"One for the skirmish Guys" Topic
14 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset Rating:
Featured Profile ArticlesargonII, traveling in the Middle East, continues his report on the gates of Jerusalem.
|
UshCha | 05 Jun 2022 11:53 a.m. PST |
I have been looking at Fighting Positions. link For our game we can't represent the typical 2 man position so we have a bit of a quandary. I assume you guy's that play at individual level allow one guy to fire out obliquely each side and both if its close to straight ahead. What angle do you use for the forward limit of the oblique? Picture under heading Sectors of fire should clarify the situation. We have opted for bigger angle to the straight ahead than the picture which I take as illustrative only. I would be interested how you approach this issue. |
Col Durnford | 05 Jun 2022 1:03 p.m. PST |
While the angle will be limited, I believe, the firing point would not be. Anything within the normal line of sight would be an eligible target. I just can't see a trooper with the enemy down range saying "Charlie , that guy is 3 degrees off my mark, can you shoot him"? |
Dal Gavan | 05 Jun 2022 6:13 p.m. PST |
UshCha, unless the troops have restricted arcs or fixed lines (usually only a section MG will be on fixed lines, and only then if there's a specific reason for it- eg covering the front of another unit) then the troops can engage any enemy that conform to their orders and rules of engagement. Restricted arcs (usually defined by a short branch, long enough to impede the traverse of the weapon, stuck at either end of the arc) will generally be used to prevent the troops firing on friendly possies. A lot of pits are "U pits", rather than the "V pits" shown at the link. A U pit is shaped like a flattened "U" (|_|) with the sleeping bays dug in towards the enemy line of approach and, if you have time and materials, overhead protection over the centre of the fighting bay (the horizontal line). Spoil from the digging will be used for overhead protection or put to the rear so as not to impede lines of sight. |
UshCha | 06 Jun 2022 2:19 a.m. PST |
Gents,its not the real thing that is an issue the reference covers lots of configurations. Its abaout how you the players define wnen, and how much firee in the primary and secondary arc with their differences in protection. effectively how do you credibly styalise the combat power. Obviously the same vulnerability over a 180 deg arc would be farsical as it would negate the complexity of the real thing. |
Dal Gavan | 06 Jun 2022 3:13 a.m. PST |
At a section level each pit had arcs assigned to it. They were decided by the vegetation, lines of sight and expected probability of enemy approach. In PL, COY and BN positions those arcs were still tied in with the flanking sub-units. There was always dead ground and covered approaches we'd have to cover with sentries, and more that we couldn't. That's why we'd do clearing patrols before stand down, sometimes before evening stand to, and put out listening posts. Remember, the enemy had to get close enough to be identified as enemy. Even when the exercise enemy were wearing black or red-brown uniforms instead of cams, we were all usually dirty/muddy enough that they had to get close, usually less than 100m, before you could be sure of the ID. These days, with everyone in some form of cams, identification is even harder- hence the armbands and other field signs in Ukraine. At night you had to wait until they were close enough to challenge or had set off an early warning device in a designated engagement area (ie "If the trip flare goes off 100 rounds rapid from the gun, 203 put up a para flare and engage with three rounds HE."- with the flare as the aiming point). In game terms, mate, what about a spotting roll or similar mechanic for each firer, perhaps limiting the spotting range and a "not sure" roll? |
Wolfhag | 06 Jun 2022 6:45 a.m. PST |
Its abaout how you the players define wnen, and how much firee in the primary and secondary arc with their differences in protection. effectively how do you credibly styalise the combat power. IIRC it was the squad leader that determined the sector or unit you'd take under fire. I don't recall any primary or secondary arcs, only FPF arcs. Wolfhag |
UshCha | 06 Jun 2022 10:10 a.m. PST |
Wolfhag, The reference at the start of the thread specifically quoted this. Its not too far down to the heading noted as it references only Chapter 2. |
Dal Gavan | 06 Jun 2022 6:45 p.m. PST |
UshCha, what exactly are you looking at? The initial engagement when the position is first contacted? The firefight/assault after first contact? The move up to the first contact? Primary and secondary arcs only become important for fire if there are fixed lines or limits for the gun. For the rifle pits and sentries, and at stand to, the secondary arcs were where you glanced now and again, with your main focus on your primary arc. As for the arcs themselves, see my first post. They were decided by the terrain and flanking possies. They could be eg 314° in open country or, in the jay, practically straight ahead, down a fire lane. Secondary arcs generally meant an area you could only partially observe, either by sight or sound, but which should be covered by another possie's primary arc. Once the shooting started the seccoes would give their fire orders, which may or may not match your arcs. If you weren't getting fire orders then you concentrated on enemy in your primary arc, usually because that gave you the best field of fire/line of sight in any case. In game terms, the terrain on the table and what the defending force can see should dictate what figures/positions can fire at any target. There's no doctrine that states an arc has to be any particular angle from each position. |
UshCha | 08 Jun 2022 1:50 a.m. PST |
Dal Gavan. The point is that a fighting position is built to provide more protection when firing at the oblique than straigt ahead. Now at a skirmish level you could make the player define the arcs for oblque and straight ahead (those to be used the manual state where the chance of return fire is small) on a position by position basis but this looks a bit too complex even for me who is not a skirmish player. So, do you define a standard fighting position using standard arcs or do you just ignore these to me quite important effects? |
Dal Gavan | 08 Jun 2022 4:31 a.m. PST |
The point is that a fighting position is built to provide more protection when firing at the oblique than straight ahead. Not all the time, mate. Practically there's reasons why you may not have a berm or terrain out front, to protect you from fire from enemy closing on your possie while you engage other enemy with enfilade fire from a defilade position (the perfect circumstance that rarely happens). There's no set formula that says an arc will be 1600 mils at an angle of 600 mils from the pit's 12 o'clock, how far apart pits will be, etc. The pits and arcs fit the position's terrain limitations and tactical requirements, not the other way around. While I only have experience of the Aussie, Brit, Kiwi, US and Malaysian ways of doing things, I doubt other armies will be much different- if the troops have a modicum of training. Replicating those considerations on a table top will be difficult. Perhaps simplifying the factors by using spotting rolls or similar may work better than trying to develop a terrain system that's complex enough to take care of the considerations above. Besides, you can probably come up with rules that will work at least as well as any in existing rules sets. |
Wolfhag | 08 Jun 2022 5:21 a.m. PST |
UshCha, I'd agree with Dal Gavin. I read it and we never trained under it. Ideally, the squad leader assigns the fire team leader an area/arc to take under fire (normally to the front) and all of the team members comply. Personally, from my experience, having team members firing in different directions dilutes your volume of fire and would be extremely hard to control while under fire but there could be situations to do it. But that's just me. IIRC in a two man fighting hole our FPF was in different directions as shown in the "SECTORS AND FIELDS OF FIRE" primary sectors but normally it was to the front or in the direction of the squad/team leader. My experience is from the last millennium and we didn't cover that so maybe someone younger that trained under that tactic could help. Wolfhag |
UshCha | 09 Jun 2022 8:05 a.m. PST |
So basically the US are not following there own doctrine. No wonder the Russians fail even further. Did you defensive positions have the big berm in front as defined in the manual? Interesting to see the discrepancy between training material and the real world. |
Dal Gavan | 09 Jun 2022 4:57 p.m. PST |
So basically the US are not following there own doctrine. That's common, mate, not just in the US. Doctrine is theory, hopefully leavened with experience. It's written in staff offices by LTCOL and above, who may have spent six years in tactical command slots if they were lucky. By then they are nearly as divorced from tactical reality as yer average civvie. Russia's problems are probably because they don't know doctrine is a guideline, not a bible, and follow it too closely- even when doctrine is wrong. |
Joe Legan | 26 Jun 2022 4:14 p.m. PST |
The biggest problem with fighting the US military is they don't follow their own doctrine. Use to give the Russian staff officers fits apparently. Joe |
|