Lock On discussion about armored warfare

[Ssnake]

...there's a discussion at the LOMAC forum (http://lockoncampaign.com:8811/board/index.php?a=topic&t=68) about the proper employment of tanks. I guess we have a few guys here who can contribute in a productive manner. ;)

[ShermansWar]

Very Interesting, I read it , and to an extent it's the same ongoing discussion we have around here.I also read that book by Edgar O'ballance, ( about 20 years ago)which , if I recall corectly was titled" No Victor, No Vanquished, a history of the Arab Israeli wars".

The author does both make the point that tanks are the best killers of tanks, ewhile at the same time pointing out the effectiveness of the Egyptian Rangers and their use of sagger missiles against the pre-prepared positions the Israelis had their tanks in as part of the canal defense.

To be quite Honest, before I get into this discussion here( I won't do it over there, I dont need another hobby), I'd like to say THIS is the kind of discussion we SHOULD be having here, and DON'T.

There is no proper place to discuss strategy and tactics on these forums, not really.It SHOULD be the centerpeice of a website like this, with an ongoing constant discussion(I.E., one that requires it's own forum) about the differences and realities of the sim Steelbeats vs Realworld tactics, how they apply, where they apply, where the dont, and what can be done with the sim as far as tactics go that cant be done in real life, and why not.

Is it a limitation of the game model that inaccurately allows situations to exist in the game that never could in real life,and/or are there limitations to real world tactics that do not allow these weapons to be utilized to their full deadly potential because the doctrines used by the armies that employ these weapons do not let them realize their full potential?
(Remember, Fraace and britain thought they Knew how to employ armor until they went up against the Germans, who had developed their own doctrines with the same weapons everyone else had. and might i remind you all they did this not on the battlefield, but first in the human mind, and then in a series or wargames and simulations.)

Why can't SB be used to test the veracity and feasability of tactics that are not current SOP?Is it because of game design flaws? is it because of the limits of the technologyn used to make the sim, or can it in fact be done? if not, why not? we should have a place tio discuss all this, and this should in fact be what this place is all about. a serious armored community involved in a serious sim. no offense to anyone around here, but they way things are going, we could use a new direction to go in, a direction that that actually provi=de some food for thought and some useful discussions for those who actually work on the design of this game/sim

This is a discussion that i think would be both vital and invaluable to a company that is designing what is supposed to be an accurate armored simulator to train real armies.Instead of all the petty squabbling that goes, on, how nice it would be to have actual tactical discussions, on both game tactics, real world tactics, and realworld VS game tactics.

I have requested in the past that this Forum be added to SB.com and was told no. I am asking AGAIN tthat a forum on tactics and strategy be added.I Reject the Premise that these discussions belong in general forum, or multiplayer, or scenario design. An ongoing theoretical discussion on tactics, strategy and operations and comparisons between real wordld tactics and SB tactics belongs in none of these forums, and there needs to be a place to differentiate between those who wants to talk about real world tactics, those who want to talk about game winning SB tactics, and a forum where the differences between the 2 could be discussed

I think the third forum would prove an invaluable reference to those who design this game, after it was up and running for a time, and real world tankers and succesful steelbeast gamers had time to build up a body of work and debate on the issues that, as far as i can tell, the design team still haggles with on a regular basis.

The company E-sim games is run by a real world tanker, and has many veterans from many of the worlds armed forces who have experience in these matters as part of the design team, and that is what gives this sim it's great strength. It was meant to be used, and meant to be a real training tool.

I have an observation however, that some aren't gonna like to hear, but it should be heard nonetheless.while there are some junior officers involved, most of those associated with SB design were noncoms. there IS no real tactical experience at the higher levels of those who design this game, and while i dont dont their experiece or their knowledge,to equate a guy who was a seargant or a leutenant as an expert on operational sclae tactics may not necessarilly be accurate.

The reason I make this point is to demonstrate that there is a possibility that those who design this game may not know everything about higher level operations. I'm sorry guys, but a seargant and a leut. are not colonels and generals. There is a point where tyhe practice of warfare becomes an art as well as a science, and it is in this context I make the previous statements. Although I was in the military, ( a dragon gunner) I can never hope to compare my knowledge to someone like Ssnake, or al, or GO, or dejawolf, or 3 star, and neither can someone like scud. We would have to spend half a lifetime of experience and learning to be able to contribute like you guys have done.

Having said that, and I know this will ruffle some feathers, that doesnt make you experts at the operational level, or the strategic level, or particularly gifted in the aspect of warfare I call "The ART of warfare" as opposed to "the SCIENCE of warfare".I think it is premptuous to think that as far as the ART of war goes, noone can know more than those who design the game. Scud may have as much an insight, or be more inspired as far as a plan goes, unaided, yet unrestricted in his planning by actual doctrine.

We know that there are those who play this game that exploit flaws in the game design, to be succesful, by creating in game situations that could never happen in real life. But cannot there ALSO be situations that are created in game that COULD be recreated In real life, that never are, simply because of SOP and real world army doctrines? It is presumpuous and I think erroneous to think that all that can be done with a tank is already been done and already a part of existing doctrines.


That fact that doctrine changes is proof of the veracity of my statement.
the fact that the doctrines used in 1918, 1939, 1945, 1973 anbd present day are all different, but all an eveolution of what came before.so while we must build on existing doctrines and practices to develop new ones, doctrine and tactics are ever changing, with technology, as well as that which is inspired out of the creativity of the human mind to use existing weapons in ways previously not imagined. This is what we should be talking about, instead of cannabalizing each othe while we wait for SB2 to come out.

I formally request yet again there be a new forum established with the 3 sectionsIi mentioned so we can talk seriously about what we all came here to do in the first place.

[RIPper]

i would surely like a forum about tactics/strategy. SB is a lot like an educational tool for me, and i like to be able to talk to people with great knowledge and experience over here. the forum would make it even better educational tool.

[PS-SCUD]

If not another forum, then how about a sticky thread?

[DrDevice]

The idea of a discussion area for game and RL tactics is a good one. There are many ways the RL is not like SB, and vice versa. Both have interest to most members of the forum and the subjects do not clearly fall within the given sections of the forum.

However, the idea that SB has anything to do with operational level warfare is wrong by every definition I've seen:

From FM 3-0: Operations:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-0/ch2.htm

2-4. The strategic level is that level at which a nation, often as one of a group of nations, determines national and multinational security objectives and guidance and develops and uses national resources to accomplish them. Strategy is the art and science of developing and employing armed forces and other instruments of national power in a synchronized fashion to secure national or multinational objectives. The National Command Authorities (NCA) translate policy into national strategic military objectives. These national strategic objectives facilitate theater strategic planning. Military strategy, derived from policy, is the basis for all operations

2-5. The operational level of war is the level at which campaigns and major operations are conducted and sustained to accomplish strategic objectives within theaters or areas of operations (AOs). It links the tactical employment of forces to strategic objectives. The focus at this level is on operational art—the use of military forces to achieve strategic goals through the design, organization, integration, and conduct of theater strategies, campaigns, major operations, and battles.

2-13. Tactics is also the realm of close combat, where friendly forces are in immediate contact and use direct and indirect fires to defeat or destroy enemy forces and to seize or retain ground.

SB deals with the tactical level only. It does not deal with anything beyond the immediate fight. Only the scenario designer has any control over the situations described from 2-5, so discussion of those parameters and mission criteria, while valid, does not apply to SB or the discussion of tactics therein.

So the level of experience in the SB staff (of which I’m not 100% aware) seems quite adequate for the simulation they have chosen to create. If there are/were noncoms or company-level officers, they have chosen to stay exactly within their realm of experience.

If you want operational level games, try BCT, or TacOps or any of the other games that simulate these engagements and are used in professional military training (I enjoy TacOps quite a bit.) There you can experiment with doctrine and mass and so many other things that you really cannot in SB. (Hence my usual reluctance to Btn-size battles in SB - it's not really very good at simulating such large actions.)

SB is clearly not the same sort of game.

[TankHunter]

A forum on tactics, strategy, and grand strategy would be a good idea.

[Uller]

The idea of a discussion area for game and RL tactics is a good one. There are many ways the RL is not like SB, and vice versa. Both have interest to most members of the forum and the subjects do not clearly fall within the given sections of the forum.

However, the idea that SB has anything to do with operational level warfare is wrong by every definition I've seen:

...snip...

SB is clearly not the same sort of game.

True. But one thing that SB misses that M1 Tank Platoon II modeled at least in the abstract is an operational level. M1TP2 would play out an operational level battle. Your platoon was part of a larger TF. It would play out the battle in memory and when your unit came into direct contact with the enemy, a new mission would be generated.

Most wargames/sims use stand alone scenarios and string them together and call it a campaign. Sometimes they have a branching logic to them but in the end the result is always a bit stale to me. When playing a mission, I like to have a feel that there is a greater battle going on around me.

It would be nice if one of two things were done:

1) an operational model similar to M1TP2 were done

or

2) A seperate (probably turn based) game were made that models modern combat on the operational level. Tactical combat could be modeled abstractly, but optionally a SB2 scenario could be generated.

Just a thought....

[DrDevice]

2) A seperate (probably turn based) game were made that models modern combat on the operational level. Tactical combat could be modeled abstractly, but optionally a SB2 scenario could be generated.

Just a thought....

To dream the dream - a cross-level game like that has been a fantasy of mine for some time. "Gaming across scale" is a cool idea, but nobody has attempted it AFAIK.

Pseudo-campaigns like M1TP2 and such are OK, but get stale, as you mentioned. I have worked out something similar with SB1, and seen other sets of SP battles where you basically do a "choose your own adventure" and base the follow-on battles on the results of the previous ones. (In mine, I planned to offer a password-protected download from my site that could be accessed by varying levels of mission completion.)

MP operational level games that output OOB and map info for setting up SB-scale games would ROCK. We just have to find a compatible system. Or, more likely, create one. Since translation to SB maps (height maps especially) is finicky, it's a bitch to do at present.

Perhaps the maps from SPProPE will make this easier. Some operational-scale games like BCT use “real world” movement and 1:25,000 or 1:50,000 scale maps. If you have the SB map created and ready, all you need is location and OOB stuff. But that’s a hope, not a likelihood at present.

[3Star]

I see nothing wrong with discussing tactics on the general board. Seems to be highly appropriate to me.

NTM

[ShermansWar]

A Platoon or company level scenario is a tactical level scenario. 3-6 companies is an operational level scenario. If it were an 80 KM map, with 2 divisions thrown on it, I would call it a strategic level sim.I concede that what you quote from the manual is correct, but at the same time, battallion level actions and above has traditionally been called the operational level. I further recognize that the game was not designed to be played at that level, but the fact of the matter is, it is frequently pressed into service at that level. with the addition ofn support units and the larger maps think i could indeed be called an operational level sim when SB Pro PE comes out, although, again, I stress I realize it was designed as a tactical level sim.We use the word differently.were it a division or corp level game, I would call it a strategic level game, even if it covered a short period of a few hours.

.

[sabot_ready]

Maybe we should get a show of hands to support the idea that Sherman and other members of the forums would be fond of participating in.
I do think there is room for a dedicated section dealing with tactics and it existence alone would diversify the topics posted on these forums

[Viper-3]

I agree on discussing tactics and armor warfare. I do however imagine another forum in which gentlemen's disagreements will turn into Idiot's arguments. Example: For a fact, I know myself, GO, and maybe 3star have been drilled over and over on the employment of the Bradley vehicle in a supporting role to M1 Crews as well as its employment in the leading role with armor supporting.

I have trained M1 TF Commanders on their use of the Linebacker and even Brigade commanders while rotating into Kuwait. Armor crewman rarely IMHO study and drill the finer details of Armor employment and concentrate more on simple destruction of the enemy. I have also been an observer controller at the NTC three times and have heard over and over the criticism during AAR's that Armor commanders neglect their Bradley brethern and thus handicap themselves by not utilizing them properly. Also noted is they usually mass numbers of M1's to defeat an enemy rather than utilize overlapping fires, Artillery support beyond the initial prep fires, neglect mortars, fail to include combat multipliers such as anti tank teams, Heavy ADA assets and Helicopter anti-tank capabilities.

These points could be heard from about any Bradley crewman or Linebacker commander. The believe that the M1 can go it alone has long been a thorn in our side. As well as the reason the ADATS system was scrapped by Ft Knox. Would be interesting now that I brought these points out how Armor crewman respond to my thread. Their knowledge of armor emplacment and employment would be evident from their posts. Thus can be compared to Bradley Crewman, Anti-tank crewman, infantry, Artillery.

I for one have been fighting the Mechanized fight ever since the M60 was still in the ranks. Nothing has changed from i have seen apart from vehicle spacing to include the farther range of the M1. The combat multipliers continue to be ignored to this day. The Iraqi's at least had that part right. Dirt teams, Ambush teams, Tank ditches standard soviet concertina backed by mine fields with tanks overwatching the possible breached sites with anti tank teams over looking choke points. And artillery on stand by to pummel choked units. USAF saved a ton of armor crewmans lives in DS1.

I say invent the forum for tactics. Only restriction that jumps out to me is posting something not readily available for public eyeing. Air-land Battle doctirine is alive and well. Would be Interesting to hear how its being and has been taught. I'd bet it hasnt to any acceptable level below the rank of Captain. Take it from a former OC, I know its not........


Viper
Former Bronco 16r

[ShermansWar]

See? Topics like that. Some say that if we have a thought like that we should just post it in general.I don't think so. At least once a week I have a like minded topic pops into my head(like this week it was on how UAVS are going to be integrated into SB, and related issues) but i didnt post it in forums, I looked and saw no appropriate place for it. I just dont think guys go out on a limb with some topics without a purpose dedicated forum.I could see the reponses to what viper posted ultimately becoming a tool that could be used by scenario, if not game designers .I could see that thread alone going for quite some time amd drawing responses from quarters hitherto for unheard.
besides, in general, all comments about game and real life get mixed up, I've seenit. guys that don't give 2 hoots about real life can discuss gaming tactics they use. guys that dont playthat much, but want to discuss real world tactics can, how things are done, , how things were done, and how things could be done.

parties that want to discuss how reeal life tactics can be recreated in gameplay, or perhaps discussions even of how and if tactics used in the game could be used in real life. i think it would be great, and a shot in the arm.
i can guarantee the interest in such topics and the amount of threads started on such topics will increase dramatically once the new release comes out.also with the volume seen on general forums, if anybody wanted to do any research or refer back to the thread, the damn thing would be buried.Keep the general for general. This is specific and requires a specific forum.Please give this idea more serious consideration than it was last time.

[ShotMagnet]

I brought this up some months ago, and the idea had been kicked around long before then. I've often wondered why a sime dedicated to armored warfare doesn't have a section dedicated to armored tactics. That we maybe can't duplicate real-world tactics with perfect fidelity doesn't mean that we can't talk about them in a forum expecially created for just that.

I'll help get it set up, if volunteers are needed.


Shot

[Wahrborg]

I think it sounds like a good idea to.

[Uller]

A Platoon or company level scenario is a tactical level scenario. 3-6 companies is an operational level scenario. If it were an 80 KM map, with 2 divisions thrown on it, I would call it a strategic level sim.
.

The way I've always looked at it is this:

Tactical = small units (individual vehicles, sections, squads maybe platoons). LOS and direct fire weapons ranges matter. Indirect fire weapons (with the exception of mortars) are abstacted or off board.

Example: Use your company team to assault hill 351. You have limited arty support. Enemy is a reinforced inf company with possible armor reserve. You have 45 minutes to complete this mission.

Operational: This is the level where you are more concerned with company and battalion HQs than individual sections, squads and platoons. LOS and direct fire weapons ranges are no longer as relevant. Unit fatigue, morale, supply and supply interdiction become very important. Changes in weather, day/night cycles, etc start to play a factor. Artillery and air assets start to be represented as actual units, not just abstracted models.

Example: Your cavalry has reported that a large Confederate column is marching south into a small town called Gettysburg. Summon every US Army regiment available to meet them there and destroy them.

Strategic: This is at the level where the range of even most indirect fire weapons no longer matters with the exception of extremely long range weapons like cruise missiles, ICBMs and strategic bombers. National goals and national borders start to matter.

Example: Your country badly needs resource X to keep its economy running. Your neighbor is in possession of large resource X reserves but has initiated a trade embargo against you. The border between your two countries is poorly defended and most resource X sources are in sparcely populated areas. Do you A) invade to take the resource X mines B) Launch a devistating attack against their military bases to force a lifting of the embargo C) Make concessions to get the embargo lifted D) Look for another source of resource X...

Of course there is gray area between each level.

But it seems to me SB is definately a tactical game. It can model operational level details somewhat, but it is lacking in many ways. If you've got a Brigade Combat Team, you can't just command your battalions as whole units and leave the tactical manuevering to the AI. You must be concerned about where to move your tanks for the best cover and to have overlapping fields of fire. There are no arty assets on the map. There are not supply points like harbors, railheads or major road intersections that have an effect on the outcome of the battle. Scenarios don't last long enough were supply really comes into play.

At best, a scenario can have friendly units scripted in to give a feel of a larger battle (like the Roadstown scenario), but in the end, your still left in the role of a junior officer concerned with the tactical situation of your platoons.

[Uller]

I agree on discussing tactics and armor warfare. I do however imagine another forum in which gentlemen's disagreements will turn into Idiot's arguments. Example: For a fact, I know myself, GO, and maybe 3star have been drilled over and over on the employment of the Bradley vehicle in a supporting role to M1 Crews as well as its employment in the leading role with armor supporting.



Another suggestion is a reading club. Pick a book on some famous battle. Read a chapter every few days and discuss. One point of discussion might focus on how situations in the book could work in the game (or not) and why.

[3Star]

Officially, no. I've not been taught anything about mixed arms to any appreciable level, it tends to be something more for the captains to deal with.

That's not to say I don't understand it, however!

NTM

[CommC]

An operational level game of armored warfare which has recently become available is Flashpoint Germany, from Matrix Games (www.matrixgames.com). It is still undergoing some patching, but recent patches have it shaping up nicely.

I can recommend it, although it may be a little simplistic for many on this forum. I still have a few concerns with the accuracy of the combat model, scenario design, etc.

[ShermansWar]

...

[Flash-Kiwi]

HI guys,
Uller, a reading book list is a great idea. A couple of points though, usually anything under divisional level is considered tactical. It is only at the division and above level, that is corps and armies that things become operational. You state that there is a grey area and you are very true, indeed there are times when what would usually comprise operational level planning will incorporate the use of units well below divisional level.

Anyways, its good to be back online. I moved to Japan a year ago and ive only just managed to get an internet connection as the companies here seem rather incompetent, much like my spelling.

[Ssnake]

With the changing operational picture after the end of the Cold War, I'd say that operational level starts at Brigade level. After all, NATO brigade organizations are the first level at which combined arms is organically organized and not just task attached. The division level surely is operational, but who except the US and maybe China thinks of mobilizing and operating at division level these days?

[DrDevice]

True enough. The point was that discussing Operational level, or even battalion-level (if we lump it in the Tactical level of warfare) is good - but it's not relevant , nor modeled by SB.

I'm all for discussion of tactics that apply to the sim at hand. Whether the topic is real life tactics, game-only tactics, or whatever. These have value to the people who join this forum as Steel Beasts players.

Discussing larger-scale stuff is fine too. It just doesn't apply to SB. It may have a place in a separate thread/area/whatever, but it ought to be separated form stuff that's useful for SB and stuff that's useful for other "armchair general" games.

It's that level of difference that I think is lost on many threads - talking about movement techniques for single tanks vs. platoons and the limitations of the AI is good stuff. It helps.

But when the topic drifts into things we can't model in SB, it loses something in translation. We don't all have a common point of reference provided by the game, so things bog down into "what sources are you using" or "but that's not the way it really is," etc. etc.

Hence, keeping SB stuff separate from non-SB stuff makes it easier on the community to follow whatever is important to them.


For those members interested in larger-scale simulations, try the following:

TacOps 4 Bundle:http://www.battlefront.com/products/tacops_bundle/index.html

BCT Commander:http://www.shrapnelgames.com/prosim/bct_commander/1.htm

The Wargamer:http://www.wargamer.com/

[ShermansWar]

I agree with your point, and would like to get some response about the idea of starting a new forum. Because i agree with your point, i suggested/suggest that we have a new forum with 3 sections, SB tactics, real world tactics, and real world VS SB tactics, and were they coincide and where they differ.

[DrDevice]

I don't see a downside - more forum areas should mean better information organization.

What say the PTB?

[RIPper]

i'm not sure if the the forums needs the 3 section mentioned by Sherman. to mee it seems too restrictive. i was thinking that one new section to this forum would be good enough (e.g. we have SB General Discussion, Ground Zero etc, so a new section called something like "Tactics" would be created)

[mapman]

I vote Aye....what do you say Sean?

[thunderhead]

I read a little hear and there , but im by far no tactical expert. But I belive this would be a great thing to add. Alot could be learned from everyone from it.

[ShotMagnet]

i'm not sure if the the forums needs the 3 section mentioned by Sherman

Probably not as such, but it seems to this tanker-wannabe that a discussion of tank tactics is certainly in order if we wish to better ourselves as tankers.


Shot

[Sean]

I'm fine with it, has anyone asked ssnake?

[ShermansWar]

We were hoping you were gonna do that.

[Ssnake]

Ultimately it is your site, so you decide. There is however a danger that too many forums lead to dispersed, and reduced overall activity. What's wrong about discussing tactics in the main board here?

[ShermansWar]

Discussing in the general board, for one thing, is offputting to me, and if Gary hadnt gone out of his way to start the threads just to show there is this level of interest out there,they never would have gone up.

I said, and I'll say again, I come up with 2-3 ideas a week, and they just dont seem appropriate to put in general forum.Everything gets moshed together here, and it is difficult if not immpossible to keep a discussion on track when it is in the general forum board, indeed, and discussion on tactics in the general board tends to get "General"
.Like I said, I have many ideas I simply wont post here, as do many others. We talk in TS all the time about all kinds of tactical ideas, comparisons, as applies to SB and out, and it would be better to have it's own forum, particularly since there are 2 distinct schools of thought on how to play the game. But we cant do it in General forum.Better let them have a vigorous series of discussions there than have it all over the general forum.

The principal reasons were to have a new forum and have it divided into 3 parts, so that someplace there can finally be a forum to discuss game tactics as well. Go over these boards, and you can find precious few posts by anyone as to how they are actually playing the GAME, handling their tanks, and what not. When they make comments, they tend to be general.

A new forum, with a section devoted to jusT Steelbeasts gameplay and tactics, a section devoted simply to real world strategy and tactics, and a section devoted to SB and real world tactics, where they overlap, and where they dont, I think would be the best thing for everyone.I also think it would be a good idea to get back to talking about the game, and tactics and such, especially when you are looking to release a new product, and would direct interest away from interpersonal rubbish that has been spawned put of boredom and put some emphasis back on the game where it belongs. I would bet you would hear from all kinds of members and lurkers who havent posted in ages who would be willing to post in a purpose deicated forum as opposed to the genral forum with ideas espousing tactics. General realy isnt the place for a prolonged series of targeteed discussions.

You ask why, Ssnake? Because it has never been here before.there neevr has been a bunch of good ongoing threads about the game itself and tactics themselves in general, thats the main reason why. Do something to put a little focus on the game, and the product itself, it would be good for everyone.give SB gameplay it's own forum.
Gameplay, not scenarios,, not multiplayer, but gameplay and tactics themselves, how we actually play the game. and for those who want it, forums on how we actually fight and organize in real life.

There has been much said about SB scenarios being unrealistic,how they are all clones of each other, and that older vets of the sim dont want to play these cookiencutter simplistic scenarios, but that they would play quality scenarios.
I think that if, besdies the SB gameplay forum, you had one for real world tactics, those of us who are uninitiated in real world tactics could get a good idea of how things are done, and how things are organized, simply by listening or observing discussions between those who are either active service or veterans, and would be a place for those who want to make scens to go and ask vets what they think is most reaslsitic, or relevant, or such.

Finally a section on SB vs real life, where they overlap and where they dont. . I think it's imposrtant to have a section just on SB gameplya, and if you mix all 3 sections together, then you are gonna get all 3 types of discussion merging together, and discussions on how people actually play the game, and what they do to win are gonna degenerate into discussions about whether or not such tactics are realistic. let that have it's own section, and let the people who want to do nothing bit tlk about gameplay do that.

This wouln't stifle or dissapate threads, threads, it would start threads where there are none.Thats the point.

When is the last time someone put up a thread about how they play the game, or what tricks and techniques they have used and learned? they don't ,cause there's no place for it.

I think a forum that discussed real world tactics, especially considering we have armored AFV crewmen from around the world as members of this community would be an excellent idea, and would probably draw others into such discussions. there are few places actually discussing real world armored TACTICS amongst an international community. ideas that start in there might get kicked up as an idea for a scenario.I think it would help generate scenario design ideas.

as for the last forum, i think the benifits anbd the draw of discussing SB tactics as opposed to real world tactics is self evident and self explanatory.thes are the most heted and oft debated topoics,but giving them theoir own forum would allow those who simply want to discuss gameplay and game methods, and those who want to simply discuss RW tactics to do so in peace.

I think there is a need for it, as there is too much we want to discuss that we just arent comfortable getting into in general discussion. The majority seemsto think it is a good idea as well. How about it?

[Ssnake]

I said, and i'll say again, i come up with 2-3 ideas a week, and they just dont seem appropriate to put in general forum.everything gets moshed together here, and it is difficult if not immpossible to keep a discussion on track when it is in the general forum board, indeed, and discussion on ttqctics in the general board tends to get "General".

Then, maybe, it's time to improve the style of discussion within the community. I don't think that this lack of discipline could be cured with the addition of yet another discussion board.

[ShermansWar]

Or maybe it's time to open a forum for tactics. You did say it was up to us, seems there was universal support for this( I think 1 person spoke against it, and many for it).I don't see how a "Style" of discussion has anything to do with it. the "style" of discussion has kept this kind of conversation from taking place.A general "style" keeps away longterm specific discussions about tactics, unless you are trying to discourrage that.

The whole point was to improve the "Style" of discussion.

You asked why,I explained why, after so doing you make some vague suggestion/implication as to the "style" of a discussion. Thats the point, we don't want a general "style" of discussion, rather a specific format.Doesnt seem like you dont understand as much as you just dont want to do it. Which makes me wonder why you dont want these types of discussion, on tactics, or gameplay, going on.

[ShermansWar]

And I further disagree, inasmuch as I think this "Lack of discipline" would indeed be cured with the addition of another message board, thats the point.

Myself, I dont think it's so much a matter of a lack of discipline, as a lack of a forum.If it was a lack of discipline, then you WOULD have these kind of discussion going on in general, where it doesnt belong.

Why forums Like Ground zero( non game related stuff) and the FFZ exist, yet a Forum on gameplay and real world tactics runs into this opposition is beyond me. I dont understand this at all.

[ShotMagnet]

Discussing in the general board, for one thing, is offputting to me, and if Gary hadnt gone out of his way to start the threads just to show there is this level of interest. out ther,they never would have gone up.

For me as well. Not everyone wants to talk tactics, and speaking for myself, I'd rather go right to a Tactics forum than have to wade through posts in other fora to find what I'm looking for.


I don't think that this lack of discipline could be cured with the addition of yet another discussion board.
Come again? A lack of discipline would have manifested itself in a generalized ennui regarding the notion of a Tactics forum, not in the promotion of one.


Shot

[DrDevice]

For an example of many specialized forums, check out http://forums.sjgames.com/. They have many different areas, and it helps keep things well organized.

Yes, there are a few "big hitters" that attract like 80-90% of the posts, but when you are looking for something specific, the sub-forums help separate the wheat from the chaff.

Note how, right now, there is little to no extra crap in the Scenario or MP threads of steelbeasts.com. People post about the appropriate topics only. Why not open up another for tactics? We lose nothing but a click! :)

And, quite frankly, the PHBB search functions leave much wanting when you are looking for something specific, let alone general, on this forum. We can use the help.

I know we consolidated a while back, but I am for separating out a section for tactics, etc. Maybe not 3 different ones, but at least one dedicated one.

[Gunfighter]

If a new discussion board pops up, can you put the thread "Player Specific Tactics" in there?
"http://www.steelbeasts.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=2893&highlight=player+specific+tactics"

[GaryOwen]

Doing a search through the general discussion and multiplayer fora for the keyword 'tactics', there are about a good dozen threads that could be imported to a 'Tactics' forum. Gunfighter's thread is one of the better of these.

[ShermansWar]

If we cant get 3, at least 2, one for gameplay, and one for real world tactics. i dont think it's a great idea to throw gameplay tactics and realworld tactics together, thats the point.

[Wahrborg]

Dont forgett the "This is how i think it works" fora...

[mapman]

Sean?

[Ratseal]

With the changing operational picture after the end of the Cold War, I'd say that operational level starts at Brigade level. After all, NATO brigade organizations are the first level at which combined arms is organically organized and not just task attached. The division level surely is operational, but who except the US and maybe China thinks of mobilizing and operating at division level these days?

Ssnake - Without rancor, I would point out the USMC MEU concept - the MEU trains and deploys as a combined arms battalion level unit, with attached armor (light and heavy), inf, air, arty, comms etc.

The US is moving away from the division concept and embracing maneuver brigades. Which probably means that operational C2 is at the Bn level.

In the US, there are variety of C4I systems to link operational level units, and GCCS is the common denominator between units. It, and its follow on, will exist at the brigade level. The USMC deploys C2PC, which includes GCCS clients, at the MEU level. FBCB2 and AFATDS are Army centric, the USAF is buying into extensions of the AOC Weapons System concept, and the Navy is busy fighting the OATM vs JTM war, while the CEC and Son of CEC bubbas steam on.

All that jazz really means that the first echelon which permits Joint C2 under a JTF is the level where you find a common C2 platform, which, for all its hairy warts and halitosis, is GCCS.

[ShermansWar]

I think I'm gonna have to get me an edumication to understand that last post, and all it's nuances.

[Ratseal]

Sorry, I am the Acronymidiot sometimes.

www.fas.org and www.globalsecurity.com will give an overview of...

Global Command and Control System (GCCS) http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/gccs.htm
Command and Control PC (C2PC) http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2001/compendium/c2pc.htm
Force 21 Battle Command Brigade and Below FBCB2 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fbcb2.htm
Advanced Field Arty Data System (AFATDS) www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/afatds.htm
Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)
Open Architecture Track Manager (OATM)
Joint Track Manager (JTM)
Air Operations Center Weapons System (AOCWS)

And so on. At least 10% of the battle is keeping up with the labels for the interfaces between disparate info systems.

What this all boils down to is that lowest level where effective operational C2 (or C4ISR if you prefer) can be exercised is the level at which there are robust interfaces between the component commanders within a JTF or CJTF. Tactical C2 takes over from there.

Example: Brigade Army commander and Marine Battalion commanders can exchange situational awareness data using automated machine to machine interfaces. This is not true of Army battalions and USMC companies. Likewise, composite USAF Wings and USN Carrier Air Wings can exchange the theater Common Operational Picture (COP), and exercise command of engagements and control of forces, but at the squadron level, they rely on a managed Link16 network, which is usually at the user level, not the commanders' level.

Technology is pushing the boundary between operational C2 and tactical C2 ever downwards. Some would argue that this has already occured, and that there is no longer a distinction (I would not agree there).

Clear as mud?

[ShermansWar]

Thank you.I'm on it.Still gonna take some time to digest.

What i can comment on now, and what is interesting, is the thrust of your original post, which is that it is computer interface and the level at which they can cross share information which is defining the difference between the tactical and the operational as you see it.Is that right?If and when they push that barrier downward will you then consider that level as the boundary between Operational and tactical?

I am also curious as to how the lower level tactical C2 systems you mention( such as Link 16) share information with COP, do they, and why cant this informationthen be then shared, or can it? seems like it can, but that you simply have to go to the next level up to cross share that information.I've I've gone awry here somewhere, please, let me know.

As an aside, if i am not mistaken, I beleive I read in this weeks "janes defense breifing" which I get via e-mail, an article about the minaturazition of such cross information sharing platforms, so that these links can be used to share information instantaneously, on the level on munitions themselves, so that one unit can say, launch a munition, and then hand it off to another unit for C2, so that time sensitive targets can be attacked, thus further exploiting narrow windows of opportunity between the time such targets are sighted and can then be attacked, which, apparently, can currently take too long, because of the inability of weapons platforms and targetting units to cross share information. Did that make any sense?

From Janes defense:
DARPA eyes sub-networks to speed sensor-to-shooter
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is exploring the use of miniature networked datalink technologies to enable precision strikes against time-critical and mobile targets and allow secure weapons hand-off from launch platforms to other air or ground control platforms.
[Jane’s Defence Weekly - first posted to http://jdw.janes.com – 26 August 2005]

Sorry I'm not up on my terminology, but it seemed thats what they were taling about, the ability to minaturize the kind of system, or at least the cross link interfaces that you were talking about so they can hand off control of munitions from one unit to the other to attack time sensitive targets.If it's unrelated, let me Know.

[ShermansWar]

also, am i correct in assuming that C2PC used by the USMC and the FBCB2 systems cannot share information directly?
sounds like the FBCB2 is basically the IVIS system, or the version of it used below brigade level, on it's own brigade level network, But it sounded like the C2PC can interface and share directly with the GCCS in both a push and pull context.
Seems like the C2PC used by the marines is more flexible, and can readily share more information both ways, but that the army tactical system lives in it's own little world, to an extent, more whistles and beells and control and options down at the lower levels, which the marines system doesnt have, but that the marine system can interface with everything else more easily. the other interesting thing was the level on which the 2 systems operated. the army suystem supposedly has 1,000 computers operating on the network below brigade level?
Didnt seem like the marines had any equivalent system operating down at that level.

[Trekker]

Sorry I'm not up on my terminology, but it seemed thats what they were taling about, the ability to minaturize the kind of system, or at least the cross link interfaces that you were talking about so they can hand off control of munitions from one unit to the other to attack time sensitive targets.If it's unrelated, let me Know.

I'w heard about munition for the arty that will work like this. Missiles or grenades they launch, and forward units guides them towards target. The main difference between laserguided munition and this sort is that anyone can take controll of it, you don't need to have the "pointer", these system will be installed as ordinary gear on tanks and IFV. And the fireing system can be in the rear.

Sort of system:
Many AA system has this "hand-over" or ability to controll other unit. To guide towards a target. Our CV90 has this system installed (think the software is still missing), it's prime use is for the AACV90, he finds a target with his radar, then he can guide the IFV version CV90 to take out the target..

I also know that a new "missile-box" system is being developed here. A box you put on the ground, contains multiple missiles, anyone within a certain range from the box can take controll over it and use the missiles, by radio or whatever fancy system they come up with. The problem right now is to develope the controll device. The nice thing is that the rifle squad can leave all heavy AT weapons at home, and use these boxes if a tank is coming.

[ShermansWar]

Not sure what this has to do with anything, but it looked interesting.
.................................................. .................................................. ..

Navy NewsStand

Story Number: NNS050909-08
Release Date: 9/9/2005 12:37:00 PM

From Naval Air Systems Command Public Affairs

PATUXENT RIVER, Md. (NNS) -- The Hunter Standoff Killer Team (HSKT) advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD) is a step closer to demonstrating combined-force interoperability after successful test events here April 19 and Aug. 17.

The Navy has been participating with the Army-led advanced concept technology demonstration since 2002. The objective is to team Army helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), with joint forces' strike fighter aircraft to identify and prosecute time-sensitive targets from beyond standoff range.

“I applaud today's joint demonstration - a great step toward networking the services and the assets they bring to bear,” said Rear Adm. Tim Heely, Program Executive Officer, Strike Weapons and Unmanned Aviation. “Bringing together the hardware, datalinks, and warfighting expertise from three services clearly articulates our defense department's vision for interoperability in the 21st century battlespace.”

During the test events, assets from the Navy, Army and Air Force came together on the ramps and taxiways of VX-23 at Pax River and successfully sent, received and networked precision targeting and supporting messages.

The events included an Army command and control UH-60A helicopter (A2C2X) from Fort Eustis, Va., an F/A-18 Hornet from Pax River’s VX-23, and an Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle from the 4th Fighter Wing at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C.

Target data was sent over the Link 16 electronic data link from the Army A2C2X to the F/A-18 and the F-15E for the first time. Additionally, the messages were networked with the Surface Aviation Integration Laboratory at Pax River.

Link 16 is an advanced digital data link. It provides high-speed, computer-to-computer, jam-resistant, secure digital voice and data communications for command, control, and communications.

Ultimately, the demonstration team is working towards a larger scale flight test in the fall at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., to include the same airborne assets, plus a Hunter UAV and an AH-64 Apache helicopter. This will be the first demonstration and use of a combined force of slow- and fast-moving aircraft to prosecute targets using a seamless process, including digital Link 16 message, from sensor to shooter in a joint environment.

[DrDevice]

What i can comment on now, and what is interesting, is the thrust of your original post, which is that it is computer interface and the level at which they can cross share information which is defining the difference between the tactical and the operational as you see it.Is that right?If and when they push that barrier downward will you then consider that level as the boundary between Operational and tactical?

The information exchange should not change the level of the conflict. Tactical is still tactical and operational is still operational. The command decisions and considerations for each still remain separate and distinct. The information sharing makes the C2 decisions more fluid, maybe and gives everyone a better picture of the situation, but it doesn't fundamentally alter the "size factor" that separates the two.

"2-7. Operations usually imply broader dimensions of time and space than tactics; the strategic orientation at the operational level requires commanders to look beyond the immediate situation. While tactical commanders fight the current battle, operational commanders look deeper in time, space, and events. They seek to shape the possibilities of upcoming events in advance to create the most favorable conditions possible for subordinate commanders, whose tactical activities execute the campaign. Likewise, operational commanders anticipate the results of battles and engagements, and prepare to exploit them to obtain the greatest strategic advantage."

So no matter the information flow, the tactical fight is immediate, the operational one looks beyond. The extensive systems Rat talked about have great effect on how units at various levels talk to one another. They have HUGE implications for speeding and improving JTF operations. But they shouldn't change the doctrine on operations vs. tactics. The tactical leader will still not have time or need, to consider events beyond his control and responsibility. The operational commander might now the detailed tactical situation, thanks to great information management, but he stil has to keep his hands off and let his leaders fight.

[Ratseal]

The reason that I feel that technology has a role in defining the boundary between Strategic, Operational and Tactical C2 is because the commander which can command forces and control engagements is becoming steadily more senior. Four star COCOMs routinely provide execution orders and monitor brevity code lists, in part, because the technology allows them to.

Even when the 4 star doesn't reach down to the regimental level, he can watch the unfolding preparations and subsequent operation and make near real time adjustments to the OPLAN, and watch, as in a matter of minutes, the changes to movement or fires commands filter down to battalion level.

In some cases, the actual trigger puller is cued by a staff which in turn is directly communicating with the COCOM. This is not an endorsement of this practice, but it the fact that it occurs is recorded.

Obviously, this kind of 1:1 C2 relationship can only be micromanaged in either very small conflicts or within the context of a large conflict with a few selected operations.

With respect to the question from Sherm about machine to machine data exchange, where weapons are part of the sensor-shooter network, this is actually in practice now. You can ID which A/C, by tail number, are carrying which weapons on which stations, and also see whether or not those weapons are assigned to discrete targets, all the way to the DMPI. Data can move from a sniper/observer to a RF link to a AOC or AOC like construct, through a target package generator, back onto the RF link, up to a cockpit and directly into a weapon, in a matter of minutes. All this can be observed, and if deemed necessary, modified from very senior theater staffs. The US leads the world in this technology - and it is a_lot_harder than you might think.

I think that a useful filter for discerning between tactical and operational C2 is the time factor. Tactical leaders, for the most part, are concerned with real time data - and they are making execution decision _right_now_. Operational C2 is for the theater commander through the large scale engagement commander that is making decisions with data that ranges from seconds to hour old. Clearly, the scope of the forces commanded is a factor, but the ability of technology to make near real time situational awareness available on a micro level enables very senior leaders to more directly control the fight.

The number of devices which are networked into the C4ISR net within US DoD is astonishing, and increasing. We have the best C2 in the world - and there are still substantial gaps. I agree with Doc that the level to which interfaces enable machine to machine data sharing, and therefore a more granular COP should_not_ determine the boundary between Op and Tac C2, but using the quoted FM, it seems pretty straightforward that there is downwards pressure - which is to say, more senior personnel are sticking their fingers into the tactical pie. In the old days, if your boss kept looking over your shoulder, your PRC77 could go mysteriously go TU. Now, your RF link (PRC117/PSC5 etc.) is your realtime lifeline to air support, arty, intel, medevac and it is on 24x7. That link (lower case L) is an important part of the net.

The other Link (upper case L) refers to the (mostly) airborne RF net which is used for tactical, real time, C2, especially with A/C. Examples include Link16 (air), Link 11 (surface ships) etc.

[ShermansWar]

Very informative and i do appreciate the insight. I would ask, if you wish to educate the uninitiated( and I have spent the better part of the day referencing stuff from your first post) that, when you use these acronyms, you explain what they mean, cause I dont understand most of them, I dont know the average layman or armchair general does, although I am trying to fill in the gaps, and appreciate your info.

what is:
C2-command and control?
COCOMs
RF link
AOC consrtuct

I actually know what C4ISR is, I think,lol.

Thanks.

[ShermansWar]

Out of curiosity, to go back to a point made earlier in this ever morphing thread,would you consider the CO, of a scen that involves 40-50 tanks and three dozen PCs to be functioning on the operational level, or do you define operational level soley based on the level at which higher functions , such as logistics , airsupport, UAVcoordination comes in, etc etc.

If so, would you consider a CO of an SB scenario in SB pro, with its tankers and ammo trucks and other vehicles and logistics considerations to be functioning on an operational level? I also think you dont make much of a distinction between the operationl level and the strategic.

There is a town, in NW Iraq, that as we speak, is being surrounded by "coalition" forces, berms have been constructed around the town( unlike past operations, where we always lef a means of Egress) civilians are being evacuated and we are preparing for a major assult, at some point in what i suspect is the not too distant future.Do you consider the planning and execution of this"operational" level, or, in a restricted campaign like iraq, does it rise to the level of the strategic.? i think it does. i recognize the scope of the operation will be well within what we call, operational level, but i think in it's planning, and design, with considerations I see being made, and adjustments to tactics being made as the result of experiences in prior operations, I think, this is strategic in scope, especially when when considers the scope of the war, and the rsults that they are looking for, specifically, the closing of supply routes into Iraq Via the syrian border.

What do you think?

[Ratseal]

what is:
C2-command and control?
COCOMs
RF link
AOC consrtuct

I actually know what C4ISR is, I think,lol.

Thanks.

NP.

C2 = Command and Control
C4ISR = C2 plus Comms, Computers, Intel, Surveillance and Recon
COCOMs = Combatant Commanders (new name for CinC)
RF link = radio frequency
AOC = Air Operations Center (usually 1-2 per theater)

[3Star]

I would submit that the chap in charge of the talafar jaunt is an operational level commander. The operation is 'Capture Talafar'. The tactical level is where you get down to platoon and section/squad level where they are engaging opposition forces.

The strategic level is still at a much higher level. "Colonel, I'm giving you a brigade to capture Talafar. General, you will detach a battalion from your unit over there to give to the colonel. Here are your priorities and this is the desired endstate'

Or in my case:
"The elections are going to be held in a month's time. We can expect the enemy to launch a campaign to disrupt or discredit them all over the country. We shall focus our primary effort on the city of Mosul, and this is what I'm going to send up to Mosul to make it happen" (Cue our little jaunt up that direction)

I would consider SB/SBPRO to be predominantly a tactical operation. It's a single fight (possibly involving a few smaller skirmishes) over a very short period of time and using whatever logistics you happened to bring to the fight. Having the odd tanker/ammo truck hidden away behind the hill isn't going to be enough to categorise it as an operation since there is no lindication of prioritising or requesting outside of what you started with or have already allocated to you.

NTM

[DrDevice]

Just to parrot FM 3.0 once again:
The strategic level is that level at which a nation, often as one of a group of nations, determines national and multinational security objectives and guidance and develops and uses national resources to accomplish them. Strategy is the art and science of developing and employing armed forces and other instruments of national power in a synchronized fashion to secure national or multinational objectives. The National Command Authorities (NCA) translate policy into national strategic military objectives. These national strategic objectives facilitate theater strategic planning. Military strategy, derived from policy, is the basis for all operations.

The action in Iraq is NOT getting anywhere near crossing the line between strategic and operational level. At least not by any US Army definition thereof. It is an operational issue that has implications that affect the strategic goal. Just like all operational levels, they have an effect both up and down the levels of war.

The simple analogy is this: Chess is a tactical game. It involves the movement of pieces on the board that have established rules and capabilities.

A chess ladder is an example of an operational fight. You decide (as best you can) which opponents to fight. Deciding what groups of pieces to commit to a given board would be an operational level decision, although not one available in chess.

The strategic fight is choosing what pieces to build, what capabilities and rules they follow and under what conditions you are willing to have a chess match. These are strategic decisions. (Again, per US Army policy. I'm sure others think otherwise.)

SBProPE does not offer operational decisions. It expands and enhances the depth of tactical considerations. Fuel, ammo and other factors are "rounded out" in SB. They are "assumed." For instance: your artillery support level is set in the scenario itself, and has NOTHING to do with Forward Observers, LOS, observed fires, etc. Even the delay of fire missions is abstracted. This is a function of “what works” in a simulation that is several years old.

ProPE defines many of these things. It makes BETTER tactical simulations possible. But it does not model operational level concerns any better than SB. It’s still a tactical game. Not operational.

As Rat mentioned - the more info across levels, the more we have to re-train and reinforce the concept of "let the CO do his job." Second guessing the man on the scene just because you have the intel is a sure way to lose the fight.

The SB equivalent is having an observer with no vehicles screaming useless, redundant information into TS while you are trying to execute an engagement. Micromanagement is still bad, even if intelligence is perfect.

BTW – the description of just how complex C4ISR is, makes you appreciate the modern battlefield. It makes moot many of the “but OUR armor is 10mm thicker and we have XYZ whizbang gadget” arguments. When you focus on the system over the overall fight, you are not seeing the whole picture. Those that underestimate the information fight are sorely missing out on the concept of modern warfare.

[Ratseal]

Sry Sherm, I didn't answer your question directly - All SB/SBProPE sce's reflect operational C2 decisions that have already been made, but are, from a point of gameplay, all about tactical C2. In fact, one of the greatest drawbacks of SB, from a holisitic SIM perspective, is that the tactical commander has damn near perfect C2, including comms up and down the chain.

Somewhere on the List should be the ability to introduce 'C2 noise' into the sim, it would really increase the level of fingernail biting.

WRT operational C2, I think that it could be introduced into the sim by having in scenario adjustments to your victory conditions - for example, you get a radio tx ordering you to break off an attack and shift your flank to support another operational C2 objective. How you execute that order becomes tactical C2.

[3Star]

The problem with the definition of strategy in the FM quoted above is that most people categorise it as 'Grand Strategy'

There are five generally accepted levels of military thinking:
Grand Strategy (Strategy per the FM above)
Theater Strategy (Strategy per my example above)
Operational (Such as the operation to capture Talafar). This is a fairly recent concept in Western theory, but the Soviets had developed it long ago
Tacital: The employment of maneuver forces at a level below that of worrying about sustainability requirements.
Technical: Down to the individual crew or soldier level, making sure they knew how to get to best out of their equipment.

NTM

[DrDevice]

Agreed.

The US Army model does offer several subdivisions for each of its three levels of war too. For instance: National Policy, Theatre Strategy, and Campaigns are all sub-levels of the Strategic Level. Campigns actually sit on the break between Strategic and Operational levels, as Battles are the link between Operational and Tactical.

[Rogue6g]

Excellent idea Sherm!!










....late as usual :oops: