Fall back defense

[Gibsonm]

Mark,

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

No worries.

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.

Yep understood about the Router issue from the other thread.

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.

Well thats sort of the point.

If there is recce, then you are facing an advance so you gain the time from the various iterations I mentioned earlier (time gained, from blinding the recce, then destroying the CRP and then the next phase of the Encounter Battle where your UK group faces the Advance Guard attack).

What Red put in during the mission was a deliberate Bn attack with five companies. That means there is no recce battle because the surviving recce elements have now penetrated behind you checking out depth targets.

So basically recce = a Red advance, no recce = Red attack.

(The ground is not quite as flat as it looks at first glance).

I know I've walked it.

But the fact remains if you aren't in the blue areas on the graphic, you are in low ground (relative to the Blue areas) with the only choices being low ground or lower ground.

If say one Company of the T-64s stopped on the say the central hill they could dominate all the ground between them and the objective with their AT-8s most likely getting top attack hits on upper hull and turret roofs and of course call in artillery.

But I'm sure we will get in right in the end with 'a bit of help from our friends'.

Sure as I indicated on the night its all hopefully constructive fuel for improvement not merely criticism.

Happy to pop in on the 10th if that helps?

[Tjay]

If say one Company of the T-64s stopped on the say the central hill they could dominate all the ground between them and the objective with their AT-8s most likely getting top attack hits on upper hull and turret roofs and of course call in artillery.

Sure as I indicated on the night its all hopefully constructive fuel for improvement not merely criticism.

I hadn't thought of that. :icon_frown: In previous iterations Red has always flowed around that hill, even when it has been evacuated - but nothing is stopping them from going up there. In which case, as you say, anything to the West is toast.

Your comments are taken 100% in a constructive light and much appreciated.

You are welcome to join us on the 10th, but the scenario obviously needs much work between now and then.

[Gibsonm]

These might also help:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19518131/OTW%20Mech/Mech%20Bn%20Adv%20AAR.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19518131/OTW%20Mech/Mech%20Bn%20atk.ppt

Note: The Recon is well gone before the attack happens (after all they are the ones who have told Red where to attack).

I guess that last point I'd make is that whilst a Delay is one type of defensive operation, generally, you:

Delay an Enemy Advance and

Defend against an Enemy Attack.

If that helps differentiate the two.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Gibsonm

[Tjay]

Thanks for the Links. Do you have the AAR of the night? If not, I'm sure someone in UKA has. I had always thought than an advance was a movement forward without contact and an attack an advance against opposition. But that is obviously incorrect. Enlighten me please.

My original request to Hedge was to stick with the scenario that we had (UKA Hasty Defence v2.0) but stiffen up the OPFOR to make it a bit more difficult. This original scenario had no recce force or FPF - just two quite modest waves of Tx and a F.O. But it did require fallback to at least the second line of BPs.

I played Hedge's first iteration of UKA HF-Redux offline and managed to destroy the recce screen and most of the FSF with just two platoons before finding that the main attack was - understandably - a bit much for a single player to handle. Since then, it seems to have evolved into something completely 'other', with a degraded Blue force and further changes to the OPFOR - making it 'Mission Impossible' on that map. So we need to go back to square one and rethink.

[Panzer_Leader]

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

Here you go sir: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/71686353/Heavy%20CT%20Delay%20v%20%28T-64B%29%20Tank%20Battalion%20FD%20v2.1%20%283.002%29_UK%20CT%20Special%20Edition.rar

It's tough, so you may wish to try the vanilla scenario Mark posted a link to first. But, if British kit it must be, then be prepared for a fast moving and challenging scenario, particularly in single player. Observation of RED's likely high speed avenues of approach by recce, tight planning of your successive defensive positions, timely movement by your tank troops and avoiding decisive engagement - all while managing to stop RED east or just west of RIVER - are key to this one. Easy, right?

If you haven't already read them, I'd recommend the 'The Regimental Armored Cavalry Troop: Delay in Sector' series of articles shared by MDF as these bring the delay action against a reinforced Soviet battalion to life in a way that broadly reflects how this scenario will play out. At least you'll be mentally prepared, though stopping the full weight of a reinforced tank battalion with a combat team is no milk run.

Have fun! I'd love to hear how you go.

Cheers

[Tjay]

Many thanks Rhys. I'm busy catching up with the reading that Palladin suggested and looking at alternative scenario files.

But what I'm really after is something that will allow us to concentrate specifically on the fallback/delay procedure. I'm not so worried about a comprehensive scenario which involves recce and determining the enemy's likely avenue of attack etc. I'm assuming that has all been done and we are now down to the nitty gritty of delaying/defending while falling back towards our base - which is the eny's objective.

Once we've got that hacked, we can look at the more complex scenarios that include the earlier recce/deployment phases. That might be some time in 2018 if we pull our fingers out. :clin:

[Gibsonm]

Do you have the AAR of the night?

Yes I do but I've already sent it to Crusty and Hedge - you guys do talk don't you?

I had always thought than an advance was a movement forward without contact and an attack an advance against opposition. But that is obviously incorrect. Enlighten me please.

There comes a point where perhaps you might want to consider a year or so at RMA Sandhurst.

Advance and Attack are sub sets of Offensive Operations.

You can have:

An Advance To Contact = no one is shooting you yet.

An Advance In Contact = people are shooting at you and trying to impose delay.

An Attack has a whole bunch of prerequisites:

You have taken some time to prepare for it (the time taken is one measure of the difference between a quick attack and a deliberate one).

You have determined a specific Objective.

You have a Forming Up Place (FUP).

You have a Line of Departure (LD).

You have a Limit of Exploitation (LOE).

You have a fire plan (indirect fire).

You have a Reserve.

You have some sort of direct Fire Support.

The BG ANZAC event on the 27th will have an advance to contact by the recce, then an advance in contact by CT LYNX and probably an attack by CT LYNX.

If you have a look at the back pages (65-68) of my "how to" guide it includes considerations for and types of Offensive and Defensive operations and would save me re-typing this stuff every six months or so for various people.

But here's another link to it:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t8t02xrm33jnbm1/Bundle%202.654%20version%201_1.pdf?dl=0

[Gibsonm]

But what I'm really after is something that will allow us to concentrate specifically on the fallback/delay procedure. I'm not so worried about a comprehensive scenario which involves recce and determining the enemy's likely avenue of attack etc. I'm assuming that has all been done and we are now down to the nitty gritty of delaying/defending while falling back towards our base - which is the eny's objective.

Hopefully Rhys wont mind my jumping in.

Unless he has changed it markedly, the recce is there primarily to tell you which axis the OPFOR is approaching on and to call in fires to start the attrition process.

If you set your self up for the wrong approach the OPFOR will outflank you and you will loose/die.

You will get down to the nitty gritty soon enough.

Failing that load the Rolling Thunder Mission 2 scenario I mentioned and select the UK Force.

There is no need for recce by you in that, the OPFOR is in your face from the start. You can get it here:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=20964&highlight=Rolling+Thunder

[Gibsonm]

Perhaps we can use Rhys's non UK one on the 10th as a teaching vehicle and then you guys can try the UK one (with the nippy CR2) at your leisure?

[Panzer_Leader]

Hopefully Rhys wont mind my jumping in.

Unless he has changed it markedly, the recce is there primarily to tell you which axis the OPFOR is approaching on and to call in fires to start the attrition process.

If you set your self up for the wrong approach the OPFOR will outflank you and you will loose/die.

You will [get] down to the nitty gritty soon enough.

Failing that load the Rolling Thunder Mission 2 scenario I mentioned and select the UK Force.

There is no need for recce by you in that, the OPFOR is in your face from the start. You can get it here:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=20964&highlight=Rolling+Thunder

Not at all Mark. You're quite right, the recce in this scenario is best used as semi-static, covert OPs to let the OC know which of the 2-3 likely AAs RED is using. The RED AI applies some intelligence and will modify the axis of its main effort based on what its CRPs discover (which may also be out of date by the time the main effort arrives), much as I'd expect an OPFOR commander to do. Having said that, if you're looking for a Delay where all unknowns are known and RED is coming straight at you then, no, it doesn't quite unfold like that in this one :1:

[Tjay]

Mark

To save multi-multi quotes to your replies - which I'm not very good at....

Yes, UKA personnel DO talk to each other, but unlike you and me, Crusty and Hedge have apparently been distracted by some holiday thingy.

Yes, I have ALL your Gibson Guides and refer to them frequently, but had forgotten about the Offense/Defense tips following the vehicles section.

If you can arrange a year at Sandhurst for me I would be most grateful.

Good idea to use Rhys's scenario on 10/1. I am keen that we continue to focus on the delay/fallback aspect of what I realise in RL would just be the final part of a much larger operation. Later, perhaps, we can expand it to inclue those other aspects. Or just move on to some other, more comprehensive scenario.

I appreciate that it must be frustrating, but please try to be patient with us civvies who have neither the experience or knowledge of someone like yourself. :clin:

[Tjay]

Having said that, if you're looking for a Delay where all unknowns are known and RED is coming straight at you then, no, it doesn't quite unfold like that in this one :1:

'Red coming straight at you' is what I'm looking for. The idea behind the original UKA Hasty Defence mission was so that C.Os and platoon commanders could practice judging the right time to fall back - and how best to do that. It was, IIRC, designed following Blue's failure to pull this off successfully in Red Tide. And that is most definitely NOT intended as a dig at the Blue C.O who was (IMHO) let down by subordinate commanders who failed to pull back in good time - on occasion, even when ordered directly to do so.

So perhaps our best bet is the Rolling Thunder mission recommended by Mark.

[Gibsonm]

Yes, UKA personnel DO talk to each other, but unlike you and me, Crusty and Hedge have apparently been distracted by some holiday thingy.

My fault I forgot the

Anyway here's another copy:

https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZ6N7kZCUqCUl9QgUSz3S1wHoiRh4zJvaVX

If you can arrange a year at Sandhurst for me I would be most grateful.

Sure just head down to the village green and look for the soldier sitting at the table beside the poster of Lord Kitchener.

I appreciate that it must be frustrating, but please try to be patient with us civvies who have neither the experience or knowledge of someone like yourself. :clin:

Its just hard to distill a bunch of information into two or three all encompassing paragraphs.

You are trying to do possibly the most complex activity which is hard enough for people who supposedly know what they are doing but from a low knowledge base.

Its a bit like volunteering to build Canterbury Cathedral and telling my your previous building experience is putting together a garden shed.

[Gibsonm]

Oh and just in case ...

My offer to pop in on the 10th is not meant to be a swipe at CR2_Commander, or Killjoy, etc.

I'm sure they can cover the stuff as well as me (possibly better as they can tune it for a familiar audience).

Its just that I've played Rhys's scenario a couple of times and think I can get the best out of it as a teaching tool as opposed to those guys who might be starting cold.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Gibsonm

[Tjay]

No worries (:clin) I didn't take it that way.

I understand your comments re the difficulty of the scenario, which is why I'm keen to concentrate purely on simply managing the 'fallback/delay' aspect in face of a main attack. However, it looks as if Hedge had a rush of blood to the head and presented you all with a far more difficult and complex mission than originally envisaged on Tuesday. Crippled CR2s representing Chieftains (or woteva); where did that come from? Not from me, I assure you.

I also realise that it must be frustrating when igrant amateurs like me try to conduct simulated military operations without the knowledge and experience that would be essential in RL. But for us, it is a leisure activity, and eSim are kind enough to provide us with the opportunity to 'have a go'. So you professionals will just have to cut us some slack and not get too irritated when we forget stuff we have learned in the past, can't find information that we know is out there somewhere, attempt missions that are way outside our pay grade, and ask what to you are 'silly' questions that would be quite unacceptable coming from a regular soldier.

[Gibsonm]

No worries (:clin) I didn't take it that way.

I understand your comments re the difficulty of the scenario, which is why I'm keen to concentrate purely on simply managing the 'fallback/delay' aspect in face of a main attack. However, it looks as if Hedge had a rush of blood to the head and presented you all with a far more difficult and complex mission than originally envisaged on Tuesday. Crippled CR2s representing Chieftains (or woteva); where did that come from? Not from me, I assure you.

I'm think I've said it a couple of times and certainly did to Crusty and Hedge "on the night" but my comments are not meant to be a trashing of the scenario.

I was just trying to use it as a familiar framework to discuss the more general concepts.

Sure it can be "improved", most scenarios can, but it also depends on what you want to use it for.

If you want a Kobayashi Maru type mission its fine.

If you want a teaching scenario to step commanders through the decision making process at both Troop and Squadron Commander level then its currently "workable with modifications".

I also realise that it must be frustrating when igrant amateurs like me try to conduct simulated military operations without the knowledge and experience that would be essential in RL. But for us, it is a leisure activity, and eSim are kind enough to provide us with the opportunity to 'have a go'. So you professionals will just have to cut us some slack and not get too irritated when we forget stuff we have learned in the past, can't find information that we know is out there somewhere, attempt missions that are way outside our pay grade, and ask what to you are 'silly' questions that would be quite unacceptable coming from a regular soldier.

Well have to quote a dead guy here:

"As long as we have no personal knowledge of war, we cannot conceive where those difficulties lie of which so much is said, and what that genius, and those extraordinary mental powers required in a general have really to do. All appears so simple, all the requisite branches of knowledge appear so plain, all the combinations so unimportant, that, in comparison with them, the easiest problem in higher mathematics impresses us with a certain scientific dignity. But if we have seen war, all becomes intelligible; and still, after all, it is extremely difficult to describe what it is which brings about this change, to specify this invisible and completely efficient Factor.

Everything is very simple in war, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction, which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen war."

On War

Carl von Clausewitz

1780 – 1831

So yes not a simple process and perhaps it speaks volumes for the Sim and your enthusiasm that non professionals feel a degree of confidence to try and do it "right" (many professionals find the conduct of a delay challenging and a lot of it boils down to luck, the training of your subordinates, etc.).

[Hedgehog]

I have a version with T-62s (us) Vs AMX 13s (them)

Mwahahaha!

Aaahahahaha!

Aaaaaahaha!*Cough!Cough!Cough!*

Ooog!

Anyway.

It's all about Time management, you can't hang around with T-62.

Proper Tanking Gunnery skillz needed.

However you do get 12, and some Spigots.

[Tjay]

He's lost it. Completely lost it. :heu:

[Tjay]

I've now had time to study (well, at least read through) the documents recommended by Palladin, and particularly like 'The Regimental Armoured Cavalry Troop - Delay in Sector'. Although it covers the entire business from pre-contact, through dealing with the CRE and FSE, to engaging the Main Force, it clearly defines the various phases of the battle and presents them in a digestible 'problem/solution' format. I'd like to adopt this as our 'reference document' for further discussion.

If I previously gave the impression that I was looking for a scenario covering all those phases, that was my mistake. Particular apologies to MG. The original UKA Hasty Defence scenarion began on the assumption that the CRE and FSE phases had been completed and we were now facing a main force attack. But the main force turned out to be a bit puny and capable of defeat quite easily. (I think the designer intended triggers two and three to spawn further waves of OPFOR, but if so, that bit is broken).

But perhaps we should rethink the whole thing and start by learning how to deal with the CRE, then the FSE, and only once we've become 'amateurely capable' of that, move on to the main force problem.

The above mentioned document has given me a much better understanding of the complexity of this type of operation, involving, as it does, engineers, specialist recce teams and close coordination of indirect fire support. IMHO it would be wildly over-ambitious to try and replicate that here. So how about simplifying it for amateur consumption and splitting it up into 'bite sized chunks' as above? Not too much of an anathema for the professionals I hope.

All suggestions most welcome.

[Gibsonm]

Well I haven't read the ACR document and probably wont (I have enough work just keeping my doctrine sorted, let alone another country's).

To be frank I think the UK's doctrine is much simpler than the US stuff (perhaps less toys to play with) and its closer to "ours" (so any comments I'd make are probably broadly in line with it), but if you guys want to use the ACR one that's obviously fine.

As suggested before use Rhys's.

You can stop it before the main body turns up and therefore achieve your bite sized chunks.

[Tjay]

Excellent! We'll do that on the 7th. If it's OK with you I'd like to treat this session as a tutorial, with you laying down the plan but explaining the reasoning behind it as you go for the benefit of all attendees, not just UKA. But if that's a bit of an imposition, not to worry.

I doubt the doctrine described in the Armor article is much different from the UK's or yours as I imagine ideas have converged over the years to arrive at a 'best practice' consensus.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Tjay

[Gibsonm]

for the benefit of all attendees, not just UKA.

So how many people / VUs are coming?

The last I was working off was:

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.

I had assumed the 10th was what you had made a mistake with (right day, but wrong date) and you actually meant Wednesday the 7th (my Thursday morning the 8th) being your usual UK Armour meeting, which I can do.

Has it now morphed into sometime on Saturday the 10th?

[Tjay]

My bad. It will be on Wednesday 7th at 20:00 GMT.

I doubt many V.Us will turn up en-bloc, but we have had members of other V.Us join our sessions in the past. I will publicize this a bit nearer the time as a 'learning opportunity' which all are welcome to attend.

[MDF]

I've now had time to study (well, at least read through) the documents recommended by Palladin, and particularly like 'The Regimental Armoured Cavalry Troop - Delay in Sector'. Although it covers the entire business from pre-contact, through dealing with the CRE and FSE, to engaging the Main Force, it clearly defines the various phases of the battle and presents them in a digestible 'problem/solution' format. I'd like to adopt this as our 'reference document' for further discussion.

If I previously gave the impression that I was looking for a scenario covering all those phases, that was my mistake. Particular apologies to MG. The original UKA Hasty Defence scenarion began on the assumption that the CRE and FSE phases had been completed and we were now facing a main force attack. But the main force turned out to be a bit puny and capable of defeat quite easily. (I think the designer intended triggers two and three to spawn further waves of OPFOR, but if so, that bit is broken).

But perhaps we should rethink the whole thing and start by learning how to deal with the CRE, then the FSE, and only once we've become 'amateurely capable' of that, move on to the main force problem.

The above mentioned document has given me a much better understanding of the complexity of this type of operation, involving, as it does, engineers, specialist recce teams and close coordination of indirect fire support. IMHO it would be wildly over-ambitious to try and replicate that here. So how about simplifying it for amateur consumption and splitting it up into 'bite sized chunks' as above? Not too much of an anathema for the professionals I hope.

All suggestions most welcome.

One other helpful document I forgot to mention: FM 71-123 Tactics and Techniques for Combined Arms Heavy Forces -- Armored Brigade, Battalion Task Force, and Company Team. Does not appear to be available in PDF format.

Of course, this is more US -- not UK -- doctrine. Sadly, there is little Internet material concerning the latter (and virtually nothing about BAOR doctrine).

[Gibsonm]

I doubt the doctrine described in the Armor article is much different from the UK's or yours as I imagine ideas have converged over the years to arrive at a 'best practice' consensus.

Well an ACR is (was? most have now been gutted of their former equipment levels) a pretty unique beast basically in UK terms a combined arms Brigade.

So anyway by all means read the ACR doctrine but please no questions on the "night" along the lines of "But the ACR doctrine talks about using this to achieve that?"