"Combined arms tactics in near future SF" Topic

This may be the most embarassing question I've ever asked on a forum.

So I really love Dirtside II and I'm putting together some armies for cheap to see if I can get some friends down the local into it. I also have the Strike Legion books and I'm noodling about with those, too. I really love the visuals of hovertanks and power suited infantry scooting across the table backed by CAS and so on.

The thing is, I have no idea what combined arms tactics are. Sure I get that there's probably reasons why you have infantry and tanks and artillery and VTOLs but I couldn't for the life of me tell you why. If I ever have to play a game of Dirtside II for the fate of humanity, Ender's Game-style, you're all doomed.

It's sufficiently hard to get people together to play that I don't want to waste table time messing around and trying things to see what works. Is there a decent overview of modern-SF combined arms tactics anywhere? Gaming, academic, military college? Why a tactical maneuver works is more useful than just "do this because it works" to me, but I'll take anything. I've tried a bit of Googling but have come up short. This seems like something that needs a more in-depth review than a web page.

Artillery to suppress the target. Armor for range fires and maneuver, infantry to seize and hold the objectives.

Find the enemy, fix him in place with fire and Maneuver, then pound him with artillery and air support until the Armor and Infantry can over run him.

The best books would be books that delve into cold war theoretical tactics and they are kind of dry.

The crash course (which is plenty of a scifi game) is that each unit type is good for a particular thing but weak elsewhere.

Infantry is slow and fragile but can dig into urban terrain or forest.
Tanks are fast and hard hitting but cannot operate in dense terrain.
Artillery can suppress distant targets and support friendly units within range but is vulnerable to close attack.
Giant stompy robots are vulnerable to concentrated fire but can overpower any individual enemy unit.

And so forth.

Combined arms works because the combined unit can tackle any situation decently well.
Essentially, figure infantry on their own has a "strength" of 1, but infantry supported by tanks is a 1.5 and infantry supported by tanks and artillery is a 3

(number completely hypothetical and made up for sake of illustration)

It's SciFi, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Tactics probably depend upon what's included, or not included in the rules you're using, too.

You can pretty much make it us, as you go.

Grav Tanks are the kings of the battlefield, but need to remain spread out and moving fast, in order to avoid enemy ortillery bombardments unless their side has undisputed control of the "high-ground", e.g. near-planetary orbit, and beyond.

Grav tanks can glide/fly over virtually all terrain that exists, and higher tech levels of grav armor can insert from orbit on their own, down to the planet's surface.

link

This seems like a decent place to start, though I haven't looked through all the links.

But to echo what's already been said, the basic *reason* for combined arms is that no one unit can do everything and so you need to operate in concert with other unit types to be fully effective. Tanks are strong, fast and well defended but are vulnerable to infantry in woods or built up areas. Infantry aren't as strong as tanks but are vital to help actually hold ground, since they can dig in much more effectively. And so forth.

How you *do* combined arms tactics is of course were all the fun is. The above link is interesting, but reading any WWII and later battle account should start giving you ideas on the basic concepts.

Have fun! This is a cool area to just start learning about.

-Will

Though as Mako11 points out, the sci-fi game you're playing matters. If the setting has Grav-Tanks that can act like both tanks and helicopters, or it's Battletech where the Mech is the king of the battlefield then the rules are different.

-Will

Mostly been covered, but air support is basically artillery that has no maximum range and requires super-specialized "counterbattery" weapons.

Helicopters in the US at least have taken over the old Tank Destroyer doctrine.

I'm looking at Dirtside II primarily, although I may try Strike Legion later to see how it compares. Grav tanks are a little far out, I'm looking at GEV mobility at most.

I'm getting the impression that terrain makes all the difference, although I'm looking at scenario-based "go to war with the army you've got" rather than point-based random scrimmage, so maximizing force for terrain isn't likely to be a huge problem.

Thanks for the links, I've already got a couple of the books on ILL.

I always though the 'combined arms' approach really meant the different arms working in a co-ordinated way. This might be pre-planned, or simply having the ability to call in, say, and air strike, or artillery to support the ground pounders.

I think generally the Combined Arms concept will still be very much used in the near future. But I think we will see more drones used for recon and targeting. Plus more robotics employed … but no T2s, etc., … yet …

In many games you need LOS to call in FA, etc. With recon drones, you should be able to do some sort of commo die roll(s) to see if your drone(s) has spotted a target out of your LOS. And then you can all in support. Of course armed drones would be handled like any CAS, etc. …
That is one big thing I saw in like when we played say … Epic Space Marine. LOS was required from the spotting unit to the target. Like in many games. Recon Drones would change that, I'd think.

With Drones you could call in FA, etc. if you make a successful "Drone Spotting" Roll(s) … You wouldn't even need models … they'd be "notional". If you fail the Drone Roll, it could be any number of reason not really germane to game play.

A Drone(s) could be shot down, commo problems, mechanical malfunction, etc., that would result in a "failed" commo roll.

Infantry is slow and fragile but can dig into urban terrain or forest.

Infantry like in Space Marine and in the real world have powerful man-packed AT weapons. And are only slow when dismounted from transport … like APCs, helicopters, etc. … But they can cover and cross many types of terrain.

Tanks are fast and hard hitting but cannot operate in dense terrain.

Yes … terrain could effect vehicle movement but AFVs are very powerful if used properly.

Artillery can suppress distant targets and support friendly units within range but is vulnerable to close attack.

Yes … FA should be Off-Board and/or very close to you edge of the board under cover.

Giant stompy robots are vulnerable to concentrated fire but can overpower any individual enemy unit.

AGREED … they are nothing but BIG targets … for everything in range. Target Area priority would be a knee joint, I.e.: a mobility kill – blast a leg off.

Just think of the Tom Cruise WotW movie. When the US ARMY Infantrymen from 10th Mtn Div,. opened up on the Martian walking war machines when they lost their shields. With man-packed Infantry AT weapons. Can't remember if they were AT-4s or Javelins ? Either way the Martian Walkers were meat on the table.

Just my cents …

It's SciFi, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

It depends on the level of tech portrayed in the game. In Space Marine for example you have tech levels ranging from High Tech WWII to Alien grav AFVs.

I'm getting the impression that terrain makes all the difference

Terrain is one of the critical/decisive factors on the battlefield. Now or in the near future. The side that uses it properly will usually prevail.

Read Guderian's and Patton's memoirs for a start. The Blitzkrieg doctrine revolves around combined arms tactics. All tactical doctrine since World War Two assumes combined arms.

Here is one view of combined arms tactics. It is the chronology of an amphibious invasion. Someone else actually wrote it; this is just my imperfect memory:

The Air Force takes aerial photos of the beach.
The Navy shells the beach.
The Marines take the beach.
The Army secures the beach and moves inland.
The Air Force plays volleyball on the beach.

Further to science fiction, I have a few comments.

If you have anti-gravity armor, you may not have an air force per se. Your armored grav vehicles will transport troops, hit ground targets, and engage enemy grav vehicles. It depends on the limitations of gravitic technology.

In Traveller, for example, grav vehicles can be dropped from orbit, and can climb up to low orbit, but they can't go too far from a planet. So you need a vehicle with a different kind of drive to move grav vehicles from world to world.

Your off-table support may be, in part, ships in orbit around the planet. The battlefield may be in line of sight of their guns for only limited times, like every few game turns.

Glenn, I'm sure you know that is not Combined Arms … its a joke right ?

OK, Combined Arm is the use of various combat assets in an integrated force. Where each individual sub-unit performs it's task along the other elements to operate together to accomplish the mission. The term that was used at US ARMY Combined Arms School was "Synergy". And Yes, I graduated from that course in like '86 ?

I later commanded a Mech Infantry Company '87-'89, in a Separate Mech Brigade of the 18th ABN Corps. The basis for Combined Arms is the cross attaching various units at Company, Battalion, Brigade/Regiment level and higher.

My Mech Co. was usually Cross Attached to an Armor Bn. That Armor Bn traded one of their Tank Companies to my Mech Bn. For me … my Mech Co.

At times my Mech Company could have attached to it 1 Tank Plt, a Field Artillery Forward Support Tm, a Combat Engineer Squad and ADA Section. Plus an Anti-Armor Plt., to add to the organic Anti-Armor Sec. in my Companie's TO&E.
So would my Mech would look like this when operating in the field on ops :

1 Co. HQ Section [2 M113 APC]
2 Mech Infantry Plts [8 M113]
1 Tank Plt [4 M60 MBTs]
1 Anti-Armor Section [2 M901 ITVs]
1 FA Forward Support Tm [FOs] [1 M113]

That was generally what my Mech Co [any Mech Company] would look like/be organized for field ops.

Then if I got lucky I might also get attached to my Co.:

1 ADA Section [Stingers] 3-4 ADA Gunners
Combat Engineer Squad [1 M113]
1 Anti-Armor Plt [4 M901 ITVs]

Now all those elements work together in a Combine Arm Tm to accomplish the missions assigned to it from BN HQ. Along with the rest of the units in the Bn. Which is now a Task Force because it would have all the elements attached to my Co. But at the next organizational level.

Like the Tank Company I got the Tank Plt from attached to my Mech Co. The Bn would be organized like my Mech Co. But with units at the next higher level which would usually be a Company or Plt.

The FA Support Tm could call back to the FA unit/Battery for fire to support my mission. That is where the FA comes into the Combined Arms concept. The FA Bn/Batteries would be miles behind us/the front line.

At times the Bn would get air assets from the USAF. They were Fighter-Bombers, etc. [F-15s, A-10s, etc.] that could be called in by me or the FA Support Tm to strike a target(s) in our Area Of Operation. That radio call would go the an USAF Tactical Control Party [4-5 USAF] which is with the Bn HQ. And he'd coordinate the CAS to hit the target(s) I requested.

And on a very rare occasion we had Helicopter Gunships [AH-1s, later AH-64s] in support of the Bn's mission(s).

So I'm sure I confused some. That was not my intent … But that is the simple short definition of "Combined Arms" … and how it works … Infantry, Tanks, FA, CAS, Gunships, etc., coordinated to accomplish a mission.

If you're not worrying about grav armor burning down from the sky and hitting targets on the way down, that makes life a lot easier. (Check out the old FASA game "Centurion" to see what grav-armor combined arms could look like)

Barring some unholy game-changing technology like David Drake's powerguns, that can sweep anything flying out of the sky, up to and including satellites as soon as they clear the horizon, I would still expect to see both fast air and something broadly comparable to an attack helo (if not actual attack helos).

Modern fast air drops bombs whole orders of magnitude bigger than artillery can deliver, and potentially put it right in the bad guy's office. Even the US "small diameter bomb" is bigger than the old 8"/203mm artillery pieces.

The attack helos carry lighter weapons, but they're still delivering a lot of boom. Also, the newest trend in aircraft weapons seems to be precision-guided everything, and putting that precision-guidance system onto smaller missiles. We're currently down to laser-guided 70mm rockets.

One important concern for combined arms is keeping the aircraft out of the artillery's way. Artillery will utterly smash any aircraft that the shell hits, and the shell probably won't even deviate from its original flight path.

They're working on guided rifle bullets too, so…..

One important concern for combined arms is keeping the aircraft out of the artillery's way.

Yes we called that "Big sky … little bullet". After I was PL in the 101. I was then the Bn Air Ops Officer [S3 Air]. We would coordinate Air Routes with the FA, etc. … So that wouldn't happen. There were Coordinated Fire Lines, Restricted Fire Lines, Air Mission Briefs, etc.

So generally in the future it should not be a problem. With the advance tech, etc. … I'd think/hope.
That being said, it's rare but it happens. Wrong coordinates are sent or received, etc. and stuff goes where it isn't supposed to. Friendly Fire [is not !] Also called a "Blue on Blue" incident.

All this is reminding me of a piece I read that went like this:

"In theory, the infantry attacks, supported by armour, artillery suppressing the enemy while the airforce hits his reinforcements.

In reality, the infantry read the map wrong,the armour is stuck in a swamp, the artillery is firing on the wrong grid and the airforce is strafing your own reinforcements"

:-)

That in some cases is more fact than fiction !

I'd imagine that would be fairly prevalent in armies like the Iraqis, the ANA, etc. …