Jump to content
Andrimner

The Merits of bounding overwatch (aka leap frogging)

Recommended Posts

Don´t waste your time

I am bowing out now it's just i don't get the point he is trying to put across, if he has done training on this tactic like he posted (which to me that means he's served) the he should know the pros and cons of the maneuver. so what is the point of this discussion. why not make a post of showing the member not in the know of how to use the tactic, or even defend his argument with an alternative tactic that he would use

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don´t waste your time ;)

Agreed. Andrimner, you've made your (very valid) point, but some people just don't seem to get it. Trying to convince these people by repeating your arguments will not help, it will just waste your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Well, as I've stated previously, the option "hit the dirt" isn't really available if there aren't any horizontal LoEs. Again using Froggys plan as an example, the duel between the bounding element and the enemy is going to be over long before the supporting element is able to do anything. The techniques you are describing are basic techniques that can apply to both armour and infantry, but in this case, they fit infantry well and armour....not so well. Tanks can't go prone to exploit the smallest features in the terrain as cover, which means that engagements in relatively flat terrain over medium distance is likely to be of a more decisive nature, and decided in a relatively short amount of time. Rendering a supporting element that can't support immideately almost completely irrelevant. (Firing into a "general area" that you can't see isn't going to have any practical effect against enemy armour.)

And I'll restate this, to be sure: This isn't about the supporting element "not doing their job". It's about them not being ABLE to do their job. The nature of a vertical LoE means that passing such lines in bounding WILL expose your bounders to areas the overwatchers can't cover. Again, look at Froggys movement plan - I made the (general) prediction that bounding elements will expose themselves alone, and lo and behold: That was precisely what happened. Try playing out that scenario, and see how long it takes the supporting element to do anything useful AFTER the time of contact. How many rounds do you think will be exchanged between red and blue tanks during that time?

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

That has been my point since page 1 of this thread. My entire case is against the users claiming that bounding overwatch should ALWAYS be used. I'm not saying it should NEVER be used.

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

If you had read my posts, you would know that a) I have never asked such a question (There aren't any questions from me here for anyone to answer, but there are statements that can be challenged by anyone), and b) my point has never been that bounding overwatch isn't a useful method. I've repeated this on so many occasions that at this point, it's fair to say that your failure to get that comes from not reading the thread, not from me formulating the point poorly.

This is my point, as I stated on page 3 of this thread:

Well, yeah, that was my point. I'm not opposed to leapfrogging, and I'm not saying it never works - I'm just saying it doesn't work "by default". And in some circumstances, other options might be better. Not perfect - but better. Environments with many vertical LOE and few horizontal ones being the main example.

For your benefit, I'll restate my point:

Bounding overwatch is not a useless technique. It can be used to good effect on many occasions. However, it comes with some weaknesses, and because of these, the plt leader should know when to use different techniques instead

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.

Again, more suited to infantry than armour in the environment I'm describing. When the bounding element reaches that area, chances are they'll be exposed and engaged (again, since they can't go prone, and assuming they cross the LoE). In that case, they'll fight it out alone until the supporting element gets there. They can't exploit cover that isn't there, so chances are the engagement will be decided before the other element can do anything. Remember, a vertical LoE is no bigger in the terrain than a few metres across, if that. This is the line that, if crossed, will expose you to the enemy.

and if you're taking the tactic straight out of the book then theres your problem,

As I said numerous time, I'm not. I'm basing this on the ease with which bounding elements can be isolated and destroyed by improper use of this tactic in practice. And improper use of this tactic is the most frequent among officers who seem to believe that bounding is always better since that's "what the book says". I'm not the one lost in books here. The users with the seemingly religious and completely unreasoned and uncritical relation to their manuals (Eisenschwein being the case in point) are. That's predictability that can easily be exploited by an enemy using a crossing FoF-defence in the proper terrain.

why not make a post of showing the member not in the know of how to use the tactic, or even defend his argument with an alternative tactic that he would use

Ehm, I HAVE proposed an alternative tactic, on plenty of different occasions. Again, your failure to find them is a failure on your part to read the thread.

The post "showing how to use the tactic" you're talking about is already in the wiki, which has been linked to in this thread. So there isn't any need for that sort of post here. This is a thread about the "why", not the "how". I would have thought the title of the thread gave that away...

In your scenario (Nor really sure what you mean when you "split into smaller elements" as you've already described the sections as "E1 and "E2", it seems to me you're actually splitting the unit into individual tanks?):

E2 moves to the woodland in the east, and faces any enemy to the east of this position alone. No mutual support against potential enemies in that area.

Same goes for the recon action, chances are that section will face the enemy alone (although any enemy on the hill will be detected by E1)

And so on.

Almost every one of your maneuvers means exposing the bounding element to areas the supporters can't cover, which means there won't be any mutual support at the time of contact. And if you really did split E1 and E2 into "smaller elements" (this means individual tanks), then that would at some point mean that a single one of your tanks is facing the enemy by itself. As described above, this tank can't necessarily "go firm" in the sense that infantry can - finding cover in this sort of terrain is much harder for a tank than for an infantry squad. The upside is that the tank can fire on the move, which means it isn't as dependent on a stationary element to provide fire for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. Andrimner, you've made your (very valid) point, but some people just don't seem to get it. Trying to convince these people by repeating your arguments will not help, it will just waste your time.

I get that feeling as well, but I think I'll stay in a little while longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean, if the readers haven't "got it" on the first eight pages of densely written text walls and convoluted diagrams, surely they will on page 9?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm fine with some of the users not getting the point. But as witnessed on this page (edit: the previous page), much of that is because they fail to read the thread properly. And I'll do my best to clear up any challenges based on miscomprehensions of my position. As there seems to be a lot of them.

If an 8-page long thread with "text walls" is too text-filled for some to keep up, then I hope for their sake that their armies publish their field manuals in cartoon form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a strange thread. I keep on expecting people to post with comments like "In all the time I've played SB, I've been able to protect my buddies most of the time from an overwatch position" or "Yeah in SB I keep on losing the bounding unit to shots from out-of-sight forces". Does no-one have an opinion backed up by play experience?

In my innocence I would have thought that, if defending forces would not be silly enough to attack advancing infantry directly to their front (well, I wouldn't), how much more likely are the defenders to do this when attacking the front of advancing vehicles would be to attack them where their armor is strongest?

The question could be asked in a different way: what's the best way for your armor to move past or assault a potential reverse-slope position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you get the Point ?

Agreed. Andrimner, you've made your (very valid) point, but some people just don't seem to get it. Trying to convince these people by repeating your arguments will not help, it will just waste your time.

but we´re talking about a offensive Operation of Tank Units ???

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.

so still the Question is who understand what and who don´t ?

But it´s (now) boring!

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...