Fall back defense

[Tjay]

The title is probably not the correct term for the standard NATO defense of attrition while falling back through several levels of pre-planned defensive positions in order to buy time - but you know what I mean. :clin:

Whenever I've observed this in SB, it has involved the units at the forward BPs pulling back to the second set of BPs, and then the third, etc, etc. This often gives very little time for the tank units to reload and reorganise before occupying their 'second level' BPs. Would it be a viable tactic for the first and second levels to be occupied so that when it became necessary to bail out of the first layer, those units leapfrogged level 2 and went to level 3? And when the guys at the second level needed to retreat they went to level 4?

If not, I would welcome any tips as to how this sort of rolling retreat defense is best conducted. Links to RL documentation would be most acceptable. Thanks in advance.

[Kingtiger]

Your conclusions is pretty straight on. Guess it has allot to do with available force as well. But if you got the force its good to do as you say, even better upp is if the tanks in BP 2 can support the tanks from BP 1 when they fall back to BP 3 and etc.

[CR2_Commander]

The delay is one of the hardest to get right. Its always a toss up between staying to lo g taking out targets and leaving it to late, or withdrawing to early and running out of space to trade for time. Ideally you want 1 foot on the ground to cover withdrawing forces because if you leave it too late you could end up by passing the next blocking position and rushing to the next. Not very controlled and while you are running your tits off, no one will have eyes on the enemy.

[Gibsonm]

Would it be a viable tactic for the first and second levels to be occupied so that when it became necessary to bail out of the first layer, those units leapfrogged level 2 and went to level 3? And when the guys at the second level needed to retreat they went to level 4?

Sure but arguably if you have that sort of force you wouldn't be imposing the delay.

A Delay is an economy of force approach where you give up ground to gain time. If you have enough force you don't delay, you defend or even attack.

Edited December 25, 2014 by Gibsonm

[Grenny]

(besides the right things already said, "foot on the groudn" and stuff)

For a successful delay, even more as for other operations, there are 3 things that are very important: recon, recon and recon.

Once you are engaged it is hard or impossible to pull out of the fight. Our FM says: "local success increases the chance of disengagement", in other words: the enemy in front of you must be beaten, then you can bug out before reenforcement arrive.=> that degrades the enemy and buys time

Or you engage form max range...and make a runner once the 1st rounds are fired.=> that conserves your force by achieves nearly no attrition.

IOT to make that decision, you must have eyes on the enemy. Only then you jugde his strenght and then act accordingly.

While moving out you have to occupy RED with something to do: working against real or perceived enemy(eg. a DLIC or "dummy BPs"), hit him with artillery or make him cross/recon obstacles. Anything that keeps him busy for 40-60 mike must beenought for your to reach the next PL (which must already be prepared by the engineers...)

[MDF]

Tjay,

I recommend the following articles from Armor magazine, which you can get here:

"Establishing Disengagement Criteria," Nov-Dec 1984

"The Regimental Armored Cavalry Troop: Delay in Sector," (3-part series), Sep-Oct 1986, Nov-Dec 1986, Jan-Feb 1987

"Death and Destruction in the Desert," Mar-Apr 1990

"Fire Support in Disengagement: Avoiding the Point of No Return," Mar-Apr 1991

[MDF]

While moving out you have to occupy RED with something to do: working against real or perceived enemy(eg. a DLIC or "dummy BPs")...)

As we at United Operations know from recent experience, a DLIC is so effective that it will scare off most of the enemy's main body.:bigsmile:

[Tjay]

Thanks for all the very useful replies. And on Christmas day, too. :luxhello:

I'll reply to some of those posts with Requests for More Information - if available. As most will realise, this thread is connected to UKA's Hasty Defence mission on Wednesday 23rd. We will almost certainly run this again on Wed 10 Jan.

[Tjay]

Sure but arguably if you have that sort of force you wouldn't be imposing the delay.

A Delay is an economy of force approach where you give up ground to gain time. If you have enough force you don't delay, you defend or even attack.

Might it not be that you have enough force to man the first and second layers of BPs but not - in the light of seriously heavy OPFOR - be able to hold those positions or counter attack? I've always understood that 'falling back/delay' tactics were, in fact, a form of defense, but maybe I've misunderstood. I guess what I'm asking is whether if conductiing a fallback/ delaying operation it would ever be a good idea to spread your forces over two layers of defensive postions or would you always put the whole force up front and then pull units back progressively to the second level?

[Gibsonm]

And on Christmas day, too. :luxhello:

Nope that was yesterday.

Today is Yacht race start and first day of the Boxing Day test.

I'll reply to some of those posts with Requests for More Information - if available. As most will realise, this thread is connected to UKA's Hasty Defence mission on Wednesday 23rd. We will almost certainly run this again on Wed 10 Jan.

Well I think I already bored Crusty and Hedge silly "on the night".

Basically the frontage is too wide (even before you add the optional left hook) and the position is too shallow (there is no secondary or tertiary BP line between where you start and the Enemy's objective) to really work with what you have.

You have one line of hills and then nothing until the wooden feature behind Red's objective.

Add to that the lack of TI (intentional) and the initial positions are too widely spread to provide interlocking arcs, mutual support, etc.

[Tjay]

Tjay,

I recommend the following articles from Armor magazine, which you can get here:

"Establishing Disengagement Criteria," Nov-Dec 1984

"The Regimental Armored Cavalry Troop: Delay in Sector," (3-part series), Sep-Oct 1986, Nov-Dec 1986, Jan-Feb 1987

"Death and Destruction in the Desert," Mar-Apr 1990

"Fire Support in Disengagement: Avoiding the Point of No Return," Mar-Apr 1991

Many thanks Palladin. I'm sure those articles will answer my question. Good job it's a four-day Christmas holiday. :clin:

[Tjay]

Nope that was yesterday.

Today is Yacht race start and first day of the Boxing Day test.

Well I think I already bored Crusty and Hedge silly "on the night".

Basically the frontage is too wide (even before you add the optional left hook) and the position is too shallow (there is no secondary or tertiary BP line between where you start and the Enemy's objective) to really work with what you have.

You have one line of hills and then nothing until the wooden feature behind Red's objective.

Add to that the lack of TI (intentional) and the initial positions are too widely spread to provide interlocking arcs, mutual support, etc.

Thanks Mark. I thought there were at least two three or four decent 'platoon-sized' defensive positions between the initial positions and Red's objective. In the past we have used these quite effectively once we'd pulled back from our initial postions, but OPFOR was much lighter then. But we'll obviously have to take another look at the map in the light of your comments. Perhaps you can suggest another map on which it would be easier to design the sort of mission that we are after?

[CR2_Commander]

Might it not be that you have enough force to man the first and second layers of BPs but not - in the light of seriously heavy OPFOR - be able to hold those positions or counter attack? I've always understood that 'falling back/delay' tactics were, in fact, a form of defense, but maybe I've misunderstood. I guess what I'm asking is whether if conductiing a fallback/ delaying operation it would ever be a good idea to spread your forces over two layers of defensive postions or would you always put the whole force up front and then pull units back progressively to the second level?

Usually the delay is carried out but the tank squadron. The withdrawal can be used to shape the OPFOR ( in conjunction with the wider picture ie at Brigade or Div level) to lure them in to your Main Defence Area (MDA). The squadron withdraws to the MDA where the infantry ( obviously dug in, overlapping arcs etc halt the enemy advance with their layered defence ( ATGW into main armament into LAW etc). Once the OPFOR has lost momentum, what's left of the tanks/ reserves counter attack pushing back or destroying the rest. Well that's usually the plan. In reality.......

[Tjay]

On the other hand, rather than creating a mission from scratch, perhaps there's already a suitable scenario in the downloads section. If anyone can point me in the right direction, that would be excellent.

[Gibsonm]

Might it not be that you have enough force to man the first and second layers of BPs but not - in the light of seriously heavy OPFOR - be able to hold those positions or counter attack? I've always understood that 'falling back/delay' tactics were, in fact, a form of defense, but maybe I've misunderstood. I guess what I'm asking is whether if conductiing a fallback/ delaying operation it would ever be a good idea to spread your forces over two layers of defensive positions or would you always put the whole force up front and then pull units back progressively to the second level?

I don't think you understood (perhaps too much Christmas cheer ) or I was unclear. Below I'm mixing general concepts with scenario specific examples so trying to apply the general principles to the mission we played.

The reason why you are delaying is because most of your force has been moved somewhere else. The senior sirs have accepted trading space for time "here" so they can mass force to attack "there".

If they leave enough "here" to let you have two BP lines, then they haven't taken enough away to make the attack "there" work.

I also depends on how long you need to delay for (again detail not in the played scenario).

Lots of delay implies multiple fall back positions and the risk of decisive engagement. Short delay may allow you to have everything up front, give the enemy a bloody nose and while he is reorganising you have achieved the delay required.

In theory you don't delay against the full on attack, you delay against an advance.

So a doctrinal Soviet Battalion advance has waves of recce (from various levels) and then a Combat Reconnaissance Patrol (CRP), an Advance Guard (Coy(-)) and a Main Body (rest of the Bn).

Your Blue delay force can’t do much about the Recce as they are mostly behind you when you occupy the position.

You can however hit the CRP, this burns time as the Soviets start their battle procedure for the Advance Guard to conduct their “encounter battle”.

This is a Company quick attack and can be defeated by the forces Blue had in the scenario.

Assuming success, more time is consumed as the Bn does the battle procedure for its Battalion quick attack.

This time alone might well be the amount of delay you are required to impose so you can pack up, move to another position and rinse and repeat.

Of course on the night there was no new position in front of the Red objective to go to.

If we are past that and the Soviet Bn attack is now coming then we aren’t really delaying anymore, we are defending.

So in terms of the scenario, there wouldn’t be any Red recce (its already further on) and Blue would have been more concentrated to defend a location (esp. with the Chieftain proxy).

The scenario is a mis-match of a Soviet deliberate attack being faced by a Blue force trying to impose a delay.

That’s fine as entertainment, but not doctrinally “correct”. Depends on what the aims are.

[Gibsonm]

Thanks Mark. I thought there were at least two three or four decent 'platoon-sized' defensive positions between the initial positions and Red's objective. In the past we have used these quite effectively once we'd pulled back from our initial postions, but OPFOR was much lighter then. But we'll obviously have to take another look at the map in the light of your comments. Perhaps you can suggest another map on which it would be easier to design the sort of mission that we are after?

Well there's only one ridge line and then from memory 4km or so of valley and low points to the next defensible terrain of the town and the ridge behind it (i.e. Red's objective).

Also no TI on the CR2s means that the Red can pretty much flow around the Blue islands. Of course no Blue artillery didn't help.

Any map is probably fine, you just need terrain features and depth.

You are trading space for time and that's hard to do with no space.

[Gibsonm]

On the other hand, rather than creating a mission from scratch, perhaps there's already a suitable scenario in the downloads section. If anyone can point me in the right direction, that would be excellent.

Well all of Red Tide was basically a Blue delay.

Then there's Mission 2 of Rolling Thunder.

Panzer Leader did a good one - just trying to find it.

There you go: "Heavy CT Delay v Tank Battalion FD v2.0 (2.654)"

http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/268/p13_fileid/2282

[Panzer_Leader]

Panzer Leader did a good one - just trying to find it.

There you go: "Heavy CT Delay v Tank Battalion FD v2.0 (2.654)"

http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/268/p13_fileid/2282

Thanks Mark :thumbup:

Tjay, I also have a later, private version of this scenario using a British Combat Team if you're interested. I'm happy to share it here as a link without publishing to Downloads.

I'll also be publishing a formal v2.1 update to this scenario in the next couple of weeks. It's largely done, I just need to play test through a couple more times before uploading.

[MDF]

Might it not be that you have enough force to man the first and second layers of BPs but not - in the light of seriously heavy OPFOR - be able to hold those positions or counter attack? I've always understood that 'falling back/delay' tactics were, in fact, a form of defense, but maybe I've misunderstood. I guess what I'm asking is whether if conductiing a fallback/ delaying operation it would ever be a good idea to spread your forces over two layers of defensive postions or would you always put the whole force up front and then pull units back progressively to the second level?

Perhaps I can offer some clarification of the bolded part, with the caveat that this is US doctrine, as I (an amateur) have understood it from the avalanche of US military journals and field manuals available on line.

Let's assume that you are a tank or mechanized company (British squadron) commander, your battalion is conducting a defense, and your company is not being held in Bn reserve). The battalion CO has two basic tasking options for your company (excluding an immediate spoiling attack or using you in a forward security role). He can either assign you a sector in which to operate (a/k/a a defense or delay in sector) or can instead designate one or more battle positions for your company to occupy ("defend BP").

For the defense/delay in sector, you are given forward, lateral, and rear boundaries, and the positioning and movement of the company and its sub-elements within your assigned sector are left to your discretion (although you are typically required to coordinate with with the CO or adjacent company commanders to ensure that a rearward or forward movement does not leave a neighbor's flank exposed). In the defend-BP mission, the battalion commander directs which BP you are to occupy, as well as controlling your movement -- usually rearward -- between BPs (although, as you will see in one of the Armor magazine articles, sometimes the CO establishes criteria upon which you are authorized to displace from a BP without direct order from the CO).

For the delay mission, there actually are two flavors. First, there is the "vanilla" delay-in-sector mission, in which you must simply endeavor to delay the enemy advance in your sector as long as you can without becoming decisively engaged. As others have written above, you engage the enemy from positions of advantage but displace rearward to subsequent positions to avoid becoming decisively engaged or otherwise destroyed. Second, you might be ordered to prevent any penetration of your sector rear boundary before time X (or before the occurrence of some event). This is sometimes called a "time-limited defense" or "delay in sector for a specified time." This differs from the vanilla delay in that if the enemy threatens to penetrate the rear boundary prior to the specified time, you must accept decisive engagement in order to prevent it.

In a defend-in-sector mission, you are typically directed to prevent penetration of the rear boundary of your sector for an indefinite period of time. However, because your sector usually has a significant degree of depth, you would typically organize a succession of platoon battle positions in depth, where they would engage the enemy at long range or from the flank, displacing (usually rearward) to prevent decisive engagement. For this reason, a defense in sector often shares many characteristics with a delay mission. Like the "time-limited defense" variety of delay, however, if the enemy threatens to penetrate your sector rear boundary, you must dig in your heels to prevent him.

For more information (again, US-centric), I recommend FM 71-1, FM 71-2, and FM 3-90 (there are newer versions, too, which have been renumbered).

Hope this helps. I'm sure I've overlooked some things, and I look forward to any corrections that may be forthcoming.

[Panzer_Leader]

Tjay,

I recommend the following articles from Armor magazine, which you can get here:

"Establishing Disengagement Criteria," Nov-Dec 1984

"The Regimental Armored Cavalry Troop: Delay in Sector," (3-part series), Sep-Oct 1986, Nov-Dec 1986, Jan-Feb 1987

"Death and Destruction in the Desert," Mar-Apr 1990

"Fire Support in Disengagement: Avoiding the Point of No Return," Mar-Apr 1991

Excellent pointer MDF, thanks for sharing these :thumbup: I've printed them as PDF and will read on my iPad over the next few days. Delay is a mission that's easy to get wrong, as the professionals here have noted, so any tips and tricks of the trade in these articles will be welcome.

[Gibsonm]

As we are talking about general planning considerations and how they apply to a specific scenario, I thought this graphic might provide clarity/context to people's remarks, esp. if they aren't familiar with the mission:

Points to note:

- Contour interval in screenshot is 5m.

- Defensible locations circled in light blue.

- Roughly 4km between forward positions and Red's objective.

- UK CRs have TI disabled to reflect Chieftain proxy.

- UK CRs also use Cheiftan equivalent ammunition.

- Weather is misty, further reducing CRs effective range.

- Enemy has T-64B with AT-8 and BMP-2.

- Enemy is Bn(+) - 3 x Tk Coy, 2 x Mech Coy

- Enemy (except for recon and FO parties) currently channeled down Easter corridor between hills. Later versions will allow Red to randomly use Western approach (currently has large red "X") further extending the UK frontage.

[Tjay]

Thanks Mark :thumbup:

Tjay, I also have a later, private version of this scenario using a British Combat Team if you're interested. I'm happy to share it here as a link without publishing to Downloads.

I'll also be publishing a formal v2.1 update to this scenario in the next couple of weeks. It's largely done, I just need to play test through a couple more times before uploading.

Many thanks for the offer. I would be most grateful.

[Tjay]

Mark,

Many thanks for all the effort you have put into your replies. Much appreciated.

Unfortunately, due to a hardware failure I was unable to attend this mission, so was basing my comments on a previous version in which Blue was equipped with CR2s with TOGS, not 'crippled' CR2s representing Chieftains. That makes is simply too hard IMHO.

As far a the starting conditions are concerned, the original mission envisaged that intelligence had allowed us to occupy our initial battle positions just before the recce elements appeared within range.

The basic idea behind the mission is that IF the Blue C.O gets his plan right, supervises the battle correctly, and platoon commanders do their job properly, the Red force is destroyed while Blue are falling back, with the 'final stand' taking place just outside the Blue base. In other words, it is winnable, but only if done correctly. The hopeful assumption is that having achieved this, the remanants of the Blue force would be relieved by replacements who would then oppose the next wave of Red forces.

In the original scenario with CR2s and a much lighter Red force, it was quite easy to win while falling back through the rather minimal defensive positions provided by this map. (The ground is not quite as flat as it looks at first glance). My request to Hedge to make it more difficult has obviously resulted in 'Mission Impossible'. But I'm sure we will get in right in the end with 'a bit of help from our friends'.

[Tjay]

Perhaps I can offer some clarification of the bolded part, with the caveat that this is US doctrine, as I (an amateur) have understood it from the avalanche of US military journals and field manuals available on line.

I've snipped the rest of your highly informative post simply for brevity.

Many thanks for the very useful information - and for taking such an interest in this thread. In my reply to MG, you will see what the original object of the mission was. As such, it was intended perhaps more as a training exercise than a finely honed operational scenario. The training objectives were for C.Os to appreciate when it was necessary to order units to fall back, and for unit commanders to select routes that would allow them to do so without becoming exposed to enemy fire.

I'm sure something really good will come out of all this.

[Tjay]

Usually the delay is carried out but the tank squadron. The withdrawal can be used to shape the OPFOR ( in conjunction with the wider picture ie at Brigade or Div level) to lure them in to your Main Defence Area (MDA). The squadron withdraws to the MDA where the infantry ( obviously dug in, overlapping arcs etc halt the enemy advance with their layered defence ( ATGW into main armament into LAW etc). Once the OPFOR has lost momentum, what's left of the tanks/ reserves counter attack pushing back or destroying the rest. Well that's usually the plan. In reality.......

We are counting on you to be there for the next iteration on 10 Jan.