showing up and this changes dramatically.

There is also a big difference between a patrol mission and a deliberate attack. A patrol doesn't know what it's going to go up against, if anything. It could just wander around its route and go home tired and hot. A deliberate attack, by its definition, would be shocked if it didn't get into a fight and does its best to make sure it knows where the fight will be before it even starts. Now, this is not to say that there isn't a lot of similarities, or that there aren't deliberate attacks in a COIN environment or patrols in a conventional environment, because obviously both have characteristics of the other. Combat Mission, however, is designed for the conventional fight more than the unconventional and therefore the default organization is setup for that.

Therefore, the question isn't what do the Canadians do in Afghanistan or Bosnia, but what WOULD they do against Syria? It's a good question and I'm sure the answer would be context sensitive. However, I suggest the dismount element would be between 7 and 8, not 6. Since we can only choose one way or the other, we have gone with 8 and not 7.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Also, I'm not sure why the sources AKD cited were so keen on keeping the extra eyes in the vehicle as opposed to outside of it. The general gist I've got from other forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the more dismounts the safer the vehicle is. Dismounts are more likely to spot and engage a dismounted enemy, thus keeping it's attention occupied. It also doesn't help the fight any if the vehicle is taken out with an extra man or two as potential casualties.

This Canadian report form 2003 seems to feel the same way:

hield. The LAV, as the name indicates, is lightly armoured. Therefore it is vulnerable to direct fire from all but small arms and some fragments. The hull has been tested operationally and it can withstand an anti-tank (AT) mine strike.9 It is also strong enough to protect its crew and troops from some improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The greatest protection to the LAV is its mutual support from dismounted troops. This was observed during Exercise URBAN BYTE in which soldiers from “Golf” Company, 2 RCR determined that the survivability of the LAV during an urban patrol improved when the focus of the patrol was dismounted. Therefore the LAV was either in a harbour, out of action, or in intimate support to the rear in order to allow the dismounted soldiers to make initial contact. This allowed the commander to react, either manoeuvring the LAVs into a position of fire, or securing them in the rear, and conducting the task with dismounted soldiers.

And immediately following this, a statement similar to what I made above:

A point of debate regarding force protection in UO is whether the troops should be dismounted or mounted.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_09/iss_1/CAJ_vol9.1_11_e.pdf

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

OK, some more changes:

1. Canadian Mech Infantry Companies now have a LAV Captain and LAV III CP. I don't know why this wasn't included before. This will not be available for the Campaign because this sort of change can't be retroactive for already made scenarios.

2. Added an Air Controller Section to the Canadian Battlegroup.

BTW, I can be convinced to go with default SOP of 7 dismounts and 3 crew. In fact, I'm now leaning towards that because of the apparent lack of cross training of the LAV Gunners to take over as LAV Commander. Apparently the only other soldier capable of taking on that position is the Assistant Section Leader, which currently is set as a dismount. So what I could do is pull the Asst. Sec. Leader from B Team and stick him in the LAV.

Steve

[vincere]

Steve- the last three posts are a great reminder of how much research and thought go into CM. Thanks for the insight.