Matrix Games Forums

This is something I've noticed consistently across multiple in-game scenarios but I'm curious if it's reflective of real life (actual or expected). The reconnaissance units of the attacking side (whether NATO or WP) tend to have very high attrition rates (in most cases, they serve as equal parts long-range spotter and reconnaissance by fire). It's common to see the attacker's recon units almost entirely wiped out by the end of a scenario with an aggressive advance.

One reason for this that I can think of is that we as players tend to push reconnaissance forward more aggressively than a real commander would, and this results in a higher rate of spotting and kills by the defender. Although even in reality, the relatively long-range kill chain in modern warfare does enable a (possibly unintuitive) increased ability to kill units at long range.

Any thoughts on this? I'm curious if anyone has insight on what the expected attrition rates would have been for this period in relation to recon units of various types/on various missions.

We were told in 1989 our expected life expectancy if WW3 broke out with Warsaw Pact was 2 minutes in battle,if I recall correctly infantry was 45 seconds

How are you using recon units in the offense? What are you trying to accomplish with them?

As the attacker, I tend to use my recon units primarily for route clearance (scouting out potential avenues of approach prior to committing to a particular COA). The often unintended consequence of this is a "recon by fire" scenario where I gain knowledge of enemy positions at the expense of losing part or all of the unit detecting them.

I do tend to employ a relatively straight approach (at least over short distances) rather than detouring through covered hexes, but my final waypoint is always in cover. I would say I tend to keep my recon units several hexes ahead of the main force (or more depending on the map layout).

I think it's helpful recast this as "how to conduct reconnaissance" as opposed to "how do I keep my weak reconnaissance units alive." But I want to first say something about your overall approach to conducting an attack.

Things go a lot better if you set yourself on a COA rather than deciding which COA you are going to use based on reconnaissance. Instead, you select your COA to counter an enemy COA and identify contingencies. Then your recon effort becomes confirm/deny the various possible enemy COAs you think make sense when you put yourself in the enemy's shoes.

Recon units are usually weak in lethality, survivability, and numbers. A notable exception is armored cavalry at the troop/company or higher echelons. Not at the platoon level, though.

In an attack, it's not a good matchup to send recon units out to find stronger enemy formations. In most situations, it's sending out a platoon or section and they are likely to find a company or more. You know from experience it usually doesn't work. So, to find a defending enemy to attack, it's better to use combat recon - using line units. The mission "movement to contact" is a recon mission conducted by a company or higher. It most often transitions to an attack. If the enemy isn't where you expected to find him, it's a Hasty Attack.

So what to do with your recon units? You might give them a security mission on the flanks. An example is providing early warning on the flank of your moving force so you don't get surprised. You might try to infiltrate a recon unit to a position where it can observe enemy maneuver. That could be things like lateral shifts of enemy units to counter yours once contact is made. Or observing the enemy's reserve moving to the point of contact.

In a defense, it's very helpful for your recon units to be in positions to observe the enemy approach. This can give you info that enables you to confirm/deny enemy COAs.

Recon units operate by stealth when contact is likely. That means dismounted with SOP set to hide their transport. Preferably stationary, as movement makes the much easier to spot.

These are all good points. I will say that I have an ingrained habit of using recon units like skirmishers/cavalry in earlier eras (due to a background in ACW/Napoleonics), so I tend to deploy my recon to "feel out" the enemy defenses as would be done in those periods. But the higher lethality of modern weaponry definitely makes this a losing proposition as you have outlined above.

Survivability of recon is also due to scenario design; for the Warsaw Pact reconnaissance wouldn't just be a few BRDMs + BMPs with a GSR. You would have those, but also a CRP (combat reconnaissance patrol) that would draw from the regiment's MR and tank battalions and would lead the March + your forward security element. You do see this in some scenarios, but others just have the BRDMs+BMPs as your recon and that's it. Therefore you end up having to use these valuable assets to also check the path of the march if you want to avoid a having a whole company roughed up - not quite the way you'd want to fight for intel .

With scenarios that have a CRP/FSE, you're able to use your recon to actually try to find and observe the enemy plans while the CRP gives you an "early warning" and time to react (either engage or bypass) on the COA route you have chosen as the commander.

Good points, RadOptics.

If you are expecting/trying to make contact with the enemy combat elements, you use a line combat element to make that contact. Bear in mind, when you make contact, both sides are most likely to shoot.

Both NATO and the WP saw this task pretty much the same way. The subtle differences were the likely higher-level mission.
So for the WP, it was "attack from the march". That was, fast marching and beginning deployment of a regiment's main body according to the expected line of contact. The lead battalion was the security element whose mission was to find the leading edge of the NATO formation. They would attack and buy maneuver time for the main body of the regiment to maneuver before continuing the attack. The lead/security element's mission was simply to locate the enemy.

The diff with NATO was the lead element not only ascertains enemy location but looks for indicators of intent. What is the enemy trying to do? In the doctrinal publications, this is called "developing the situation". So the lead element fights and notes response to that.

What is the same is that the lead element is a line platoon with the rest of their company close enough to either maneuver or support the lead platoon, but the entire company isn't committed upon initial contact. The remainder of the battalion is not affected by initial contact nor locked in by subsequent maneuver by the lead company.

All-in-all, very similar.