Recon, Scouts and Battle Phases

13 posts ยท Mar 22 2002 to Mar 24 2002

From: Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@w...>

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:38:24 +1000

Subject: Re: Recon, Scouts and Battle Phases

> Why? If you can't see a good player, you can still probably look at

..but you may be suprised nonetheless. Because he'll see other sites that are
almost as good, and use those instead.

Reminds me of a particularly good Convention game I had once. One where, for a
change, I wasn't refereeing. Some 16 players involved, but instead of 1 on 1,
the tables abutted each other, and forces were not confined to "their" table.

I was near the left flank (playing US National Guard) vs 1st line USSR. The
guy to my left had a Bundeswehr army, and was up against 1st line Indians. He
got utterly wiped in the first day, and I was left with my flank hanging in
mid-air, and with 1 company from a reinforced batallion facing
(effectively) a complete Motorised Rifle Regiment backed up with over 100
tubes of artillery.

Fortunately, the enemy artillery had to fire mainly on pre-planned
targets. And I'd made sure that none of my forces were in the "best"
positions, they were all in alternates nearby. As the Red Horde thundered up,
and their
pre-planned
barrage lifted, my own came down in FPF just as my troops moved up into their
fire positions. They ran into the hasty minefield I'd laid and stopped dead,
waiting for the engineers. Bad Move. Then I opened up. With some 100 AFVs
coming in, the first volley only took out about 10 (I only had 12 Tanks in
position). But that included the Regt HQ, all 4 Batallion HQs and half the
company HQs. (The vehicles weren't marked in any way, but the behaviour was
unmistakable, and both sides were using accurate doctrine). The second volley
took out all remaining company commanders and the enemy engineers. It was
something of a
Turkey-shoot. 1 Company of M60A3s and 2 of Infantry in M113s (with
significant extra artillery and TOWs) managed to take out over 70 enemy AFVs
with almost no losses. If they moved, their treads got blown. If they didn't,
they got hit by flank shots.

In the pursuit phase afterwards, I made sure that I had recon units out front,
and to both flanks. Embarrasingly, the engineers I'd managed to infiltrate
behind the enemy dropped a bridge to stop enemy reinforcements just as they
got the orders to keep it intact for the friendlies coming through, but I'd
found an alternate crossing point by then, so all was well.

The recon units stumbled into two separate ambushes (forces in hidden setup),
managing to extract themselves. One ambush was swamped by a hasty attack, the
other bypassed. Both ambushes were by heliborne forces, originally tasked to
go deep in exploitation after the attack, but now being used as delaying
forces to cover the enemy's efforts to regroup.

The third recon unit met no resistance, and most of my forces followed up that
route, straight into the artillery parks, repair shops, Divisional HQ and
airfields.

My forte is *not* the pursuit phase, it's set-piece assaults and
defences. But as a defender I tend to rely on very active and aggressive
recon, infiltration,

From: Roger Burton West <roger@f...>

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:27:40 +0000

Subject: Re: Recon, Scouts and Battle Phases

> On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 11:38:24AM +1000, Alan E Brain wrote:

This is what minefields are _for_, isn't it? Not to kill the enemy, but
to slow them down and maybe get them to go a different way.

It's surprising to me how many wargamers treat them as a killing-weapon
rather than as a channelling-weapon.

From: Katie Lauren Lucas <katie@f...>

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:01:36 +0000 (GMT)

Subject: Re: Recon, Scouts and Battle Phases

Quoting Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org>:

> On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 11:38:24AM +1000, Alan E Brain wrote:

Because altogether far too many "armies" in modern warfare have scattered them
about farmland like grass seed under the apparent impression that killing
civilians counts as progress towards winning a war...

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 09:51:09 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: Recon, Scouts and Battle Phases

> --- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:

> This is what minefields are _for_, isn't it? Not to

Uh, duh.  It's called counter-mobility, not DIE,
COMMIE, DIE!

> It's surprising to me how many wargamers treat them

You ought to meet me across a table for a deliberate defense scenario.

From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@m...>

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:01:43 -0500

Subject: Re: Recon, Scouts and Battle Phases

> At 9:51 AM -0800 3/22/02, John Atkinson wrote:

Thats for when you're calling down hell on them during their
in-stride breach of the minefield right?!! :-)

> You ought to meet me across a table for a deliberate

Those kinds of games are far more fun. Running an against an opponent
with 3-1 odds on his side and you're defending is lots of good
thinking.

From: Flak Magnet <flakmagnet@t...>

Date: 22 Mar 2002 13:12:33 -0500

Subject: Re: Recon, Scouts and Battle Phases

> On Fri, 2002-03-22 at 12:51, John Atkinson wrote:

Umm... What part of our arsenal/doctrine _is_ called "DIE, COMMIE,
DIE!"? What's the "M" designation for that, and why didn't I get to play...
erm.. train with it!

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:41:13 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: Recon, Scouts and Battle Phases

> --- Flak Magnet <flakmagnet72@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Umm... What part of our arsenal/doctrine _is_ called

I believe the Air Force has them all buried in holes in the ground in North
Dakota.

:P

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:43:00 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: Recon, Scouts and Battle Phases

> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

Something like that.

> >You ought to meet me across a table for a

5-1.  You really need 5-1 odds or nuclear weapons if
it's a good deliberate defense.

From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@m...>

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:34:25 -0500

Subject: Re: Recon, Scouts and Battle Phases

> At 10:41 AM -0800 3/22/02, John Atkinson wrote:

Ohh. Those! The navy has a few too in coastal Georgia, Maine and Washington
iirc.

From: Roger Books <books@m...>

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:45:22 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Re: Recon, Scouts and Battle Phases

> On 22-Mar-02 at 12:52, John Atkinson (johnmatkinson@yahoo.com) wrote:

So where are you located? Maybe I could make a trip out from Tallahassee for a
game. I would dearly love to see how infantry and minefields are supposed to
be used. Then we could argue^H^H^H^H
discuss religion/nationalities/etc etc.  :)

From: John Crimmins <johncrim@v...>

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:05:26 -0500

Subject: Re: Recon, Scouts and Battle Phases

> At 09:51 AM 3/22/02 -0800, you wrote:

No, no -- that's PARANOIA.

The Computer is your friend, citizen. Unless you're commie mutant traitor
scum, of course.

From: Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@w...>

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:07:37 +1100

Subject: Re: Recon, Scouts and Battle Phases

From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>

> You ought to meet me across a table for a deliberate

I'd love to. Too bad we're on different continents. I'd want the game to
spread out over a number of days
though - the actual assault would be something of an
anti-climax. The fun bit is the recconoitering beforehand,

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 12:53:58 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: Recon, Scouts and Battle Phases

> --- Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:

Fort Hood, TX.

Maybe I could make a trip > out from
> Tallahassee for a game.

12-14 hr drive, and I can't offer crash space since I
live in the barracks.