" Route Reconnaissance" Topic

The big game is now about at the end of day one. One issue that we overlooked is elements of route reconnaissance. We realised as I came to a significant stream that was defined as impassable to vehicles (too steep a bank), that we had not defined if it was passable by infantry or needed a scaling ladder. This lead to an interesting debate. It was probably not an issue that should be defined on the map at the start but be a factor that needs to be discovered by the first finder and not disclosed to the other player until they similarly investigate. Therefore assuming there was a recon team with a vehicle a few kilometre away as a start point . How long would it take them to recon the river banks at night (assume Night vision gear) in not too dark a wood for a distance of about 700m. In first vignette assume few troops patrolling as its currently well behind the front line and the enemy has got to the real by stealth in a suitable vehicle like a LUCHS. If there were enemy garrison troops on one side would they be at significant risk of being detected? This is not about rules. This is about how long and what risks would be taken. Rules are only as good as the answer they are trying to achieve.

This situation does look like an omission in Manoeuvre Group rules, but unless it's very complex scenario few folk are likely ever go to these lengths unless in a proper campaign. Once its sorted I suppose we will have to put a bulletin out. So please give your estimates and the logic behind those estimates.

OOPS for WWII contributors assume some moonlight for the recce

Note that when I was in the military, I was an Amored Cavalry platoon leaders for several years including the DRS trials of the 1970s. We had the old H TOE which meant I had 3 M551s that could swim, four scout APCs, 1 Inf AOC, 1 Mortar 4.2 APC and my command track.

So we did a lot of route recon work based on Europe. A proper pre-mission map review of a Topographical map would reveal that rivers had steep banks or were too deep. Our mission was to find the passable points (fords or collapsed banks , determine water depth and type of river bottom. We would even check bridges to determine a weight limit. A lot for privates in my command was required to do math wise.

In WW2 and later the scouts were assigned to brigade (platoon), division (battalion) and battalion (platoon created from their own assets) level. Common vehicles were gun jeeps, M8s, M20s, and rarely halftracks or scout cars would be used. Thhese were often dedicated to carrying infantry or staff with the scouts being given jeeps as substitutes.
Not enough meeting engagements include the scout/cavalry elements which would take the surprise out of many scenarios. For a pre-scenario night time action, a decent chart could be designed to provide intel on a quick basis and allow for ambushes.

That all sounds about right Rudy …

I wasn't an armored scout, but I was a grunt and can speak to this scenario:

"Therefore assuming there was a recon team with a vehicle a few kilometre away as a start point . How long would it take them to recon the river banks at night (assume Night vision gear) in not too dark a wood for a distance of about 700m."
Easy; that's an all night job. Walking in a klik, recon'ing almost a klik of wooded river bank, then walking out a klik, in unfamiliar territory, at night, pulling security and moving even slower than normal due to being near known enemy positions, that's all night.

But then, honestly, you're probably not walking your whole patrol back out. The bulk is sitting in place while you detach an element to walk out and link up with follow on forces.

Then 'friction' sets in when the link up occurs three hours late, and the patrol at the ford has to displace due to enemy patrol activity and can't be found because comms are down because the radio man fell in the damn river during the recon (walking in the woods in the old 7-Bravos was quite a task, as you couldn't see the several feet directly in front of you, which is why we went to the 14s, which only cover one eye, to leave the other eye 'open' for depth perception and close in vision).

If you figure out how to model that in wargames rules, I'm all ears ;)

V/R,
Jack

Gentlemen,
Your imput is greatly appreciated. Just Jack, our experience as armchair generals only, means that once a scenario gets to the level we play, its hell to organise and the fog of war/real world (radio man falling in the river) at that level would be so much I could not cope even as a randum event. Half the time its about which bit to recon as there is never enough kit to look everywhere at the same time! The timescale of a night is not that supprising but in a rapid advance thay might be too long and I would end up finding ou the hard way!. Thanks again. If anybodies interested I could post up a map and explain how you can get to a point where such actions are essential to model even if you don't actualy do it with figures.

but I was a grunt and can speak to this scenario:

I too was a Grunt and ran similar patrols as described by Jack. And agree with all he said. That type of op is very much a dismounted night patrol if given the option. As Jack noted the bulk of the patrol would be a Rally Point(RP) or Objective RP. Which was probably the dismount point as well. Only what would be a large Leader's Recon with a few extra guys for Security, etc. would go forward to do the actual eyes' on recon. … The smaller element can get in and out more quickly and has less a chance of being discovered, etc. … It's right out of the RANGER Handbook. Now all that being said, for gaming purposes. Unless you actually want to run the small Patrol Scenario[s] to see if they are successful. You may just want to come up with a chart with 1d6 that says if the patrol was successful and what intel reported, etc. …

Leigon 4,
The intention is not to play these scenarios but to allocate timescales as they are critical to the game as a whole. Clearly the information that comes back is likely to be that looked for in the first place. While Wargamers aee often almost pathalogicaly obsessed with random factores, we at MG have not seen it that way. Organisng battles at a sufficiently high level brings in enough "Friction" as to not need extra.

It would make the game even harder with little to be added to the experience. Inevitable the game is only an approximation of what would go on IF it all sort of went to plan and even that is difficult.

I see … so you are talking about gaming at a Rgt/Bde level at least ?

In WW2, Commonwealth and Free Polish engineer units had dedicated recce assets devoted to that task. In Armoured Divisions, each brigade would normally be allocated an Engineer Field Squadron of three Troops. Each Field Troop then had a pair of Light Recce Cars (typically Morris, Otter or Humber LRCs in the latter half of the war), which would provide route recce for the Troop's six Engineer Sections.

In Infantry Divisions, each Infantry Brigade was allocated an Engineer Field Company of three Platoons, each of six Sections. Again, each Field Platoon had a recce element, though usually only consisting of a single LRC.

Despite riding around in LRCs, the engineer crews would normally dismount to conduct detailed close recce.

Outside NW Europe, other obsolete vehicles were sometimes used, such as Indian Pattern Wheeled Carriers or Marmon-Herrington Armoured Cars.

Jeeps could also be substituted for LRCs in all theatres – especially in Burma, though LRCs were still sometimes used even there.

Post-WW2, the British and Canadian armies (and presumably others) continued to include a recce element in Engineer Field Troops, using initially Dingo/Lynx Scout Cars, then Ferret and then CVR(T) Spartan for the British and M113 C&R Lynx for the Canadians.

Leigon 4,
We always go one diffrent. Practical large games to us don't work. This was a unique attempt to get a "big game" feel ou of a small(ish) game. The trick is a 2 path table (with a common joining point. Each path is 600m wide and about 6.4km long (all on an 8 by 6 table at 1:144). Think of it as sbout 1 to 2 company wide section of a bigger battle field. This allows some modeling of the Forward Edge of Battle (FEB), field and brigade level as a single or ebven a pair of company can't get to the end due to the level of defence and the need to replace fought out units. It's t as more like 20k of road with all the indefensible bits removed and a number of choke points. One path has 15 ton roads so is of limited use for supplying heavy vehicals as they cannot move on the road without destroying it for supplies and hence reducing the time for vehicals in combat.

The premise is that its sort of just after a limited breakthrough, means there has not been much recon and even the defender has only a few hours to deply his recon and engineering assets before the enemy arrives.

So far it has worked well with initial holding actions to slow the attacker while he complets the engineering in the Engaement Areas. The battle is dreawing to the end now with the attacket me having had to replace 4 Companies that have had hard fighting to get to the last couple of km or so. Night attacks, set pice and flanking and holding attacks have all been neccessary, a range of action you could never author in isolation. It is difficult as in all of the actions you have to orchestrate the ned game to maintain the momentum as units back off having done their job and are now exhausted. Hence the need to have some approximate route reconisance.

I'm not a fan of huge games with minis. I prefer a Bn(-) to a Bde(-) in 6mm scale… So in your case, we'd play a pre-game for the recon actions … if we wanted to play that way …

Legion 4
Remeber this is a true high level game. At no point is there more than about 2 companies on the board. With the length of the game ,you can only afford a portion of the force on baord at any one time making the games manageable. Having a pre game recon does not work. Your recon may be literaly miles away looking at what is where for the next but one action so you can decide where and with what to strike. On this first game we both admit we failed to place our recon sufficently far behind enemy lines to be usefull.

2 Companies work for me … And of course you could have a smaller board for the Recon mission … Regardless … it's all up to you and your crew how you want to play it … Not me or anyone else … There are 3 of us on this thread, that gave you our real world take on recon. And as we all know sometime the real world does not translate well to the game board in all cases.