Recon by fire...

[Vati]

I really miss some way to order AI to recon by fire.
I think it could be doable by defining regions on the map and somehow be able to tell AI to fire at that region..
"open fire with _____ at _____ if range ____ - ____"

Same could then be used to be able to specify target priority list. As of now, for example, if you have some APC present, all will fire toward APC an no one will care for the dismounted troops having AGTM waiting until that APC is down. At least that's my experience from playing.

:thelmut:

[BRGillespie]

I.... dunno.

Firing at something just to see what's there doesn't really jive with real-world ROEs nor does it really "recon" anything. All you're doing is going "HEY, GUYS! HERE'S MY POSITION! MAKE YOUR WAY TOWARDS THE SOUND OF MY CANNON FIRE!"

:D

[TopKick]

I'd love to have a recon by fire mode for platoon command for sub caliber weapons. The platoon Lt. or Sgt. could mark the zone for recon by fire by using ctrl + R + Laze for a key combo as an example and sweep the area to be taken under fire. Defining a region like Vati mentioned or a route command to do the same would also be great. The idea is to get the enemy to move, expose his position, return fire, pin him down, or to kill him before you enter his kill zone.

I used recon by fire all the time in RVN with great results. When we didn't use it we sometimes got our ass handed to us.

This was discussed sometime ago . . . without result.

[Vati]

Thank you TopKick... I was a bit worried that I would be the only one recognizing its usefulness.
With few such conditions, some nice realistic situations could be made.
I find it a bit too sterile with current conservative ROE.

Lets hope this gets(is) on 'the list'...

:thelmut:

[TopKick]

Remember the infamous "Thunder Run" video of an armored unit moving into Bagdad? That was a basic recon by fire operation from the getgo. They fired at anything that moved or didn't move - anything that could hold or hide enemy troops - including Toyota pickup trucks.

And what is artillery but recon by fire with prejudice? "Hey FO! Gimme some HE on the side of that hill and lets see what we can dig out."

[BRGillespie]

Ohhh... okay. That'd be "movement to contact", in which you're conducting a movement into an area where enemy contact is extremely likely.

However, since SB Pro is a simulation designed for real-world applications, you're not likely to ever get a "recon by fire" option (which only exists in videogames, since you're not conducting a recon mission if you're firing at everything in creation just to see if something pops out). It's a wee bit of a violation of rules of engagement (and a lack of sense to waste the ammo) to fire ammunition off in random directions. And my statement still stands: if I were in a MP match and my opponent randomly fires shit into treestands and over hills, it wouldn't be accurate and he'd just be setting himself up for my counterfire. ;P

"Thunder Run" was more of a movement-to-contact. Still, you fire at stuff you THINK could be a threat, not just blindly wasting ammo to flush out the enemy. Also, superfluous requests to fire valuable artillery strikes at random locations "just to see what's there" would be denied. During the pre-planning phase, intelligence COULD suggest that a certain position is an enemy stronghold, and then they'd drop some arty or an airstrike on it to deny it to possible enemy... you can simulate this in-game by judging possible enemy vantage points (noticable hilltops are great targets) and dropping a few rounds in on it to deny or delay your opponent into placing units there.

I think we're dancing around the same point but using different terminology. Also, warfare's changed quite a bit. Take the late-war bombing of Dresden in WWII. It caused approximately <i>35,000</i> civilian casualties in a bombing campaign that lasted from Feb. 13th to Feb. 15th. That would never be sanctioned nor would it be allowed in today's warfare.

[Ssnake]

"Recon by fire" can be useful under certain conditions - if you suspect enemy infiltration or an ambush, so you try to preempt the enemy from achieving total surprise by pretending that he has been spotted. An example for this can be seen in "We were soldiers once..." with the detachment in the gulley. It may be Hollywood, but in a high-intensity combat environment it would be covered by ROE that are suitable for such a situation.

Another - "pre-thermals age" - case of RbF was Germans and the East Front in WW2. When camouflaged armor was expected but couldn't be seen, tracer MG fire would bounce from some "bushes" but not from others. The former would be tanks, and receive main gun fire.

[BRGillespie]

RbF (thanks for the acronym) just seems so counterintuitive. There's just such a high punishment for being wrong (from giving away your location all the way up to being counterattacked while reloading).

Besides, if someone sprays my tank with coax, it's really not going to cause me to "blow my load" and fire a round in panic. If he had REALLY known I was there, he'd have fired his main gun.

I just don't see the worth, especially when you have thermals. If you want to flush someone out, just call for arty and wait for the splash.

[Vati]

BRGillespie,

Please relax. Nobody is saying here, that there is no other way. Thing is, current options available to control AI are not flexible enough to create some forms of real life engagements. So please think more open than what you think it's the best way. Saying "this is something only stupid would do", costs usually a lot of lifes in real life.

[Storm91]

Having been a pointman by volunteer purely for 2 years-recon by fire is needed.Instead of the usual 210 combat load-pack extra like an extra 90rds to another 210.Mucho xtra ammo and good exercise,eye sight= alive recon man


The crazy grunt

[Wolfman]

Recon by fire is mostly an infantry tactic, would be used to provoke a response from a patrol base for example (allowing the attacker to see what he's up against). Works better against inexperienced units.

[RecceDG]

Au contraire, mon ami. Spec fire against suspected enemy positions has been a recce tactic since at least the Second World War.

See earlier comment about bullet-proof haystacks.

DG

[Wolfman]

Au contraire, mon ami. Spec fire against suspected enemy positions has been a recce tactic since at least the Second World War.

See earlier comment about bullet-proof haystacks.

DG

Sorry to exclude you guys, I was thinking solely about tanks when I wrote that comment. Will you forgive me?

[BRGillespie]

I suppose it's all in what you're taught when you're trained.