[quote user_id=“319225” avatar=“https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/319225/avatar/medium.1399937338.png” name=“Aether”]All good stuff, indeed in addition to what is already documented. Practice makes at least semi acceptable, but I think it would be good if people who often drive (like me and Matt, for example) have another read of the documents as a refresher.
To add to point two, perhaps we could use the ambush(?) marker since it has an arrow to show what way the first vehicle should face. Might provide extra clarity, if perhaps a little overkill.[/quote]
It wasn’t my original plan for this thread, but at this point it might be useful if I move the discussion on the Brainstorming forum to discuss an update to the appendix and perhaps do more training in that regard. As for the marker, I don’t know which one would be better but to me even a dot would work fine if properly communicated.
[user avatar=“https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/13633351/avatar/small.1434890353.jpeg” name=“Freghar”]13633351[/user] though I was mainly talking about convoys that leave our starting base, I think you also have a good point. There are some variables to take into account when setting up the convoy. And that’s the reason why I think the more standardised our procedures are, the faster we can be ready to move.
[user avatar=“https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/3749902/avatar/small.1500023987.jpeg” name=“Churizo”]3749902[/user] thanks for the reference. I’m totally in favour of fixed roles for vehicles, but it may be a bit too "milsim-like" for someone else so that’s fine not having it. Though at the very least who is in charge of radio comms should be announced clearly. I had multiple occasions as navigator where both me and the driver attempted to use the radio, or worse me as navigator and someone else in the back of a truck.
[quote user_id=“11341464” avatar=“https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/11341464/avatar/medium.1553522842.png” name=“Clarke”]In addition to what Chu linked there’s also two TTP3 chapters that already cover a lot of inputs mentioned in this thread:
https://ttp3.dslyecxi.com/ground_vehicles/#basic-vehicle-roles
https://ttp3.dslyecxi.com/one_page/#convoy-operations
The main issue the TTP3 doesn’t address is the convoy net. We keep it on short-range channel 1 because a.) everyone has a short-range 343 radio and b.) not every vehicle comes with its own internal long-range radio system (some do, some don’t). Thus it’s just the most convenient to switch to one single channel when the intent is for everyone to stay in convoy vics and dismount together at their destination (the vast majority of our convoy operations). However, it is true that PLT should consider a separate short-range channel if the convoy is expected to travel on soft-dismounts for extended periods of time - this is usually not part of our standard convoy contact reaction as we "push through" by default. However, some missions do require extended soft-dismount sections and then it is indeed highly recommended to pick a 343 channel currently not in use.[/quote]
I’m sorry Clarke but I fail to see TTP3 addressing the organization of a convoy beyond saying that element leaders are responsible for loading their men in the right vehicles, while my points are about the entirety of the convoy which seems to be hard to get right and quick for us.
As for which radio channel acts as convoy net, the rule is quite simple IMO and has to be called by either PLT or who is leading the convoy. It goes like this: if there are no soft-dismounted units, use 343 Channel1; if there are dismounted units around, use a different channel than theirs.
I don’t see the need for a completely dedicated 343 Channel and thus updating all our factions. You simply pick a channel based on the elements you have. Clarke I understand that our SOP are currently different, but take for example last Friday’s OP where you were in Alpha as well, if we hadn’t moved convoys comms it would have been absolutely impossible to react to contacts properly. I think we could be a bit pragmatic and adjust as the situation evolves during a mission.
[quote user_id=“5721247” avatar=“https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/5721247/avatar/medium.1400099509.png” name=“Koffer”]Maybe slightly off-topic, but I always thought the Dark Horse element from Dusty was a great idea. A dedicated element that controls the vehicles. They do the driving and vehicle shooting (and maybe repairing), and the rest can just hop in when they need transport and doesn’t have to worry about any of the convoy procedures.
Obviously this is not a solution for all ops. But especially ops where we have APC’s (like yesterday) it often doesn’t make sense to leave them behind, however putting half of an Alpha squad on controlling 2 vehicles completely breaks their infantry effectiveness. Additionally you might end up with people on vehicle duty for half an op when they really just wanted to play infantry.
The Dark Horse element should always be ready to form up a convoy and know its procedures, instead of random people in fireteams/special elements getting in a vehicle and trying to figure out what to do while people are also switching off or on to your radio channels.[/quote]
I like the idea, but most of the times our numbers don’t allow for it. I do agree that it depends on the situation, for example when we could use the vehicles at all times as support it would be great. Other times I think it would be unnecessary, for example when we only need to transport troops and not provide actual fire support.
Which points of my original post do you agree with? Which ones you don’t think are needed to be included in our SOPs? As said at the beginning it may be useful to actually update our documentation and I’m up for taking responsibility for the process of brainstorming.
.
