> On Tue, 29 May 2001, Thomas Barclay wrote:
(sorry, I'm not sure if this is Thomas or not in this para)
> the mike. I find the SG2 rules promote the Lt
Isn't it wiser to have the LT close to one of the squads in order to realay
orders by voice rather than radio. It
certainly keeps the Red force ECM/EW guys from interfering.
Same goes for the Coy Captain does it not?
> Except that the main reason leaders lead
Witness Rommel and his brushes with death. Extremely high situational
awareness. Same goes for Patton as well as Israeli Tank tactics. TC's stick
their heads out. They also have a high casualty rate. Still, the risk is worth
it if you want to win the fight.
> --> And more than a few Lts. and Captains
These weren't poor in-experienced units. Not on Omaha
beach. They were veterans from Sicily, North Africa and Italy. Command broke
down.
> --> Fine, but I think (my opinion) command
Yep. I like this...
> --> A good way to simulate this sometime
The game TacOps is set up for this. It even goes down to
allowing for Supply State and Artillery/Air Support calls.
It is used by the USMC even from what I've heard. It will network and work in
a referee mode from what I've seen.
> messages, be unclear, execute wrong
I had a friend run a game once where we did this. Hand written messages that
the ref played with to simulate radio interference. It made "radio discipline"
important.
> Allan wrote:
Well, I didn't mean "out of harm's way" sense. I meant in the "don't do a
charge into close combat with your company commander, thinking he's your best
soldier" sense. I was trying to show the problems with using your commander in
a GW way.
--> Well, GW has interesting systems where
it pays to charge into combat because your CC range exceeds gun range and
silly stuff like that. Surely your company commander shouldn't be used to lead
an attack, except in extremis. In WW2 and (as you point out) other wars,
people of high rank did motivate (transfer command, but a lot of times it was
"with me!") troops to get into a fight. There is a time and place for your COs
to step up to the mike. I find the SG2 rules promote the Lt sitting in the far
corner of the board using his radio all day instead of staying with his troops
(seen it done many times). Keeps him safe and he can still do his job....
<ick!>
And higher. This isn't restricted to WW2. Remember how "Stonewall" Jackson was
mortally wounded...
--> He wasn't the guy saying "They're a mile
away! No one can hit from.... <Bang>...<Thump>"..... I seem to recall some
general discovering the enemy had a new rifle....
Except that the main reason leaders lead from the front is to get a better
tactical feel for the terrain and relative troop positions.
--> This is one major reason. I _really_ don't
think you should sell short the morale effects of leading from the front at
platoon level though. When officers are seen to not be putting it on the line,
often their troops perform in a very unmotivated fashion.
--> I think good reasons to lead from the
front are:
- Tactical Awareness (spatial and
situational)
- Morale and Motivation
- Faster Decision Loop
- Less prone to be interfered with
--> Of course, the downside is you lose
officers to snipers, artillery, enemy small arms, etc. But I have yet to see a
terribly successful force (all other factors being equal) whose line officers
in the infantry tend to hang back like many people make their officers do in
SG2 games I've seen at conventions.
Reading Ambrose's "D-Day", it's interesting
to see that pinned troops were often pinned not out of intense fear, but out
of fear mixed with not knowing what to do.
--> A training issue perhaps?
The troops started moving on Omaha beach mostly because everyone from
Sergeants up to Generals started giving them orders.
--> And more than a few Lts. and Captains
got down on the beach and kicked ass personally to get things going. Most poor
unexperienced grunts don't know what they should be doing in odd situations or
what their officer would want them to do next (or more importantly, the NCO!).
Once given direction, they tend to act. But they tend to act with far more
zest if they are following their leader into something (or he's at least there
taking some risks) than if they get a radio message saying "charge that
machinegun nest!".
But as I said, the point of my "not lead from the front" comment wasn't in the
sense that troops don't or shouldn't do it. It's in the sense that I like to
show the problems with doing it in a game sense (versus those games that
encourage it to the point of silliness).
--> Fine, but I think (my opinion) command
transfers where the officer can't see the unit he's attempting to command
should have a
+1 assigned to the tranfer. It's _much_
easier to give an order and clarify things by pointing or saying "by the tree,
60m forward" if you can see the same thing your troops can. It also prevents
you giving bad orders because your whizzo tech mapboard doesn't show the gully
the ESU are using for cover and you figure you've got them cold.
--> A good way to simulate this sometime
would be to setup an SG2 game in one room. Put two players (enemy commanders)
in other rooms with just maps. Use either a computer network or just radio and
make their guys communicate with them. You find
out _really_ fast just how easy it is to garble
messages, be unclear, execute wrong orders (especially if they go through
someone on the way to you). The way I see it, your point man shouldn't be your
Lt, but he'd darn well better be amidst the platoon to see what they're doing.
If I see him sitting back at the back by himself in the woods, he may find the
GM inserted surprise enemy squad rather.... traumatic.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Tue, 29 May 2001, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> --> A good way to simulate this sometime
I was considering exactly this, with perhaps a videocamera thrown in for a
live video feed:) I'm curious whether anyone's ever done this, and come up
with other interesting stuff one could do?
Cheers,
[quoted original message omitted]
Tom, Great Idea! Would you set something up for GZGECC? We could place the
Commanders on one side of the room with maps. No verbal communication is
allowed, only notes. For a note to be passed, a communications roll is
required (with chance for EW intercept).
To ease communication, perhaps Xerox copies of the terrain could be made
(along with "errors" added <g>). The Lt.s on the table can write anything on
the map they want but are limited to 15 seconds to write the info. A
successful communication attempt allows the message to be send and a reply to
be recieved.
---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com
---
[quoted original message omitted]
On 29-May-01 at 09:02, bbell1@insight.rr.com (bbell1@insight.rr.com)
wrote:
> Tom,
For a note to be passed, a communications roll is required (with chance for EW
intercept).
Why not have someone transmit the instructions verbally?:) That should add
plenty of fog of war.
I believe Mike Sarno has been running something similar to this, maybe minus
all the technology, for his new Vietnam rules. Mike? Any insight?
> On Tue, 29 May 2001, Andy Cowell wrote:
> Theoretically. ;-) I can sit here all day and tell you how much better
Then you won't see that T-80 platoon pop up over the rise
before they fire at you...
In message <009101c0e830$333bb880$09282a04@vz.dsl.genuity.net>, "Noel Weer"
wri tes:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance"
- Union General John Sedgwick spoke these words just moments before
being shot dead by a confederate sniper at Spotsylvania
In message
<Pine.LNX.4.10.10105290145020.21572-100000@arcadia.turner.com>, Ryan
> Gill writes:
No, because then you have to move him, and whenever he moves, that's one
reactivation you can't do.
> > Except that the main reason leaders lead from the front is to get
:
> situational awareness. Same goes for Patton as well as Israeli Tank
Theoretically. ;-) I can sit here all day and tell you how much better
you can fight by sticking your head out your tank, but in combat, I'm
re a remote command simulation Derk Groeneveld said
> I was considering exactly this, with perhaps a videocamera thrown in
Well some 20 years ago my group played a north german plains brigade defence
scenario brits v's russians with the umpires (3 off) running the combats and
the russians. The Russians had a preset attack and reinforce schedule.. We
placed the 3 members of the brigade team in a LARGE cardboard construction. (I
kid you not) roughly the size of an afv command vehicle with maps and battery
operated telephones. (fairly cheap if I remember correctly) I suppose now days
one could use mobiles.. To complicate their lives somewhat we made them
operate in NBC conditions. They were dressed in boiler suits wore thick
leather gloves and used subaqua masks and filter masks.. The afvs wre not of
course NBC capable so they were suited up all the time.. They were given views
of the "outside world through a periscope.. (In reality these were hand drawn
sketches..) After a while they reverted to controlling the battle via maps and
radio.. This eventually proved their undoing as they failed to see a
helicopter strike by a Speznatze team at their command point. Excellent game.
Although having little relationship with reality, the players did admit to
feeling the pressures of the game (which was real time) much more than a
regular game style.
BTW when talking about the qualities and the desirability of leading from the
front, there are many modern examples. In recent history, one of the most
striking examples was of Col H of the UK royal marines whose battalion had
bogged down during the attack on Goose Green in the
Falklands/Malvinas.
Col H. (a wargamer to boot) decide that a spot of leadership was required and
led his men frontally on an attack on the bunker complex that was slowing them
down. He managed to motivate his troops but unfortunately was mortally wounded
in the process. This highlights the problems. Yes a leader can make a vital
difference at the front but the command structure had better be good enough to
replace him if he goes down in the process. The marines structure was and they
went on to take Goose Green in a frontal assault despite being outnumbered by
the defenders by 3 to 1. Col H jones was posthumously awarded his countries
highest honour in respect of his actions. Many military men at the time
respected his courage but questioned
[quoted original message omitted]
AAGGHHHH!!!!! error detected..
Bob deAngelis.. PS hasty replies bring embarrassed regrets.. PPS age doesn't
help either...heheh
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Mon, 28 May 2001, "Thomas Barclay" wrote:
> In WW2 and (as you point out)
Okay, I do agree with you there. I had to change things a bit for my SG2 ACW
rules, because of that. There is no way you can move and transfer actions in
SG2. Since transferring actions is so critical, you're hard pressed to give a
command element anything to do but to sit back and transfer actions.
I'm not sure how you'd "fix" this...
> --> He wasn't the guy saying "They're a mile
Union Major General John Sedgwick, Corps commander at the Battle of
Spotsylvania, said, "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." as his
last words. Shelby Foote describes it as something like, "They couldn't hit an
elephant at this distance." Men chuckle around him. "What was that, general?"
He repeats. "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." He was hit by a
sharpshooter. I've seen sharpshooter rifles at Gettysburg. They were huge, and
capable of taking out a target at 800 yards. I looked at the scope they used,
and figured it was similar to the 400mm lens that I had with me. Yes, it would
be feasible (if difficult) to hit a target on Little Round Top from Devil's
Den (General's Weed and Vincent died this way, Weed hit in the head bending
over to listen to Vincent as he lay, dying, on the ground).
> --> This is one major reason. I _really_ don't
Most of what I have seen suggests that leaders first over the wall were some
of the first to get shot, which had a bad effect on morale. If they were in
the area where the fighting was going on, they had a good effect. In charges,
leading from the front had a good effect... as long as they weren't killed
doing it.
Modern training does not put the officers out of harm's way, but teaches them
not to take stupid risks. I think that's what I'm getting at. If a leader
jumped to lead from the front of a charge every chance he got, he wouldn't be
around for long.
> Reading Ambrose's "D-Day", it's interesting
Nope. These were amongst some of the most highly trained men ever assembled
for a specific mission. It was due to the situation not being what they
expected. Command cohesion broke down, and the troops just sat around until
someone told them what to do. It was due to confusion, fear, and a lack of
information. When someone gave them a job, though, they did it. The fear
didn't go away, but often just moving into a better position (even if it meant
coming under fire) was better than sitting on the beach, waiting for a random
shell.
> It also prevents you giving bad
I think that's a level of detail that SG2 doesn't cover, to the same extent
that I disagree with modelling fireteams in SG2 because I think it's one step
down in detail that isn't covered by the rules.
On Tue, 29 May 2001 01:53:36 -0400 (EDT), Ryan Gill
<monty@arcadia.turner.com> wrote:
> These weren't poor in-experienced units. Not on Omaha
Not according to Ambrose. The majority of troops at Omaha were inexperienced.
They were very well trained, but new to combat. It was thought that troops
that knew what they would be up against would be more likely to hesitate. I
don't have my books with me (most are packed in a storage locker) but this
point was made clear in Stephen Ambrose's "D-Day".
On Tue, 29 May 2001 06:12:07 -0500, "Noel Weer" <noel.weer@verizon.net>
wrote:
> I thought Stonewall was the one shot by his own sentries on a dark
Yep, he was, while out patrolling in front of his troops, at dusk.
> And while we are on the subject, a couple of us were discussing the
The problem is that gamers have too much knowledge of the overall situation.
It's easy to set up a house rule for when one unit fires at an enemy unit with
a friendly unit sort of along the line of sight. However, a lot of friendly
fire incidents occur from firing at an unknown unit or from one unit over
firing an enemy. Any kind of rule that would allow this would result in
players moving their units so as not to have crossfires. It's hard to play
with totally hidden units without an umpire and totally hidden movement. I
think it's the sort of thing you'd see more in a double-blind e-mail
based game with multiple players.
> At 05:44 29/05/01 +0200, Bob DeAngelis wrote:
The
> marines structure was and they went on to take Goose Green in a frontal
Some more cynical minded referred to Col. Jones's (a Para) action as little
more than 'gong hunting'.
> At 8:37 PM -0400 5/29/01, Allan Goodall wrote:
Hmm, Ok, I looked it up. I have D-Day (Ambrose) and the Longest Day
I saw the interview with his SIG (Radio Signaler). Apparently his CO (Jones's)
felt that the lead companies attack had bogged down and needed his personal
intervention. Not 100% clear (this was well over 10 years ago) but remember
Sig saying that the CO was hit by fire from an uncleared automatic weapon pit
behind him (possibly the reason why the attack was being held
up). Sig had been calling out a warning and trying to suppress the pit with
fire from his rifle but apparently Jone's was too focused on what he was
doing to notice the danger.