Light Infantry vs MRB

[IronMikeGolf]

Scenario 5 - 0933 hrs

1st Plt and their Dragon sqd has been wiped out. The remnant of 3d Plt has joined up with 2d Plt. 3d AT sqd has resupplied and is ordered to join 2d and 3d Plt and to take a covered and concealed route to do so.

Indirect fire has again interrupted 1st MRC's efforts to breach the mines. 2d MRC is attempting to negotiate the breach. Fires will concentrate on 2d MRC in the hopes of disrupting them. Unfortunately, the 60mm mortars are low on ammo and are resupplying.

[IronMikeGolf]

Scenario 5 - 0940 hrs

1st MRC can no longer spot enemy, so begins to re-arm and re-organize. 2d and 3d MRC move to relieve 1st MRC and complete the breach. MRB mortars are ordered to displace forward. RAG fires shift deeper into town.

[IronMikeGolf]

Scenario 5 - 0946 hrs

All three MRCs remain a threat, so the American distributes his 81mm and 105mm fores to all three. 60mm mortars are still re-arming. 3d AT has not yet rejoined its plt (what there is of it). The 3d Plt remnant (1 rifle sqd) is re-arming.

1st MRC is 24 min from completing re-arming, assuming no disruptions. 3d MRC is about to join 1st MRC to breach. It is looking like 2d MRC will take 10-15 min to join them.

[IronMikeGolf]

Scenario 5 - 0959 hrs

3d MRC begins breaching. 1st and 2d MRC are reorganizing. MRB Mortars displacing. RAG fires and smoke missions continue.

3d AT not moving to rejoin 3d Plt as yet. 3d Plt halfway done re-arming. Both side repeat fire missions.

[IronMikeGolf]

Scenario 5 - 1012 hrs

3d AT rejoins 3d Plt and they reorganize due to low Readiness and Morale.

2d AT spots vehicles moving south 2 km east of town. Continued observation reveals a Vasilek battery deploying to fire missions. 2d Plt Ldr calls for 105mm on the battery and the Bn FSO (Fire Support Officer) allocates a Battery One on the target.

The remainder of indirect fire assets massed on the breaching MRC.

The 2d Plt Ldr has a trap laid for the Soviets near the intersection of Harburger Strasse and Grosse Strasse and N75 . 1st AT has been integrated into the fire plan should have more Dragon missile within 5 minutes or so.

[IronMikeGolf]

Scenario 5 - 1024 hrs

A BMP gunner pulling security while 2d MRC resupplies spots a HMMWV bringing Dragon missiles forward to 3d AT, compromising their position. He radios the other 4 BMPs in the MRC and all turrets traverse to aim at 3d AT. 3d AT scrambles to displace before the MRC engages them. The MRC Commander calls for Bn Mortars and the RAG to hit that location and prepares his company to maneuver wide to the south to bypass the ATGM team.

1st MRC and 3d MRC are about 10 minutes from completing their resupply.

MRB Commander calls for more smoke on the minefield.

[IronMikeGolf]

Scenario 5 - 1026 hrs

3d AT displaces 500 m south, and restarts re-arming. #d Plt has 20 minute until they are resupplied.

60mm and 81mm focus on the MRC in the minefield. 105mm hit that MRC and the mortar battery.

[IronMikeGolf]

Scenario 5 - 1039 hrs

3d Plt is eliminated by artillery. 3d AT moves another 500 m south. Readiness on 2d Plt and 2d AT drops below 60%.

3d MRC loses a rifle sqd to mortar fire. US maneuver combat power is now about 1/3 of starting.

US mortars concentrate on 3d MRC. 105s split among 3d MRC, 2d MRC, and the MRB mortar battery.

[IronMikeGolf]

Scenario 5 - 1044 hrs

Indirect fire destroys a BMP of 3d MRC and the break, beginning to move to the rear. The MRB Commander orders them to pull back 2 km and get completely ready for a second attack.

1st MRC has been resupplied with fuel and ammo and continues to reorganize. 2d MRC prepares to maneuver and will be ready in about 45 minutes, but is continually disrupted by indirect fire.

The RAG and mortars begin firing a prep s along the southeast edge of town.

[IronMikeGolf]

So, even this attack bogs down. A big thing is the ongoing disruption of arty as the Soviets try to reorganize. Also, the lack of recce elements at the Bn level hurts.

I am fairly convinced, having defended against such at training centers, that being able to leave sqds behind that lose their mounts would make a HUGE difference.

[calgar]

@ Mike

Thanks again for making these.

What type of obstacles would be under the hood of the generic obstacles that we have in the game currently, in a real life situation? AT-Ditches?

how would you summarize your "to do list" for the game after playing these test scenarios?

Regards,

A

[CapnDarwin]

Jeff,

Is it a common practice to leave dismounted troops with destroyed tracks behind? Hopefully down the road we can get the split and join code working again and do some form of subunit reorganization for fallen out units to get a good track and passenger management.

[IronMikeGolf]

Jim,

I can't think of a single instance in my experience where a company I was in slowed movement to walking pace because we lost a track. A platoon might pause briefly to cross level and fill vacant in the other tracks. So, you don't leave a Dragon or MG behind. Also might grab missiles and MG ammo.

A sqd or fireteam left behind might: set up a COP (combat outpost) and defend in place or displace a few hundred meters and do this or move on foot towards the objective. The Platoon might shuttle a track back to pick them up later.

[CapnDarwin]

Good info to have. We are seeing similar push through mine fields info from desert storm information. We may need to rethink the delays and speed impacts when looking at 2.1.

[IronMikeGolf]

Great. Keep in mind, it is not just mines. It's direct and indirect fires, too. In the examples in this thread, that lonely TOW sqd totally disrupts synchronization of the MRB with 3 or 4 shots. It's just not that fragile. I'd take the (over)simplification of a carrier kill means a passenger kill over the current system. That would give a more realistic battle tempo.

I can't say with certainty, since we players don't have fallen out vs destroyed info at the time of claim, but I suspect the fall out to kill ration is higher than it should be with these weapons. I am assuming a fall out results in passengers OK and a vehicle being destroyed means passengers get killed.

[CapnDarwin]

Funny you should mention being able to tell dead versus fallen out. I just managed to add code to turn the name of the subunits red if it is hard killed in the unit display and was able to revamp the calculations to better reflect the kill made for units and also for carried passengers. You will have this in 2.06.

[IronMikeGolf]

ORIGINAL: calgar

@ Mike

Thanks again for making these.

What type of obstacles would be under the hood of the generic obstacles that we have in the game currently, in a real life situation? AT-Ditches?

how would you summarize your "to do list" for the game after playing these test scenarios?

Regards,

A

While I am not on the Dev team, I believe I can answer part of that. The obstacles are an abstraction and are generic anti-vehicle and anti-personnel. The anti-personnel aspect would typically be reinforced triple strand concertina wire, possibly with tanglefoot. Anti-vehicle would typically be either a ditch or improving a slope (start with a natural slope and run a dozer along the contour, cutting a vertical wall where there used to be a slope). In some places, like a stream bed, a crib might be made.

A reference

[pekische]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

Funny you should mention being able to tell dead versus fallen out. I just managed to add code to turn the name of the subunits red if it is hard killed in the unit display and was able to revamp the calculations to better reflect the kill made for units and also for carried passengers. You will have this in 2.06.

Nice!

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
I just managed to add code to turn the name of the subunits red if it is hard killed in the unit display and was able to revamp the calculations to better reflect the kill made for units and also for carried passengers. You will have this in 2.06.

I suppose this begs the question regarding breakdowns of hard (catastrophic?) kills versus firepower or mobility kills, and what to do with the vehicle fallouts. Ditto for passengers and dismounts, whether there would be breakdowns for KIA versus WIA, and if the game should handle WIAs other than report the breakdown in final results. I would opt to keep a lot of these details more abstract so players can focus on tactics and just playing the game. But if you want to move more towards the game being a more realistic sim then these are issues to consider.

[CapnDarwin]

We have talked in-house about adding more chrome to the post game reports by adding those elements of detail. I am pretty sure that it is on the list, but low priority versus other items we wish to add.