questions on terminology and tactics

[Uller]

Okay. I know there are some real tankers around here who can answer my questions.

I'm in a ARNG armor unit. I'm not a 19K (long story) but will be going through MOS reclass soon. At next month's drill we're going to be using SIMNET (a combat simulator) to practice platoon level operations and tactics.

So at drill this weekend our Plt Sgt gave a class using the sand table so that drivers and TCs could have a clue about what to do. (Our battalion is deployed so we have all rear detachment people for the entire battalion mixed together into one platoon. I'm new to the unit so I'm not deployable...yet). So the Plt Sgt just wanted to take the opportunity to make sure everyone knew what to do since we're all from different company's and we have a few new guys (like me) with a variety of backgrounds.

During the class the subject of Bounding Overwatch, Travelling Overwatch and Successive and Alternating Bounds came up. Can someone please explain these to me? I think I understand, but which one has the the moving team moving on-line with the overwatching team and which one has it moving past? What is alternating and successive bounds?

I asked the Plt Sgt during class, but after talking to one of the other drivers, I think I'm still confused.

My experience with tanks is I was a 12F (Combat Engineer Tanker). That's been phased out so now I'm reclassing to 19K. I understand basic tactics for individual tanks such as hull down and turret down positions, reaction to contact and what not, but we never really operated with a platoon of tanks. Normally we were attached at the company level and kept behind the COs tank or track until an obstacle was encountered that they needed us to breech. So operating with a platoon is new to me.

While on the subject (and since this is an SB forum). Is there an easy way to order a platoon to move using Bounding/Travelling overwatch? Or do you have to divide the unit and plot routes manually? That would make it kind of tough...

[Homer]

Check out the PDF library in the download section... there are some good manuals you can reference there.

[DrDevice]

Reference FM 17-15 -Tank Platoon:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/17-15/chp3.htm#sec4

Traveling overwatch means that the lead element is constantly moving forward, with the trailing element stopping to cover the lead from point to point. – It’s the fastest form of travel when a threat is near.

Bounding overwatch means that the elements are stopping to cover one another. It comes in two flavors:

Alternating bounds are like walking – one foot forward, then the next a step in front of that. At no time are both feet resting next to one another on the same point. - This is the next fastest traveling mode.

Successive bounds are like a dance step – one foot forward, then both together. The elements occupy their overwatch points before the next one bounds forward. – This is the slowest traveling mode, but the most secure.

In SB, you must plot the overwatch manually by dividing the platoon and plotting separate routes. You could use conditional events to automate the overwatch as well – section 1/A-1 stops at waypoint 1 and will only move to waypoint 2 when section 1/A-2 reaches waypoint 3 on its own route.

Btw – the platoon Sergeant position isn’t really utilized in SB. Many of the formations have the #3 tank in the position that the SFC’s #4 tank should occupy. For instance: a column formation is tanks 2, 1, 4, 3 and a staggered column is 1,2,4,3 (from front to back) – SB uses 1,2,3,4 in both cases. It has little gameplay effect, but it can be a difference in planning. Just something to be aware of when coordinating your platoon and/or practicing for real world operations.

[Uller]

Thanks for the info.

This is interesting. In our unit, there is a SPC (we'll call him "Bill") who is a pretty experienced tanker, but I've begun to notice he's one of those guys who likes to impress everyone with how much he knows, but it turns out what is knows is usually not much. This is how I ended up confused.

He missed the class the PSG gave. He asked me what we had done that morning. I said we had a class where the PSG used the sand table to go over platoon battle drills and make sure everyone knew how traveling and bounding overwatch worked. At this point "Bill" acted like that was a waste because "we're all tankers" and we should all know it all already (I guess he doesn't understand that it needs to be second nature and that takes practice). Then I mentioned that the LT will indicate whether successive or alternatiing bounds are SOP in the op order. This is where Bill's personality really kicked in. He said that's just stupid. Everyone should know that Traveling overwatch is alternating bounds and Bounding overwatch is successive...Since he's more experienced than I am and I was unsure I let it drop and figured I'd find an FM to look it up myself. Looks like he was totally off base and could have used the class himself. "We're all tankers." HA! What an a--hole...

I'm new to the unit so I'm just getting a feel for personalities, but after a few more classes and the instructors having to tell this SPC to shut up numerous times it is becoming clear that he doesn't know half as much as he claims. I'll have to keep that in mind as I try to learn this stuff...

Anyway...thanks for the info. It seems to me that in SB, using overwatch is probably going to have to be done at your command level. So if you're commanding a platoon, then you can break your unit up into two sections and manually do overwatch with them. If you've got a company, then you can have one platoon overwatch while another moves. But trying to command one platoon to move using overwatch while you go off and concentrate on something else will probably be a disaster. Am I correct?

[DrDevice]

But trying to command one platoon to move using overwatch while you go off and concentrate on something else will probably be a disaster. Am I correct?

Depends on if we are talking SP or MP.

In SP, coordinating platoons and sections can be possible if the scenario is small and you are already doing platoon-level management. If you are using the AI to program routes and such, I can see this being part of the initial plan, but quite difficult to execute on the fly.

In MP, most work is done with single tanks (to prevent human players from killing less-aware AI wingmen) and should be attempted with assistance of another live player. The AI can make for a decent overwatch if the BP is planned well, but it's always better to get a buddy to watch over your shoulder for you. (In fact, coordinating well with your teammates is one of the really rewarding things about MP.)

[PaleRider]

Uller, it looks like you have the personality thing in hand in your unit. Your always going to have someone who thinks they know it all and they don't know squat. If you have an AKO account you can get your FM information at the General Reimer Library. If worse comes to worse, hopefully you can e-mail your psg with your questions. It looks like to me though you have the initiative to find these things out for yourself! Just out of curiousity, where is your guard unit located (state)?

[3Star]

Well, he's wrong.

Travelling overwatch isn't bounds at all. In fact, the rear element isn't obliged to stop at all.

Combat Engineer Tanker.. M728 CEV? You've been out of the business for a couple of years...

NTM

[NEpi]

uller, this is not an experienced tanker.
in my book, you're not experienced until you can teach newbies.

[Bluewings]

I like to read Tacsop ... :)

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Uller]

Just out of curiousity, where is your guard unit located (state)?

PA.

If I have an AKO account, I don't know what it is yet. I'll get that all squared away over time.

[Uller]

Well, he's wrong.

Travelling overwatch isn't bounds at all. In fact, the rear element isn't obliged to stop at all.


Yeah. That's what I had gathered from the PSG's briefing. That's why this young SPC confused me. Don't get me wrong...he's a good troop in many ways. At least he participates in training and is enthusastic about it. So many NG troops just go through the motions.

Our NCOs and Plt Ldr seem to like him, but every once in a while they have to reel him in and remind him that he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does. I think I'll try to direct my questions to our NCOs as much as possible...It's funny...I met a lot of 8-up NCOs on active duty, but so far, I have a pretty good impression of all the NCOs I've met in my new unit.

Combat Engineer Tanker.. M728 CEV? You've been out of the business for a couple of years...


You could say that. I was Regular Army 1990-1992 (4 EN Bn/4 ID) and NG 1994-1998 in this same Armor unit but I never MOSQed to 19K because I was in college and was always enrolled in classes. When they phased out 12F, instead of reclassing me to 19K, they made me 21B (Combat Engineer). I don't know squat about 21B except that I hate conertina wire and don't really want to deal with it any more than I have to...

So anyway...this time around I decided to not screw around and get reclassed to 19K ASAP. I go to school in November to get it done. That way I can concentrate on training with my unit and maybe getting a school or two under my belt to make my E-5 (or even give OCS a try...but I think I'd rather stay enlisted...) as soon as I can. I've got a degree. Once I MOSQ, IWQ and pass the APFT, I should be good to go on points.

[3Star]

You mean you're in a unit that's actually retaining it's tanks?

There's a rarity.

NTM

[Uller]

You mean you're in a unit that's actually retaining it's tanks?

There's a rarity.

NTM

I think so (hope so!). What I've been told is that we're reorganizing into a battalion with two Infantry companies and two tank companies. My company is going away and I'm moving to another armory but will remain armor.

[3Star]

They're doing the same with the one remaining tank battalion in California. A year ago we had three battalions, now we're going to two tank companies in a mixed UA.

NTM

[Uller]

This shift to the stryker just doesn't seem very smart to me. I understand the need to make forces more rapidly deployable. That's fine. Get some vehicles with some surviviability in theater to stabilize things. But it seems to me that Strykers have been proven to lack the survivability needed on a modern battlefield. If I've got incoming fire, I'd rather be in an abrams any day. What I've heard is the stryker has had to have so much armor added that it now has to have its tires inflated to max pressure and that has significantly reduced its mobility on softer terrain like sand and mud. Great...it's air transportable, but you can't take it off the road!

They should continue to upgrade the abrams for urban fighting. Make the loader's MG usable while buttoned (they've already begun to do this with the TC's MG), give it greater visibility, bring back APERS rounds, maybe add some external cameras so the TC can see anyone getting close to the vehicle.

The only real advantage the Stryker seems to have over Brads and Abrams is that it is wheeled. If it loses a couple of wheels to a mine, it can still move. If a Bradley loses a track, the crew is pretty much going to have to evacuate to get the vehicle home. But as long as you have more than one tank (and you always should) if you hit a mine and/or throw a track, your wingman can cover you until help arrives.

If the Gulf War or the 2003 invasion of Iraq had to be fought with Strykers we'd have taken a hell of a lot more casualties, IMHO. A lot of M1s were hit by sabots from T-72s. If one of those hit a stryker, it's dead.

[Lone*star49]

...

Not to mention, ever see a solid tire, no air, no flat type, take a continuious round of 50 cal bullets, stay together?.. I dare say, take out one side of the units tires, chunk by chunk, and you have a non-mobile unit.. that can't be fixed while under direct fire, yet, shoot the Brad's armor tracks with a 50cal, and watch it turn on them, and fire back and assult the shooters, both with the 30 mm bushmaster, and troops inside, "after" the brad runs over the assulters BP and weapon/s..

And, if as you say Uller, that they have added more armor to compenstate for what it lacked in real world battle damage, and are running them at max pressure, then don't be going fast, with full load, and expect them (the tires) not to heat up and expand, more.. Geez!, even my 1990 Ford Bronco's tires, set cold at 28lbs psi, on a 80 degree plus day, pump up to 35lbs psi, in just a few miles of driving at speed.

Ever see a steel track catch fire and melt? Ever see a hard rubber tire catch fire, and keep burning on its' own, plus the smoke, and non-breathable air it produces in hugh quanities, denying anyone with the Stryker, a view to see where to shoot back at, and breath real air thru the openings, to return fire? Damn, call the Fire Dept..

Sounds like some Goverment officials met a Car Salesman, or had stock with GM, or whomever.

Bottom line: a round wheel is only as good as it's designed intact roundness, make it semi square, and sit back, and enjoy the slow, to no go anywhere, ride.

Give me steel wheels with armor (tracks), heavy-duty supension, to go please..





LS :?

[Uller]

Right. I read an article (in July/August Armor Mag). It is what pointed out the new up-armored situation on the Stryker. They're welding wire cages to them to detonate RPGs a few inches away so the shaped charge is ineffective (this is a technique the Soviets developed in WWII actually). The extra weight means the tires must be inflated to max pressure. Normally the tire pressure can be changed on the go for different types of terrain.

It did have a positive report about Strykers. In two seperate incidents, one with a stryker and one with a bradely, car bombs with ~10kg of explosives were used to attack the side of the vehicle. The bradely lost it's track immobilizing it. The stryker lost two wheels and could still move. The brad had to be evacuated and the crew took fire, suffering more casualties. The stryker was not evacuated and made it back to friendly territory under its own power.

So strykers aren't all bad. But they simply cannot replace the role of an M1A2 (or even an M1). They have less fire power (105 vs 120mm gun), less survivability (even an RPG can penetrate the Stryker's side armor) and genearlly less tactical mobility (yes, at a strategic/operational level they are more mobile, but once you're on the battlefield, the M1 wins, I think). Like I said...use Strykers for rapid deployement and securing a hot zone, but then bring in the heavies for offensive operations where you need mobility, shock and to be able to hold ground against an inevitable counter attack.

[Gunfighter]

Welcome Uller to the Premier Online Armoured Community (Bar-None!)

Like you, many of the Canadian Ex-Tankers in this Forum have been reroled. (to Recce Not Combat Engineers- Your 19ks are our 011s). For the reserve Armour units, we have lost our Almighty Cougars (wheeled AFV - Takes alot of courage to take on a T-xx with these) and got jeeps to spot the enemy with.

Dr.D and 3 Star are correct and their insights to the SB world and Real World Tanking are very incisive.

As far as the Stryker Issue is concerned the following sites pretty much exhausts the debate.

http://www.geocities.com/strategicmaneuver/
http://www.combatreform.com/
http://army.ca

Anyway, since you are new to the Real/Sim-Tank world, I would like to know if you plan to use what you are currently learning to the Sb environment. I should produce a curious result.

GF.

[3Star]

But they simply cannot replace the role of an M1A2 (or even an M1)

A common misconception. It's not supposed to.

The AGS is an infantry support system, best compared to the Sturmgeschutz assault guns of Germany in WWII. Its job is to crack open strongpoints such as bunkers, MG nests, and so on, not engage battalions of T-72s coming over the hill. Leave the tank destroying to the tank destroyers. (i.e. TOW, Javelin, Apaches, maybe even the occasional Abrams that gets C-17'd in)

Otherwise, the job of Stryker is mobility. It's an infantry carrier, not a tank, and a Stryker battalion's MTOE shows this. Whilst the AGS "It's not a tank" thing gets the most publicity, there's actually not more than a platoon of the things in the battalion. Everything is set up with the ultimate function of get troops from A to B and provide them with support.

It's proven a good buy so far. I cannot think of any other vehicle in the US inventory can do the job in Mosul better than the Strykers are right now. (I know there's another Stryker unit in Iraq somewhere, but I never worked with them). There was a letter to the editor of the Washington Post by LTC Kurilla, the 1-24 battalion commander in response to a 'naysaying' article a few months ago. He directly refuted the detractions, and having seen them in action, I'm inclined to agree with him.

NTM

[ashdivay]

Right. I read an article (in July/August Armor Mag). It is what pointed out the new up-armored situation on the Stryker. They're welding wire cages to them to detonate RPGs a few inches away so the shaped charge is ineffective (this is a technique the Soviets developed in WWII actually). The extra weight means the tires must be inflated to max pressure. Normally the tire pressure can be changed on the go for different types of terrain.

It did have a positive report about Strykers. In two seperate incidents, one with a stryker and one with a bradely, car bombs with ~10kg of explosives were used to attack the side of the vehicle. The bradely lost it's track immobilizing it. The stryker lost two wheels and could still move. The brad had to be evacuated and the crew took fire, suffering more casualties. The stryker was not evacuated and made it back to friendly territory under its own power.

So strykers aren't all bad. But they simply cannot replace the role of an M1A2 (or even an M1). They have less fire power (105 vs 120mm gun), less survivability (even an RPG can penetrate the Stryker's side armor) and genearlly less tactical mobility (yes, at a strategic/operational level they are more mobile, but once you're on the battlefield, the M1 wins, I think). Like I said...use Strykers for rapid deployement and securing a hot zone, but then bring in the heavies for offensive operations where you need mobility, shock and to be able to hold ground against an inevitable counter attack.

Very intresting !
I was impressed with Strykers so far and still am ! However I guess stryker is more for urban combat in mind ...dont you agree ?
i mean with the Auto Gr Launcher and mgs !
i havent seen strykers in real we have BMP2s here.
But it sure is intresting.
Regards
Ash

[RIPper]

i'd like to add that the Stryker's slat armor (the cage around it) is NOT designed to detonate RPG-7 further away from the armor. the standoff would not be enough, and the RPG would still penetrate. the standoff would have to be much bigger (at least 1 or 1,5m IIRC, and that's just for old warheads).
the cage prevents the old RPG-7 warheads from detonating. the fusing mechanism on those warheads works in such way, that deforming the frontal cone of the warhead prevents it from detonating at all. so, if the enemy is using newer warheads for RPG-7 or other antitank weapons, slat armor will not help. luckilly, this is not the case in iraq.
russians are designing something similar to the slat armor, with a difference. there is a thin armor shield between the cage and the main armor. it "diffuses" the incoming heat jet (the warhead is detonated by the cage), makes it weaker and thus helps the main armor. look here:
http://www.niistali.ru/science/secure_en.htm (look at "damping armor screen")

[Vacquero]

It amazes me that no one has mentioned anything about, destroying your enemies will to stay awake. That would be a tactic I've seen the last three games I've played. This is sometimes a useful tactic, for if your enemy is asleep at the keys, when you start the game, more the better. :cvc: