'Armor Magazine' tactical challenges

[Stewy]

G'day guys,
Probably a repost - but just came across this...
http://www.knox.army.mil/armormag/vignettes.htm

Some .pdf files that have real tactical challenges for Armoured Commanders to solve and provide a successful outcome in a time limit...

I haven't read many of them yet - but it'd be great to try and emulate these in SB and see what happens!

[mapman]

I believe HotTom has done a few of these:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=8599

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=8665

[HotTom]

Yup. They are excellent platoon-level exercises within the context of battalion operations.

Both Durango Valley and Dogwood Crossing were blatantly stolen from Tactical Vignettes. I provided the problem without a solution and then versions with the magazine's favorite solutions.

I plan to do more once I finish the Golan Heights Campaign, maybe another month or two.

But Stewy, if you want to try some, please do. I don't hold the copyright.

It's taking the vignettes a big step further than the magazine. In Armor, what you had to do was come up with a solution and write the proper operations order and frag orders (which, based on the briefings I've seen in SB, very few people in this sim know how to do). It was never intended by the magazine that these would actually be played out in a simulator.

The hard part is finding terrain to fit the magazine's scenario. I think I know every map in SB by heart by now.

And any mission that's totally scripted (as opposed to the "lazy man's" concept of designing a scenario by throwing a couple of dozen units on a map) involves lots and lots of testing and tweaking. Figure a week of solid work on each one (good thing I'm retired).

It's very time-intensive but, Stewy, from the amount of posting you do on this forum, I would say that, like me, you have entirely too much time on your hands anyway. Go for it! :)

HT

[Stewy]

he he, thanks for the info HT - I'll give your scenarios a go (I actually haven't DL'd ANY missions yet...must fix that :)

As for too much time on my hands...yes, am enjoying holidays at the moment ;)

Stew

[RecceDG]

In Armor, what you had to do was come up with a solution and write the proper operations order and frag orders (which, based on the briefings I've seen in SB, very few people in this sim know how to do).

SITUATION

ENEMY

The BC is making me write an Op O for one of these "Tactical Vignettes" from some old musty Yank magazine. He calls it "Professional Development" but I call it "a serious waste of my time".

FRIENDLY

Google found the solution for me.

MISSION

42 will copy down the school solution to the "Tactical Vignette" from the Internet, and then give it to the BC so he'll get off my back.

EXECUTION

General Outline

This mission will take place in 3 phases:

Phase 1: Copy down the solution from the Internet

Phase 2: Hand the solution to the BC

Phase 3: Go hide in the Snakepit (he'll never look for me there)

Co-Ordinating Instructions

Timings:

1400 hrs: Hide in the mess
1330 hrs: Hand solution to the BC
1300 hrs: Copy down solution
1250 hrs: Google the solution

SERVICE SUPPORT

Per SOP.

Pen resupply through the SQ

COMMAND AND SIGS

Frequencies: NIL

Codewords: NIL

Password: BOGUS

Night Recognition: Any combination of 8 RED

Timecheck: GPS

QUESTIONS FROM

QUESTIONS TO

DG

[GaryOwen]

The Marine Corps Gazette runs a similar feature, Tactical Decison Games.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/tdgpdf.asp

The emphasis is not as armor centric as the Tactical Vignettes, nevertheless, they are a very good source of ideas.

[HotTom]

One of the key features of both is they give you only five minutes to come up with a solution AND write and issue your FRAGO.

I wish we could set limits on planning time in SB. It would add a lot of realism.

DG, well, at least you know the titles of the five paragraphs in an OPORD. That's a start...:)

HT

[Sockeye]

I think the only problem with having a time-limit in the planning phase as far as SB is concerned, is that while it might take five minutes to come up with a plan, it usually takes (me atleast) alot more than five minutes to sort out the routes, triggers, etc etc.

But with that said, your productions of the Tactical Vignettes, HotTom, are a couple of my favourite scenarios. I say "a couple..." because you've only done a couple of them so far :biggrin:

Lookin' forward to seein' some more of 'em :drink:

[HotTom]

Thank you!

I really want to finish the Golan series first. Three more chapters and it will be a complete campaign. Not as challenging tactically since it's all scripted but some good gunnery practice on difficult terrain. And it all really happened.

Yeah, I like those Tactical Vignettes. I'll do more. In fact, I book marked the Marine Corps series Gary Owen posted above for future plagarism. I just wish I could think up scenarios that good without stealing 'em from a magazine :)

And five minutes? Hey, if you go through an officer or NCO leadership reaction course, that's all they give you on a platoon level problem, usually with an instructor yelling "What you gonna do now, lieutenant?" in your ear. Once an operation starts, at small unit level, it's all FRAGOs. Just tweaking the original plan. The trick is that there is no wrong answer -- except doing nothing :confused:

HT

[DrDevice]

Sure... but 5 minutes to explain to human subordinates is one thing - programming a bunch of AI-driven tanks to have some semblance of real action is a whole 'nother issue! :Crash:

So I think time limits for MP planning would rock. But any SP use would be futility in the extreme. Something I'd like to see for any competitive games is the issuance of the scenario X minutes before game time. Everyone logs in, planning lasts X minutes, and you go. It's tough, but realistic.

RE: TV scenarios - I have a version of "Cobra's Counterreconnaissance Fight" that is nearly done, and a "Screen at Croley Lake" that needs some tweaking. I'll see if I can finish them up in the next few weeks.

And HT is spot-on in the fact that finding a map the "fits" a TV is tough if you are a stickler for detail! :)

[KiwiXO]

Hello, Have you ever made the map for the "vig" as a custom map in SB Pro, and then post it out to Ironside users? ... with Red (or Blue, depending on your point of view- LOL ) being password protected, of course! Sort of working backwards...

KiwiXO
MOONBEAM

[DrDevice]

Sure. The "custom map" has been my solution every time. However, there is no (simple) way to make a custom height map, which means searching a lot for the right piece of elevation to use. Adding the features is not too tough, but getting the right combination of hills and elevations to make the map look natural is a bit tougher.

[KiwiXO]

Roger! I've converted a few TEWTs into SB, and the response is favourable - noting that we need to be wary of "mathmatactics" when looking at the end results.

KiwiXO
MOONBEAM

[SFViper19D]

SITUATION

ENEMY

The BC is making me write an Op O for one of these "Tactical Vignettes" from some old musty Yank magazine. He calls it "Professional Development" but I call it "a serious waste of my time".

FRIENDLY

Google found the solution for me.

MISSION

42 will copy down the school solution to the "Tactical Vignette" from the Internet, and then give it to the BC so he'll get off my back.

EXECUTION

.
.
.
.

QUESTIONS FROM

QUESTIONS TO

DG

LOL! Cute, DG. That's cute.:)

[DemolitionMan]

I found this link to an interactive story of WW2 armoured warfare, check it out it´s pretty good: http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/armwar/armwareng.html

[Mogwa]

(which, based on the briefings I've seen in SB, very few people in this sim know how to do).

Sigh...

Many of us here are professional Soldiers. Many of us have written textbook Op orders for sce's, only to have people read them and then ask "what are we supposed to do?" This is the reason most briefings in an sce are general and simply cover the objectives and restrictions of the mission.
I urge people to refrain from making sweeping generalizations.

Mog

[HotTom]

Jeeze, Mogwa, I wrote that on December 7. Today is May 15. Just catching up? :)

I urge people to refrain from dredging up ancient threads.

And I used to be a professional soldier (for 28 years and two wars). They retired me when I got too old. And, in my book, there is only one way to issue an order, whether you're sending some troops down to the motor pool to paint battery boxes or sending a whole division out to fight: It consists of five paragraphs.

Do you want a sim or do you want a game?

S!

HT

[tarball]

There's room for any briefing which is clear, concise and makes intentions known. The civilians in here (I am one of them) can and do learn from you guys, but we just don't have the experience. It is clearly easy enough to emulate what you do, but there's nothing wrong with a non-standard briefing either.

Good ideas are good ideas, regardless of packaging and delivery.

And then we have "One man's treasure..." to contend with.

The important thing is to keep on keepin' on.

[RecceDG]

That being said though, the standard NATO orders format, when followed and well written, makes for a clear and concise briefing.

One place where perhaps Real Soldiers might go a touch astray is the sin of making the Op O overly complex for the sim. Unless there is in-scenario resupply, for example, there's no need for a detailed SERVICE SUPPORT paragraph.

A good SB mission brief is more of a FRAGO, whose rough definition is "the parts of a NATO standard brief that have changed vice the current situation"

Here's a template:

SITUATION

a. Enemy

b. Friendly

i. Intent 2 up (if Troop Leader, CO's intent)

ii. Intent and scheme of manouvre 1 up (if Troop Leader, OC's intent and scheme of manouvure)

MISSION

a. (statement of mission. For extra cool points, use the approved mission verbs)

EXECUTION

a. General Outline: (a description of what is going to happen, usually broken down into phases)

b. Groupings and Tasks: (who does what in each phase)

c. Co-ordinating Instructions: (details of the tasks; always timings, but may include other pertinent stuff)

SERVICE SUPPORT

(probably not needed for a typical SB scenario)

COMMAND AND SIGNALS

(probably not needed for a typical SB scenario)

DG

[HotTom]

There's room for any briefing which is clear, concise and makes intentions known. The civilians in here (I am one of them) can and do learn from you guys, but we just don't have the experience. It is clearly easy enough to emulate what you do, but there's nothing wrong with a non-standard briefing either.

Good ideas are good ideas, regardless of packaging and delivery.

And then we have "One man's treasure..." to contend with.

The important thing is to keep on keepin' on.


Tarball, with great respect (really), I disagree. There IS something VERY wrong with a non-standard briefing.

For starters, it's wrong :)

"Packaging and delivery" count very much if you are trying to accurately model reality. And the "one man's treasure" concept is just horse crap. It's a lame excuse for not doing things properly.

"Keeep on keepin' on" doing it incorrectly? Nice bumper sticker, maybe, but why not model the scenarios as accurately as the vehicles?

If you value the fidelty of the vehicle models in SB (and I think we all do), then the scenarios should have the same fidelity in tactics, communications and procedures.

"Walk the walk and talk the talk" is (or should be) part of the immersion. Writing good Op Orders and Frag Orders is just as important as using the terrain and shooting straight. It's the third part of "shoot, move and communicate".

There is nothing magical or mysterious about the format.

It's in DG's post above. I concede the military is over-prone to using abbreviations and acronyms and I try to spell them out. But "NLT 0800" simply means you had better be there by (Not Later Than) 8 a.m. "OO" means "on order," or "don't execute the next phase until the Old Man tells you to." It isn't any more complicated than kids using text messaging.

There are some terms that are very specific in their definitions. Attached means the attaching unit commander tells them what to do but can't court martial them for not doing it, for example. General Support ("Get in line with everyone else in the division, bub.") and Direct Support ("I am here to serve ONLY you.") have clear definitions. The military uses all that terminology because (in theory) everyone understands it and we are reading off the same sheet of music.

In SB you really don't have to get to that level of detail but you do need to give a clear mission, a commander's intent and what subordinate units are expected to do.

Squad leaders and Theater commanders use exactly the same format. In small units, it's usually entirely verbal and the overlay is some scratches in the dust made with a stick. In large units the OPORD is fairly short but it has a pile of annexes the size of a metropolitan phone book.

But it's always the same five paragraphs. They work. It's been used at least back to the Civil War, I believe.

Granted, the meaning some of the terminology may not be self-evident. A Frag Order is simply an amendment to the original Operations Order (you only change those "fragments" of the order that need changing; saves you the time of repeating stuff your subordinates already have). They are issued throughout the operation.

But you can look it up. You can look up just about anything in Google :)

And it's all supplemented by an overlay (or a finger sketch in the sand) that draws you a picture.

The part that bewilders me is that SB gives you the correct briefing format (except for Paragraph 4, which is missing for some odd reason, but you don't need it in SB) and many, many scenario writers erase it. They replace it with "The enemy is up thar in them hills. Take the units I gave you and clear them out within 40 minutes."

On the overlay is a scattering of disconnected unit symbols. It's up to the player to figure it out.

Well, no, in the real world, your boss will have some very specific guidance for you.

If you want to simulate reality when you are writing a (let's say company size) mission, you hand the player (the company commander) an Op Order issued by his (or her) battalion commander along with an overlay.

Anything less just tells me you're not simulating it, you are faking it. And that's okay if all you want to do is play a game and blow stuff up.

I believe, at least on a platoon and company level, SB can be used to simulate the real deal. It is, after all, first and foremost (we are constantly reminded by The Creators) a military training aid. Not a toy :)

Incidentally, I'm almost finished with a new Tactical Vignette. Should be up by the end of the week. And yes, it has an Op Order and part of the requirement is to write a Frag Order.

That's the Armor School's requirement, not mine :)

HT

[RecceDG]

Lest all that scare everybody off, here is an example FRAGO for a potential scenario:

(note that it is a FRAGO - a fragmented order - instead of an Op O - an operations order - because the Op O will contain a ton of instructions necessary to running a real army that are utterly inapplicable to a SB scenario. A FRAGO lets you take all those as a given and concentrate on just what is different from the main Op O)

----------------------------
You are Callsign 12, Troop Leader for 2 Troop, 8th Canadian Hussars, equipped with Leopard 2A6, stationed near the northern border between FANTASIA and ORANGELAND. The 8CH is providing tank support to Joint Task Force AARDVARK, as part of IOPF (International Orangeland Protection Force)

JTF ARRDVARK's primary mission is the ejection of FANTASIAN troops from ORANGELAND. The task force has been conducting offensive ops for the past week, and the Fantasians have been steadily retreating back towards the border. Your troop is currently located in a troop hide doing some much needed maintainance, when the Squadron LO drives up and hands you the following FRAGO:

SITUATION

a. Enemy: Recce has discovered what appears to be a platoon-sized mechanized infantry unit dug in around a farmhouse at grid 123 456, oriented south. Probes made around their flanks revealed no supporting units nor any protective obstacles or minefields; they appear to be unsupported at this time. The current assessment of their intent is that they have become separated from their parent unit and have holed up until reinforcements can arrive. They appear to be equipped with Soviet-style equipment: BMP-2, SAGGER, RPG-13, and the usual small arms. It is unknown if they have access to artillery.

b. Friendly: A Squadron 8CH

c. Attachments/Detachments: Golf 23, FOO for 31 RCA, with two batteries of M777 155mm howitzers in support

d. TF Commander's Intent: to aggressively pursue FANTASIAN forces operating in ORANGELAND and either destroy them or force them to withdraw out of ORANGELAND territory.

e. Combat Team Commander's Intent and Scheme of Manouvre: to identify, fix, and destroy all FANTASIAN forces in the CT Area of Operations. Recce leading, A Sqn in the van, and 1 RCR as the main body. A Sqn to carry out quick attacks against PL sized or smaller units on own initiative; larger units will be engaged with a CT deliberate attack.

MISSION

A Sqn 8CH will destroy the enemy position at grid 123 456 through the aggressive use of fire and manouvre

EXECUTION

a. General Outline: This mission will be a left flanking Sqn quick attack in 3 phases:

i. Phase 1: move to the Line of Departure
ii. Phase 2: Conduct attack
iii. Phase 3: Consolidate and reorg

b. Groupings and Tasks: 2 Tp will provide the firebase, 1 Tp and 3 Tp the flanking force.

Phase 1: 1 Tp and 3 Tp move to LD SONIC TEMPLE near grid 110 340. 2 Tp move to fire positions near grid 123 300 oriented north.

Phase 2: 1 Tp and 3 Tp assault point HENHOUSE from LD SONIC TEMPLE. 2 Tp provide fire support.

Phase 3: 1 Tp and 3 Tp take up fire positions near PL BAITED BREATH oriented north. 2 Tp to remain in position in Sqn reserve/depth position in case of the arrival of enemy reinforcements.

c. Timings: Phase 1: move now. Phase 2 and 3: on order

SERVICE SUPPORT

No change from Op O

COMMAND AND SIGS

Triggers/Codewords: BATTERS BOX - issue this trigger when in position
FAST BALL: start assault (phase 2)
HOME RUN: adopt reorg positions (phase 3)

--------------------------------------

Now, here's how this is set up in the mission editor:

Player has control of 1 x 4-tank troop

Also on the map are:
2 x 4-tank troops
1 x 1 tank CO element (this is the OC)
1 x 1 tank XO element (this is the BC)
1 x FISTV (Golf 23, the FOO)

As soon as the scenario starts, the two other tank troops plus the OC start moving towards HENHOUSE (which is a line on the map) The player's troop is located in a wooded patch to the south of the firebase grid.

The player is expected to move his force to the firebase and arrange them in fire positions overlooking the objective.

Trigger BATTERS BOX: player is to issue this trigger when he is in position. When it is issued, Golf 23 will start moving to his location. Sends radio message "1, this is 12, BATTERS BOX now, over"

Conditions:

BB1: TRUE once 1 Tp has arrived at HENHOUSE. Sends radio message "1, this is 11, BATTERS BOX now, over"

BB2: TRUE once 3 Tp has arrived at HENHOUSE. Sends radio message "1, this is 13, BATTERS BOX now, over"

(between these two examples, it is expected that the player figures out what is going on)

FB: TRUE when conditions BB1, BB2, and trigger BATTERS BOX are true. Delay 20 seconds, then:

1) Starts 1 Tp, 3 Tp, and the OC moving towards objective,

2) Fires a smoke mission across their frontage,

3) Spawns enemy on objective, (3 x BMP2, 1 X T72)

4) Spawns enemy counterattack force and starts them moving (3 x T72), and

5) Issues radio message "Charlie Charlie 1, this is 19, FASTBALL now, out"

HR: TRUE when enemy units on objective are destroyed. Issues radio message "Charlie Charlie 1, this is 1, HOME RUN now, out" and gets the 2 tank troops and the OC moving towards the BAITED BREATH phase line.

There are more conditions for handling the enemy counterattack and committing the player (as the Sqn reserve) based on Sqn strength and the counterattack getting spotted... but those are left as an exercise for the student.

Heh, I should do this one up, given that I already wrote most of it.

Anyway, this should show how a FRAGO is written and how it translates to a scenario.

DG

[Kingtiger]

CT?

[RecceDG]

Combat Team, a combined arms formation of less than Bde size but otherwise unstructured.

The key words are "combined arms", which implies "ad hoc" for formations smaller than brigades.

DG

[Kingtiger]

Combat Team, a combined arms formation of less than Bde size but otherwise unstructured.

The key words are "combined arms", which implies "ad hoc" for formations smaller than brigades.

DG

OK, thx

[12Alfa]

Combat Team, a combined arms formation of less than Bde size but otherwise unstructured.

The key words are "combined arms", which implies "ad hoc" for formations smaller than brigades.

DG

Unstructured?:confused:

I would not go that far. It as it always has been either inf heavy or armoured heavy. The key elements are armour, inf, arty, and engineers. This is the structure we have been using form the begining (60's).
It's only been in the recent times (1995+) that the wiz kids have added plug and play elements .
The basic Combat team is still armoured,inf, arty, and the engineers.
Missions/ threats will change the default stucture

[HotTom]

In US doctrine, the word "Team" implies it is built around a company headquarters, either a tank company or a mech company. (I'm not gonna get into troops and squadrons and regiments, which have a totally different meaning UK/Commonwealth vs US. Gives me a headache :) ).

There can be mech or tank platoons detached from the company and given to other company teams. Or mech or tank platoons attached from other companies.

The term "attached" means they draw all their supplies and support from the company headquarters to which they are attached and performthe missions assigned by the company commander to whom they have been attached. But they still "belong" to their parent company for UCMJ authority, and remain carried on their parent company's morning report (I assume they still have those :) ), largely for pay and leave purposes.

As Alpha said, they are designated either tank heavy or mech heavy and individual platoons within a team usually are noted on maps and orders as (mech) or (tank) just to keep it straight.

In addition, there can be combat support units, usually engineers and medics, attached from the division's organic units (usually battalions belonging to Division Support Command) or even from corps level general support group assets.

Thus the teams are "tailored" for a specific mission or operation. After that mission or operation is complete, the tailoring is revised for the next mission. The only real constant is the company headquarters.

The team does NOT include artillery, although an FO may be assigned as liaison but not attached. Same with close air support. An air liaison may accompany the team. But they are not members of the team.

Arty is an animal all its own and is never attached to other combat arms. Its role may be direct support, general support or general support reinforcing. All arty assets organic to the division belong to Division Artillery and all requests for artillery support within a division usually go through DIVARTY. Again, Corps level artillery may be added to the mix but, again, never attached.

When tailoring is done at battalion level, the battalion headquarters forms the core of a Task Force (a term that in US doctrine implies battalion). Same rules apply although a battalion has a real staff structure and much more organic support capability.

Much, much more than you probably ever cared to know but my main point is this is US terminology. Other countries, even NATO partners, may have similar designations that mean something else. Case in point, CharlieB posted a new scenario today that involves a "Squadron Group." A squadron in the US is a battalion. In UK-speak it is what in the US is called a company (oooh my brain hurts!). I haven't a clue what a "Squadron Group" is or what the equivalent US term would be.

More good reasons for keeping SB missions on a company or platoon level. KISS :)

HT

[12Alfa]

.

The team does NOT include artillery, although an FO may be assigned as liaison but not attached.
HT

Yes thats what I meant. Usually 1 FOO per SQN or COY. I've seen 1per and 1 in the HQ also for a spare, one can not have enough FOO's as they tend to move too close to the front for that perfect viewing point, just to be come a sabot magnet.:men_ani:

[RecceDG]

Yeah, "unstructured" isn't a good word, in retrospect.

More like "of no pre-defined structure", being that they are ad-hoc, task-specific formations, rather than permanent formations like regiments.

HT, it's very simple: there's the US way, and then there's the right way. :D

Arty is an animal all its own and is never attached to other combat arms. Its role may be direct support, general support or general support reinforcing. All arty assets organic to the division belong to Division Artillery and all requests for artillery support within a division usually go through DIVARTY. Again, Corps level artillery may be added to the mix but, again, never attached.

For us, arty is organic to Brigades/Brigade Groups rather than Divisions... largely because we don't have any Divisions to work with. :(

I have also seen (in training) arty pushed down to smaller formations, but always to the formation commander. ie, if the formation is a roughly battalion sized Task Force, there might be arty attached to the Task Force commander (via an arty rep on his staff). Certainly you'd never see a battery attached directly to a company or combat team....

...well... almost never....

I have had an individual gun attached to me as a recce Tp Ldr, as in, I had a 105 towed howitzer and the gun tractor attached directly to my troop. It was for a convoy escort, and the gun was intended to thicken up my defensive firepower by dropping the gun and firing it over open sights (!!)

NOT my idea - I think the arty was experimenting with some new doctrinal theories. Still, it was kinda cool to have my own artillery train....

Edging back on topic though, I think it is important for scenario designers to come up with notional higher formations and their intents and schemes of manouvre. It sets the stage for the operation, sets the arcs in which the player can operate, and makes the scenario feel like part of something larger.

The scenario for the FRAGO I wrote is basically just a Sqn left flanking with the player in charge of the firebase troop. It's textbook to the point it is nearly a drill - but by siting the operation and giving it context, it sounds more impressive.

DG

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

Ref the "Orders Format" and the use of "approved mission verbs", here's the list of just what they are.

a Mission Verb (block, capture, clear, contain, cover, defend, delay, destroy, occupy, screen, secure).

a Mission Constraint. (Only if applicable): time, resources, activity or space limitations on how the mission is to be accomplished., Constraints are significant limitations on your freedom of action. ROE(rules of engagement), political controls, EMCOM may also be constraining elements.

All for now, just use what you need.

Later ..... 9erRed

[CharlieB]

DG,

Really like the sound of your mission. Have been tempted to do the same of late but keep getting scared of the scripting to be done. May have a play this afternoon to see how tricky it is.

I guess though that the key is to square away the msn in your mind/on paper before scripting the msn. Exactly as you have done above.

The verbs are also good info but those of us who spend to much time with our doctrine heads on will caution their use with a need to know the definitions. http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,27180.0.html?PHPSESSID=7b828bebba538e80ee9aa 0c96c9da775. This site has some useful info and links.

[HotTom]

Great link, CharlieB! Thanks! Some nice clear definitions in that thread.

It's comforting to know the verb list is the same and has the same meanings even if our names for units and various positions may differ. I've gotta admit, Battle Captain sounds much cooler than Company Executive Officer.

Although I still prefer the U.S. term Cav over Recce. "The Recce arriving just in the nick of time to save the settlers from the Indians" just doesn't have the same ring to it :).

HT

[CharlieB]

Well I guess we used our Cav for different things. Light CAV - recce and scouting - Hvy for destruction.

Both would argue that they bring panache to what would otherwise be an ugly scrap!

I am however a Tankie and therefore neither of the above! :)

[RecceDG]

Although I still prefer the U.S. term Cav over Recce. "The Recce arriving just in the nick of time to save the settlers from the Indians" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

*shrug* Our settlers and our Indians mostly got along....

:)

DG

[Hokie4824]

All this talk of Fragos and time limits makes me laugh, becuase at all my ROTC FTXs they always say we have so much to write our FRAGO for lanes, and nine out of ten times, they'll decided to cut the time down x number of minutes, causing cadets to have small heart attacks.

Come to think of it....I better practice my Frago/Opord speed writing for when I go to my advanced camp at Ft. Lewis in a couple weeks....:( (nervously begins to leaf through FM 7-8 and Ranger Handbook)