"Reconisance - one possible option" Topic

While plans rarely survive first contact and the game based on the terrain analysis in the thread "terrain Facts" has finished some of the lessons learnt may be of interest. Reconnaissance is very difficult to model. As an approximation on a 10km road section each player was allowed to pick 2 locations where they could watch the road. As KISS each player noted the location of the hidden unit(s) as a point on the outer edge of the of the (effectively strip) map. The defending player then deployed and at that point the attacker revealed the position of the units and the defender then described what would have been seen. Mainly by careful consideration, the attacker managed to gain vital intelligence over at least 50% of the map and to identify quite clearly the positions of 3/4 of the screening troops positions in this area. A few changes in the attackers plan and the artillery plan and these positions had to be relinquished without a shot as the terms of engagement would have been unacceptable. However in the sections where detailed data was not available the screening troops did a fine job of slowing down the advance of the security forces without excessive losses.

So some issues can be drawn from the game.

The methodology of simply seeing what is available form a particular point on the periphery does seem a plausible but simple way of modeling reconnaissance.

At great cost the most delay was generated by an isolated platoon dumped and not expected to return.

This sacrifice was sufficient for the engineers to set up a hasty counter mobility defense at one of the bridge locations. The time available was insufficient to blow a bridge in the time available with the resources available at the time.

In this FEBZ while helicopters were not used there were significant opportunities for their intervention. This was mainly due to the fact that neither force had any significant organic anti aircraft capability. The attackers advance would have been much faster had they access to such forces when a serious block was encountered. Also the defenders mortars being SP would have been a good target as they in this type of advance are worth more than the simple cost of the vehicles.

In addition both sides failed to use artillery well. The temptation being on both sides to save resources and use it only in reaction. In reality both sides has identified high risk areas they chose not to hit as they may not have been occupied (when in fact they were in most cases). Lesson if you think its a risk hit it anyway. Rounds you never use are wasted.

So I guess the question is how do you set the air environment? How do you make the risk reward decisions as these are represented in the main at much higher levels than the basic Front end of a Russian Motor rifle regiment for the attacker and the reconnaissance platoon of a Panzer Regiment?

Reconnaissance – one possible spelling!

You must be a school teacher who cant let go. ;-). Glad to lighten your life which must be so dull.

Actually, if someone wanted to do a search for posts on 'reconnaissance' they would miss this one – sometimes spelling mistakes don't matter, sometimes they do. This is probably a do.

(PS – I do happen to be a teacher, but that ain't relevant)

Agreed. So frustrating when I know something is there, but it won't come up because a poster spelled things wrong.

I don't get what you're asking about setting the air environment.

From the bit I've read, both sides would probably only use jets on deeper recon, so it's probably up to the Bo-105s for the West Germans, and Hinds for the Soviets/WP.

Bo-105s definitely perform border recon/scouting, and attack missions.

Not sure Hinds perform similarly. My read on them is they're more for supporting attack missions of the ground troops, and their forward elements over the FEBA.

I guess they could perform recon sorties, especially with a few troops on board, but straight out ground attack sorties seem to me to be more likely, since I suspect they'll find they enemy, or vice versa, when they go looking for them.

The issue I've always struggled with in this is that when the balloon goes up, I suspect the communist attack to be far from subtle, so it's probably unlikely they'd spend much time dithering about. Their forces will be advancing quickly and forcefully, so I'm not sure their recon troops will be as far in advance of their main forces as some of the manuals seem to indicate, especially in the first hours or days of an attack.

Near the forward edge of the FEBA, I also suspect the recon elements for the Bundeswehr to be a bit larger, and more powerful, e.g. with their mixed Luchs and Leopard units, as opposed to just a platoon of the wheeled recon armor. Not sure I'm right on that though.

Would love to find some doctrinal manuals on their Cold War era plans, in English, since my German reading ability isn't what I'd like it to be.

Mako,
The recon did have the Leopard Platoon they and an engineer platoon wre doing the screeing. Not sure you wauld want to put the Luchs in the fireing line to valuable as your seth recon. I saw the Hind as a way of supporting the ground guys when they hit problems. I read the US work on the MR rifle division and I think they ate only about 1 1/2 hours infront. I managed about that delay so if the column did not stop they would have beed about 5km behing the point whre I managed to stop the Forward security Company. With a hind on 10 min readiness they could have carried on as they would not have to hold up the colum to get more artillery support as there own artillery was gainfully engaged at the timeand could not safely switch tasks. His speculative fire was dead on in this case.

Based on the title I thought is had something to do with moral choices.

Otherwise, quite interesting.