Good Recon Practices

[Erwin]

Would appreciate advice to make sure I am using RECON troops in an appropriate/realistic manner:

1) In a typical CMSF scenario frontage would it be realistic to have each recon team of a recon platoon in a completely separate part of the front - ie totally independent and relying solely on stealth?

2) In this instance would they have at least a squad or more of reg inf following to rescue them out of trouble??

3) Or, would the 2or 3 recon teams stay together so as to support each other, but without any other support?

4) What is the role of the HQ guys? Do they accompany the teams on foot to provide quick air/arty support, or are they sitting back in their command AFV with feet up drinking coffee until something squawks on the radio?

I know that often teams have their own AFV's for "support." But, I presume that having a loud, dirty spewing AFV trailing you by a couple hundred meters sort of defeats the point of stealthy recon to find good LOS locations from where to spot enemy units(??)

Also, when teams are the sole crews in AFV's is it normal to dismount them to do foot recon a significant distance from the vehicle as opposed to merely peaking over the ridge a few meters directly in front of you? It seems odd to leave such a powerful support machine while the team wanders off hundreds of meters away on foot. But is that what they do?

Thanks...

[gibsonm]

Well the techniques used tend to vary both between nationality and for the US between service (Army / Marines) so depending on which country / service you are using, the answers are different.

Also depends on if its a mech or light recce unit.

[snake_eye]

To Erwin,

Find the copy of my answers, following the same questions you ask me for a Helluva Road Opening V2 scenario post

Two shots from the Recon teams and MGS tracks

First of all, to rely on stealth, the 2 recon teams should be deployed without their strikers, at least in that scenario. However, CMSF does not simulate that too much, besides it would take few hours to move a team forward. More, as soon as the team is seeing the enemy, in the game they are most likely seen in return. The stealth effect is immediately lost and they don’t have a fire power sufficient to disengage from a fire fight while keeping the enemy heads down.

For that reason, we have to consider the game and the RL differences.

In RL, we have 2 mode of Recon that could be used. The Stealth one and the armed one.

In the stealth one, the movements are most likely made at night and without the Strykers. At least these are left at a point where they can be safely guarded by a team and the HQ. From there a team is infiltrating the area to be reconnoitred. It should maintain a constant link with the HQ. That way it can pass on information and ask for air, artillery or mortars support. In case of trouble it should fall back to a spot , located somewhere on the way out (that exfiltration way is different than the way in) where the other team might wait and provide a fire base to slow down the enemy on the heels of the retreating team.

In the armed one, the recon is made mounted in the Strykers over long distance and using them as a solid fire base while one team is probing grounds around in a cluster pattern. The HQ stay with the Strykers and the 2nd team move with the 1st one keeping constant mutual support and or overwatch between them.The MGS is or are staying a bit farther away keeping an overwatch on the Strykers and if possible on the teams. If trouble comes they can be deployed close to the Strykers, or these can fall back toward them. The 2 teams must fall back at the double behind a curtain of smoke shells and mortars rounds, toward a predetermined spot, from which they can hold back the enemy and direct (or ask for to the HQ) air, artillery or mortars fire..

In that scenario, I am using the 2 scouts teams with the javelins (to dispose of MG’s nests being seen) mounted on the Strykers. Javelins would not be carried on a RL infiltration, since weight is the first enemy before the enemy itself (Anyway, Air being called, would take care of tracks and or tanks being most likely lased for laser bombs drops).

I move the Strykers and the MGS (which are kept at a wide pace behind) toward and on the flanks of the supposed enemy concentration. I never have them attack head on. I try to find spots where the tracks will be partly hull down and to establish a solid fire base. The teams and even the HQ disembark. The 2 teams move to another spot providing mutual support. The HQ stay with the tracks. Once the teams have sufficient intelligence of what is forward and around, I have the Strykers rejoin them if it is safe.

To summarize, I am using the recon teams :

1st To draw a more or less clear picture of the enemy in the area.

2nd To call all available mortars and or MGS being able to give support

3rd To provide a solid fire base for an Infantry platoon mounted on Strykers, which will disembark the closest to the enemy concentration under suppressive fire.

Just a remark, rather important. The Strykers and the BTR are rather prone to get damaged and or destroyed by RPG’s and recoilless gun’s. The bradley’s and their inter active casing fare better and their quick 20 mm link belt fed gun do marvel. The Strykers in that scenario have 50 cal HMG, they don’t get the same result to say the less.

If I can use the brad’s to attack a village I rather do it.

I hope to have answered to your 4 questions

[Euri]

I always use scouts to infiltrate deep and uncover enemy positions. The more information the better. I have them hunt with limited target arcs to avoid getting them in fire fights.

[Erwin]

Thanks Euri (and Snake).

Happy to report that I always do that with nearly ALL my units at the start to avoid giving away positions and getting into unwanted firefights when calling in arty or air would be best.

[snake_eye]

A copy of the short overall description of recon tactics as written in the scenario folder in the Helluva road opening V2 post after answering to Erwin questions.

About the recon tactics:

It is difficult to get into them in details, since they depend of the countries, the forces doing them (Infantry, Mech Infantry, armor, airmobile…….) and mostly from the type of grounds on which they are done.

There are broadly 2 types of Recon. The one against unconventional and the one against conventional armies (I won’t get into it, since it is a huge program involving many different tactics).

Against unconventional :

Stealth is the key. Insert, see, report and exfiltrate without being seen.

If you are about to scout through an open and more or less bare ground, if enemies are known to be around, you are not going to do it on foot and or mounted on a track in full day. You don’t want to be zeroed in with a recoilless gun, MG and or mortars. You are going in at night to a predetermine ground feature on foot, on a quad (engine muffled, torque modified…) inserted with a parachute wing (which permits a long distance drop and glide path) or with an helicopter (with rotor blades and engines muffled –special ops operative).

However each of these has advantages and the contrary. If the ground features do not allow some cover and if the area is more or less populated, the helicopter is not going to be used, then the chute either since it might not be easy to find accurately the LZ, specially, if no one is there with a beacon. An insertion on foot and in some case with quads is mostly chosen

In areas with ground features having orchards, lush vegetation, streams and or rivers with swamps areas near them with villages scattered around.

Depending of the area stability, day patrolling either on foot and or mounted on tracks can be done, mainly on the roads and or tracks (if supporting tracks). Night recon can be done on foot to reconnoitre possible ambush sites and have an eye on them.

Night insertion by helicopter on peaks can be done for team of scout that will provide an overwatch security of the movements being done on the road use in the morning by a convoy.

The use of scouts to patrol on foot, seek the enemies and engage it, is not what they are meant for.

Many peoples think that a Green beret, a ranger and or a seal team is inserted to seek and destroy before being exfiltrated. That is right if it is on a known objective clearly defined and that should be treated accordingly to the intelligence that has been gathered. That is, what was done for the Geromino action that took place some days ago. Before that assault, undercover actions were made at different levels, with different means and not a thing was done to alert anyone.

To scout is primarily to seek the whereabouts of the enemies, to evaluate its forces, to reconnoitre the ground features of the grounds that could be a real asset when known for a near and or future use of tracks, tanks and or Infantry deployments in that area.

The scout gathered intelligence on the ground is invaluable; No satellite intelligence will be able to verify on the ground if what is seen on pictures is what is found on the ground. Electronic intelligence however gives a certain view of the environment that could be verified by a team infiltrating the area. More, they might discover units that were not suspected to be in, due to their maintained cell phones and or radio silence.

These are some of the real uses of Recon deployed against unconventional threat. They can be of some help while playing with CMSF, but they can not be simulated as written earlier. A game like ARMA II and its military version can reproduce stealth Recon in a human against human environment. Some limitations have to be accepted. Some gamers even fared better against military teams in very closely watched evaluation scenario. On the ground I would not have given much success to the gamers.

For me it does not matter, how much you know of how the recon teams should be employed in the game, since it does not fit in it the way it does in real life.

Luckily, that is not the same with over forces use. There are still some limitations, but we are closer to reality than before. That is, close to real situation awareness.

To end it I would say that SITUATION AWARENESS is what Recon is all about

[Frankster65]

Very informative thread.

[Erwin]

One of the important things I learned is that recon teams should not go off on their own (in CMSF) - but always supporting each other, and bring up their AFV's as soon as suitable/safe.

And contrary to RL SOP, probably best to load em up with ammo and AT missiles at the start while you can.

[Dietrich]

(Disclaimer: I have never been in the military, and I'm not as well-read about military matters as many of the members on these forums.)

In my experience, the more eyes one can get on the battlefield, the better. Recon teams are small and lightly armed, so they're ill-suited to combat. Therefore, I either send them to good vantage points or have them probe beyond the FEBA. I don't expect them to make any sort of penetration, since they're not numerous enough or heavily armed enough to do so effectively or to not get decimented. I prefer, though, not to use my scouts to entice the enemy to open fire, but rather to have them add to the number of eyes on the battlefield, especially the flanks. Whoever sees the other first has the advantage.

Some suggestions, anyway.

[Erwin]

The thing is that in CMSF, Recon troops are as good or as bad as any other unit, so they are really just weak inf with no special training - which is a shame.

I would hope that scenario designers would as a matter of course, make Recon and Sniper units of higher quality than other troops to sim the extra training. For some reason I have only seen that very rarely.

[toxic.zen]

good point Erwin, i'll do that with mine.

[gibsonm]

The thing is that in CMSF, Recon troops are as good or as bad as any other unit, so they are really just weak inf with no special training - which is a shame.

I would hope that scenario designers would as a matter of course, make Recon and Sniper units of higher quality than other troops to sim the extra training. For some reason I have only seen that very rarely.

Well by and large that are “as good or bad as any other unit”.

There are two types of recce.

There’s the SF guys (SAS, SEALS, etc.) who by and large aren’t represented in CM:SF simply because they are a rare asset and they aren’t wasted on “run of the mill“ recce (but rather saved for deep or strat recce).

Then there’s the guys in UK Recce Sqns or US Inf Recon units who are represented but aren’t SF qualified or markedly different to the units they support - having come from the same BDE, etc. That comment based on some 25+ years filling various postings in a Reconnaissance Regt.

Yes they are good regular army soldiers, but so are the Infantry and Tankers following them.

Your Infantry Coy isn’t going to get a SEAL team to provide an OP for your advance.

[Magpie_Oz]

I'm with Gibbo (2CAV ?) on this one, recce in its pure sense isn't really modelled in CM:SF, sending a few blokes out in front out have a look is but Reconnaissance with SAS etc is a whole mission in itself

[stikkypixie]

The thing is that in CMSF, Recon troops are as good or as bad as any other unit, so they are really just weak inf with no special training - which is a shame.

I would hope that scenario designers would as a matter of course, make Recon and Sniper units of higher quality than other troops to sim the extra training. For some reason I have only seen that very rarely.

Recon troops are usually smaller and when used wisely are very hard to detect. The "special" training they receive is usually better map reading skills and similar skills that do not really matter in CMSF.

I don't like this Role Playing approach where you put a tag on some teams and suddenly they can see better than your average joe but lose some "combat points" or whatever.

[Erik Springelkamp]

The thing is that in CMSF, Recon troops are as good or as bad as any other unit, so they are really just weak inf with no special training - which is a shame.

They have binoculars, and so are good at spotting, while being a small team that can hide easily.

I notice they often spot the enemy first, even when in the same location as regular infantry. And they have radios with them even in a small team, so they can work in isolated positions and still inform everybody.

With the Dutch forces I use them all the time. I give them a panzerfaust when they dismount, but also a small covered arc, so I chose myself when they will take the risk of shooting at enemy armour. They have scored quite a few enemy vehicles over time. But if I make them take a shot, I usually combine it with a run away command, because after the shot they have blown their cover.

[Erwin]

It's been said many times that in CMSF there is no place for real recon and their specializations (and ditto for sniper teams).

But as a game, it is FUN to use recon and sniper troops to check out a large map to find enemy locations, and I feel it reasonable that the recon and sniper units be better at that than regular troops.

So giving them (at least) one extra experience level gives recon and sniper troops a special mission ability.

Otherwise they end up just like weak regular inf and you may as well use reg infantry for recon.

Having "specialists" in the game makes it more interesting.

So, I repeat my appeal to designers who like players to actually have fun with their scenarios to make the snipers, recon and probably engineers at least a level better than the other troops - ideally, make the former two units Crack.

(Until BF games come complete with a 50 gallon oil drum that you sit inside trying to play the game while it's beaten with iron bars and CS gas dumped on you, I really don't want to hear about "realism.")

[stikkypixie]

It's been said many times that in CMSF there is no place for real recon and their specializations (and ditto for sniper teams).

But as a game, it is FUN to use recon and sniper troops to check out a large map to find enemy locations, and I feel it reasonable that the recon and sniper units be better at that than regular troops.

So giving them (at least) one extra experience level gives recon and sniper troops a special mission ability.

Otherwise they end up just like weak regular inf and you may as well use reg infantry for recon.

Having "specialists" in the game makes it more interesting.

So, I repeat my appeal to designers who like players to actually have fun with their scenarios to make the snipers, recon and probably engineers at least a level better than the other troops - ideally, make the former two units Crack.

(Until BF games come complete with a 50 gallon oil drum that you sit inside trying to play the game while it's beaten with iron bars and CS gas dumped on you, I really don't want to hear about "realism.")

They are not weak regular infantry. They are better equipped to maintain C2 links and pass on information. They are organized in such a way that they be moved around more stealthily. CMSF is not designed to be a some sort of splinter cell sneak game, but that doesn't mean that recon teams are totally worthless. When used properly they are a very valuable asset.

[Erwin]

Yes, I agree with you. But, unless they are given some bonus for training, the difference between specialized teams and regular troops is too subtle in CMSF (and CMA) imo.

Hence my request of all scenario designers to make sniper, recon and even engineers have higher experience values, make em Crack even, so that at least the have a better chance of spotting (or doing whatever their mission is) before they themselves are spotted.

(I appreciate... from the days when I used to hang out on bases and talk with vets... that there appears to be a bias in the orthodox thinking against spec ops and specialized troops. The chain of command just didn't like snipers and spec ops etc. I assumed it upset the quaint notion of the military being this bunch of unstoppable armored things charging along like Custer used to do. Maybe it's disturbing that a small team of guys eg: with IR guidance for nasty airborne munitions, or a sniper to kill your senior officers, could ruin the RL "game".)

Now that I think about it, we in the west exhibit some similar characteristics to a colonial army-type power. We only dare go up against 3rd world nations who don't have our sophisticated toys. The equivalent of how the colonial powers would mow down the natives from aircraft. Or, I guess cannon vs plains indians etc.

A bit off topic I know... my elderly brain wonders all too often these days.

[stikkypixie]

Yes, I agree with you. But, unless they are given some bonus for training, the difference between specialized teams and regular troops is too subtle in CMSF (and CMA) imo.

Hence my request of all scenario designers to make sniper, recon and even engineers have higher experience values, make em Crack even, so that at least the have a better chance of spotting (or doing whatever their mission is) before they themselves are spotted.

I guess this where we disagree . Recon teams (and I exaggerate) are not some sort of map hack that reveals all hidden enemy position. It's not like this in real life, and more importantly it's not like this in the game. Soldiers hide and it's very hard to see them unless you know where to look (and even then). To find enemy positions you would have to leave them around for hours which is of course not possible in CMSF.

They are useful however because they give you dedicated teams who give you tactical flexibility you otherwise would not have. They are small teams which lowers their chance of being spotted (if you put in a good position and don't move them around). They are also equipped with radio's which means that if they spot something they can relay that back very quickly.

This means that you can use them as outposts to guard your flanks and spot for enemy MOVEMENT or in an advanced position where they can spot hidden enemy units opening fire. This is especially useful for ATGMs for example, because the vehicles targeted these things normally won't see them.

Of course you can split of a squad for regular infantry to do the same role, but these split squads are not as well equipped and it also diminish the fighting power of your infantry squads. Recon teams in a sense, free up duties so that the infantry can solely concentrate on fighting. Same for sniper teams.

When I first played the game I used to move my recon squads around until I literally stumble onto the enemy. Of course then they will be "weak" infantry. 4 guys being shot at from a 100m are not going to put up much of fight. However as I learned (and I'm still learning) how to use them better, I can avoid these situations and use their strengths.

[Erwin]

You'll be happy to know that 99% of scenarios do that for you stikky. I only hope to encourage scenario designers to provide a few more that enable us to use those specialized units in a more interesting way.

I love CM1 for its huge variety of inf units (all its units actually). CMSF has a cookie cutter feel to it. All units are the same (usually).

By making Recon, Snipers and Engineers of higher caliber training/abilities I don't see what harm that does. But, in the very few scenarios where I have had a few Crack or Elite units, it's a lot of fun using them for specialized tasks.

Ok, it's not realistic in the small tactical level of CM2. But as a lover of the operational feel of large CM1 scenarios, making these specialilzed teams Crack or Elite is one of the very few ways we can open up CMSF, and maybe get an "operational level feel ." Esp, if your goal is zero or minimal casualties - which imo is how CMSF should be played - which is a huge contrast to the almost unavoidable bloodbaths we experienced in CM1.

[gibsonm]

(Until BF games come complete with a 50 gallon oil drum that you sit inside trying to play the game while it's beaten with iron bars and CS gas dumped on you, I really don't want to hear about "realism.")

Well then stop asking questions about how to do this that and the other based on RL and just make it up as you go along.

Your original question about:

Would appreciate advice to make sure I am using RECON troops in an appropriate/realistic manner:

Goes totally against the last comment about:

I really don't want to hear about "realism."

[Alan8325]

The thing is that in CMSF, Recon troops are as good or as bad as any other unit, so they are really just weak inf with no special training - which is a shame.

I would hope that scenario designers would as a matter of course, make Recon and Sniper units of higher quality than other troops to sim the extra training. For some reason I have only seen that very rarely.

I would agree with this. In real life recon troops have specialist training in spotting while remaing unspotted themselves. In CMSF there are different general combat experiece levels but no simulation of specialist training and/or skills. All troops, including recon troops, generally obey the same spotting rules and spot as well and are spotted as easily themselves as all other troops, with the possible exception of Syrian spies, which are hard to spot due to their civilian appearance. To make one unit spot better than another, given the same type of concealment, one must boost the general combat experience of the unit to spot better.

Hopefully someday CMx2 will allow for even more breaking down of a unit's experience into some different variables that can be tweaked to make specialist soldiers! Things like combat experience, spotting, stealth, fitness (more choices perhaps ranging from -2 to +2), urban warfare (these units would fare better during room clearing ops), engineering, etc.

[Dietrich]

Sure, bumping the experience of scout and sniper teams one level above that of the other teams/squads in the unit is a reasonable work-around. But what about when the non-"specialist" teams/squads in the unit are already Crack (as in, say, a battalion of the Parachute Regiment or the 75th Ranger Regiment) and thus the scouts and snipers are Elite (nominally equivalent with best-of-the-best soldiery)?

That said, I've achieved reasonably good results with "merely" Regular scouts and snipers. (For instance, while playing a scenario in the Highland Games campaign a Regular sniper of mine scored a first-round headshot on a machine-gunner; granted, the range was "only" about 450 meters.) In my experience, how one uses them has a big influence on whether they do their jobs effectively or they (seem to) suck.

[Erwin]

Yes, I am of course thinking about how CMSF could be more entertaining while maintaining its veneer of "realism" (verisimilitude) which is what CM1 did so brilliantly.

Trying to make certain units stand out rather than all units seeming to be interchangeable is what I am getting at. I presume that in the armed forces they want units to be interchangeable for obvious reasons, but that is boring in a game.

Like I said, 99% of the scenarios use cookie counter units. The ones I have loved the most gave an interesting mix which included making certain units crack or elite.

I know this offends the milpro purists, but there should be room for other concepts. Making scenarios where Recon, Snipers and possibly Engineers are one or two levels better than everyone else would provide an enhanced gaming experience for many of us.

Dietrich: Yes, in those cases it's not possible. But, your examples are a tiny minority of scenarios.

[jnt62006]

Erwin,

I of course fall in line with Gibsonm's opinion/attitude about recon in CMSF. But if you or anyone is interested, I could spend some time writing up a break down of how recon assets and an intelligence staff work together to develop a picture of the enemy and terrain from a RL/doctrinal perspective. It might make it clearer as to why the professional military guys are so opposed to what you advocate in the game. I realize, of course, that it is a game and should be enjoyed in whatever manner the player desires. But if you ask a question that seems to beg for a doctrinal answer then one should expect that sort of answer.

Also, as an aside, I take issue with the claim of some that CM1 some how better simulates combat than CMSF. CMSF certainly has some shortfalls (no real obstacle or engineer play, no real ADA/CAS/CCA play) but it is just a good simulation as CM1 was. I have played hours upon hours of them both. I think what some folks may be confusing with a "better" system is really just a simpler era. Every weapon system was direct fire with relatively short ranges, making for very straight forward tactics and play. Throw in some good ole nostalgia and I think it would be easy to confuse the two. The modern battlefield is extremely deadly and complex. I think CMSF does a great job simulating that.