Tactics?

[Yoherz]

My history teacher last year was in the army and always complained about how the generals would use their tactics and complained about the president and sometimes what he would do if he were president. So, he knew about tactics and gave us different scenarios from older battles like the civil war, when the British invaded America because of taxes, when the Panama canal was invaded, and other things like that. He would always say what he would have done were he the general, and ask what we would have done. I was the only one that always had my hand up and would come up with better strategies than him, and he even promised that he would make me his secretary of defense if he became president.
Ok, I'm apparently pretty good at war tactics and I wanted to test my skill. It'll go that you guys give me a scenario and I'll come up with a solution. Something like this:

Example Guy: China has sent their soldiers into the Panama canal and are currently stationed there, and refuse to leave. What do you do?

Yoherz: Launch a two-pronged attack, one from North America and one from South America. Bring snipers and heavy gunners (like machine guns). Split the troops according to size of the villages. Have a few snipers take out some of the exposed Chinese soldiers and they'll either blitz the snipers, which we will open with the machine guns, or try to hide, in which we make them out with the snipers and keep the heavy gunners ready in case they blitz as a last ditch effort.

[ChroniC588]

okay this was in my ROTC class in college. It was just thrown out for fun to discuss land navigation, but it got all serious and people were giving very detailed and complex answers.

You have a squad of about a dozen men and are in a rugged terrain area similar to the Tora Bora hills in Afghanistan. You are well supplied with enough rations, ammunition, comms and everything. You currently are at the foot of a large hill overlooking the area.

A Russian half-track is seen coming your way with about 20-25 soldiers. You have about 10 minutes to plan.

What would you do?

[Yoherz]

Not sure what that terrain is like, but I'd say to put some of the comm and rations on the ground and hide under the sand (if it's there, like I said, I don't know the terrain) or moss or whatever else. Start speaking into the comm to draw their attention and when they get close to inspect it, launch an all-out assault on them. This will greatly reduce their numbers, and by following the rules of an ambush, they won't be able to escape nor radio before they get killed.
After the attack, crawl to the top of the hill and see if any hung back. If so, they've probably run a good bit, in which I get a sniper to take him out before he can get too far and radio.

You mean complex answers like those?:lila:

[ChroniC588]

ha ha...yeah most of us gave that answer and the instructor cracked up because that was the wrong answer...

we all wanted to engage. and he said that was wrong.

He told us when you see a single enemy vehicle like that it means they are a scout vehicle for a larger force which is nearby. Usually such a scout is sent to test the lines and see where your forces are. Since its mission is to locate you, it is better to not give away your position and keep them guessing where your lines are. So in essence you make them fail in their mission but at the same time gain valuable intel and to keep out of sight, wait and observe and now have roughly discovered where they are.

The valuable info is to see the condition of the vehicles, troops, their weapons and possibly their unit designation, etc. And if the vehicle turns around you can kinda gestimate how far their resupply point is since they will turn back at half a tank of gas or more.

We all sat dumbfounded....

He said it would be suicidal to attack, because you have no way to retreat if you get overwhelmed, you would be pinned down and give them enough time to bring in reinforcements. You must always have a way to exit quickly.

It kinda makes sense..so like in games like Red Alert I would send a single infantryman in roaming about...I didnt care if he got killed because the moment he died I knew where the enemy was. And I had the element of surprise to go wipe him out without him being able to find my base.

However the opposite is if I saw an enemy unit approach, I wouldn't engage. I would observe and follow him back to his base to locate it.

[Yoherz]

ha ha...yeah most of us gave that answer and the instructor cracked up because that was the wrong answer...

we all wanted to engage. and he said that was wrong.

He told us when you see a single enemy vehicle like that it means they are a scout vehicle for a larger force which is nearby. Usually such a scout is sent to test the lines and see where your forces are. Since its mission is to locate you, it is better to not give away your position and keep them guessing where your lines are. So in essence you make them fail in their mission but at the same time gain valuable intel and to keep out of sight, wait and observe and now have roughly discovered where they are.

The valuable info is to see the condition of the vehicles, troops, their weapons and possibly their unit designation, etc. And if the vehicle turns around you can kinda gestimate how far their resupply point is since they will turn back at half a tank of gas or more.

We all sat dumbfounded....

He said it would be suicidal to attack, because you have no way to retreat if you get overwhelmed, you would be pinned down and give them enough time to bring in reinforcements. You must always have a way to exit quickly.

It kinda makes sense..so like in games like Red Alert I would send a single infantryman in roaming about...I didnt care if he got killed because the moment he died I knew where the enemy was. And I had the element of surprise to go wipe him out without him being able to find my base.

However the opposite is if I saw an enemy unit approach, I wouldn't engage. I would observe and follow him back to his base to locate it.

While that's all true, I didn't say to engage them. I said that you pull them in, and attack while they inspect it, which they would do especially if they're a scouting unit.
Though, the way I read it, it looked like they already knew my location and were heading my way regardless. I'll split this to make sure on this:

Scouts: I would still draw them in with the rations and comm since they're there to investigate, then ambush them before they can contact via radio. Just the start of the ambush should cut their numbers by at least half, making things a lot more level.

Attackers: I would do the same, besides that these would have weapons, so it would be harder to ambush them simply because they can counterattack. This just inquires that they are well hidden in the sand, moss, swamp, or whatever terrain it is. This way it's a lot safer for my men and less of them will be killed. By doing this, we can inspect their equipment and condition in detail after the battle, and have their radio equipment, gun models, and foods for biological attacks if need be. Or, if it went wrong, you can swarm since you're ambushing them and hopefully you'll have a regroup point.



For Red Alert, it's good to follow them back to the camp, but it's also a lot more dangerous because you have a LOT better chance of being spotted, even if it's only one soldier.
Though, as for sending out a man to scout and not caring if he dies, try to find a man that will do that in the real army. ;) Though, if you can, he'll probably have killed himself before he can get on the battlefield. XD

[ChroniC588]

I thought u said u would lure them in and do an all-out assault?

true I just used Red Alert as an example of the reasoning behind the tactic to not reveal your position but locate the enemy's first and how it would work in at least a war video game.

[Yoherz]

Something like that. it's more of a tactical draw-in and then we open fire. Working fast, we can take them out before any of my men get killed.

Yeah, but I dislike the realism of the games. They get more and more realistic, but it's nothing like the real thing. You're not used to the controls as you are with your own body, and you can't hold your breath, and you can't hide in certain places, you can't do things like I said like luring them in (at least, not the ones I've played) and you can't control the entire realism of it.
Simply put, I like real war better because it's.....well.....real.

[NasTee]

Where does foreign policy come into play in all of this?

[Yoherz]

It.....doesn't?
The thing says, "Military, Political, and Religious discussion" so it can be any of them. This thread is just about war tactics. At least, so far.

[ChroniC588]

Something like that. it's more of a tactical draw-in and then we open fire. Working fast, we can take them out before any of my men get killed.



That is great...but its 12 vs 25. And you dont have information on whether they have reinforcements or how far they are? You are already outnumbered to begin with.

And its assuming the enemy soldiers wouldn't think its a trap and make a counter-move to call your bluff. Its assuming they hear noise and they all rush in. What if they send just 2-3 guys to check it out with the rest waiting and taking defensive positions? Will you still attack?

What if they just call in an artillery barrage or an air strike around the radio? You dont know if they have artillery guns at a nearby firebase, etc.

Attacking them leaves open too many things to chance. The danger is by putting those items out you have already given away your position. They immediately know someone has been there. And they might just turn around and go back to their main force to report having succeeded in their scouting mission in making contact with the enemy.

[NasTee]

I dont know but even if I had a small squad against a tank I'd just use the shoot and scoot tactic. I would not chance sacrificing any of the lives of my soldiers because I know that once the tank is disabled, its crew is SOL. Its just like going against a machine gun position, 1 machine gun requires at least a 3 to 1 ratio. I think the same can apply to a tank, the terorrist in iraq have shown that.

[Yoherz]

True. Hit and run is probably your only real tactic, and you would have to be strategic with your shots to disable the tank.

[NasTee]

True. Hit and run is probably your only real tactic, and you would have to be strategic with your shots to disable the tank.

Small arms is nothing against a tank, it can only go so far, so I'd want to use that against it. I would never gamble my soldiers lives unless we were making a last stand. I

As for the panama situation, I dont know. So many factors can be involved, the resources you get aren't specified. If I had total US resources I'd try to engage the situation diplomatically. Those soldiers could make a good negotiation tool against the Chinese, especially if they have some of ours in captivity. But if it was a Alamo (last stand) type situation, I'd hold them down with machine gun and flank them, not to get in, but to draw them out and pick em off 1 at a time.

Being gung ho isn't worth it when you are on the offensive, so I'd rather let them make desperate take the chances and dig their own holes.

In executing an Artful Strategy: When ten times greater, surround them; When five times greater, attack them; When two times greater, scatter them. If the opponent is ready to challenge: When fewer in number, be ready to evade them; When unequal to the match, be ready to avoid them. Even when the smaller opponents have a strong position, the larger opponent will capture them.

gotta love sun tzu....

[ChroniC588]

Small arms is nothing against a tank, it can only go so far, so I'd want to use that against it. I would never gamble my soldiers lives unless we were making a last stand. I

As for the panama situation, I dont know. So many factors can be involved, the resources you get aren't specified. If I had total US resources I'd try to engage the situation diplomatically. Those soldiers could make a good negotiation tool against the Chinese, especially if they have some of ours in captivity. But if it was a Alamo (last stand) type situation, I'd hold them down with machine gun and flank them, not to get in, but to draw them out and pick em off 1 at a time.

Being gung ho isn't worth it when you are on the offensive, so I'd rather let them make desperate take the chances and dig their own holes.



gotta love sun tzu....

Yup.. I agree with Sun Tzu. I would never challenge an opponent that is stronger than me. Like that Patton saying?

You dont win a war by dying for your country, you get the other poor bastard to die for his (sic?)

The big factor in the scenario I stated was your outnumbered and dont have enough time to do much preparation. It would be better to evade and wait till you got more information about the enemy to make a decision, attacking would be unwise unless you were more than assured victory.

Like Shogun said...pretty much everything can be replaced except your men. Once a man is lost they cannot be replaced. Yes you can get a new recruit or reinforcement, but its not the same. Risking them in any situation where you have a good chance of losing men is too risky and not worth it.

The big IF I failed to answer and you caught it though was "did they spot you or not...that changes the answer, but for now lets assume they didnt see you based on how they haven't changed speed or course."

If I was a squad leader in that situation I would rather keep hidden, observe then if I must kill them radio in an airstrike on them. I dont need to fire a single bullet all my men come home, the enemy is dead and thats enough for me. It's not heroic, there's no glory but my whole squad comes back w/o a scratch with the mission successful and that is the best possible outcome.

Okay...lets have a new scenario, yoherz start us off?

[Yoherz]

Small arms is nothing against a tank, it can only go so far, so I'd want to use that against it. I would never gamble my soldiers lives unless we were making a last stand.

I know, that's kinda what I was saying. Your best tactic would be disable it with a hit and run in the event that you can't escape. The only thing would be that your shots would have to be very well placed to take them down.

As for the panama situation, I dont know. So many factors can be involved, the resources you get aren't specified. If I had total US resources I'd try to engage the situation diplomatically. Those soldiers could make a good negotiation tool against the Chinese, especially if they have some of ours in captivity. But if it was a Alamo (last stand) type situation, I'd hold them down with machine gun and flank them, not to get in, but to draw them out and pick em off 1 at a time.

Being gung ho isn't worth it when you are on the offensive, so I'd rather let them make desperate take the chances and dig their own holes.



gotta love sun tzu....

That's also what I said. I didn't clarify resources, but I assumed you would get it when I mentioned my history teacher saying he was going to make me his secretary of defense. Though, by my saying that they wouldn't leave was saying that diplomacy was no longer an option.

I was saying that we send our men in there, and split them according to the size of the villages. Only snipers and heavy gunners. Use the snipers to take a few guys and get them spooked. From there they either launch an all-out offensive, which is what the heavy guns are for, or they try to hide and we take them out with snipers. Either way, they have no way to escape.

Yup.. I agree with Sun Tzu. I would never challenge an opponent that is stronger than me. Like that Patton saying?

Well the obvious choice, so I was presenting what I would do in the case that you can't escape completely.

The big factor in the scenario I stated was your outnumbered and dont have enough time to do much preparation. It would be better to evade and wait till you got more information about the enemy to make a decision, attacking would be unwise unless you were more than assured victory.

Like Shogun said...pretty much everything can be replaced except your men. Once a man is lost they cannot be replaced. Yes you can get a new recruit or reinforcement, but its not the same. Risking them in any situation where you have a good chance of losing men is too risky and not worth it.

The big IF I failed to answer and you caught it though was "did they spot you or not...that changes the answer, but for now lets assume they didnt see you based on how they haven't changed speed or course."

If I was a squad leader in that situation I would rather keep hidden, observe then if I must kill them radio in an airstrike on them. I dont need to fire a single bullet all my men come home, the enemy is dead and thats enough for me. It's not heroic, there's no glory but my whole squad comes back w/o a scratch with the mission successful and that is the best possible outcome.

Okay...lets have a new scenario, yoherz start us off?

Well, I assumed that it was an offensive squad since they were heading my way, and I didn't think that a group of 20-25 people would be a scouting squad. Regardless, I said to draw them into an ambush with the rations and active comm. From there all of your men have a vantage point and can most likely take out their a man first shot. This cuts their numbers in half, and keeps them guessing where my men are since they're all hiding and firing from different directions. The worst that could happen from there would be that they start firing randomly around, but my men would be on their stomachs so they wouldn't be hit.

Well in the panama canal scenario and other such things, they would more likely have a large number of small groups scattered in various areas (especially if it's the Chinese that can afford to split so much), thus an air strike would only take out one team, tell where you've already been and where you haven't according to where you attacked, and give away your location, putting your men in danger as well as alerting them that you're on the offensive.


Ok, a new scenario? I'm not too good at coming up with these, but here goes:

Russia has been training their men and stocking up on bombs. They're ready to attack, and have a decent size navy and air force to defend themselves with. What do you do?

[ChroniC588]

Russia?

well first...we need to verify the information is credible, and need more info on what kind of bombs? we talking nukes or conventional? (so we dont repeat the Iraq pretext of finding WMD's). So utilize whatever intel resource we have to get as much info as possible.

second...if its an illegal act of aggression we would lobby the UN security council, NATO and all other political affiliations to protest this action and if necessary warn that we will use all means necessary to retaliate including our allies in Europe and abroad, etc.

third...if war is inevitable we will begin mobilizing and gauge whether we actually deploy large conventional forces based on Russia's next move.

I wouldn't move any further than that until I knew more about Russia's intentions, capabilities and response (both actual and implied) to the UN SC's actions.

-----------
but just for fun war is inevitable and Russia attacks...and say worst-case scenario they team with China & N.Korea and do a double assault one into Europe and another into Asia (Japan/S.Korea). I would deploy units accordingly to both campaign theaters in a delaying tactic to stall them. Hopefully I can slow their advance and mire them in brutal guerilla warfare. And just fight this way to a stale-mate. I wouldn't expend forces to advance into their territory until I have sufficiently whittle them down and their supplies are low. At the same time to break their supplies I would bombard their industrial base, agricultural fields, blockade their harbours, sink their merchant ships etc. All in an attempt to bring them to the bargaining table to sue for peace or at least a binding cease fire.

By no means would I ever pull a Napoleon or Hitler and march on Stalingrad (St. Petersburg).

If they aggress further and threaten nukes, etc...I would do likewise. And if they use them...well in 3 minutes it wont matter...every single person on Earth will be dead.:smile2:

[Yoherz]

There was actually a reason I put such little information. Since you have little to no information, use diplomacy. Should they have been threatening and it taken a lot just to get them to meet, I would also send a spy in to gather information, just as you said.
Sometimes you have to use reverse psychology and see why I posted such little information, or why they threatened with such a large weaponry set. Could it be a bluff?

Though, I guess it was too easy. Told you I'm not good at making these. lol. Wanna brag one from the history books ChroniC?

[ChroniC588]

Yeah it was too vague...my first reaction was to get more intel.

Okay here is the scenario:

1) In disgust with the treatment of Arab prisoners at Gitmo Bay Cuba has beseiged our US naval base there. Our forces are trapped and in need of relief, about 50 soldiers have been killed and a further 500 taken prisoner in armed conflict. The base will fall in a few days w/o reinforcement.

2) Venezuela and Bolivia pledge support for Cuba. Osama Bin Laden has praised Castro for standing up to the US Imperialists and promises on a video tape on Al-Jazeera that insurgents will double efforts to hamper any attempt for troop withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan. He also promises that he will attempt to attack key US targets to further weaken the US as praise for the great Castro. Hugo Chavez has successfully lobbied OPEC to cut oil shipments to the US as retaliation if we declare war on Cuba.

3) China, Russia and France veto all motions in the UN and label the US criminal if we declare war on Cuba. Chinese and Russian warships dock in Havana and other Cuban ports to make it difficult to blockade, mine or attack Cuban ships w/o risking sinking Russian or Chinese vessels (they all raised Cuban flags to confuse you).

4) Only Britain will send troops and ships to aid the US, no other ally joins in.

5) We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan so we only have whatever reserve troops available.

6) To further complicate things all Cuban military sites have young children, civilians and US POW's placed as human shields.

7) While you are waiting, a US Coast Guard Cutter that got too close is sunk by Cuban Air Force Mig's with half the crew killed.

[Yoherz]

Good one.

Ok, I'd have one of our best (preferably best) spies sneak into Cuba while pretending to have my men in Afganistan preparing for an all-out assault. This will distract them, along with the coast guard ship, and allow my spy to have minimal resistance when he gets a ride from the 'inspection' ship that checks out the destroyed ship while he/she sneaks in to put a knife at the Cuban leader's neck and forces him to call everything off on national TV that I patch in.
This move will cause Osama to lose faith in him for not dieing for his cause as the extremists usually believe and will not count as declaring war on them.

Also, in the case that he gets caught (he better not if he's working for the US defense) then I will have supplied him with not only a suicide pill, but foreign weapons and plans that will frame one of their allies. They'll see this and overreact, thinking that they only made the alliance to make them trust them.

[ChroniC588]

Castro is already on his deathbed, threatening to kill him wont do much he will just laugh at the assassin and say go ahead...it'll only give him greater international support that the US would resort to using an assassin and kill an old man dying in a hospital bed.:beatup:

You also cant send an inspection ship...unless you want it to get sunk. The Cubans attacking a Coast Guard cutter has made it clear it will sink any US ship that comes near.;) You probably could send a sub and drop a man in Cuba in scuba gear at night..if ur doing the cover ops thing.

Osama would just use this to prove that the US is a bully and would resort to threatening a dying old man as a very cowardly act. He would blast this in a second video on Al-Jazeera immediately afterwards. Calling for Jihad against America...and praising the Cubans for standing up to the US in the belief of righteousness and the value of human life.

Castro brother Raul will issue a statement saying he grew tired of the US committing torture on hapless Arab prisoners on Cuban soil. He liberated them because he disagreed with US policy. And he calls his brother a martyr for dying for his beliefs at the hands of an American assassin/murderer.

-------------------------
btw...you seem to like to always use covert ops and planting spies and infiltrators into your enemies. That's interesting.

[NasTee]

Yeah it was too vague...my first reaction was to get more intel.

Okay here is the scenario:

1) In disgust with the treatment of Arab prisoners at Gitmo Bay Cuba has beseiged our US naval base there. Our forces are trapped and in need of relief, about 50 soldiers have been killed and a further 500 taken prisoner in armed conflict. The base will fall in a few days w/o reinforcement.

2) Venezuela and Bolivia pledge support for Cuba. Osama Bin Laden has praised Castro for standing up to the US Imperialists and promises on a video tape on Al-Jazeera that insurgents will double efforts to hamper any attempt for troop withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan. He also promises that he will attempt to attack key US targets to further weaken the US as praise for the great Castro. Hugo Chavez has successfully lobbied OPEC to cut oil shipments to the US as retaliation if we declare war on Cuba.

3) China, Russia and France veto all motions in the UN and label the US criminal if we declare war on Cuba. Chinese and Russian warships dock in Havana and other Cuban ports to make it difficult to blockade, mine or attack Cuban ships w/o risking sinking Russian or Chinese vessels (they all raised Cuban flags to confuse you).

4) Only Britain will send troops and ships to aid the US, no other ally joins in.

5) We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan so we only have whatever reserve troops available.

6) To further complicate things all Cuban military sites have young children, civilians and US POW's placed as human shields.

7) While you are waiting, a US Coast Guard Cutter that got too close is sunk by Cuban Air Force Mig's with half the crew killed.


Okay thats a complicating one, I dont think a strike is advisable. Looks like a job for Henry Kessinger. I would at that point send in CIA operatives to help propagate another revolution in Cuba, I know it wont work but I think it will distabalize an already unstable government enough to allow deplomacy.

[Yoherz]

Castro is already on his deathbed, threatening to kill him wont do much he will just laugh at the assassin and say go ahead...it'll only give him greater international support that the US would resort to using an assassin and kill an old man dying in a hospital bed.:beatup:

You also cant send an inspection ship...unless you want it to get sunk. The Cubans attacking a Coast Guard cutter has made it clear it will sink any US ship that comes near.;) You probably could send a sub and drop a man in Cuba in scuba gear at night..if ur doing the cover ops thing.

Osama would just use this to prove that the US is a bully and would resort to threatening a dying old man as a very cowardly act. He would blast this in a second video on Al-Jazeera immediately afterwards. Calling for Jihad against America...and praising the Cubans for standing up to the US in the belief of righteousness and the value of human life.

Castro brother Raul will issue a statement saying he grew tired of the US committing torture on hapless Arab prisoners on Cuban soil. He liberated them because he disagreed with US policy. And he calls his brother a martyr for dying for his beliefs at the hands of an American assassin/murderer.

-------------------------
btw...you seem to like to always use covert ops and planting spies and infiltrators into your enemies. That's interesting.

This is starting to drift more into politics rather than war tactics, but I'll do my best to compensate.

I don't follow politics very much, but I could have the same thing done to whomever takes over if they carry on what he has done (didn't know he was going to die since I don't follow it). Though, I could have used the wrong country name (I'm horrible with geography). Either way, I could do multiple strikes on the leaders and force them to call things off.

Exactly. I send it in, and it will get attacked, therefore I can say that we were only trying to inspect our sunken ship, where we sneak on the spy and he can get out of there before it gets attacked. This way, they think that everyone was killed when they attacked it, but secretly the spy got away. It's a near perfect cover.

(For the last two paragraphs) That's when I mention how they attacked my inspection ship that was completely helpless. Their act of aggression against my unarmed group would show beyond a doubt that we're not the bullies.

------
Yup. It kinda drifts into what you were saying with the air strike. It's fast, efficient, and none of my men get hurt. I only go for the direct offensive as a last resort.

[ChroniC588]

hmm...all wars are political.

especially nowadays, its all politics...very little tactics.

gone are the days when generals led armies and actually gave real orders. today orders are given by politicians who dont know jack about whats going on.

:beer: I drink beer now.

[Yoherz]

That's the thing though. I let them be all talk and explain stuff after I have guys attack certain spots to severely disable a country. lol.
Which side of that would you rather be on? Giving orders or trying to explain it? :sailor:

[ChroniC588]

I prefer to be neither.

I would rather just drink a beer and watch Samurai Champloo or something. :beer:

[ChroniC588]

Okay thats a complicating one, I dont think a strike is advisable. Looks like a job for Henry Kessinger. I would at that point send in CIA operatives to help propagate another revolution in Cuba, I know it wont work but I think it will distabalize an already unstable government enough to allow deplomacy.

is Kissinger still alive? I heard some funny ass stories about him and Nixon. Nixon would get so drunk he would start rambling to him while talking to the Russians on the red phone. Kissinger would have to translate for him.

I think in one situation he called the Russians a #$(*&#$#% and Kissinger said something else that was polite.:smile2:

[NasTee]

Heres a good one:

A disaster has hit Hawaii, riots and looting has destabilized Hawaii, so bad that that Our Government has ceased to operate. With the help of our large military population we have been able to regain control over most of Oahu's rural areas but not the Central Honolulu area, where it is said that Hawaiian sovereignty groups have combined and started an insurgency.

Mission
Your mission is to make contact with, and rescue, a small group of High Ranking officers and enlisted (7 Colonels, 8 SGM's, 4 SSGs') who are being held up in a bunker at fort Derussy. You must secure the area so that rescue helicopters can land and evacuate them, and also your people. There is a small group of insurgents holding them up, about a force of 40 lightly armed, most likely bandits trying to loot.

Logistics and Support
You have 2 platoon's, 6 sniper weapons, 16 M249 SAWS, and 16 m4 M203's, and the most high speed soldiers (rangers) you could ever ask for. You have enough ammo and supplies to last for a 5 day mission even though your deadline is 2 days.

Intel
There are pockets of insurgents throughout the town area and heavy sniper fire has been reported. Known Insurgent Sniper Positions are Aloha Tower, the Bank of Hawaii building, the State Capital, Iolani Palace, and it is believed that Nimitz HWY, King St, and Beratania st, are all heavily mined. The freeway is only accessible by foot, too many damaged cars and downed overpasses to drive on.

It is believed that the insurgents have been using Ala moana center and beach as its main camp/staging grounds. The Insurgency is well armed thanks to looting and fairly skilled because a lot of its commanders are former HI national guard soldiers.

It is believed that there are approximately 400 insurgents, in and around the Honolulu area, mostly unorganized.

The highest concentration of insurgents is town and ala moana:

Town = approximately (100) insurgents, unorganized and lightly armed with hunting rifles and various hand guns.

Ala moana = approximately (150) insurgents equipped with everything from light to heavy machine guns, sniper rifles, night vision, explosives from c4 to grenades, mostly former military and police.



Your starting point is In Ft Shafter Kalihi.

you have 2 days to secure the area and radio the helicopters.

You dont have Air support, you cant use artillary due to its collateral damage.

You cannot access Ft Derussy via east Oahu (Hawaii Kai.)


Oh and I was drinking when I wrote this, good luck :D

[ChroniC588]

gotta go through their main base just to get to the hostages?:beatup:

[NasTee]

no...

[ChroniC588]

hmm...well first off Rangers are bad ass....:D

there are 100 reasons why no one in their right mind would go to war with the US and 99 of those reasons are the US Army Rangers.

1) I would not want to go straight down the mined roads or where their are snipers. If possible I would want to go up the mountains and around and come back down maybe somewhere around St. Louis heights and trek down towards DeRussy. I would want to break them up into squad level groups (6 squads?).

1a) Squad 1,2,3 would scout ahead in smaller teams of 5 elements (6 fireteams) to determine the best route from St. Louis Heights to DeRussy. Once one is found the other fireteams will setup shop setting up OP's in whatever areas they can, 1 sniper team per fireteam except 6th team. (the 6th fire team will secure the LZ).

1b) Squad 6 will hold back as rear echelon guard with 1 sniper.

1c) Squad 4 & 5 will make the main drive in in squad-level strength, one forward and another to flank to ensure there isnt a large rear reinforcement guard. (I dont wanna send too many men into close quarters as I am guessing it'll get too confusing and 1 squad is enough to come down the narrow hallways and corridors at the quickest speed).

1d) the smaller fire teams will confuse the enemy as much as possible to make them think there is a much larger force than just 60 men involved and at the same time giving full-cover to Squad 4 & 5 making the assault.

1e) when Squad 4 & 5 make contact and enter if needed half the fire teams from 1,2,3can join in to add support to increase the attacking force.

1f) if no go (mission failed), all squads fall back to 6th squad and retreat with 4&5 first, and 1,2,3 fireteams fall back in staggered support of each other.

1g)Weapons I would try to disperse the weapons each squad getting at least 2 saws and 2 grenade launchers each (1 each for fire team), but sniper rifles only to the fire teams and 1 for rear guard.

1h) Fire team (5 element: 1SSGT, 1 SGT, 3 SPEC); 3 M4 carbine (1w/ M203), 1 M249, 1 M24 SWS. M24 SWS sniper will have 1 spotter who carriers M4.

2) I am going to assume worst case scenario that some of the insurgents are prior-service including several who were special forces so they will be familiar with our tactics, weapons, etc.

3) While the Ranger units are going around and bypassing...I will do whatever possible to keep the insurgents thinking I will do a sea incursion via the Ala Wai canal.

4) To do this I will send disinformation stating that the SEALS will come up the Ala Wai at night, and making them think Rangers will be air dropping and come via Hawaii Kai to bottleneck DeRussy (I know cant go that way).

Now the hard part is figuring out what the insurgents will do next. Ideally I would somehow want to pressure them into moving the VIPs out of DeRussy and to another safe house, so they will be at their most vulnerable out in the open.

And right before they move, I would try to strike when they have to open their cover. If necessary the SEALS could give support to the Rangers if they get pinned down or something goes wrong.

..............
You know this sounds alot like "The Rock" with Nicholas Cage.:keith:

[ChroniC588]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/CSA-2006-01-12-095303_M249SAW.jpg
M249 Saw

I am hoping I can arm the men with compact M249's so they can be single-issue carry and not require a second man.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/M4-M203.jpg/784px-M4-M203.jpg

I guess majority with be armed with M4 carbine w/ M203 and maybe some with M16? Is M16 more reliable than the M4 though?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2d/TallAfarIraq3rdArmoredCav2006.jpg/800px-TallAfarIraq3rdArmoredCav2006.jpg

I guess this is what my fire team will look like, w/ 1 also holding an M249 saw para and another holding a M24 SWS sniper rifle, 1 M4 carrier will also be spotter for M24 sniper.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/061019-A-7603F-151.jpg/800px-061019-A-7603F-151.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/40/XM110_SASS.JPG

Or those new Xm110's maybe?:beatup:

[Yoherz]

lol. All very nice. Though, presented with these weapons for a team, I'd have to say one (maybe two) snipers, two M16s for the "just in case" factor, and one Saw for mid-range since snipers can handle long to mid-range.
If on a large scale, it would be two snipers per. If it's for a small group, then one sniper and the rest the same.

[ChroniC588]

lol. All very nice. Though, presented with these weapons for a team, I'd have to say one (maybe two) snipers, two M16s for the "just in case" factor, and one Saw for mid-range since snipers can handle long to mid-range.
If on a large scale, it would be two snipers per. If it's for a small group, then one sniper and the rest the same.

Were limited 6 sniper rifles spread across 6 squads (2 platoons, 60 men). Be hard to have 2 snipers in a small 5 man fire-team since it'll be 2 snipers, 2 spotters and 1 extra man. We have more than enough men to create plenty of fire-teams of 5 men (6 fire teams). I would have 5 snipers in the battle, all at different locations supported by a fire team each.

But yeah if it was a squad (10 men) then yeah it'll be 2 snipers in that squad. I would like the snipers to be spread out a bit to surround the compound and pick any insurgents who pop out...and also to confuse them so they wont concentrate fire on one sniper OP. To put 2 snipers in the same spot would give the enemy better chances in knocking them out since they only have to aim at one location.:pirate1:

Also were limited to 2 days to get the mission done so the teams will not be at their locations for very long and will have to move very quickly. Id figure the final fire-fight would last an hour...but getting up to that point will take most of the 2 days.

----------------------
I'm curious would u throw all ur units into the fray (all 60 men)?

I dont like to send all my men, I always like at best to have an exit strategy...and at most would only wanna put 80% of my forces out.

[Yoherz]

Were limited 6 sniper rifles spread across 6 squads (2 platoons, 60 men). Be hard to have 2 snipers in a small 5 man fire-team since it'll be 2 snipers, 2 spotters and 1 extra man. We have more than enough men to create plenty of fire-teams of 5 men (6 fire teams).

But yeah if it was a squad (10 men) then yeah it'll be 2 snipers in that squad. I would like the snipers to be spread out a bit to surround the compound and pick any insurgents who pop out...and also to confuse them so they wont concentrate fire on one sniper OP. To put 2 snipers in the same spot would give the enemy better chances in knocking them out since they only have to aim at one location.:pirate1:

Well of course, but the only downside would be that they would know where they are because of the simple sniper logic of "keep the sun to your back." With that basic knowledge, they can narrow it down quite a bit, so we'd have to have some kind of distraction on the other side to throw them off and hold the sniper fire until after the other side strikes to confuse them.
The only downside to it would be that the snipers are relatively unprotected if they should decide to blitz them.

Also were limited to 2 days to get the mission done so the teams will not be at their locations for very long and will have to move very quickly. Id figure the final fire-fight would last an hour...but getting up to that point will take most of the 2 days.

So basic hit and run, making the snipers all the more important since we would need accuracy and speed in taking them out. Though, they would be especially important in the final attack since they would be in the back, taking out the lead men.

[ChroniC588]

Well of course, but the only downside would be that they would know where they are because of the simple sniper logic of "keep the sun to your back." With that basic knowledge, they can narrow it down quite a bit, so we'd have to have some kind of distraction on the other side to throw them off and hold the sniper fire until after the other side strikes to confuse them.
The only downside to it would be that the snipers are relatively unprotected if they should decide to blitz them.



So basic hit and run, making the snipers all the more important since we would need accuracy and speed in taking them out. Though, they would be especially important in the final attack since they would be in the back, taking out the lead men.

If they did decide to blitz...they would have a fireteam support with a M249 saw and M203 grenade launcher to slow them down. I am doubtful even a large number of insurgents would want to go up against a SAW coming down on them with grenades popping over their heads, it would take them some time and they would be slowed down. And if doing so, it would reduce the number of insurgents near the VIPs so we can get to them.

Snipers are not known for speed. The focus of this mission is not to kill insurgents, its to get VIPs out. They would not be firing unless its to aid the main force getting to the VIPs. If they are firing too often it will compromise their position and hence get that "blitz" attack.

[NasTee]

I suppose that the rangers were overkill. And I highly doubt that former SF guys would be joining the Hawaiian sovereignty group insurgents, not much Hawaiians in the SF. Only hippies would join the insurgents.

[Yoherz]

If they did decide to blitz...they would have a fireteam support with a M249 saw and M203 grenade launcher to slow them down. I am doubtful even a large number of insurgents would want to go up against a SAW coming down on them with grenades popping over their heads, it would take them some time and they would be slowed down. And if doing so, it would reduce the number of insurgents near the VIPs so we can get to them.

Right. That's why I said to have one Saw in there and two M16s.

Snipers are not known for speed. The focus of this mission is not to kill insurgents, its to get VIPs out. They would not be firing unless its to aid the main force getting to the VIPs. If they are firing too often it will compromise their position and hence get that "blitz" attack.

But they're known for the accuracy, of course.
Also, I was saying that they would snipe to get the VIPs out and keep them safe in case someone makes chase or is holding them hostage.
Yes, but to avoid the blitz, I can have the main blitz and they'll shift their attention to them, giving the snipers plenty of shots. Also, the snipers can move all they want as long as they keep the "keep the run to your back" rule in mind, and can even break it to confuse them and shoot from all sides to further confuse them. :belokan:

[ChroniC588]

I suppose that the rangers were overkill. And I highly doubt that former SF guys would be joining the Hawaiian sovereignty group insurgents, not much Hawaiians in the SF. Only hippies would join the insurgents.

yeah dude...u gave us 2 platoons of Rangers (60 men)...against a few hundred insurgents? ha ha...way overkill.

Even if you gave us 1 Ranger who was 90 years, retired, blind in one eye, and is armed with only half of a broken toothpick it would still be overkill. The insurgents dont stand a chance when it comes to US Army Rangers.

:wedgie:

But damn...when ur drunk u can come up with a mission scenario like that? That would have been sweet if this was a stand-alone mission in CounterStrike.

[ChroniC588]

Right. That's why I said to have one Saw in there and two M16s.



But they're known for the accuracy, of course.
Also, I was saying that they would snipe to get the VIPs out and keep them safe in case someone makes chase or is holding them hostage.
Yes, but to avoid the blitz, I can have the main blitz and they'll shift their attention to them, giving the snipers plenty of shots. Also, the snipers can move all they want as long as they keep the "keep the run to your back" rule in mind, and can even break it to confuse them and shoot from all sides to further confuse them. :belokan:

I think we have different understanding of snipers. I do not think they are fast or can do a high-rate of fire. An M24 has a 10 shot clip.

Also a sniper's accuracy is not simply because he is an incredible marksman (alot of soldiers are marksman.), a sniper's accuracy is more because the enemy doesnt know he is there. The moment he lights up one target, he loses alot of effectiveness. Especially if there are enemy snipers targetting him. The most famous deaths of a sniper are because they fired first and another sniper caught their muzzle flash or glint of their scope.

Rarely are snipers known to mow down alot of men, only one sniper is famous for that Carlos Hathcock USMC, but he did that only once. He is more famous because like most snipers he would spend days just to take one shot. He barely survived a fight with an enemy Viet Cong sniper. It is a famous case because he shot the guy right up his scope and straight into his eye, the only way he could do that is if both snipers were directly aimed at each other; he just fired first.

[Yoherz]

I think we have different understanding of snipers. I do not think they are fast or can do a high-rate of fire. An M24 has a 10 shot clip.

Also a sniper's accuracy is not simply because he is an incredible marksman (alot of soldiers are marksman.), a sniper's accuracy is more because the enemy doesnt know he is there. The moment he lights up one target, he loses alot of effectiveness. Especially if there are enemy snipers targetting him. The most famous deaths of a sniper are because they fired first and another sniper caught their muzzle flash or glint of their scope.

But again, that's why I sent the advance team from the other side and have them hold their fire until they've got their shot lined on a captain or other high ranking general.
Also, if my snipers are organized enough, they'll be able to say who takes the first shot and from where, and who shoots from the other side to throw them off.
Also, if it comes to it, I can throw one or two snipers on the other side to make them think they're surrounded and still have bulk of my men on the other side, safe from a blitz since they won't blitz in all directions to take out the snipers. More than likely, they'll try to hide, which is when I send the advance team in to mow them down with the Saws and M16s. Then I move to the next area.

Rarely are snipers known to mow down alot of men, only one sniper is famous for that Carlos Hathcock USMC, but he did that only once. He is more famous because like most snipers he would spend days just to take one shot. He barely survived a fight with an enemy Viet Cong sniper. It is a famous case because he shot the guy right up his scope and straight into his eye, the only way he could do that is if both snipers were directly aimed at each other; he just fired first.

Oh yeah, I remember hearing about that, but I never knew his name. Though, like I said, there will be two of them out of a team of 5, so that's a good number of snipers that can take down a good number of soldiers, to intimidate them if nothing else. Especially if they believe they're surrounded.

[ChroniC588]

btw...this is a rescue mission not a kill the enemy general mission..

were going in to rescue VIP hostages that the insurgents took.:pirate1:

yeah Carlos Hathcock is bad ass, he is a legend in the USMC. They give an award with his name to the top marksman.

He is the one they nod to everytime they say "one shot, one kill"...they are referring to him.

Even though there are other snipers w/ more kills. Its not really just how many kill, its how they killed them. His kills are so insane they are often used in movies.

[Yoherz]

You didn't mention that before, but I figured it out when you said "VIPs", which is when I said that they're more important because of their accuracy to take out anyone holding them hostage or with a gun to their head. Their accuracy and speed in taking out the enemy (such as ones holding them hostage) makes them very proficient in winning the battle and completing said objective.

[ChroniC588]

You didn't mention that before, but I figured it out when you said "VIPs", which is when I said that they're more important because of their accuracy to take out anyone holding them hostage or with a gun to their head. Their accuracy and speed in taking out the enemy (such as ones holding them hostage) makes them very proficient in winning the battle and completing said objective.

again I am saying snipers are not speedy and its making assumption the insurgents are that stupid to allow themselves to be out in the open for snipers to pick them off.

some of the insurgents are US prior-service in this scenario so they are familair with US tactics.

so far in all the scenarios we have done...your making it very one-sided in favor of one group and paint the image that the enemies are all inept and foolish.

In this situation we can quite possibly have US soldiers vs. US soldiers (insurgents).

We should also take into consideration the insurgents might be very sneaky and will dress in US uniforms. How will a sniper differentiate between an insurgent and a VIP? They may even go so far as to have the VIPs point fake guns at other VIPs strapped to chairs and stick them in front of the windows.

elite US troops have been beaten by untrained, poorly armed militias before...blackhawk down is an example. Where little kids with AK-47's and RPGs in armed militias beat down Rangers, Delta Force in a pitch battle.

[Yoherz]

again I am saying snipers are not speedy and its making assumption the insurgents are that stupid to allow themselves to be out in the open for snipers to pick them off.

some of the insurgents are US prior-service in this scenario so they are familair with US tactics.

so far in all the scenarios we have done...your making it very one-sided in favor of one group and paint the image that the enemies are all inept and foolish.

In this situation we can quite possibly have US soldiers vs. US soldiers (insurgents).

It's more that they're speed in that they can take out the enemy in a single shot. Sorry if that was confusing.

But these aren't US tactics, they're my tactics. ;)

It's not so much that the snipers are the most important, it's moreover that it's about the teamwork that they play off each other. I just find that the snipers are personally more valued since they're out of the line of fire, so they can freely support the advance team and do their job with more safety and less strain on their weapons and ammo, as well as their sanity.
Don't get me wrong, the advance team is definitely important and the mission has about a 75% chance of failing, if not more, without them. Which of course, they're used to cover the snipers in the places they can't reach, such as where the insurgents are hiding.

[ChroniC588]

It's more that they're speed in that they can take out the enemy in a single shot. Sorry if that was confusing.

But these aren't US tactics, they're my tactics. ;)

It's not so much that the snipers are the most important, it's moreover that it's about the teamwork that they play off each other. I just find that the snipers are personally more valued since they're out of the line of fire, so they can freely support the advance team and do their job with more safety and less strain on their weapons and ammo, as well as their sanity.
Don't get me wrong, the advance team is definitely important and the mission has about a 75% chance of failing, if not more, without them. Which of course, they're used to cover the snipers in the places they can't reach, such as where the insurgents are hiding.

I dont think you know what a sniper is for.:smile2:

[Yoherz]

For taking out a single enemy from a long-range. O_o
Though, because of their distance, the only ones that can really take them down is either another sniper or a group of men running right into him/her.

[ChroniC588]

For taking out a single enemy from a long-range. O_o
Though, because of their distance, the only ones that can really take them down is either another sniper or a group of men running right into him/her.

u can take out a single enemy from long-range w/o snipers...

alot of soldiers are trained marksmen...a sniper is not a trained marksman.

[Yoherz]

Then please explain. O_o
Other than that basic long range killing, I'd say they're for cover ops, but seems like a lesser aspect of it. Is that what you were referring to?

[Shinigami052]

u can take out a single enemy from long-range w/o snipers...

alot of soldiers are trained marksmen...a sniper is not a trained marksman.

what? How is a sniper not a trained marksman? Isn't that their job...marksmanship...

my boss has told me stories of when he was in the nat'l guard and some of the people couldn't shoot worth a damn...

[ChroniC588]

what? How is a sniper not a trained marksman? Isn't that their job...marksmanship...

my boss has told me stories of when he was in the nat'l guard and some of the people couldn't shoot worth a damn...

my point I'm trying to make is it sounds like Yoherz thinks Snipers are guys who sit up on rooftops, look down a scope and pick off enemies from a distance.

That's not what a sniper is. Alot of soldiers can shoot from great distances and are very accurate.

[Yoherz]

Well, that's part of it, yes. Though, I'm saying that they're mainly in the back, giving support to the assault team so they don't get slaughtered by machine guns and other heavy artillery. Snipers are out of the line of fire, so they can take their time and pick off the heavy hitters and provide basic support. If nothing else, they're in the back and can be medics when they're not sniping.

[NasTee]

what? How is a sniper not a trained marksman? Isn't that their job...marksmanship...

my boss has told me stories of when he was in the nat'l guard and some of the people couldn't shoot worth a damn...

Some? thats way too generous. National guard units usually only shoot once a year, not uncommon for only few to qualify.

Same goes for reserve, but not combat arm units. Ammo and range time is a luxury here.

[Yoherz]

I'm not sure if you're talking about national guard or our tacts saying that the ammo and range time is a luxury, but I make that luxury for sending the advance team and they won't expect snipers until they fire. On top of that, they won't be able to handle the advance team AND trying to take down snipers from 500 yards away.

[ChroniC588]

Here's a more interesting scenario for Yoherz since he likes to use spies and elite troops all the time.

Situation:
You have received word that elite US troops have taken hostage the Iranian President against the wishes of the US govt. They are holed up in the Iranian Embassy in the UAE.

Iran is preparing for war if their President is not released unharmed.

Your orders are to infiltrate and subdue the elite US troops to free the Iranian President w/o any harm coming to him.

You have 72 hours to defuse this situation or we will be at war with Iran. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab countries have also decided it will cease any support for US forces if any harm comes to the Iranian President and/or Iran goes to war with the US having grown weary of American influence in the region.

The Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq having found common ground are also denouncing the hostage taking of the Iranian President. Any failure in this mission will have far worse repurcussions in the Iraq war.


Any use of artillery, precision bombs, or high-explosive projectiles are forbidden due to the risk of harming the Iranian hostage.
Enemy:
12 Delta Operators
120 US Army Rangers
120 Navy Seals
Several CIA and FBI senior operatives are also rumored to be assisting them.

Fully armed with every imaginable weapon in the US Arsenal. They are also capable of taking down any vehicle be it land, sea or air from several miles distance.

They have enough supplies to hold out for several months, long enough to cause Iran to begin war preparations against the US.

Your Forces:
1000 US infantry (no elite troops)
A dozen blackhawk helicopters
Armored vehicles (Hummers, Strykers, etc), M1A abrams tanks, Bradley's, etc.

infantry small-arms, grenade launchers, sniper rifles, body armor, pretty much all the standard issue for US army units.

There is no time to call your own elite forces, and they are also reluctant to fight their own comrades. Some have even refused outright to not participate. So you cannot rely on your own use of Rangers, Seals or Delta.

Further Note:

The special force troops knowing full well that you only have 72 hours have disabled the satellites and other surveillance technology for most of that time period prior to taking the Iranian President hostage, so your going in blind.

Also not all the special force troops are inside the Iranian Embassy, there are rumors that some are operating all over the UAE and it is quite credible that they are watching your every move and will hamper you with espionage and sniper kills.

[Yoherz]

Haha. Very nice.
I'll actually have to go into think mode on this one since the only solution I have right now isn't very good.

EDIT: Alright, the only option I can come up with is to mark them as traitors and so forth saying that they were a small rebel movement that enlisted in order to bring another world war about. This will give us leverage with the other countries to avoid war, and possibly enlist their help in getting him out. Should the situation go from worse to worst, we nuke 'em. In case they were to predict we were going to do this, we send three of them and another two, 10 minutes after the first launch so they won't have time to reload what they have out there to deflect the incoming ones, nor have the time to send out more of them.

It's either that or use magic to kill them. :belokan:

[ChroniC588]

nukes and you've just started WW3.

[Yoherz]

Not entirely. By my claiming that they were a rebel group and planned on doing this just to start the World War, then we also gain their support in the action since they most likely won't be able to think of anything either.
Though, like I said, it's only for a last resort measure. Since they would be helping us, they wouldn't mind us taking them down to "prevent the next WW and corruption around the world" or something to that effect. Like I said, politics aren't my specialty.

And we always have the magic spells to fall back on! :beatup:

[ChroniC588]

Not entirely. By my claiming that they were a rebel group and planned on doing this just to start the World War, then we also gain their support in the action since they most likely won't be able to think of anything either.
Though, like I said, it's only for a last resort measure. Since they would be helping us, they wouldn't mind us taking them down to "prevent the next WW and corruption around the world" or something to that effect. Like I said, politics aren't my specialty.

And we always have the magic spells to fall back on! :beatup:

you'll be killing the Iranian President hostage with them and also turning one of the most wealthiest cities in the middle east to radioactive waste.

The Arab nations would not trust the US ever again if we used nukes in a large metropolitan city.

[Yoherz]

True, but with all that oil over there, it would take out a good quarter of the planet. Won't be fighting back when they're dust. ;)
Though, as I said, I would try to avoid it as much as possible. If it came to it though, I would call Henry Kissinger and have him smooth things out. :D

[ChroniC588]

okay man...:D

[Yoherz]

Yup, now next scenario. That one was a bit too obvious since it was a hopeless situation either way.

[ChroniC588]

Yup, now next scenario. That one was a bit too obvious since it was a hopeless situation either way.

it's not hopeless. You got 250 men against the entire might of the US Army. How is that hopeless?:eek9:

a couple thousand Somali gunmen most who were underage kids took on Delta Force and Rangers in Mogadishu and gave em a run for their money.

I am pretty sure standard US Army are much tougher than Somali children wielding AK-47's and RPG's.

[Yoherz]

Ok, well let's see if I can show you my perspective.

I have 1,000 men, some of whom will most likely disobey me and who are very undertrained to take on these elite opponents. While I do have the numbers, we only have standard issue things that DEFINITELY don't withstand their heavy guns and RPGs. With their weaponry, they can take out a good quarter, if not half, of my army before my guys even get to the base. Also, should I actually get inside of the shelter, they would simply just kill the president regardless. Either way, the man dies, so why not use it to our advantage?

[ChroniC588]

Ok, well let's see if I can show you my perspective.

I have 1,000 men, some of whom will most likely disobey me and who are very undertrained to take on these elite opponents. While I do have the numbers, we only have standard issue things that DEFINITELY don't withstand their heavy guns and RPGs. With their weaponry, they can take out a good quarter, if not half, of my army before my guys even get to the base. Also, should I actually get inside of the shelter, they would simply just kill the president regardless. Either way, the man dies, so why not use it to our advantage?

The whole point of the mission is to save the hostage. His death will mean unspeakable repurcussions.

These are US Infantry troops, the best in the world. Just because they are challenging US Rangers and Delta, you make them out to be incompetent fools. So you wouldn't do anything and just cry uncle?

Allright what if I gave you 5,000 Marines and whatever weapon is in the entire US military on top of the 1,000 US Infantry? Still not fair?

You get to have 5000 of these guys:
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/filmnotes/images3/jarhead02.jpg

[Yoherz]

I just hit back to find what you put and I apparently missed a whole half a page of Shogun's stuff. O_o
And then found your scenario on this page. XD

Fully armed with every imaginable weapon in the US Arsenal. They are also capable of taking down any vehicle be it land, sea or air from several miles distance.
it is quite credible that they are watching your every move and will hamper you with espionage and sniper kills.

From these two things alone, it means that I can't send any spies because they will spot them, and kill the president immediately.
Were I to send a large group of men (the 1,000), if they have the weaponry to take out any vehicle, they can sure as hell take out a nice sized army.
This disables me from almost everything, including dropping my men remotely near with the choppers since they will take that down, or sending a tank. Regardless of what I try, he will die and war will break out. If I do this, it will not only eliminate one enemy from the upcoming war, it will give leeway to the other countries and I could possibly even have them do it rather than myself.

[ChroniC588]

bah...fine...here's one from the history books:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

Battle of Agincourt, your the French but this time it hasn't rain and the ground is as hard as rock so no mud to slow you down.

[Yoherz]

Too long to read. :hypo:

Anyways, from the first section or two that I read, it seems that I have to battle in a narrow pass and I have much greater numbers. It wouldn't be hard to win this one by simply putting 1/2 my archers (or longbowmen if that's what they're called) in the front where they're most likely to attack, and put 1/4 on each side in case they try to attack from the side (this is assuming that they're only on one side). With these positions, I can take out a good number of their men before they get close, and have my archers hang in the back and fire when they get too close while my men-at-arms battle.
Or, should I get information that they have an experienced general, I would set my men in a formation that seemed good, but left an opening that he would see and try for. When they start getting close, I have them close the hole he was trying to blitz, and then get them with the archers.

Any objections?

[ChroniC588]

Too long to read. :hypo:

Anyways, from the first section or two that I read, it seems that I have to battle in a narrow pass and I have much greater numbers. It wouldn't be hard to win this one by simply putting 1/2 my archers (or longbowmen if that's what they're called) in the front where they're most likely to attack, and put 1/4 on each side in case they try to attack from the side (this is assuming that they're only on one side). With these positions, I can take out a good number of their men before they get close, and have my archers hang in the back and fire when they get too close while my men-at-arms battle.
Or, should I get information that they have an experienced general, I would set my men in a formation that seemed good, but left an opening that he would see and try for. When they start getting close, I have them close the hole he was trying to blitz, and then get them with the archers.

Any objections?

That would be great but the British didn't make the advance towards the French lines...the French had to make the advance. What you described is the how the British prepared for the French advance.:pirate1:

[Yoherz]

Oh I'm attacking. That's what I get for not reading it all. XD

Ok, I would set up my men on the border of their range and have them fire (more likely 3/4s on the front and 1/8th on each side) and then have them get back when they advance us out of defense. If they don't, then we make chase and slaughter them. :asthanos:
Although, I would only send about 1/3 my bowmen and about 1/4 of my men-at-arms since it could be an ambush or trap.

[ChroniC588]

Oh I'm attacking. That's what I get for not reading it all. XD

Ok, I would set up my men on the border of their range and have them fire (more likely 3/4s on the front and 1/8th on each side) and then have them get back when they advance us out of defense. If they don't, then we make chase and slaughter them. :asthanos:
Although, I would only send about 1/3 my bowmen and about 1/4 of my men-at-arms since it could be an ambush or trap.

The British have the advantage of greater range with their bowman. The French just have 6 times more soldiers as their advantage.

I am also giving to you the advantage that the ground is dry and hard; the real Agincourt the ground was muddy which got all the heavy French knights stuck so they could barely move.

[Yoherz]

The British have the advantage of greater range with their bowman. The French just have 6 times more soldiers as their advantage.

I am also giving to you the advantage that the ground is dry and hard; the real Agincourt the ground was muddy which got all the heavy French knights stuck so they could barely move.

True, but I figure that a rain of 1,000 or so arrows will take out most of their bowmen.

Right, which is why I send so few men to make chase. They can move pretty quickly with their armor to protect my bowmen that are firing from behind them. The at-arms men can deflect arrows pretty easy with weapons and their armor, so both of my sets of men are safe as long as they don't ambush.

[ChroniC588]

True, but I figure that a rain of 1,000 or so arrows will take out most of their bowmen.

Right, which is why I send so few men to make chase. They can move pretty quickly with their armor to protect my bowmen that are firing from behind them. The at-arms men can deflect arrows pretty easy with weapons and their armor, so both of my sets of men are safe as long as they don't ambush.

The English bowman will hit urs first from much greater range.

Also the English lowbow can penetrate French armor.

[Yoherz]

Then the French armor sucks. Though, I can have one or two at-arms to each bowman, deflecting arrows.
As the sniper sayings goes, "fighting range? deflect to save." (Totally made that up on the spot. :D XD)

[ChroniC588]

Then the French armor sucks. Though, I can have one or two at-arms to each bowman, deflecting arrows.
As the sniper sayings goes, "fighting range? deflect to save." (Totally made that up on the spot. :D XD)

Dude...the French at Agincourt had possibly up to 36,000 men vs. the British 5,000...and the British were also injured, sick, starving and tired as they were actually running for safety to their castle at Calais. The British had almost no food and water left and would not have lasted more than a few days more...

The French mistake at this battle was they were arrogant. All they had to do was block that pass and wait the British out. There was no reason for them to even go down the narrow area, they were blocking their way to Calais.

Had the French been a little smarter and not snobbish...the British would have lost, their king killed and England today would be a French province...we all probably would be speaking French instead of English. Thank the French for that.

Also thank them for where the middle finger came from....that's supposedly came from this battle. The English longbowman used their middle finger to shoot their bows, so they would mock the French thereafter by sticking out the middle finger in reference to Agincourt...so goes the legend...:D

[Yoherz]

Well I had the idea to sit and wait for them. You're the one that told me that I was planning an attack, so that's what I did. :p

So that's where it came from. I was always wondering where that was.

[ChroniC588]

Well I had the idea to sit and wait for them. You're the one that told me that I was planning an attack, so that's what I did. :p

So that's where it came from. I was always wondering where that was.

yes thats why we get the term...I "flick" you off...then it became "flicking" off...and you get the point....:D

[Yoherz]

I don't get the "flick" thing with arrows, but I was never an archer myself. I prefer either sniping or up-close sword battle.

[NasTee]

wow you guys love tactics. One day I'll share with you an OP order and make up a SIT map.

[Yoherz]

lol. I don't love it, I just have a lot of experience with it from various card games, video games, etc.
Though, that would be a fun thing to have for some real practice. :D

[Yoherz]

Alright, I got one. I had to think about this one from a different situation, but it's a godo once, since the solution is one of my specialties.

Japan has declared war on the US because of a recently enacted embargo.
The Japanese have large numbers of people, lots of tech (obviously) to dispose and prevent spies, and enough military and navy resources to easily take over the western and central parts of North America.
The other countries are staying out of the affair as to not jeopardize their trading situations with the US.

What do you do?

[ChroniC588]

Some questions...this scenario seems very unlikely considering alot of historical and political facts:

1. Japan has a small military (SDF) and is not allowed to increase its size or use it in any hostility due to its post-WW2 pacificist constitution. This was proven very apparant when the former PM Abe tried to rewrite the constitution much to the angry behest of parliament for sending more troops to Iraq/Afghanistan in support of the US.

2. China is Japan's rival in Asia and they have a long history of animosity. The Chinese would never allow Japan to rearm its military or use it in hostile actions (regardless of how much they hate America, they hate the Japanese military 10x more). Actually there isnt a SINGLE Asian nation that would ever allow the Japanese to rearm and have hostilities again...and this is all from WW2.

3. Japan has always lacked natural resources (primarily oil, iron(steel), rubber, etc) to ever mount a sustained military campaign for any extended period. This is the chief reason for Japan's expansionist policy during WW2 to aquire these natural resouces in Indochine.

4. The US has military installations in S.Korea, Japan, Guam, Hawaii, etc spread across the Pacific region with several standing divisions, additional reserve brigades, entire naval task force fleets, nuclear attack submarines prowling, and bombers that can fly right out of Louisiana and still hit targets in Japan then fly back.

-----------------------------------------------
Course of Action
But if this ever did happen and somehow America was that much of an asshole to piss off every nation on the planet that they would let Japan rearm...and war was inevitable then this is what I would want to do:

1. Issue a declaration of a mutually assured destruction to refrain from using NBC weapons in this war. The moment either side uses such weapon, game over, and nukes will go flying.

2. Blockade the Japanese and prevent the flow of suppies and materials into the main Japanese ports and airports by use of task force fleets from around the Pacific Rim. If possible increase sanctions by warning all other nations to support the embargo.

3. Issue high-alert for all West Coast communities to prepare for possible bombardments and attacks. Prepare coast watches and use all available means (undersea beacons, satellites, etc) to track all Japanese ships and craft.

4. Station nuclear submarines all around Japan with maximum nuclear effective detonation if they choose to use nuclear arms, they will also hunt down any Japanese craft who decide to step out of the blockade perimeter.

5. Press for a peaceful negotiation by a third-party intermediary possibly the UN.

6. I would let the Japanese make the first conventional military move

7. I would avoid invading Japan and would prefer to keep the existing power structure in place. If anything I would prefer the Japanese leadership to stand-down and agree to terms. The biggest mistake the US made in Iraq was it erased the power structure and left a vacuum that was filled by every criminal and despot. Japan's post-WW2 reconstruction was only successful because we didnt erase the power structure but just made them stand-down and reorganize under US terms.

8. However we can rip out the enemies teeth. And its military is fair game.
--------------------------------
Concerns
1. My first concern would be whether the Japanese have nuclear, chemical, biological capabilities.

2. If they have relations with Iran or former Soviet satellite states. One weapon in particular I would fear is the Iranian/Russian high-speed torpedo that can launch at greater than 200mph underwater, no US warship could survive it.

[Yoherz]

Some questions...this scenario seems very unlikely considering alot of historical and political facts:

1. Japan has a small military (SDF) and is not allowed to increase its size or use it in any hostility due to its post-WW2 pacificist constitution. This was proven very apparant when the former PM Abe tried to rewrite the constitution much to the angry behest of parliament for sending more troops to Iraq/Afghanistan in support of the US.

2. China is Japan's rival in Asia and they have a long history of animosity. The Chinese would never allow Japan to rearm its military or use it in hostile actions (regardless of how much they hate America, they hate the Japanese military 10x more). Actually there isnt a SINGLE Asian nation that would ever allow the Japanese to rearm and have hostilities again...and this is all from WW2.

3. Japan has always lacked natural resources (primarily oil, iron(steel), rubber, etc) to ever mount a sustained military campaign for any extended period. This is the chief reason for Japan's expansionist policy during WW2 to aquire these natural resouces in Indochine.

4. The US has military installations in S.Korea, Japan, Guam, Hawaii, etc spread across the Pacific region with several standing divisions, additional reserve brigades, entire naval task force fleets, nuclear attack submarines prowling, and bombers that can fly right out of Louisiana and still hit targets in Japan then fly back.

Well, I was never good at history. Only reason I passed the class was because I impressed the teacher with my tactical ideas. :lickice:

-----------------------------------------------
Course of Action
But if this ever did happen and somehow America was that much of an asshole to piss off every nation on the planet that they would let Japan rearm...and war was inevitable then this is what I would want to do:

1. Issue a declaration of a mutually assured destruction to refrain from using NBC weapons in this war. The moment either side uses such weapon, game over, and nukes will go flying.

2. Blockade the Japanese and prevent the flow of suppies and materials into the main Japanese ports and airports by use of task force fleets from around the Pacific Rim. If possible increase sanctions by warning all other nations to support the embargo.

3. Issue high-alert for all West Coast communities to prepare for possible bombardments and attacks. Prepare coast watches and use all available means (undersea beacons, satellites, etc) to track all Japanese ships and craft.

4. Station nuclear submarines all around Japan with maximum nuclear effective detonation if they choose to use nuclear arms, they will also hunt down any Japanese craft who decide to step out of the blockade perimeter.

5. Press for a peaceful negotiation by a third-party intermediary possibly the UN.

6. I would let the Japanese make the first conventional military move

7. I would avoid invading Japan and would prefer to keep the existing power structure in place. If anything I would prefer the Japanese leadership to stand-down and agree to terms. The biggest mistake the US made in Iraq was it erased the power structure and left a vacuum that was filled by every criminal and despot. Japan's post-WW2 reconstruction was only successful because we didnt erase the power structure but just made them stand-down and reorganize under US terms.

8. However we can rip out the enemies teeth. And its military is fair game.

From my saying that the other nations were staying out of it as to not weaken the trading standpoint they have with America, this would mean that they would support our embargo. I suppose I could have worded it better.
By moving in with the subs like that, it would technically be the first move and Japan could call it provocation to retaliate.
Third-party was distablished when I mentioned that the other countries were staying out of it, and that I assumed that all posts in this thread had assumed that diplomacy was no longer an option, but I suppose not.
Even if the government were to stand down, the people would likely disagree and protest and disregard the "government" and take lead by another group. With all the tech they have, they can easily start some kind of cult or new government that was boiling below and begin using this as a platform of sorts.

--------------------------------
Concerns
1. My first concern would be whether the Japanese have nuclear, chemical, biological capabilities.

2. If they have relations with Iran or former Soviet satellite states. One weapon in particular I would fear is the Iranian/Russian high-speed torpedo that can launch at greater than 200mph underwater, no US warship could survive it.

Again, they're on their own legs since the others are staying out, so they won't have any of those foreign weapons unless they had some under-the-table deals from beforehand.

Regardless, you did mention the solution once or twice. Simply put, they didn't have the resources to support a large army were they to assemble it, especially if they stop receiving supplies from the US and other countries.
The way I see it, but up a solid defense that they can't break. Should they send navy or militia to the west coast of the US, it would most likely be an all-out offensive with what little supplies they had left from sustaining a large army, hoping to find supplies on our men.
Also, just in the rare event that one of their allies were to suddenly decide to turn against us, we would have about 1/4 of our men split on the east and south coasts with the remaining 3/4 on the west (obviously). :smile2:

[ChroniC588]

:gapteeth:

[Yoherz]

Haha. Well, I made that one a bit too easy. I said it like three times in the situation report.

[BlackSheep25th]

It is easy to say what you would have done in a situation that already took place.

[Yoherz]

True, but that's why we made new situations for the others to tackle.

Like the thing Chronic made about the expert warriors going traitor and my response to bomb their a**.
Though, if you still want further proof of tactical prowess, I was playing a war simulation game the other day. I took down an army of exactly 22,400 men using no more than 700 men, 18 swords, and without losing a single troop.

That good enough for thinking on my feet? ;)