"Denoting Armoured formations" Topic

Suddenly it struck me. If you play at 1 tank = a platoon the tanks have to be in a formation. Its a key parameter in all manuals. You could use the rank tutter to indicate the formation. Strait ahead turret forward. Turret right or left at 45 degrees for echalon left or right and 90 for coloum full left and right covering the rear as well. Not sure what yoiu would do for all round.

This would make it possible to have credible fire arcs and make big games more believable. There is srill the problem of frontage, but its one issue solved with no markers and minimal rules.

Too much detail to keep track of for 1 tank = 1 platoon in my opinion. The way I look at it is the player is at a higher level of command, and the individual tank platoon commanders should be competent enough to assume the appropriate formation without interference(micro management ) from higher up.

Combine what Clysdesdales said with unit proficiency ratings and you have all you need. Lower quality units hit less often and die more quickly since they were not as proficient at picking the correct formation – in addition to not being as good at shooting, etc…

If you want that sort of detail you shouldn't play rules where 1 tank = 1 platoon.

At 1 stand = 1 platoon the player's role should be that of a battalion or brigade commander so individual platoon formation is beyond his concern.

I tend to model this sort of thing by unit posture/mode (units in prepared defence behave differently to those in a hasty attack).

I'll let the platoon and troop commanders worry about where they position their individual elements.

Meanwhile I need to go and fight over the coloured pencils around the map table.

I have thought about doing this in 1/600 scale picoarmor. The maneuver unit is the platoon but it is made up of 4 20mm square based, each with one vehicle. Then you can arrange them to show the orientation of the platoon where the direction of movement does not correspondent be with the field of fire, such as when vehicles are echeloned right or left.

Just a thought, might work if you are commanding a company in a game.

as has been said, at that level you really don't need to know. Movement rate/mode is what drive a lot of formations within a platoon

Let me mention a further thing that irks me about this scale: armor values for facing. That strikes me as silly in the extreme; if it's a whole platoon/squadron, surely the facing should be abstracted/averaged?

Can't agree, completely, there. Since units almost always have much higher frontal armor they will deploy to face that armor toward the enemy and should be penalized if they are in a position where they are flanked. Many platoon stand rules sets do narrow it down to front/flank armor which is all that is needed at this scale.

If you want that level of detail (which is your call), there are a couple of decent options:

(1) Use small enough minis to represent formations. Then you need one base of minis per platoon, per formation. Get buying and painting!

(2) Attach a flag (toothpick with a bit of paper) with a visual rep of the formation. For a bonus in more modern games, make the visual representation parallel the appropriate C2 symbology.

I agree completely with UshCha and Phil. Why? Read any tank or infantry manual and what it has to say about tactics and movement. Squad/Platoon/Company formation and posture are the most important decisions unit leaders make. Why? Because it prepares you to deploy when making contact with the enemy and dictates your rate of advance. Each formation/posture type is a risk-reward decision for the player. If you are in the wrong formation (skirmisher and hit in the flanks) you will be at a severe tactical disadvantage. How you mark the formation is up to you.

Infantry formations go to page 57 and start reading: PDF link

For formation and tactical movement of armor formations go to page 58: PDF link

I think postures would be more at the battalion level and above.

Wolfhag

> I agree completely with UshCha and Phil. Why?

But they disagree with each other.

Oops. It should be UshCha and Martin, they sort of agree.
I agree with UshCha any how.

Thanks D'man.

Wolfhag

Formations start at platoon and go up. See the US Field manuals for both M1 and infantry platoons. The fallacy is that you cannot be in all formations at once. You could leave the formation out of the game untill it is first engaged. At that time its formation must be fixed. For example it could be in line. If then, it is flanked it cannot fire back as effectively as it is not in echalon formation. It cannot have equal fire in all directions without significant time to change formation. The comannder at the top would be aware of that fact. Without this setting you allow a unit to fire equally to the front and flanks with no penalties for reorganisation. This is no small error.

If you don't care about the real world then this thread is not for you.

If you don't care about the real world then this thread is not for you.

Perhaps you should state in future threads that you start what the working assumptions and allowed opinions are that you are willing to accept.

Or – and this a wild idea – you might also listen to the views and opinions of others. Perhaps you can learn something.

If you're only interested in opinions that reinforce your own view, then why bother starting a thread in the first place?

BTW, you do this every time …

I'm just commenting on Company level tactical tank ops and below.

Personally I like risk-reward decisions in a game that the player makes. The real tactical advantage a tank unit is looking at is getting off the first shot and then being able to maneuver.

Like Ushcha said about a line ahead formation being flanked is at a severe disadvantage. The solution is a wedge formation which gives better flank security but when the point elements engage the units on the wings further back may be out of range.

With mechanized units you get into the bounding overwatch and other tactical choices depending on the situation.

A column allows the fastest movement and coordination but is generally the least favorable in an engagement.

In a more abstracted way you can look at being in the right formation for the tactical situation is a force multiplier. So if you were out numbered 3:1 and you were deployed for an advantage and the enemy at a disadvantage that may even the odds to 1:1 for at least a few turns until he redeploys the rest of his force.

Wolfhag

I'm a big fan of using the models themselves to indicate various sorts of status.
Avoids ugly counters cluttering up the table and looks visually pleasing.

As far as whether it should be a mechanical factor, that depends on the role of the player-commander I suppose?

Please bear in mind, people, that UshCha was not asking for opinions in his OP.
He was stating a fact concerning his recent enlightenment. No contrary opinions are welcome. As usual.
Anyone contradicting him is simply not interested in realistic simulations. Again, as usual.
Get with the program, people!

Please bear in mind – none of us give a rip.

"If you don't care about the real world then this thread is not for you."

And you don't know what you're talking about. Quite a few of us here on TMP did it in the real world, and some of us even did it while being shot at.

We could reasonably debate what the best method of showing formations, at various echelons, on the wargaming table is. But you really make some inane comments, ill informed comments that appear designed to make yourself feel superior to others here on TMP.

For example:
"Formations start at platoon and go up."
Infantry formations, for the United States at least, go all the way down to the team level (i.e., below squad, with US Army elements typically having two teams per squad and Marine elements having three teams per squad).

"You could leave the formation out of the game untill it is first engaged."
If you're going to play a game with the granularity of having formations, I would submit the above statement is patently ludicrous. As Wolfhag mentioned, much of modern warfare is getting the most, best shots off first and quickest. So the formation you used in the movement to contact is absolutely relevant to what happens prior to, and immediately after, being engaged.

"It cannot have equal fire in all directions without significant time to change formation."
This statement needs a few qualifiers to be true. A platoon of modern tanks can change formations on a dime; a battalion of infantry is going to take awhile.

"The comannder at the top would be aware of that fact."
Ridiculous. The tank company commander knows what formation his company is in, doesn't know or care what formation his platoons are in, that is the job of the platoon commanders. You claim to have been reading US doctrinal pubs, you need to read a little harder on roles and responsibilities at various echelons. We've discussed this previously: you're misunderstanding the 'two levels down' concept.

"Without this setting you allow a unit to fire equally to the front and flanks with no penalties for reorganisation. This is no small error."
Then play rules that do what you want them to do. But if you're playing rules where you (the player) are ostensibly in command of a battalion, brigade, or division commander (we're talking about platoon stands, right?), then you're cheating by controlling things that a battalion/brigade/division commander can't control in real life. If he could, every unit would always be exactly where he wanted it, doing exactly what he wanted it to do. How realistic…

Woflhag,

As you know, you and I see eye to eye on pretty much all concepts, because we learned them at the same place ;)

"Like Ushcha said about a line ahead formation being flanked is at a severe disadvantage. The solution is a wedge formation which gives better flank security but when the point elements engage the units on the wings further back may be out of range."
As I mentioned above, the idea here was that we're playing a game where one stand=one platoon; no one is denying that formations exist, or that certain formations are more tactically adequate for certain tactical problems then others. We're just saying that if one stand is a platoon, then nine stands is (roughly) a battalion. So, my guess has to be that the player is at the very least the BC, and the BC is not worried about, nor could he manage if he wanted to, the formations of his nine platoons. Much less if he's at an even higher echelon.

Regarding bounding overwatch, you cold to battalion supported movements (a company or two moving with a company or two covering), or company overwatch (a platoon or two moving with a platoon or two covering), but you just can't do what would amount to individual fire and maneuver in a game where one stand=a platoon.

I think you could come up with rules that cause less friction for better trained/more experienced units/commanders, and more friction for less trained/experienced units and commanders, which bakes being in the correct formation into it.

V/R,
Jack

Jack,
I had a feeling we'd be seeing you on this discussion.

I think it's very hard for someone to visualize on the playing surface what it's really like to be at the ground level in a small unit engagement and just how how important that first few seconds are and the fog of war it can create. Your initial formation will dictate that first few seconds and maybe the entire engagement. It's a good risk-reward decision for the player too.

My most vivid memory of that is when I was at Quantico in Spring of 1973 at the TBS playing war games every day against the new LT's. I was walking point (column formation as it's almost impossible to maintain any other formation in a wooded area) going up shallow slope towards the crest. Fortunately I heard them first as they were approaching the top on the other side. We had a huge tactical advantage as accidentally we had an excellent reverse slope defense. I only had enough time to sit down behind a tree (laying down in the leaves may have given my position away) and signal for a hasty ambush and point to the right for our maneuver group to go.

I held my fire until their point man was about 8 feet away and saw me with his eye balls popping out. I started popping off blanks from my M-14 initiating the ambush and the guys behind me joined in. Being surprised, the LT's hit the deck (suppressed). Even though we were in a column the rear part of the squad was not engaged and was concealed able to maneuver freely. Before the LT's could recover and deploy our maneuver element had already hit them in the flank and the umpires blew the whistle ending the "lesson".

An analysis would show we had better situational awareness (some luck there I admit) and a tactical advantage being on the reverse slope. The initial fire suppressed the LT's so they could not redeploy and maneuver on us giving us the initiative. We were well drilled having done a number of these every day for a month or so and needed little guidance from the SL.

Their point man should have taken his team in a line ahead formation and low crawled to the crest of the slope and observed before moving forward. Because he did not do that he walked his squad into an ambush.

This was my first duty station after infantry training and was still a PFC as was almost all of the squad. We did have a VN vet squad leader. We all knew what to do and did not need to be "activated" (ha, ha) or have a leadership check. I'm not sure how your game rules would handle that.

Tanks would use the same concept but would use over watch more often.

Jack, my son made it back from his mid-east cruise with the 13th MEU on the USS Boxer and the 1st Radio Bn. He said they did lots of target analysis and got to see some live feeds on their drone strikes. He also did some ground patrols with the 7th Marines too.

In Yemen he said they warned a patrolling Saudi Special Forces squad that their drone spotted bad guys and they were walking into a potential ambush. The Saudis said they had everything under control. A few minutes later they were hit and he watched live as all 13 were killed in about 30 seconds.

On another drone surveillance he saw a Saudi tank crew bail after getting hit by small arms fire from the Houthis. He wasn't sure what kind of tank it was. I'm sure they were expecting an RPG or ATGM any second. He gets out in Sept and plans on going back as a SIGINT contractor.

S/F,
Wolfhag

Wolfhag,

Expecting me? Uh-oh, probably means I'm talking too much and/or becoming repetitive. Sorry…

In any case, your crest line meeting engagement shows that exactly what we were talking about, both in terms of the usage of formations, and how things will slip below the player-commander's control and cognizance at one one stand=one platoon.

I'm very happy to hear your boy's float went well and he'll be home soon. But why would a Rad-Bn guy get out of the Corps? Those guys had it made! And if he's bored, he needs to try out for the RRTs.

V/R,
Jack

Jack,
He does have it made. His room looks like a college dorm, complete with empty beer bottles strewn about. He makes E-5 any day. He did the Radio Recon tryouts and finished at the top but 2 other guys were selected because of some connections. He said he's glad he didn't get selected. He carries up to 150 pounds of gear now and is having back and knee problems.

I think he is bored. He's had one 8 month deployment and at least 2 short term "missions" in 4.5 years. He doesn't talk much about the details but one night after quite a few beers he did say he gets nightmares. He said he's on his third SAPI plate. I have a pretty good idea of what he's been up to as I was with one of those three letter agencies myself. Nasty.

He is trying to get another deployment and may extend for it but he claims he has buddies making $100 USDK+ on 6 month deployed contracts doing what he's doing now.

All of the Marines in his unit are totally psyched that Mattis and Dunford are on the job. He said when it was announced the barracks celebrated like it was New Years.

I've met his CO and Bn Co and was very impressed with the entire unit. The Marines is much better than the early 1970's.

Wolfhag

Just Jack

"You could leave the formation out of the game untill it is first engaged."
If you're going to play a game with the granularity of having formations, I would submit the above statement is patently ludicrous. As Wolfhag mentioned, much of modern warfare is getting the most, best shots off first and quickest. So the formation you used in the movement to contact is absolutely relevant to what happens prior to, and immediately after, being engaged.

I think I failed to explain sufficiently. As the formation may be unknown to the copmander rhen it can remain unknown to the player until such time as the first need for tesolution of observation or fire (Rather like Schrodinger's cat experiment.) However on fireing you have to define a formation rhat it was in (letting the sub commnders make the deciusion). If seconds later the formation choice was wrong then you are stuck with that formation. Changing even an armoured formation under fire takes some time relative to the enemy's fir rate (4 to 6 RPM).

Accounts of such issues are in accounts of the 6 day war and some in rhe gulf wars even for Tanks.

As Wolhhag saie line abreast is for for flanking fire. V helps give some fire to flanks but this is not as good as echalon in the direction of the threatened flank. (US Manual).

UshCha,
I think I understand the clarification. At a certain level down higher level commanders will not know the exact tactical deployment of lower levels nor does he need to.

However, if your stand or models are not designated to be in a specific formation how wold your opponent know? When he fires? Wouldn't he realistically have observed the formation before deciding to fire?

It appears you are somewhat role playing the higher level commander and simulating the C&C problems, limited intel and fog of war (friction) he is experiencing. True? I don't have a copy of MG.

My opinion is that if so the lowest level tactical units should behave with some type of SOP, posture or doctrine. Are they or is it a check to see at a certain point?

If you are moving down a road you'd most likely be in a column. Traveling overwatch when enemy contact is not expected and bounding overwatch when expected.

This is what I'd use: link

I'm sure you already have it.

Wolfhag

I always assume the soldiers are competent enough to act in accordance with their doctrine. Unless they aren't, and games usually have a mechanism for this already.
Only thing I do different is that I use a line drawn from the back of the stand, not the front, for flanking and rear armor shots for competent troops,assuming that the troops are mmaneuvering in their area of control in some logical manner. I'm playing the brigadier, not the lieutenant