Scenario: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies

[DRG]

Logistics......... I had intended to (mis)quote Nathan Bedford Forrest's "git thar fustest with the mostest." to illustrate the point but that sent me down the google rabbit hole of information and I'll derail this thread a bit

He was one of the few officers in either army to enlist as a private and be promoted to general officer and corps commander during the war but as far as " rises to the top " goes it's hard to beat this....

Enlisted as Private July 1861. (White's Company "E", Tennessee Mounted Rifles)
Commissioned as Lieutenant Colonel, October 1861 (3rd Tennessee Cavalry)

3 months from Private to Lieutenant Colonel is quite a feat

But on the thread topic I think forcing a quick outcome only benifits the "low tech" side so allowing more time to bring all the support required to cut down casualties would help balance the high cost of first world units ....and best caution the player to not rush things

Don

[shahadi]

The scenario is an USMC company airborne assault, the Alpha 1/6 "Apache" in the Helmand province of Afghanistan.

I've extended the turns to give the Marine player time to assemble for the assault after debarkation, with the understanding in an assault timed objective scenario, points are awarded after a third of the turns.

Apparently, points are awarded each turn on the number (not value) of VFs held by the Taliban. Correct?

So, the tweak is to assign an appropriate number of hexes with VF's that are central to the mission and none more. Further, to do so in a way the Marine player has a reasonable period of time to accomplish the mission, else the Marine player will fail to achieve a victory. Makes sense?

Finally, making the scenario within "acceptable losses" suffered by the Marine player as introduced by IronDuke99.

I was erroneously looking at casualties to personnel (loss of men), but the game is concerned with casualties as loss of force value or damage points. Is this right?

=====

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by DRG

Logistics......... I had intended to (mis)quote Nathan Bedford Forrest's "git thar fustest with the mostest." to illustrate the point but that sent me down the google rabbit hole of information and I'll derail this thread a bit

But on the thread topic I think forcing a quick outcome only benifits the "low tech" side so allowing more time to bring all the support required to cut down casualties would help balance the high cost of first world units ....and best caution the player to not rush things

Don

I'd tend to agree.
If you look at most of the battles in Vietnam, post-invasion Iraq, and Afghanistan the low-tech side tends to hit as hard as possible as fast as possible then run for cover before the high-tech assets can be brought to bear.
No one ever said they were stupid, as a whole ... there's always the 10%!

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by DRG

He (Nathan Bedford Forrest) was one of the few officers in either army to enlist as a private and be promoted to general officer and corps commander during the war but as far as " rises to the top " goes it's hard to beat this....

Enlisted as Private July 1861. (White's Company "E", Tennessee Mounted Rifles)
Commissioned as Lieutenant Colonel, October 1861 (3rd Tennessee Cavalry)

3 months from Private to Lieutenant Colonel is quite a feat.

Don

Sorry, but I can't let this go.

It was the custom of that era and many proceeding epochs for a man of wealth to pay the expenses of raising troops. In return, he was given command. Such was the case with this devil Bedford Forrest.

"At the outbreak of the Civil War, Forrest volunteered as a private before deciding to raise and equip an entire unit at his own expense. He was commissioned lieutenant colonel, and issued this call to arms in June, 1861:

'I wish none but those who desire to be actively engaged. COME ON BOYS, IF YOU WANT A HEAP OF FUN AND TO KILL SOME YANKEES.' "

"...Surrounding Fort Pillow, near Memphis, Forrest demanded the surrender of the garrison, which included 262 soldiers of the U.S. Colored Heavy Artillery. When the Union forces refused, Forrest’s men easily overran the fort. Then, according to several eyewitness accounts, the Confederates, enraged by the sight of black men in Federal uniform, executed many of the colored troops after they had surrendered: an unambiguous war crime."

A testament to his skill as a cavalry commander, "William Tecumseh Sherman declared: 'that devil Forrest must be hunted down and killed if it costs ten thousand lives and bankrupts the federal treasury.' " Yes, the same General Sherman that raised the Georgia country side on marching on Atlanta.

A successful southern businessman and most able commander, but also to many a despicable character.

"After the war, Forrest is best known as having been a prominent figure in the foundation of the Ku Klux Klan, a group composed of mostly Confederate veterans committed to violent intimidation of blacks, northerners and republicans. He was “Grand Wizard” until he ordered the dissolution of the organization in 1869."

Source: Civil War Trust: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/biographies/nathan-bedford-forrest.html

=====

[Imp]

Originally Posted by shahadi

The scenario is an USMC company airborne assault, the Alpha 1/6 "Apache" in the Helmand province of Afghanistan.

I've extended the turns to give the Marine player time to assemble for the assault after debarkation, with the understanding in an assault timed objective scenario, points are awarded after a third of the turns.

Apparently, points are awarded each turn on the number (not value) of VFs held by the Taliban. Correct?

So, the tweak is to assign an appropriate number of hexes with VF's that are central to the mission and none more. Further, to do so in a way the Marine player has a reasonable period of time to accomplish the mission, else the Marine player will fail to achieve a victory. Makes sense?

Finally, making the scenario within "acceptable losses" suffered by the Marine player as introduced by IronDuke99.

I was erroneously looking at casualties to personnel (loss of men), but the game is concerned with casualties as loss of force value or damage points. Is this right?
=====

Not in front of my computer but I would read your game guide again.
VF hexes, any controled hexes would award points to the controling side. Therefore the only way to make it benefit the attacker is to ensure they control the majority by the time they start getting awarded points for them.

Game looks at force value not men so outcome is based on value of units damaged or destroyed plus any points awarded for VH at game end.
So if you have a high cost unit its loss can easily swing the outcome.
Losing 10 squads at 20 points each is the same as losing one vehicle thats worth 200 points.
Hence expensive units like FOOs should not be put in danger.

Fairly sure though I do it just because it feels right that losing a unit is far worse than it being damaged so if an infantry unit is badly damaged if possible try to stop using it in combat.
As I say unsure but if you have a 10 man squad & its wiped out you have lost the total unit cost.
If it is just reduced to 5 men but survives the loss is less than 50% of the unit cost.

[jivemi]

Originally Posted by shahadi

Sorry, but I can't let this go.

It was the custom of that era and many proceeding epochs for a man of wealth to pay the expenses of raising troops. In return, he was given command. Such was the case with this devil Bedford Forrest.

"At the outbreak of the Civil War, Forrest volunteered as a private before deciding to raise and equip an entire unit at his own expense. He was commissioned lieutenant colonel, and issued this call to arms in June, 1861:

'I wish none but those who desire to be actively engaged. COME ON BOYS, IF YOU WANT A HEAP OF FUN AND TO KILL SOME YANKEES.' "

"...Surrounding Fort Pillow, near Memphis, Forrest demanded the surrender of the garrison, which included 262 soldiers of the U.S. Colored Heavy Artillery. When the Union forces refused, Forrest’s men easily overran the fort. Then, according to several eyewitness accounts, the Confederates, enraged by the sight of black men in Federal uniform, executed many of the colored troops after they had surrendered: an unambiguous war crime."

A testament to his skill as a cavalry commander, "William Tecumseh Sherman declared: 'that devil Forrest must be hunted down and killed if it costs ten thousand lives and bankrupts the federal treasury.' " Yes, the same General Sherman that raised the Georgia country side on marching on Atlanta.

A successful southern businessman and most able commander, but also to many a despicable character.

"After the war, Forrest is best known as having been a prominent figure in the foundation of the Ku Klux Klan, a group composed of mostly Confederate veterans committed to violent intimidation of blacks, northerners and republicans. He was “Grand Wizard” until he ordered the dissolution of the organization in 1869."

Source: Civil War Trust: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/biographies/nathan-bedford-forrest.html

=====

OK, but OTOH Forrest later disassociated himself from the Klan and even made a speech for racial reconciliation. Likewise accounts of his role at Fort Pillow--where most probably some or most surrendering colored troops (and a few whites?) were massacred--may have been embellished by a Congressional committee looking for atrocity stories. Recall the Greek writer Aeschylus' maxim that "The first casualty of war is truth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan...ck_Southerners

http://the-american-catholic.com/201...athan-bedford-
forrest-and-racial-reconciliation-part-ii/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Pillow

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by jivemi

OK, but OTOH Forrest later disassociated himself from the Klan and even made a speech for racial reconciliation. Likewise accounts of his role at Fort Pillow--where most probably some or most surrendering colored troops (and a few whites?) were massacred--may have been embellished by a Congressional committee looking for atrocity stories. Recall the Greek writer Aeschylus' maxim that "The first casualty of war is truth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan...ck_Southerners

http://the-american-catholic.com/201...athan-bedford-
forrest-and-racial-reconciliation-part-ii/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Pillow

On the KKK:
He was “Grand Wizard” until he ordered the dissolution of the organization.

There is none can revise the accounts of his uncanny feel for battle and exemplary use of his command. But, there are too many that wish to rewrite a history glossing over certain acts of debauchery and others of disreputable character. The city of Memphis recently voted to remove his statue from public lands, culminating from the wicked murder of nine Christians while praying in a Charleston South Carolina church at the hands of Dylaan Roof based on Roof's penchant for the Confederate battle flag.

Bedford's order to "charge 'em both ways" at the battle of Parker's Crossing is as salient as Chesty Puller's famous assessment, "we're surrounded, that simplifies our problem."

This forum is about military tactics within the context of our game. Often, we stray into unintended matters. That devil Bedford Forrest may be one of those stray matters.

=====

[jivemi]

Indeed. History is subject to revision according to the tempers of the times.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by shahadi

"At the outbreak of the Civil War, Forrest volunteered as a private before deciding to raise and equip an entire unit at his own expense. He was commissioned lieutenant colonel, and issued this call to arms in June, 1861: ==

Ah ! Well, that salient fact was missing from the synopsis I quoted. I had forgotten that at the time is was possible to buy your way to the top. Had I dug deeper I would have found that

HOWEVER, what has followed points out how easily "history" can be "re-interpreted" when past events are viewed in a contemporary perspective. There are enough events from 70 years ago under current PC scrutiny, turn back the clocks a further 80 years and it's possible to find more examples of behaviour that would have been acceptable or at least tolerated at the time that are not now. How many remember ( or care ) that at Agincourt Henry V ordered the slaughter of several thousand French prisoners when he feared the French were regrouping for another attack......should we tear down his statures it a fit of PC angst too ?

That said , I started the deviation in the thread when I searched the source of the " first with the most" quote so now I'm ending it

Don

[IronDuke99]

In a COIN scenario that is a planned operation, say clearing a village, I think it would be fair to have the Western assets on call at the outset.

Also bear in mind these days you are likely to have all the troops on a radio net, of some kind, not just a platoon or even section/squad commanders. So if, in a planned operation, a platoon or section gets pinned down, or even comes under heavy fire, it is often fairly easy to call in air support, helos, artillery etc and to get that support fairly quickly.

An ambush of a patrol, can be a different thing, especially if your force is less 'asset rich' than the US tends to be. People may recall the Royal Marine hanging on to the outside of a Apache attack helo in Afghanistan (I think he was trying to get to a friendly casualty) because at that stage the Brits still did not have enough transport helos in Afghan...