El_Chacho

The action described below is from a custom-made scenario featuring a US Cavalry Plt tasked with filling a gap in a screen line. This scenario is loosely based in the actions of the 2nd Plt, A Troop, 1-4 US Cavalry near objective Norfolk during the Gulf War. During the early hours of 27 Feb 1991, 1-4 US Cav was conducting a screen mission for 1 ID. The S3 of the unit, Major John Burdan became aware that A and B Troops have been inadvertently moving away from each other while moving to establish the screen line. Thus, a gap in the screen line was generated. The 1st Squadron commander (LTC Robert Wilson) decided to inspect the screen line personally, taking along one M3 and an M113. This command group found a dug-in Iraqi T-72 and quickly dispatched it. Soon it became evident that BMPs and T-72s were behind the 1st Squadron's screen line. Lacking the firepower needed to clear this enemy group, the 2nd Plt of A Troop (2LT Adrian Lowndes) was called in to clear the enemy positions and to re-establish de screen line. More details can be found at "The Road to Safwan", by Bourque and Burdan (pages 151 to 153). Please keep in mind "loosely based". This scenario is not an historical recreation. Over time, I edited the scenario to get rid of the many difficulties the Troopers of 1-4 US Cav have encountered in real-life. Navigation in an almost featurless desert, with few GPS units, with 1/500,000 maps and at night. How they did it, it escapes my comprehension. To make it up for my scenario's numerous excesses, I situated the action during a moderate sandstorm (low visibility), with no air support and no indirect fires availble for blue. I made the gap in the screen almost 4 km wide. I also reinforced the Iraqis with two plts of T-72s and three plt(-) of BMPs, all deployed in depth with infantry-manned OPs up front. I also gave the Iraqis random start positions and two crude plans of armored counter-attack which are triggered based in the reports by the infantry OPs. The main purpose of editing and playing this scenario was to learn how to use hunter-killer teams in a hasty attack. M3/M1 hunter-killer teams have been widely used by US Cavalry formations during both Iraq wars. For this scenario, I have an US Cav Plt composed of 6 M3 CFVs and 2 M1 MBTs. I organized this Plt as described in an article that appeared in the Armor magazine, back in 1993. Without further ado, the mission. The blue units at the north and south extremes of the map, are part of the Squadron's screen line and they are out of my control. The gap between both of them is where enemy presence is supected. The units is at the western extreme of the map are part of my Plt. You will have excuse me in that each of them show Plt symbols and nomenclature. For the purpose of this scenario, they are all just part of the same US Cav Plt. Also, Units 3-A and 2-A have a tank symbol but they are actually composed of 1 M1 MBT and 2 M3 CFVs. This is the first time I use the new mixed units feature of v2.146! The task is to execute a "clear" tactical mission and re-establish the screen line (dotted arrows located at the eastern edge). The "clear" tactical mission is ussualy executed after very careful planning and is supported with multiple assets. Clearly not the case for this scenario, but I'm claiming METTTC considerations. To be continued ...

Nothing that a couple of good "mates" can't take care of, my friend! As for the thread, excellent question. I'm looking forward to the answer to this. I tend to leapfrog with a minimum of 2 Plts. Cheers,

Outstanding video! Really impressive. Cheers,

Ey congo, Thanks for the kind words. The Open House @ Andrews is always a blast. This year the ceiling was low, but the static show was good as always. I will post more armor-related stuff later on. The NAS Pax River is in my list for the next year. Thanks for the pointer. Are you local? Cheers,

Thanks for the kind words, everybody. @Hackworth: Yes, that's my blog. Glad you liked it. That entry about target fixation from an scenario I will write about in the near future. You mention the version of the scenario where you have Bradleys. That scenario has been extraordinarily tough for me. I will try what you recommend right away. Cheers,

Thanks for the comments, gentlemen. Tacbat, about the smoke: I hear you. In the heat of battle I completely forgot. I need to make that action a reflex. Cheers,

Two weeks ago I played an scenario with a couple of fellows and wrote two small bits about the experience. I thought I could share it here. Your comments will be appreciated. A Tank Plt in the Defense Part 1 A Tank Plt in the Defense Part 2 Cheers,

I hope your Spanish is improving because here it comes: Feliz cumpleaños maestro! A ver cuando visitas Argentina, eh? Las mujeres mas bellas, y el mejor vino del mundo te esperan! (I'm JC @ TS) Cheers,

That's some great writing, sir. I hear you. Mainly for Soviet-style formations which in real life would do nothing below the Co level. Cheers,

Thanks for the link. I'm in the office right now and can't activate the sound of the video. I don't like the line of thought of the Youtube poster or the people who commented there, though. The US Marine Corps fight not with what they want but with what is given to them. The pass through Nasiriyah was planned months before its execution. There was no way to bypass Nasiriyah without compromising the momentum required for the operation. Did the poster at Youtube even cared to check how tight the timetable for the Marines advance was? The bog-downs were at an open sewer at the east of Nasiriyah, not on the main road as shown in the video. For a detailed description of the events that happened in Nasiriyah, please read "Ambush Alley" or "Marines in the Garden of Eden". Cheers, EDIT: I just saw the main page for the channel of the youtube video poster. Nevermind ...:heu:

Oh, try this: Squad Battles: Soviet-Afghan War at the NWS Online Combat Gaming Store Cheers,

Great books! There is also this one: "The Soviet-Afghan War: How a Superpower Fought and Lost " (link to Amazon provided). Grau is also in the list of authors/editors. This one has a bit of a wider scope, covering the strategic and operational levels of the conflict. This book has also tactical vignettes. A bit OT, if you are interested in the Soviet-Afghan conflict, there is this great wargame by John Tiller: "Soviet-Afghan War". It's a turn-based wargame with the looks of a boardgame (warning, eye candy is not its forte), but the workings of the game (rules to put a word to it) are more close to a computer simulation rather than to a boardgame. The nice thing is that many of the tactical vignettes you guys are reading about in the books suggested in this thread are scenarios in this wargame. Despite its ugly looks and the visual resemblance to old boardgames, in a typical "Soviet-Afghan War" scenario you will experience first hand the same tactical problems and dilemmas that are mentioned in the books. Keep the good reads coming. Cheers,

Fantastic. Thanks for sharing.

LOL. As a scientist suffering my way to doom in the world of real/hard science, I cannot agree more.

Thanks Ssnake, I am still flooded with work, but I will get into it during the weekend. Cheers,

Thanks for this. I still have to install mine. I was wondering: the codemeter has to be plugged in during the installation process? Cheers,

Ordered it this Monday, received it this Wednesday. Blazing speed!

I ordered the upgrade CD+manual yesterday and the discount didn't apply. I'm so thrilled the thing is shipping that I didn't actually care about the discount. Good times ahead, bring it on!

Thanks Ssnake, I will ask Sean, then. Cheers,

Looks great! A question, can I post this video in my blog? All credit given to eSim, off course.

I corrected the story for grammar (ESOL!), added some screenshots and posted it at SimHQ.com's AAR forum. Here is a link to the thread. (I'm under the nickname "Chelco" there. I used to have the same nick here, but I forgot the password) Cheers,

Sir, I don't believe you and I humbly request we switch jobs for a week in order to verify our assertions. :biggrin: Seriously, are the optics in the M1 and the Leo2 from Zeiss?

Thanks. Will do. I would like to re-play the mission and write a full blown AAR when I get the time. Highly off topic: Ssnake, the sound the magnification optics make when you switch them in SB is exactly the same sound a Zeiss microscope makes when you switch fluorescence filters. I bet nobody can beat this nerdy remark. LOL.

There I was, commanding one of the tanks of an M1/M3 hunter-killer team in the middle of the Iraqi desert. Our (US Cavalry) squadron commander has realized that there was a 3 kilometer-wide gap in the screen line the squadron was supposed to hold. Two hunter-killer teams were tasked to restore the screen line, clearing enemy threats on their way to the OPs. Visibility was low and enemy BMPs and tanks are known to be out there. There will be burnt metal this evening. We are in a valley and there is a small ridgeline two kilometers to our front. The 3-M3 CFVs "hunter" section moves slowly towards the ridge while my two M1s "killer" section stays 1.5 km or so behind, watches ahead and waits for the "hunters" to call out targets. The screeching sound of an incoming radio call pumps adrenaline through my veins. "We are taking fire here ..." I override my gunner and orient the main gun toward the M3s ahead, I see them at the base of the slope, their tracers pouring into the top of the ridgeline. No victors yet. They must have bumped into a forward observation post. I know that taking out those infantry bunkers will take some time, so I patiently wait for the M3s to do their thing. My gunner scans the ridgeline but I un-politely override him to keep the M3s in our sight. In other weather conditions I would have unbuttoned and use the binoculars, but visibility is so low that I am virtually (pun intended) glued to the thermals. I need to know exactly when the M3s starting moving up the slope, that will be the signal to bring the tanks closer. And then it happens. A tiny green glow of doom rises over the ridgeline. I instantly reckon it as an enemy tank (why always the first thing that you make contact with has to be a tank?). I'm thinking fast, but I cannot move a freaking muscle. The bastards are going to dispatch the M3s below them in a matter of seconds. I orient the gunner and order him to fire. My gunner may have taken the normal time to identify the target, but to me it feels like an eternity. So long my gunner takes to identify the target that for a tiny fraction of a second I ponder the stupid idea of rushing forward my two tanks to help my gunner see better or even to distract the enemy tanks. I don't know why I can't react to fire the damn thing myself. "Identified!". My two tank "killer" section litters the ridgeline with three burning wreckages. I then look at the M3s at the base of the slope: they are unscatched and they have reoriented towards the columns of smoke. The M3s have seen the enemy tanks. Glad I could help you, troopers! We are making it, but there's a long way ahead. That happened last night while I playing a custom, self-made mission (I will write a mini AAR for the whole mission sometime later). I may be going a bit loco, but when the tanks appeared in the ridgeline I felt really responsible for the fate of the M3s in front of me. :redface: Too much immersion?

Ssnake nailed it. In practice, attrition and maneuver warfare have no clear boundaries. One cannot get into battle considering one type of warfare excluding the other. Indeed, Simpkin in "Race to the Swift" points out exactly that "two sides of the same coin" aspect. Robert Leonhard in his "Fighting by Minutes" even argues that if you want to wage battle in a "maneuveristic" way, you will eventually have to rely on pure and sheer attrition at several points. See the chapter "The Two Phases of Conflict", where he writes as a final note: Very nice thread BTW.