Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Counter Assaulting Ambushes

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Counter Assaulting Ambushes

    // Begin Rant...

    ARE STUPID. Yes. They are. If your a squad leader or fire team leader... DON'T DO IT.

    What I have seen...
    I have seen this tactic used consistently now in our community in games. All its doing is producing causalities. I watched some two squads of players the other night get ripped up assaulting UP HILL against enemies entrenched in fighting positions. They enemy didn't number more than a couple fire teams. Why would you run and advance straight into gun fire? You are a soft meaty target, you don't stop bullets well.

    Why we do this?
    Yeah, I know.. that old doctrine.. if your ambushed the best thing to do, and which the enemy doesn't expect, is to advance on him and achieve fire superiority. Well, it makes sense, and I'm sure its been used successfully before. However, from what I'm seeing on our servers.. I'm DONE with this tactic. Its not working. We usually end up getting a very high casualty rate and fail the mission.

    Also..
    Hurry, Hurry, Hurry.. I sense in our games a lot we are in too much of a hurry. I know some of us have limited time and we want to get into action. However, we're really cutting our combat effectiveness because of this. I encourage you to keep this in mind.. slow down. Remember GeneralCarver's saying on hurrying... "Hurry up and die, hurry up and die". You can think of yourself saying this to yourself as your hurrying up across the battlefield to find the nearest piece of action. Don't do it.

    What should we do?..
    Well.. get to cover and return fire from cover. Then have another element move and get into a firing position upon the enemy. "But GeneralCarver, we already do that.". Yeah, I know, you just need to do it BIGGER. Much Bigger. HUH? Yep, bigger my friend. I've noticed our maneuvers are often not large enough. When you flank a position you need to move far enough out that the enemy won't notice you or will have a lot of trouble hitting you. Think distance. You might have to run hundreds of meters. I've seen people ordered to flank and then they go and flank across OPEN GROUND. Wrong. They should have at least followed a woodline or play leap frog with the cover available along the route.

    Alright, I know its an ear full, but I hope this might help you. If anything remember this.. if you get shot, its because you failed to be using cover when the enemy was engaging you. Cover. Cover. Cover. Use it. Better to engage longer distances from cover than to try and close on the enemy and get chewed up.

    I hope this was a help. Please consider and head my words brothers in arms.

    // End Rant
    Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. - General George S. Patton.

  • #2
    Re: Counter Assaulting Ambushes

    http://ttp2.dslyecxi.com/battle_drills.html

    if anyone wants a nice clean guide for reaction to ambushes scroll down a bit to the reaction to ambush section and it details the types of reaction fairly well
    (just givin some rant support )
    To talk to me or just hurl Abuse my way get me on Xfire:Hashass1n






    I can't read, can't write, can't be an officer -NCO of the Vistula Uhlans Jan Pawlikowski

    Mute since the universe began

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Counter Assaulting Ambushes

      Very well written, Carver. And I also want to add one little thing: Bounding retreat. Fire and pull back. Fire and pull back. Suppress the enemy while pulling out of the kill zone. Smoke from grenade launchers coupled with high fire volume can ruin the enemy's day quite a lot. People use the alternative 40mm round far too little.



      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Counter Assaulting Ambushes

        From what I could tell from last night (if you're talking about the mission i think you are) it wasn't even really and ambush, more that they were pretty much attacking an enemy force that had superior numbers and positions. There is a valid case for assaulting through a true ambush, depending how close they are and how much cover you have when you take fire. Particularly against human players, I cannot emphasize the need to gain fire superiority and gain it fast. For example, in the TvT we played on Podagorsk yesterday, my squad took fire, and even though we couldn't pinpoint exactly where the enemy was, by having 8-10 guys start pouring rounds downrange at their suspected positions we managed to stagnate the enemy fire and force them back into cover. Fixing the enemy like this in combination with things like mortars or even grenade launchers can have a devastating effect.


        In a world of Herp, one man dares to Derp.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Counter Assaulting Ambushes

          Originally posted by ThePieSpy View Post
          From what I could tell from last night (if you're talking about the mission i think you are) it wasn't even really and ambush, more that they were pretty much attacking an enemy force that had superior numbers and positions........

          Yeah, probably the same mission. I suppose I could have titled this "How to advance on an enemy" too.


          Superior positions yeah. Superior numbers no.

          Our player count outnumbered the enemy on that hill we were going up against (i viewed them in spectating after dieing). We went head long into an enemy awaiting us in fighting positions. Now at first we actually made it to some cover. Not too far away from the enemy. Leaders and players seemed uncontent to stay at that cover and exchange fire until we killed them. They keep trying to ADVANCE ACROSS OPEN GROUND and WOODLAND (not good cover) and they got chewed up. We failed the mission shortly afterwards.

          We should have stayed at our cover and had an element SAFELY begin flanking to find a weak point to advance on.


          On another note..
          Zedic and I were kinda talking about something like this awhile ago relating to how Western forces are fighting in Afghanistan. He was saying that US forces usually counter assault the enemy on engagements. This is why we're getting higher causalities than earlier on in the war. We're being more aggressive. He said the Canadian military will usually hold position awhile and exchange fire.. weakening the enemy before they do any rushing in.
          Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. - General George S. Patton.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Counter Assaulting Ambushes

            I have to agree completely with you, GeneralCarver: one should NEVER assault an entrenched enemy from the front without any sort of real cover, and even then you do not assault when long-range fire can do the job: modern armies have a lot of firepower at their disposal that, coupled with lot of training, allows them to have an advantage on the longer ranges. However, when the distance closes, all these advantages are lost, since that way it is necessary to fight on the enemy's terms. Also about the fire&maneuver: the longer the way you take, the harder is for the enemy to spot you and easier for you to get into an effective flanking position; I learned this the hard way when I started playing ArmA1 online.

            Originally posted by GeneralCarver View Post
            Zedic and I were kinda talking about something like this awhile ago relating to how Western forces are fighting in Afghanistan. He was saying that US forces usually counter assault the enemy on engagements. This is why we're getting higher causalities than earlier on in the war. We're being more aggressive. He said the Canadian military will usually hold position awhile and exchange fire.. weakening the enemy before they do any rushing in.
            A friend of mine that served in Afghanistan told me a few stories about the agressive tactics currently employed by the US Army, and this does not surprise me a bit: sometimes being extremely aggressive pays off, but it seems that in many situations a less-aggressive approach would have worked as effectively, without the same amount of casualties.
            sigpic

            Now with 200% more content!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Counter Assaulting Ambushes

              One thing about Afghanistan is that the avarage soldier carries a combat pack of what? 35kg? There's no chance in hell he'll actually catch up with the mujahideen if he starts by going around, and the enemy has learned not to fight for too long at a time if they can avoid since it just ends with them getting Mk84 bombs by F-15s in their heads.

              The 'mobility' warfare of high momentum, a lot of helicopters and so on is nice, but when actually on foot the heavily laden Coalition troops aren't half as fast as the insurgents. I'd suspect that, and the fact the enemy has learned to disengage before getting bombed, is a reason for straightforward assaults, since otherwise they'll be gone before you actually kill anything.

              Until our enemy is doing tactical retreats in ArmA there's no reason for us to assault head-on when taken pants down, unless we're in a very favourable position.



              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Counter Assaulting Ambushes

                The old doctrine you are talking about might be worth noting here.

                At least what I've read/heard is simple:

                There are two types of ambushes. Far ambushes and close ambushes. A "far" ambush, is an ambush that takes place OUTSIDE of HAND GRENADE range (yes, HAND GRENADE, so 30m). A close ambush takes place within hand grenade range. When confronted with a CLOSE ambush, you charge the enemy and simply try and get out of the kill zone and suprise them. Basically, you are screwed if you stay where you are because you are RIGHT next to them (ie: 30m or less) AND you don't really know where they are.

                Doctrine for a FAR ambush (further than about 30m) is to generally try and break contact with a fighting withdrawl of some sort.


                I think what you are try to make clear in people's minds is the basic principles of fire and movement.

                Fire and movement DOES NOT mean sending an entire squad on a flanking mission to kill the enemy and hope they don't get shot. You need to balance the movement part with the fire part. Simpler terms, if ever you are moving while in contact, SOMEONE MUST BE SHOOTING (or prepared to shoot within half a second). So, no, that guy running next to you with a M249 is NOT covering you. They can die just as well as you, because you can't react fast enough to being shot at.

                There is a reason squads are separated into fireteams. To employ fire and movement.

                Another problem I've seen with the use of fire and movement is understand what the limitations of distance and effective covering fire are. If another squad in your platoon is 350m away, and you are closing on an enemy position 50m away, THEY CANNOT COVER YOU EFFECTIVELY. That enemy at 50m can pop up, shoot two of you, and go to cover again before the friendly squad 350m away recognizes a threat and starts firing.

                This calls for different types of fire and movement. The closer you get, the slower you need to move and the shorter your bounds. So, with a contact 400m out, you could maneuver as squads, one squad covering, the other moving. But, once you are around 250-300m and closer, this becomes dangerous, depending on the terrain. A good rule of thumb: 400m+, maneuver as a squad, 150-300m, maneuver in fire teams, 150m and closer, maneuver WITHIN fireteams (bounding as buddy teams), 50m and closer, maneuver WITHIN buddy teams (one covers, other moves). Reaction time is a key point for covering fire, if you are too slow, the buddy you are supposed to be covering is a goner. Longer distance = slower reaction time.


                Err, anyways ...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Counter Assaulting Ambushes

                  Fire without maneuver is a waste of ammo, and maneuver without fire is suicide
                  The textbook assault on an entrenched enemy would be to fire at them to keep their head down while a team moves up/around to kill them.

                  Unfortunately I believe men in trenches are forced to stay standing because they don't understand they are in cover and would otherwise spend the whole game lying on the floor of their trench.

                  This pretty much means you can't suppress them, just try to shoot the ones you can see, stay behind cover as much as possible and try to minimise your response time to unexpected targets (players stationary with weapons ready can respond much quicker than players that are moving)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Counter Assaulting Ambushes

                    If they are in patented beta-Trenches (TM) they will indeed crouch when under fire. They can still return fire, but, it is less effective in general.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Counter Assaulting Ambushes

                      Originally posted by beita View Post
                      If they are in patented beta-Trenches (TM) they will indeed crouch when under fire. They can still return fire, but, it is less effective in general.
                      cool :) suppressing fire all the way then

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Counter Assaulting Ambushes

                        Just remember that, in general, AIs require different tactics to deal with than players.
                        Suppression effectiveness on the AIs is reduced when compared against players, since it usually makes them go prone, without affecting their aim, whereas with human opponents suppression is quite valuable, although ArmA2 does not have the same level of suppression modelling that can be found in Project Reality or Jcove Lite. Still, even though from a gameplay point of view suppression works only with near misses impacting close to the player, there is still the psychological effect of hearing those bullets breaking the sound barrier just inches above your head (and the effect improved a lot with the recent ACE_SM modifications).
                        sigpic

                        Now with 200% more content!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Counter Assaulting Ambushes

                          Impacts and near misses around AI severely impacts their ability to aim. If you watch some friendly AI in a firefight, rounds coming close causes their aim to shake rather violently.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Counter Assaulting Ambushes

                            Originally posted by beita View Post
                            Impacts and near misses around AI severely impacts their ability to aim. If you watch some friendly AI in a firefight, rounds coming close causes their aim to shake rather violently.
                            I honestly never noticed that: usually when I "suppress" an AI is simply because I failed to take into account the range or the wind (I missed), or I am using a high-capacity weapon (like the SAW), and I never felt that the AI aiming skill was impaired, but if that is the case, then suppression and volume of fire would be much more useful than I thought.
                            sigpic

                            Now with 200% more content!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Counter Assaulting Ambushes

                              Retreat!? Pah. There is no retreat. We are simply advancing in another direction.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X