"Infantry Immediate Action Drills" Topic

Some people call the Course of Action.

This is a WIP I'm doing for my infantry rules.

The only order not immediately obeyed is when attempting to move under fire.

Wolfhag

What period is this for?

Ought it not reference:

- Coming under

Effective

enemy fire?

Otherwise your infantry could be pinned by a single pistol shot.

Stoppage,
How do you qualify "effective fire"? I think it is pretty much subjective. That in itself could be a separate conversation.

For my system, I don't use "pinned", "pin markers" or "pinned down". Heresy! Why? Because I see moving under fire mainly as a "Risk-Reward" proposition for the unit. Sometimes it is worth the risk and sometimes it is not so I leave it up to the players and suffer the consequences.

The key factor is the Aggressiveness Check to move under fire, it is not automatic and the result is variable. I'm still working on it and as you can see enemy fire will have an effect. I'm also considering having a leader attempt an individual action if the unit fails. That's what leadership is right? If LTs are not getting shot they are not doing their job <grin>. This also allows for heroic and desperate actions are a part of all warfare.

Posture: When not moving a unit is in an Improved Position or Hunkered Down. In IP the unit is taking advantage of local cover and dispersed with good Situational Awareness, communication, fields of fire, and can fire at the enemy and can be targeted.

Hunkered Down is basically taking full cover like ducking down in a fighting hole or trench or ducking behind some type of hard cover. They are immune to small arms fire but can only fire back at close range, their SA is degraded so they react slower which will give the enemy the ability to maneuver better against them. Players can choose to have their unit assume a Hunkered Down posture to avoid causalities and there are situations where this is a good idea. If you are in a mid to long range firefight and your volume of fire is significantly less than the enemy and the enemy is not threatening you why bother exposing yourself. Call in mortars. A downside of Hunkered Down is that while under fire you must pass an Aggressiveness Check to assume IP and fire back.

I see IP and Hunkered Down as a level of suppression. I like the definition of suppression as a decreased ability to move, communicate, shoot and observe. Since my system uses timing and is not IGYG players need to plan and time their attacks.

Assault, Fire and Maneuver at the squad level: You have two teams in IP laying down fire on the objective and the maneuver team is Hunkered Down and hidden so not shot at. Since the maneuver team is not under fire they can move without an Aggressiveness Check after the enemy on the objective have Hunkered Down (suppressed). If the unit on the objective is in a firefight or Hunkered Down it will be slower to react allowing the maneuver unit to close on them.

The defending player has a dilemma if his volume of fire is significantly less than the attacker because he'll start taking causalities. If you are on the losing end of a firefight you have two choices: Hunker Down or Fall Back. A Fall Back order is automatically obeyed and hopefully you have an egress which is out of the enemy LOS or you can get cut down. You can Hunker Down and then attempt to go into IP when the attackers get closer but you need to pass an Aggressiveness Check and can immediately take causalities if still under fire.

The infantry rules follow the same OODA Loop rules as the AFV rules. Units are always active & observing, react to threats, determine a COA, and implement it. Poor leadership and enemy fire (suppression) degrade the four factors in the loop making it harder to execute orders and losing the initiative to the enemy.

I don't use any of the traditional IGYG rules such as unit activation, random initiative, command points, turn interrupts, etc. Players issue an order. If not under fire it should go as planned. If under fire things can become very difficult.

Firefights and Small Arms Fire: Infantry units are in fire teams of up to 6 figures and measured as volume of fire and not a hit chance with dice. Every 10 turns/seconds we determine the results and players can change posture or attempt to do so. Once a firefight is established units are considered "locked" into the fight.

When you are laying on the ground shooting and being shot at your Situational Awareness is severely degraded so you will be slow to react to new threats, especially from the flanks. Fire is directed by the team and squad leader, individuals do not get to select their targets until a close assault of HTH combat. I'm still working on this but I like the direction it is going.

For me these rules better reflect my infantry training and experience and follow the manuals better than other systems. Not using IGYG rules and determining Small Arms Fire results every 10 turn with a simultaneous movement system gets a lot of action and player decision points.

Wolfhag

Major B,
I think it can be used for battles after 1900 when infantry stopped fighting standing up in a line.

Wolfhag

I think the effects of fire scale with the number of men in a tabletop unit.

A single pistol shot is not going to stop 100 men, but it might cause 10 men to pause.

The argument of "effective" fire seems a bit of a paper tiger. Applying a bit of common sense is helpful. Are the rules modeling individual men and individual weapons or are they modeling the weight of fire being received by a group of men?

I use weight/volume of fire and compare them. If one side has a greater volume it can be said they are winning. I've built the results that if one side has 3x or more the firepower of their opponent he'll be forced to Hunker down or take excessive causalities. The initial stage of thee firefight can normally determine what will happen. That's where maximum auto and semi-auto weapons can make a difference. Sustained fire over a long period of time is about the same for most types of weapons.

If you are being attacked and fire off a few rounds and the enemy withdraws without sustaining any causalities you could say the fire was "effective". If they attack and I kill 50% of them but they kill me was my fire "effective"?

I'd have to say your fire is effective if it achieves your goal. If it does not then it is ineffective. But that's just me, you don't have to agree.

Wolfhag

It's effective if it stops them from moving. That could mean different things depending on morale, training motivation leadership etc. could be effective if taking casualties or rounds impacting close to you.
At which point it was locate enemy, FCO, win firefight etc… if well trained.
Poorly trained may hide in cover and be scared to stick their head up.

"Effective fire" was one of those things mentioned in British drill manuals, but never actually defined. I think the troops on the ground know when fire is 'effective' or not, although in the early WW2 training films it seems to be when someone in the platoon actually gets shot.

I am reminded however of one account from the Falklands when an exasperated Commando officer noted that his entire platoon hit the deck after "a couple of very wafty 7.62 rounds" came in their direction.

Martin,
seems to be when someone in the platoon actually gets shot.

Yes, it is all fun and games until someone gets a sucking chest wound.

It can be extremes too. A few rounds and everyone hits the deck. A single sniper holds up the entire company for an hour.

Then there are the Banzai charges and the Marines charging across 1,000 yards of the airfield in 100+ degree heat on Peleliu under heavy artillery and mortar fire and not stopping for anything, including for the wounded.

So it seems as if it is what I call a commanders "Risk-Reward Decision". Let the player decide and suffer the consequences or reap the rewards.

It's effective if it stops them from moving.
Agree. Anything that can stop or hinder the enemy plans, mission or command intention has a level of effectiveness. Just hitting the deck (moving into an Improved Position) is a level of suppression because your ability to shoot (blocked FOF), move (crawl?), communicate (hand & arms signals) and observe (poor and limited at ground level) is decreased.

The Germans used a tactic with an MG and mortar working close together. The mortar was register at a choke point covered by the MG. As soon as the enemy entered it the MG opened up, the defenders hit the deck. The mortar team, hearing the MG fired, started their barrage.

Supposedly one of the reasons for the MG42 high rate of fire was to get as many rounds into the target before they hit the deck or started evading which would be about 2-3 seconds so about long enough for one burst.

This is why I like a reaction based rules rather then typical IGYG/activation.

Wolfhag

I think it can be used for battles after 1900 when infantry stopped fighting standing up in a line.

I think infantry stopped fighting standing up in a line a bit earlier, like the 1880s when smokeless powder was adopted by European militaries.

Wolf,
Nice! Took me a while to figure it out because you are using different terminology but we are tracking similarly. My "pinned" is between your IP and hunker down.
At your time frame of turns it is neat that it is a players decision on how to react.
The one thing I don't get is the term " improved position". I have normally used that for a position that has been improved with sandbags, wood or other. It appears you are using it as "improved" from moving. Correct?

Joe

Ps. Effective fire is fire that has some effect on the enemy.

I can see how it could be confusing. Personally, I don't recall a specific term we used for it in the Marines.

Regarding definitions for military terms, there is normally already a definition of something that I check into without making up my own wrong definition.

Googled this:

what is it called when a soldier takes fire and seeks the best immediate cover he can get quickly near him

Answer: This action is called taking immediate action or seeking cover. In tactical military terms, it is specifically referred to as executing a "react to contact" drill, where the absolute first step is to seek the nearest available cover or concealment.

Key Tactical Terms
React to Contact: The standard battle drill initiated the moment a unit or soldier is fired upon.

Immediate Action Drill: A swift, practiced reflex action performed without waiting for orders to survive an ambush.

Taking Cover: The physical act of moving behind a barrier that protects against enemy fire.

Reaction to Contact Drill: This is the broader, collective military term for an entire squad's trained reflex when ambushed. The very first step for every individual in a "React to Contact" drill is to seek immediate cover and return fire.

Another statement from the FM7-8 manual "take up covered positions" several times: link

I got the term "IP" from a game from the last millennium called "GI Commander" by Enola games which seems to fit the above definition.

A defensive position with sandbags, fighting holes, etc. I call a "Prepared Position" as it takes time to prepare it. IP is seeking the best available cover and making the most of it when first being shot at. I see IP is a "posture" and "seeking cover" is an action.

In any of these the player can seek Full Cover or Hunker Down giving up his offensive capabilities to make the most of his defensive capabilities.

When under fire and you feel it is too dangerous to move then you are in effect "Pinned Down", I don't need a term or marker for it. If you want to move under fire and fail your Aggressiveness Check then you are in effect Pinned Down too. So for me there is no "recovering" from being Pinned Down or use of Pinned markers.

I hope that helps.

Wolfhag

Wolf,
Good explanation. I always consider improved and prepared positions to be the same thing. To many days spent in my youth with squad leader counters that read IP. That said, your explanation of IP as a posture works.
Another question, how do you remember which units are in which posture?

Joe

Sorry for the late reply.

Moving units have a movement marker in front of them showing the direction of movement. I have a counter for Hunker Down/Full Cover. So IP is the assumed posture not needing a marker whether they are in a trench, building or on the ground. I try to keep markers off the table.

Wolfhag

Makes perfect sense. So you DO have a marker, it's just for hunker down rather than pin. ; )

Joe

For what it's worth the drill I was taught ~1990 was – get down, change position, observe where the firer is, then consider what orders are and thus how to respond.

Mark,
Sounds like the OODA Loop and why wouldn't it!

We were taught to hit the deck, roll to the left or right, and listen to the Team or SL for what to do next.

Joe,
So Hunker down is a players option and can stay there as long as desired, sort of like being self pinned. To move from Hunkered Down to IP while under fire requires an Aggressiveness Check so if failing could be considered pinned down. If not under fire they can change posture freely.

Right now I'm leaving it up to the player to change postures rather than forcing them with pin or suppression results. If he wants to take the causalities let him. If no Hunker Down or Fall Back.

Wolfhag

Wolf,
So it does appear we are approaching this a bit differently. I don't have a cool flow chart but a unit's default state is basic cover which varies by terrain. You can try to move very tactically which requires a skill check. If you fail you are moving which is worse.
You can look for better cover in your square which requires a skill check (and normally an order) unless in buildings. This improves your cover but allows you to still fire. I guess this would be an improved improved position for you. (Granted my turns are much longer than yours).
The only time firing is inhibited is pinned which is a result of enemy fire. ( Pinned also improves your cover. There is no "disrupted" as that occurs naturally as squad cohesion breaks down.)
For you "pinned" is voluntary at least initially then removed with a check. Interesting….
I could see this working as your turns are seconds not minutes and it gives the player another decision to make.
How do you determine casualties?

Joe,
I don't normally use skill checks but I am looking at something like GI Commander uses that sounds about the same.

My system is combined arms, including infantry. However, infantry operates on a different "timing" system but the same movement system. I use small arms fire measured in volume (not a "to Hit #) in a 10 second period and determine the results. Units are "locked" in a firefight so they are slower to respond (engagement delay) which reflects suppression because it degrades their observation and reaction time. In an infantry only game it plays pretty quickly. Players place a small arms marker fire arrow at their target at the start of the Administrative Turn.

If you are in IP and being fired at your Firepower value is 50%.

To determine causalities I use a modified binomial table (confused yet?):

I determine it by teams (2-6 figures). So if a team of 4 firepower has a 10% chance to cause a causality at the intersection of the 4 row and 10% a D100 (2x D10) roll of 1-66 is 0, 67-96 is 1 and 97+ is 2. I've modified it to use a D20. A single roll determines the result. Binomials prevent the "Yahtzee Effect" of rolling multiple dice.

Cover and concealment is not figured into the chance to hit. Why? Too many modifiers to the firepower. The defending player rolls a D10 matched to his cover which is basically how much is exposed to be hit. Since a person is about 6 feet tall and behind 3 feet of cover on a 1-5 the cover saves him. Heavy machine guns are a +1 as is poor troops. I like keeping the defender in the game able to participate. That's why I use the SNAFU Chance in direct gun fire.

This is still a WIP and I'm thinking of if a figure is successful in his cover save he is Hunkered Down for the next 10 seconds and cannot fire back. That would reflect changing position, ducking down, etc. and maybe have him attempt to rally or pass an Aggressiveness Check to get back into he fight.

Figuring the volume of fire is more of an art than science because there are so many variables on the firing side.

Machine guns use the table a little differently. If the chance is 20% and firing at a team of 4 figures he can target 1 at 20%, 2 at 10%, etc.

In my system every 10th turn is an Administrative Phase where actions which are not timed are determined: small arms fire, grenades, smoke dissipation, communications, rally, recover from a SNAFU, etc.

This is where a grenade is prepared to throw and the result is in the next Admin Phase 10 seconds later so I think it works well for grenade ready, timing and delay without timing every grenade thrown.

Handheld anti-tank weapons use the same Action Timing as direct fire guns. Indirect Fire impacts based on the Time of Flight (range) determined in the scenario. It can be from 10-40 seconds so hitting a moving target is difficult.

Generally, in a few 10 second turns one side will see they are losing and attempt to Fall Back.

How historically accurate is this? Who knows as there is no historical standard firefight to base it on.

The game clock is used just like a turn track. Units executing a order in a future turn put their order chit on that time. When the game progresses to it he executes his order he observes the result and immediately determines his next order (OODA Loop), how long it takes and places the order marker further along on the time track. Firefights are just in 10 second timing increments but you can break down if you want or need to.

Wolfhag

Wolf,
Makes sense. Keeping "cover" a separate roll gives the defense something to do and keeps the above table simple. I like the idea of a "save" hunkering down. That reflects suppression.
I personally like the "Yahtzee effect" if you mean I get to roll a lot of dice! : )

Joe

My impression of the "Yahtzee Effect" is when you roll a handful of D6s and all of them come up the same number which I feel is unrealistic but some may say that's how random works. The binomial table prevents that unless the chance very high to begin with.

Some people may remark at the 1% chance. Remember, in some situations it can take thousands of rounds to cause a causality.

Rally: I recall Rallying as designating a "Rally Point" to fall back on if we got dispersed and had to fall back. Not attempting to Rally one figure from something like broken morale.

When a figure passes his Cover Save he Hunkers Down and move to a slightly new position (suppressed). That's why he is out of the fight for the next 10 turns. If still under fire, he needs to pass an Aggressiveness Check to go back into IP (stick his head up to shoot). If he fails the check, the player can use the Leadership Modifier of a leader which is close enough to "motivate" him to get back into the fight. However, using leadership modifiers puts the leader in danger and may become a causality. When figures are Hunkered Down and can go into IP you'll be forced to fall back. That's how I like to portray the action.

Small Arms Fire results in suppression forcing the unit to fall back more than attrition. However, if caught in the open at close range you can take a good % of causalities at once.

Wolfhag

Wolf,
I like bell curves. Since no one on this thread is my student I will spare you my "life is a bell curve" talk.
I agree that it can take thousands of rounds to cause a casualty. If you recall, one of my rules is "easy to pin/suppress/hunker but hard to kill troops. Yes you can have a Yahtzee moment but you have just as much chance of rolling all "1s" and everyone walks away.
Looks like you have great stuff!

Joe