I have to write something about today's games that I really want to get off my chest. Four things in particular.
Again, note that these are not accusations. It's observations. I won't name anyone in particular, but if you think you are meant, sorry, I just have this situation fresh in memory, I could find previous versions with other actors.
1. Fireteam cohesion
We had the following situation: I was leading fireteam charley in the Stargate mission. We were on the southern end of the wall. One of our guys, the medic went down because he was shot from within a crack in the wall. Happens. One guy was bandaging him. I looked around and couldn't find #3. I heard him from around a corner, moved there, but was immediately surrounded by three Russians that killed me. The fireteam was completely wiped out.
Why ?
The first mistake is on me. When the medic went down, I should have one of the team pick him up and move into safety. We were behind a wall, so it was not immediately dangerous, but close to the enemy. However, this was already a no-go since one of my fireteam was suddenly gone off to god knows where.
So, what do we learn from this ? First of all, the usual "retreat is an option" that never comes to our collective minds. Secondly, AT ALL TIMES, stay in the vicinity of the team, within VISUAL RANGE. You can easily see that by checking group info: If you can see my number (1, team leader), then I can see yours. If you don't see me, come back.
So, STAY WITH YOUR TEAM AT ALL TIMES, WITHIN VISUAL RANGE. Otherwise, the team leader will not have any idea where you are, and all attempts at organizing anything will go down the drain.
2. Squad cohesion
Somehow, any attack mission we do follows the same general scheme: Approach, then divide the fireteams and assign sectors to each. Why we always use this tactic is beyond me (and I did it myself), because it's the most braindead approach that we can have. Let me give an example: We have three fireteams of 4 each. We do not know the amount of enemies we face normally, but let's assume we have three distinct "sectors" and each is guarded by two fireteams (so, 8 each sector). So, each fireteam faces 8 guns in their sector. Which means they die. If OTOH you attack the same sector with full strength, 12 guns will face 8 guns, and chances are good that this will end up in our favor.
Even in cases where there are only few defenders, splitting the teams can go south quickly. As happened to my team today. Losing one man is not losing one man. It's losing two men: the man that's down, and the man that'll bandage him. So one man down means your team is down to half strength. In today's mission, there were at least 10 guns directed at us. As the one man went down, we suddenly faced a 1:5 superior enemy.
Bottom line, this approach will not work. Never. We just do it all the time.
3. Ignoring terrain
When we attack, not only do we divide up our fireteams, we also let them attack from directions that are totally unsuited for attack. As an example, a few weeks back we had a situation where we had to attack a small hamlet. As usual, we divided up the fireteams and had them approach from different directions. And one of them was from high up towards the hamlet with no actual visibility.
The correct approach was luckily carried out later in another mission where we had to attack a radar station. Our squad leader lead us around the installation to attack from a better angle.
But in general, we plan our attack from convenience: We approach from the south, so we attack from the south, even if the approach is shit.
4. Clear communication of the plan
In the Toyota mission yesterday, we had to retreat when we destroyed the convoy. The command was "to go south". And it went south, but not in the good way. Half way up a valley, it was suddenly revealed that one team lost their car. How is it possible that a team is left behind in such a situation.
It went on, we were attacked, and without clear procedure (drive through, stop and fight), one vehicle went on, the vehicle in front of us suddenly stopped, I was driving an unarmed vehicle, so all we could do was catch bullets.
The whole retreat became a clusterfuck in the end. In cases like that, a clear marching order should be given, and clear instruction on what to do in case of fire (drive through, stop and fight). I admit, this isn't easy, but the result was anihilation....
As I said, I'm guilty of these things as well, but all of these problems popped up yesterday again, so I wanted to bring them on the table.
Again, note that these are not accusations. It's observations. I won't name anyone in particular, but if you think you are meant, sorry, I just have this situation fresh in memory, I could find previous versions with other actors.
1. Fireteam cohesion
We had the following situation: I was leading fireteam charley in the Stargate mission. We were on the southern end of the wall. One of our guys, the medic went down because he was shot from within a crack in the wall. Happens. One guy was bandaging him. I looked around and couldn't find #3. I heard him from around a corner, moved there, but was immediately surrounded by three Russians that killed me. The fireteam was completely wiped out.
Why ?
The first mistake is on me. When the medic went down, I should have one of the team pick him up and move into safety. We were behind a wall, so it was not immediately dangerous, but close to the enemy. However, this was already a no-go since one of my fireteam was suddenly gone off to god knows where.
So, what do we learn from this ? First of all, the usual "retreat is an option" that never comes to our collective minds. Secondly, AT ALL TIMES, stay in the vicinity of the team, within VISUAL RANGE. You can easily see that by checking group info: If you can see my number (1, team leader), then I can see yours. If you don't see me, come back.
So, STAY WITH YOUR TEAM AT ALL TIMES, WITHIN VISUAL RANGE. Otherwise, the team leader will not have any idea where you are, and all attempts at organizing anything will go down the drain.
2. Squad cohesion
Somehow, any attack mission we do follows the same general scheme: Approach, then divide the fireteams and assign sectors to each. Why we always use this tactic is beyond me (and I did it myself), because it's the most braindead approach that we can have. Let me give an example: We have three fireteams of 4 each. We do not know the amount of enemies we face normally, but let's assume we have three distinct "sectors" and each is guarded by two fireteams (so, 8 each sector). So, each fireteam faces 8 guns in their sector. Which means they die. If OTOH you attack the same sector with full strength, 12 guns will face 8 guns, and chances are good that this will end up in our favor.
Even in cases where there are only few defenders, splitting the teams can go south quickly. As happened to my team today. Losing one man is not losing one man. It's losing two men: the man that's down, and the man that'll bandage him. So one man down means your team is down to half strength. In today's mission, there were at least 10 guns directed at us. As the one man went down, we suddenly faced a 1:5 superior enemy.
Bottom line, this approach will not work. Never. We just do it all the time.
3. Ignoring terrain
When we attack, not only do we divide up our fireteams, we also let them attack from directions that are totally unsuited for attack. As an example, a few weeks back we had a situation where we had to attack a small hamlet. As usual, we divided up the fireteams and had them approach from different directions. And one of them was from high up towards the hamlet with no actual visibility.
The correct approach was luckily carried out later in another mission where we had to attack a radar station. Our squad leader lead us around the installation to attack from a better angle.
But in general, we plan our attack from convenience: We approach from the south, so we attack from the south, even if the approach is shit.
4. Clear communication of the plan
In the Toyota mission yesterday, we had to retreat when we destroyed the convoy. The command was "to go south". And it went south, but not in the good way. Half way up a valley, it was suddenly revealed that one team lost their car. How is it possible that a team is left behind in such a situation.
It went on, we were attacked, and without clear procedure (drive through, stop and fight), one vehicle went on, the vehicle in front of us suddenly stopped, I was driving an unarmed vehicle, so all we could do was catch bullets.
The whole retreat became a clusterfuck in the end. In cases like that, a clear marching order should be given, and clear instruction on what to do in case of fire (drive through, stop and fight). I admit, this isn't easy, but the result was anihilation....
As I said, I'm guilty of these things as well, but all of these problems popped up yesterday again, so I wanted to bring them on the table.