Jump to content

The Merits of bounding overwatch (aka leap frogging)


Andrimner
 Share

Recommended Posts

We call this "reconnaissance offensive" (offensive recon).

Individual platoon recon differents axes of march, in order to find the weak area.

Fight what we encounter if it's our level, withdraw and chose an other way and pass it to the second echelon ( a tank or inf squadron + arty), and continue the mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Froggy: Well, I see a couple of contradictions in your analysis.

The factor that allows me to employ my unit in the way that I do is the fact that the tanks are equipped with stabilised turrets with fire-on-the-move capabilities. I think we can all agree that these tanks are better suited to Target Acquisition and firing on the move than tanks with unstabilised turrets. That was also the reasoning behind our old technique: If your tanks can't fire on the move, make sure you always have some stationary, so at least some of your vehicles are able to return fire. Because of this, moving the platoon as a single unit is less of an issue in modern tanks than in older ones.

Secondly, the assumption that the second section can move to support doesn't make much sense to me, for the following reasons:

- Comparing the time that T-80 needs to fire off 2-3 or 4 rounds, the time the other section will need to move forward is just too long. Given the reload time on those tanks, how many rounds do you suspect will have left barrels before the supporting section has realised what is happening, figured out where the threat is, accelerated and advanced towards the LoE and exposed itself to the enemy? (Keeping in mind that they need to be careful not to barge into the first sections field of fire, a problem much more accentuated in real life than in SB)

- Having your other section move forward to support negates the entire point of leaving it behind to support. It means that the supporting section is on the move when it confronts the enemy, because it needs to cross the LoE. Thus, there is absolutely no advantage to the stationary positions that section occupied when the first section made contact. In my plan, 4 moving tanks encounter the enemy at once. In your plan, 2 moving tanks make contact - then the two supporting tanks advances, and encounters the enemy as moving tanks. Where's the upside here - how does your platoon derive any sort of advantage against this enemy from the fact that the supporting unit was stationary?

- Having your second section out of the first ones sight also complicates the communication in the plt. If they all move together, a simple "tank, x o'clock" will provide plenty of info to the other tanks (possibly combined with what we in my country call "Battle Drill Right!"). When the sections can't see eachother, more info may be required. And in this instance, there might be an additional need for coordination to make sure that the second section doesn't run into the first sections field of fire (a very real danger if they just steam ahead) The fact that your two sections advance along two different paths will OTOH provide no particular challenge towards the enemy, since they'll appear in the same general sector anyway, as long as the supporting section goes by the direct route (for the possibility of a supporting flank maneuver: see below). Which is the reason why he chose that particular BP. And he will definitely prefer having to deal with two tanks at once, rather than four.

I do realise there are different versions of support. And yes, I run the risk of exposing my entire platoon to the enemy at once, and thus pinning it down (which is why I'm making small bounds, although I could easily make the case that supporting maneuvers can be made by platoons as well). But that also means maximizing the amount of guns I can bring to bear on the enemy - increasing the exposed units chances of survival. It increases the amount of vehicles exposed to danger, but also increases the likelihood of winning the duel. Your solution does the opposite.

You might find a flanking route for your supporting section - but since there is no proper BP your (original) bounding section can occupy, the duel will most likely be over long before your supporting unit can bring guns to bear on the enemy by an even longer route than the obvious direct one. The tanks in the bounding section are completely exposed to an enemy tank at relatively short range. That duel won't be a question of tanks being pinned down, it will be much more decisive than that. Maximum available firepower NOW will do that section a lot more good than a clever flanking maneuver completed minutes after your bounding section is knocked out. And even the clever flanking plan might prove irrelevant, if the enemy manages to disable your bounding section and then finds another BP - not necessarily an unrealistic situation.

Thirdly, the idea of always having proper flank security simply isn't always a reality in the type of real-life terrain I usually operated in, because that terrain is broken, with plenty of vertical LoEs, and more often than not limited possibility for maneuver. You could bring a mechanised brigade with you, it still wouldn't do because the positions they would need to occupy to properly cover your flanks just aren't available. And by "properly" I do not even mean 100%, perfect coverage - I'm more in the range of 50-70%, if breaking it down to a pecentage is even possible. "I'll just count on flank support from Co B" is the trademark response from our fresh platoon leaders when they're faced with this problem as a theoretical one. The instance it turns into a practical one, it very often turns out that that just isn't possible.

And this isn't just an issue with your flanks: It will often be quite possible to find BPs within your platoons own sector that can ambush the bounding section while remaining untouched by the supporting one. A skilled opponent that actively searches for this (infantry will, at least ours) should be able to find plenty of such positions. In these instances, even 100% flank security from your neighbour won't help you, because even he won't be covering your own sector.

An enemy unit, properly deployed with crossing fields of fire can be a formidable opponent if the terrain supports that system - something vertical LoE-terrain often does. Those units WILL be deployed to deliberately take advantage of the problem I'm describing. I've done so myself on several occasions. An enemy unit deliberately seeking to take advantage of your limited possibilities to provide mutual flank support can certainly ruin the day of the plt ldr relying on his neighbours support.

I've been driving enough tanks on the fields outside Munster, Germany to know that these situations can occur there as well. And the problem isn't exactly unheard of in SB either. It's illustrated any time some of your vehicles spots a target that some of your other ones can't. I simply refuse to believe that this never happens to anyone else but me.

Imagine advancing down a wide road through a forest too dense to maneuver in. Unless you send infantry through to the other side every single time you encounter roadbends or hog aerial resources for detail recon every time, your platoon WILL face a vertical LoE. If you leapfrog through it (as was the routine with our older tanks), then you'll end up piecemealing your tanks to the enemy. It isn't exactly what I'm describing, but it illustrates the problem. Separating vehicles in areas with plenty of vertical LoEs will very often expose them to flanks supporting units can't cover, because in those areas, flank security will be spotty anyway.

Edited by Andrimner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My idea, Eisenschwein, is to provide a reasoned response. As I've said, I base my views on reason and experience, not tradition and unquestioning faith in others.

And, yes, I've driven tanks around the fields outside Munster (see original post).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Sorry, didn´t know you are the new Troll in this Forum.

If I can´t know how far it is to the Hill´s or the Obj. I can´t know how far I will split my Plt, scaling does matter. How big are your blind Zones??

I don´t want to cover all the death Zones at once, why ?

I don´t know you want to ride Hand in Hand with your Plt Leader. Here come your "Map" in interest (Very nice Work indeed). You can not ask a theoretical Question and want a practical answer. Do a SB Sce. with it and we go on.

Tank´s are NOT make to fight here and there, thats a ARMA Myth. Wenn I´m in Spot I have to decide if I can do it. Every TC is in the Responsibility for 3 Man, every Plt Leader in the Responsibility of 15 Man. That´s REALITY !!

2 - 3 stabilized sights, witch Tank has 3 stabilized Sight to overwatch 360° ??

And yes advancing in formation is better, the Formation i discribed is called KETTE in german or LINE in US. But Line looks not like your Mothers Collar, if you think so.

See above !

YOU want answers and want ME to do a Plan on your childish Kindergarten sketch ?

Are you kidding ?

If it is so I can´t understand this kind of Question. In every Army of this World I think, the Plt Leader was trained to manage this Situation 3 o´clock at Night 1 minute afer awakening, with no coffee and cigarette before. Because that is one of the Standard Task for a Plt:

Reconnaissance with or without Fire Orders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so your solution will ever be the Best, I don't know why you ask others.

May be you can enlight me how long you have been in charge of a platoon, when, which rank, and tank you served on?

Just to compare our respective experience

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, Froggy, I base my views on reason, not authority. IF you want to convince me, point out the advantages of your solution instead of appealing to authority. I won't be convinced by a tinkling contest in the form of who's accumulated the most years in the service anyway. As I said: Professionals are familiar enough with their techniques to explain the reasons behind them. If they can't, maybe it's time to start questioning them.

Since you asked, however, I spent 10 years on Leo1A5s and Leo2A4s in the norwegian army (hence the "broken terrain"), 5+ of those years as platoon 2iC, 2 as platoon leader, and the last 6 months of my service as company instructor (Gunnery and platoon-level TTPs).

And as I also repeatedly pointed out, I'm not saying continuous movement is "always" best. I'm saying NONE of the solutions can be counted on as the universally ideal solution, which seems to be the controversy. The different approaches each come with their own pros and cons, and the platoon leader needs to consider how the pros will stack up against the cons in each individual instance.This will cause him to opt for bounding overwatch in some instances, continuous movement in others. If we can agree on this basic principle, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on the detailed application of it. I don't think we'll agree on everything here anyway.

Edited by Andrimner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO there are very few situations in life in which a particular response is always the best option. History shows that many failures have occurred due to unquestioning adherence to 'doctrine' because the writers of said doctrine were human and failed to imagine all possible variations in the situation. Just my 2p. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I can´t believe and stand this any Further...... kruecken-001.gif

As I said, Froggy, I base my views on reason, not authority. IF you want to convince me, point out the advantages of your solution instead of appealing to authority. I won't be convinced by a tinkling contest in the form of who's accumulated the most years in the service anyway. As I said: Professionals are familiar enough with their techniques to explain the reasons behind them. If they can't, maybe it's time to start questioning them.

Since you asked, however, I spent 10 years on Leo1A5s and Leo2A4s in the norwegian army (hence the "broken terrain"), 5+ of those years as platoon 2iC, 2 as platoon leader, and the last 6 months of my service as company instructor (Gunnery and platoon-level TTPs).

And as I also repeatedly pointed out, I'm not saying continuous movement is "always" best. I'm saying NONE of the solutions can be counted on as the universally ideal solution, which seems to be the controversy. The different approaches each come with their own pros and cons, and the platoon leader needs to consider how the pros will stack up against the cons in each individual instance.This will cause him to opt for bounding overwatch in some instances, continuous movement in others. If we can agree on this basic principle, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on the detailed application of it. I don't think we'll agree on everything here anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said, Tjay.

I'll hit this thread with yet another reply, since I just now stumbled on something on the internet that made me think of this controversy and chuckle:

http://www.creative-problem-solving.org/but-we’ve-always-done-it-this-way-top-ten-list/

Anyway, glad Tjay seemed to enjoy this discussion at least (note how the above piece corresponds to your own point) - I did as well. We might be the two only ones to have done so, but so be it :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have to agree with the original poster of this topic, but I'll frame my reply in infantry terms, as that is the area I have given a lot of thought and studying to over the years. This is not an exact analogy to this discussion about bounding overwatch, I know, but it seems closely related.

I've read lots of field manuals and books covering offensive and defensive infantry tactics, and they all pretty much follow the same format. For a defensive fighting position, always put yourself somewhere with front cover, like behind a small hill or rocks. This is explicitly stated to be done in order to defeat enemy direct suppressive fire and overwatch from the front. Your firing arcs will be to the sides, defilading any advancing enemy that passes into your fields of fire. You will also be covering the front of the fighting positions next to you, who will in turn be covering your front (which you can not see and fire upon yourself because of the front cover).

You would think that the offensive tactics are then designed to counter this form of defence? Nope, the offensive tactics are on the line of "bring up your heavy weapons, (and vehicles, if you have them), to provide overwatch and suppress the enemy with direct fire, and then have your assault elements close with and destroy the enemy under this covering fire".

Yes, I know there is also artillery and other means to use, but the whole concept of finding, closing with and attacking the enemy by this method seems flawed. Your first contact with the enemy is going to be your forward elements being engaged by flanking fire, with the supporting and overwatching heavy weapons unable to intervene. I've always thought that there must be a better method than the one put forward in pretty much every field manual and book I've ever read.

Here is a good example: http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/fight/InfantryAttack.pdf

Look at the first picture, the support element (1), is suppressing the enemy, which clearly has no front cover. Why? Why would this enemy be so incompetent and not follow standard defensive infantry tactics? (as outlined here, for example: http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/fight/individualfightingpositions.pdf)

The first point in that PDF says: Select some natural frontal cover – trees, rocks, earth, or rubble – that protects you

from enemy direct fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To sum up my thoughts in a short paragraph, and make it a bit more abstract, to apply to all kinds of situations:

The attacker will concentrate superior forces on the point of attack, so the defender should expect to be outgunned and outnumbered. Therefore, facing the attack head on, frontally, is usually a bad idea. So, standard defensive tactics is to place defensive positions with front cover, and use flanking fire against advancing enemy units that move into the line of fire. Because of this, the tactical concept of "overwatch" is dubious, as the overwatching element is unlikely to be able to see and fire upon the defenders that are engaging the bounding/moving/assaulting element.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

GP, Razor. That's my understanding of those tactics as well, as they were explained to me by my infantry colleagues. (basically what I described as crossing FOF-tactics) Applied against a bounding enemy in the proper terrain, they will be deadly - whether the defenders are infantry or armour. And you managed to state the point more concisely than I did.

IMO, the proper counter on a plt-level, for the sake of this thought experiment disregarding arty and combined arms, is a close echelon-formation to the opposite side of the defenders you want to engage. Thus focusing every one of your gun on one half of the enemy, while remaining concealed from the other half.

Edited by Andrimner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

bounding overwatch (aka leap frog)??

to move to a further forward position when enemy presence is in the AO but otherwise undetermined....

stage one: A element setup overwatch (if infantry it would be weapon squad in an ideal world with HMG's) along the plain of movement with arcs of fire at the 12 o'clock position as well as 3 & 9 to cover possible flanking fire.

stage two: whichever element is moving forward is given the order to move and will use whatever cover is available to them (hedgerows, walls, dead ground) or a quick bimble across open ground, but dosn't move out of LoS from supporting element.

stage three: When forward element has reached forward position it sets up 360 degree security (arcs of fire 12, 3, 6, 9,),

stage three/four: once set rear element moves to new forward position ( in this instance weapon squad) and help set up forward facing arcs of fire.

scenario: at stages 2 in this instance and we shall call the forward moving element E1 and the Support element S1.

E1 has commenced forward movement, while S1 is overwatching from hilltop.

E1 (using cover/quick bimble) takes fire from 12 o'clock E1 takes cover/down on belt buckles starts putting down it's own suppressive while S1 bring all it guns to bear on enemy and then put down suppressive fire, when this is achieved E1 then re commences forward movement while also still putting down suppressive fire.

S1 maintains suppressive fire upon till the last minute where and when the assault by E1 commences (the fun part :) )

just my 2 pence this is standard bounding overwatch that i was taught in the military and it works in training and in active combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To sum up my thoughts in a short paragraph, and make it a bit more abstract, to apply to all kinds of situations:

The attacker will concentrate superior forces on the point of attack, so the defender should expect to be outgunned and outnumbered. Therefore, facing the attack head on, frontally, is usually a bad idea. So, standard defensive tactics is to place defensive positions with front cover, and use flanking fire against advancing enemy units that move into the line of fire. Because of this, the tactical concept of "overwatch" is dubious, as the overwatching element is unlikely to be able to see and fire upon the defenders that are engaging the bounding/moving/assaulting element.

As I understand it, leaving overwatch element is an insurance policy. Generally when moving to contact, one doesn't know exact composition and facing of enemy defending elements. So even if the attacker could expect aformentioned flanking fire with frontal cover from the defenders, he doesn't know where exactly that killzone is. (though one can have educated guesses and plans that reflect them)

In such case, I think it is prudent to have part of the force to move ahead probing and other forces take up overwatch positions to support probing element by fire should it have to extricate from an unexpected killzone.

Yes, the defenders would enjoy frontal cover from overwatching element but what the overwatchers can do is to suppress and prevent pursuing or counterattack maneuvers by defenders aimed at destroying the probing element.

Once sufficient information is gathered, then attackers can maneuver accordingly to neutralize defenders' flanking fire positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stage two: whichever element is moving forward is given the order to move and will use whatever cover is available to them (hedgerows, walls, dead ground) or a quick bimble across open ground, but dosn't move out of LoS from supporting element.

The assumption being that as long as it is within LoS of the supporting element, the supporting element can cover? As we know, that just isn't the case. Move one element forward 50 metres in a vertical LoE-environment, and that element will expose itself to new areas the supporting element can't cover even if there is an LoS between those elements. If your enemy doesn't know how to exploit that, you'll be fine. If he can, you are very likely to be screwed. Infantry tend to be very adept at exploiting the gaps between the elements - in vertical LoE-environments, exploiting the inherent weakness of bounding can be done with amazing ease by an enemy that knows what it's doing. Razors post made that point very well, and the principles of those tactics can be applied by armoured units on the defence as well. I've done so in training sessions myself - is usually works as advertised: The bounding element is isolated and destroyed before the supporting element is able to do anything sensible.

As I understand it, leaving overwatch element is an insurance policy.

Even if that is the main reasoning, it can be employed on different levels. Companies can bound with platoons as well, and so on. If every organisational level choose to take out that sort of policy, your brigade attack will end up with two attacking tanks, and a whole lot of supporting ones. Yes, a bit over the top there, but still...

And remember there are other insurance policy providers out there, firepower being one.

Yes, the defenders would enjoy frontal cover from overwatching element but what the overwatchers can do is to suppress and prevent pursuing or counterattack maneuvers by defenders aimed at destroying the probing element.

Problem is that suppressing fire from the overwatchers against positions of that kind is very likely to be abysmally ineffective, since the supporting element isn't likely to see the enemy, and since the enemy has in fact got frontal cover (assuming that he knows what he's doing). Chances are, there isn't going to be anything for the overwatchers to shoot at.

The tactics are designed to isolate and destroy the element that strays into the defenders field of fire, while keeping the supporting elements irrelevant. Counter-attacks shouldn't be necessary in order for the basic tactics to work - especially if they are employed as an element in delaying operations. Ideally, the bounding section should be engaged and destroyed without exposing any defending units to any attacking units outside of the kill area (in principle not esp hard to do in the right terrain). When this is employed succesfully, the overwatchers will, as advertised, find themselves almost completely irrelevant, unless the battle is prolonged enough for them to maneuver effectively. (Which, in the case of delaying ops, is rather unlikely)

Bounding is just what the designer of these tactics wants the attacker to do, because it feeds him enemy units piecemeal.

Keep in mind that these sorts of defensive tactics are of the sorts that are heavily favoured in vertical LoE-environments, esp restricted ones, which in itself is likely to reduce options of maneuver. Experience from environments where horizontal LoEs dominate doesn't really come close to revealing how effective the crossing FoF-defence can be in other sorts of terrain.

Overwatch might prevent the defenders from pursuing (infantry in an ambush aren't necessarily likely do do that), but that doesn't really help the element that is isolated and destroyed in the "kill sack". And it doesn't help the rest of the platoon either - there is a limit to what the platoon can accomplish with a knocked-out section. The only consolement of the attackers is likely to be that he "only" lost two tanks, not four. If that's the main ground for choosing bounding even in vertical LoE-environments, I say maybe a good idea would be for the company to probe more carefully with one platoon moving as a fluent unit instead. Unless you're dealing with an incompetent enemy, he is extremely likely to exploit the weaknesses of bounding in those environments - ESPECIALLY if your army bound as a "matter of course" without critical consideration in each instance. That's called predictability, and brings me back to the point of this entire topic. Bringing up officers to believe that bounding overwatch ALWAYS provides more security is an extremely poor idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before moving one must ask himself a few basic questions, one will be "where is the enemy likely to be.

Open ground that you or your supporting team can generally see can be counted out. This leaves as you say places that one cannot see.

Therefore it makes tactical sense to be looking and even having a wpn system pointed in that direction, from either both of the moving units, or just one.

So your argument of being engaged from a non supporting area is lost on me, and I see from the rest of the posts here a few others.

When moving one places himself in the enemy's mind and asks the questions of how to engage units moving in his FOF.Thinking like your enemy can ensure little surprises for bounding units and their supporting teams.

Does it work all the time, no, However better than just driving forward and hoping for the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your argument of being engaged from a non supporting area is lost on me, and I see from the rest of the posts here a few others.

It really isn't that hard, although I agree the point seem to be lost on some.

In vertical-LoS environments there are plenty of areas where it is physically impossible to establish supporting positions that can cover every area the bounding element exposes itself to. Enemy units positioned in those areas will be able to engage your bounding elements, while your overwatching element can't fire back. Razor mentioned infantry tactics that exploit this phenomenon, the same can be done by armoured units. This exploits bounding movement, so by bounding you're doing just what the enemy wants you to do.

If you need a concrete example, look at Froggys movement plan on a previous page in this thread. One platoon, advancing by bounding overwatch through a wooded area. The bounding section was engaged by an enemy tank that the supporting element couldn't see or fire upon. It could point weapons "in that direction". But since it couldn't see the enemy, much less fire on him, the pointing of barrels wouldn't do much good. In that duel, the "supporting" element is completely irrelevant, and the platoon would've been much better off by advancing as a unit in fluid formations.

Note that there is no way to simultaneously bring all four barrels to bear on that tank if you advance by bounding, which is just the effect that enemy tank wants to achieve. He'll much rather face two tanks alone than four.

As stated above, the only upside is limiting the maximum number of tanks you lose. However, the engaged section will face the enemy on poorer odds by itself than alongside the rest of its unit. And since you seem to be bent on always bounding, he'll know what's coming.

The idea that it's better than just "charging forward" just doesn't hold up, because that's just a matter of levels. Why not split the section into individual tanks, and send one and one tank forward at a time? All the more support, right? Must be better than just send both tanks forward at the same time, "hoping for the best"?

Why is it merely "hoping for the best" when 1 platoon advances as a unit while 2 platoons supports? Isn't that exactly the same principle applied on another level as when you send ahead one section, with the other in support?

There's nothing magical about sections that makes section-wise bounding a sane choice and platoon-wise bounding an insane one, and so on. There is, obviously, no contradiction at all between predicting the enemy course of action and advancing continuously. It is in fact perfectly possible to advance cautiously and in a tactically sound manner without resorting to bounds within the platoon. My guess is that at least some of the opposing views in this thread are based on a knee-jerk "this is what the manual tells us to do, so this must be best"-instinct. "Bounding or hoping for the best" is a typical false dichotomy, I simply refuse to believe that professional armoured units of other armies are unable to advance continuously in a more thought-out manner than rolling forwards apathetically, "hoping for the best".

Edited by Andrimner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The assumption being that as long as it is within LoS of the supporting element, the supporting element can cover? As we know, that just isn't the case. Move one element forward 50 metres in a vertical LoE-environment, and that element will expose itself to new areas the supporting element can't cover even if there is an LoS between those elements

will happen the forward element will hit the dirt and put down suppressive fire then the support element will either (1) relocate to a new position to gain LoS on the enemy (2) advance up to the position of the forward element then set up a base of fire from where the front element will assault the enemy position (3) will start a flank attack on the enemy position.

I don't want to sound rude, but i think you way of thinking to this tactic is very one dimensional, the battlefield is very fluid and this tactic won't be the only tactic that the CO or whoever is in charge has up his sleeve, he and his men should also be think constantly WHAT IF, i.e what if as we advance and then come under fire from our right flank, answer , we go firm start putting suppressive fire down until our "angles" on the hill relocate or bring fire to bare.

The bounding element is isolated and destroyed before the supporting element is able to do anything sensible.

hhmm if your supporting element is doing it job right and not sitting with there thumb up their arses, and the advancing element is doing it job right and covering from it 9, 12, 3 as it advances then any contact made can be dealt with.

I've done so in training sessions myself

again don't want to sound rude ( I am still recovering from jet lag)

This answers your question you should know that bounding overwatch is a useful and if executed properly will succeed.

If not then you should go and tell your unit that you need to retrain.

In vertical-LoS environments there are plenty of areas where it is physically impossible to establish supporting positions that can cover every area the bounding element exposes itself to

This is easily overcome with Movement 101, Once the forward element has reached a point of where the supporting element cannot cover (unless in assaulting distance) then it should go firm and the supporting element will move up and either BOUND the now firm element. at which the firm element will then become the supporting element. and the supporting element will then become that advancing element.

Any ways this tactic isn't supposed to be use to cover a mass distance at once, but break up lets say a 800m distance into small segments.

If you need a concrete example, look at Froggys movement plan on a previous page in this thread. One platoon, advancing by bounding overwatch through a wooded area. The bounding section was engaged by an enemy tank that the supporting element couldn't see or fire upon. It could point weapons "in that direction". But since it couldn't see the enemy, much less fire on him, the pointing of barrels wouldn't do much good.

That scenario is a fail of showing unable to suppress, and is showing the inability of available direct fire at the target not suppressive.

just because you can't see the target does not mean that you can't put suppressive fire into the rough area (as long as friendly elements won't get hit), of where the enemy is. there for now the enemy has to think about the rounds coming in from the guys he can't see and is he going to get flanked, whereas the element that has just taken the initial contact can fall back and a new tactic can then be brought into place. yes ok in a tank fight with the % of first round hit so high then yes there might be a casualty, but i might also bounce, then giving the friendly units time to return fire.

and if you're taking the tactic straight out of the book then theres your problem, the field manual is there to give you an understanding of how to accomplish the maneuver, it is then to be adapted to the situation on the ground. and shouldn't be used on its own otherwise it is setup to fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[ATTACH]12200[/ATTACH]

This is if you need a example on your own map this is the tactic i would use, given your scenario.

E1= element 1

E2= element 2

E2 movement:

E2 moves to the woodland to it east and recons the clearing out of sight of E1. E1 remains on hill to provide over watch in central corridor.

Actions:

If no enemy see splits into smaller element ( 2 groups of 2) one of the groups moves NW through the wooded area to recon the NW clearing, no enemy seen returns to second group.

If enemy seen decision made to engage if weaker enemy force and/or fall back and call of map support (ie arty or airstrike).

E2 movement:

one of the now split down E2 element provides cover/support, while the other E2 element crosses to the second wood line. goes firm and waits the support element to catch up the move through the woodland to the second clearing E1 can't see.

actions:

same again as first action

E2 movement

Again one of the split E2 elements supports while the other bound forward to the north then again goes firm and awaits link up with the support element it then moves up to the hill, and watches the NW clearings

E1 now has the option of going straight up the central corridor or with guns pointing to it's flanks as 12 and 3 has been cleared already.

or can then do the same movement drills as E2 just on the W side.

56e83cefaff8b_IDONTKNOWWHATHESONABOUT.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...