Leave feedback here
I had fun even though i dont like leading for obvious reasons lol I think its a big improvement over last training sessions I have attented and I think churizo has done an excellent job in improving it the only thing i would say is to make sure the objectives are different each time so it doesnt get reapitive.
Alright, so glad I made notes before sleeping last night or I would be screwed right now 
Firstly. Just like to say I enjoyed the style of training, it was my first time to one of these training sessions so can’t comment on how it was compared to the old style but it was probably like 20-30mins of slideshow then an hour of actual exercises? a fire and manoeuver practice then a patrol. Worked well from a technical point of view and I wasn’t left feeling supremely bored at any point. It did overrun by half an hour, but with these kind of things it’s impossible to guess how many questions a group may have or how quickly they’ll get through the exercises.
The exercises themselves and how I feel we performed which I didn’t get to bring up in debrief :p.
Firstly, from my point of view the fire and manoeuver went well, all teams moved quickly with a good amount of fire being laid down, to be honest yellow team put down way to much fire, by the end of the test we were all on about 1 mag each heh so something to work on. There was a bit of a mistake at the end, we saw red moving into the bunkers and had a no fire line setup to not hit them, we heard no call to cease fire and saw no smoke so yellow kept supressing, only to find out after that red had moved into the bunkers we were supressing and had captured them while we kept firing, oops!
For the patrol,
as other’s said I don’t believe the formation we used was correct, having red on one side of the road and yellow on the other meant we were firing past/over each other when we were engaged which could have easily lead to friendly fire incident’s as we moved for cover. If we had gone with a standard staggered squad collumn then when we moved to react to fire both squads would have ended up in a rough line next to each other, with no one firing over the other, much safer. Aside from that the first engagement went well.
For assaulting the compound,
I can’t leave much feedback on that as I took a shot during the intial charge from a cheating AI which was clipping through the barricade which was frustraiting. Unfortunately this wasn’t discovered for a while, yellow team clearing the bunker and moving onto the next objective before realising I wasn’t there, then taking a while longer to reailse I wasn’t just hanging out ontop of a hill enjoying the scenery. As mentioned during Debrief the supressing fire not stopping early and bounding in teams rather than just charging would have helped with this.
Finally, Evac.
Only a brief point on this which was touched on in debrief, make the evac plans before the heli lands. Yellow had already decided their order of boarding only to have it overridden and told Red was boarding first when the Heli touched down, it didn’t make a huge difference this time but could in an actual Op.
Suggestions for improvements, just a couple of things:
Perhaps at the start before going into exercises it would be good to talk about people’s positions within a formation, IE, I was told in a previous Op that in a wedge you have Lead in the middle, AR on one side, then AAR and AT on the other side, with AT in the rear. someone briefly mentioned it during the patrol but it’s not something I ever remember seeing practiced though it makes sense. It balances the firepower on either side of the lead, and with AT in the back it ensures their backblast is clear incase of sudden vehicle.
Second, at the start when talking about clearing enemy positions it was said a red smoke could mark the end of an engagement and for supressing fire to cease, but I only carried white smoke? Was this intentional? Do only certain positions have red smoke?
Thats it, ugh, I hate walls of text, sorry.
Hello. The intended debrief on teamspeak was being interrupted by talk, so I gave up trying to feedback there.
I’ll start with the most important thing. I’ve not been a part of the previous training you’re all comparing this to, so I don’t have that comparison, but if it involved long infils as I hear, then yes, that would be wasted time for learning.
Learning and memorizing
I like the theory presented. It was well presented. The terminology especially used in the last part of the lesson could profitably have laid up on the event page, so we had already heard the terminology one time before.
But the flaw, as I see it, is that there was no practical learning as an extension of the lesson. The right lateral limit for the supporting team (I don’t remember the therm) was heard once by the entire class, and is expected to be used by one or two participants in a later full scenario. - Participants who are possibly dealing with many other rather new or unfamiliar situations. These therms/tools wasn’t used or properly used during the two executions.
A possible follow up to the lesson, could be that everyone pairs up (in 2), representing two fireteams. (no AI opponents) Find their own little terrain maybe 50 m away, and do a procedure of bounding, verbally or on map; place down all the tools from the lesson; left or right lateral limit, signal for entry on objective, never-extend-border. The pairs should go systematically through [find, fix, flak, finish] verbally. This rehearsal could be done two times, making both members take more or less the leading tone.
This post-lesson rehersal should not be there because the concepts are difficult to understand, but because once you employ tools by yourself, formulate it in your own words and make the considerations by yourself, it is significantly easier to use those tools again (especially comparing; ‘did it once’ to ‘never did it’). And it is also more likely that you remember to use the tools when you’re supposed to use it.
Yes, you’re are likely to be grouped with another person with much less ambition for learning, resulting in you missing out, but I see the overall learning potential as much bigger.
After that, you could do a more complete execution with few leaders (/a proper squad), as we did, for several reasons. Many of those are the complexity, issues, annoyances and obligations you have, when you have a team, when you take casualties, when you can’t see the enemy or target/objective. Another thing is that any mistakes or successful actions you take in a full fletched scenario is much better burned in memory, than a two man rehearsal. The rehearsal is preparation for the memory burner.
It is unavoidable that the few leaders of the execution get the biggest take-away from the training, but an after-action-review right after the execution is a good potential for any participants to learn from the mistakes and successes of the leaders (Vise-versa). And non-leaders will likewise burn some of those learning points in from the after action review, because those points are bound onto their own experience (and a kind of narrative) as well.
That was what I think could be improved on the set-up. The rest isn’t, except the last two lines.
Personal points
I was fireteam lead in the first execution. The fireteam that attacked the bunkers. I did poorly. Honestly. Much under my expectations. Usually on any OP, I rehearse the relevant names in fireteam and relevant leaders, but I didn’t get to do it properly as many other things were coming up. The player list of teams by shack tac radar was messed up with teams mixed together, in three colours, and as I have a hard time differentiating red and green, I had a hard time giving individual orders when we reached the bunkers, as I had no clear view of who was around me. Generally lack of words was the big issue all the way through. I really could use a talk to my fireteam before. Which leads to:
Ready checks
Right after the lesson all units were to run directly to the treeline facing the objective. No set-up, no prior formation, no proper entry, no "rock-drill", and most importantly for me, no time with my fireteam to for example subdivide into AR-AAR-team (named: "team-[AAR’s name]") and FTL-rifleAT-team (named: "team-[TL’s name]"). This would have made it much easier when we’d first hit the bunkers, when I wanted to manoeuvre within the FT.
I generally find this an issue in ops, especially in beginnings, that a TL, SL, PLTL determines that an action is going to happen now, and the a train of every single member who heard it moves to the waypoint (or whatever). A complete clusterfuck to any leaders of those members. I’m missing ready checks.
SL: "FT1 are you ready to move out?", FT1: "I’d like to have a word with my fireteam", FT2: "Yeah ok, let me do that as well", SL: "ok, report to me when ready".
And even ready checks (over direct) in the FT when doing bounding overwatch, starting from the flank and goes in towards the leader. It may be over-the-top, but its good in the beginning of a manoeuvre, and IMO needed if the fireteam is either preparing for an initial fire opening, or generally setting up to support another unit. Then FTL of the supporting team should give the ready call to the manoeuvring FT, when he KNOWS that his whole FT is ready to support.
But when you’re just thrown out into your new FT in combat, you have no idea if these three guys and gals are in on your ways of leading.
Or similar to ready checks, "ready alerts" (don’t know what to call it). Example: "Ready to follow FT2 as they pass us … moving" all gets up and starts moving. Rather that, instead of FTL begins running then says "We will follow FT2". Any member of the fireteam may be in doubt whether that was a description of what is soon to happen, or if you’re already 20 meters behind. Or as of todays OP on sugar factory, where a "prepare to open up in 10 seconds" would have increased the lethality of the fire-opening in the first seconds. Count-downs are gold, but difficult over multiple levels of net.
Bunkers
When I reached the right walls, my most important task as I saw it, was to provide a substitute for ‘fire’ in ‘fire and manoeuvrer’, allowing the other FT to advance from the open field to some cover. As it was not possible to effectively suppress the enemy from that angle the solution would be to clear the objective, before the other fireteam ran out of ammo. Clearing the frontal bunkers would relieve the other FT soonest, but that would be walking right in front of (uncleared) fortified positions (bunkers). This problem and my missing FT-names was what staled me.
But the solution was in the plan. I should have signal the cease fire. (Which I forgot) The other FT should then find better cover and shoot any head in the frontal bunkers. I’d have to announce in advance, when we reached the frontal bunkers.
Suppressive fire
A comment to this and the envelopment shown on the last slide of the lesson:
From the way we train in Denmark you can have around two contacts/engagements before you need to resupply, being dangerously low on ammo. Infantry have more mags than combat engineers, but still. The envelopment in the slideshow, which looked like a trek of 500 meters for one fireteam, while the other is actively suppressing, is a long time to suppress. I would never see this IRL training. It would rather be 50 meter, though that would probably be a squad-squad manoeuvre. 500 meter envelopment would be bigger units, vehicles. It’s hard to determine the critical differences between Arma and RL and what effect that should have on tactics. I guess I just fancy doing things realistically.
Using so much ammo, could have been what kept you alive(?), and a critical ammo state could be avoided if I called the cease fire, or if not a Squad alone attacked an objective so big over so much ground.
We have a saying from where I’m from when bounding. Recruit stuff. "I’m up (running), the enemy sees me, I’m prone". A sentence to remind soldiers of how short time they should be running. So in a matter of maybe 6 seconds a fireteam has bounded 15 meters or so, which alternates forward.
Each of our bounds in the training and OPs are like 100-150 meters. If we at least agree upon doing it like this, I’d be happier. But instead it feels like; what so happens to happen during a manoeuvre is what we learn/train and applause afterwards. That leads me to the last feedback for the training set-up:
A full scale manoeuvre without enemies (walk and talk), where the trainers guide, standardise and possibly discuss what the manoeuvre should should look like, while participants can see it with their own eyes.
1) The pre read text in event briefing, 2) the lesson, 3) the pair rehearsal, 4) the manoeuvre walk n’ talk, 5) one full fetched exercise and 6) an after action review. I think that would be a more giving training session.
An extension of time should be used on more pairs of point 5 and 6.
Hey guys, thanks for the feedback so far. I will give mine after replying to some of the feedback I feel needs it.
[quote user_id=“19950517” avatar=“https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.enjin.com/821401/site_logo/medium.png” name=“Tinder”]
Suggestions for improvements, just a couple of things:
Perhaps at the start before going into exercises it would be good to talk about people’s positions within a formation, IE, I was told in a previous Op that in a wedge you have Lead in the middle, AR on one side, then AAR and AT on the other side, with AT in the rear. someone briefly mentioned it during the patrol but it’s not something I ever remember seeing practiced though it makes sense. It balances the firepower on either side of the lead, and with AT in the back it ensures their backblast is clear incase of sudden vehicle.[/quote]
This is a community standard to be fair and this and an alternative was shown in the formation section of the brief but your right it could have been mentioned to highlight it as this is the basic FT qualification and this formation is key.
Pretty sure every FTL, SL, PLT Comd carries multiple smoke colours as red smoke has always been used to mark enemy positions. I would like to say that these were examples so if you had white then throw white smoke as long as it is in the plan then it doesn’t matter how you indicate the shift or ceasing of fire. Just come up with three ways of doing it. How is up to the SL.
[quote user_id=“16848188” avatar=“https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/16848188/avatar/medium.1470025417.jpeg” name=“Delta”]
Learning and memorizing
I like the theory presented. It was well presented. The terminology especially used in the last part of the lesson could profitably have laid up on the event page, so we had already heard the terminology one time before.
But the flaw, as I see it, is that there was no practical learning as an extension of the lesson. The right lateral limit for the supporting team (I don’t remember the therm) was heard once by the entire class, and is expected to be used by one or two participants in a later full scenario. - Participants who are possibly dealing with many other rather new or unfamiliar situations. These therms/tools wasn’t used or properly used during the two executions.
A possible follow up to the lesson, could be that everyone pairs up (in 2), representing two fireteams. (no AI opponents) Find their own little terrain maybe 50 m away, and do a procedure of bounding, verbally or on map; place down all the tools from the lesson; left or right lateral limit, signal for entry on objective, never-extend-border. The pairs should go systematically through [find, fix, flak, finish] verbally. This rehearsal could be done two times, making both members take more or less the leading tone.
This post-lesson rehersal should not be there because the concepts are difficult to understand, but because once you employ tools by yourself, formulate it in your own words and make the considerations by yourself, it is significantly easier to use those tools again (especially comparing; ‘did it once’ to ‘never did it’). And it is also more likely that you remember to use the tools when you’re supposed to use it.
Yes, you’re are likely to be grouped with another person with much less ambition for learning, resulting in you missing out, but I see the overall learning potential as much bigger.[/quote]
I will post the original script used in the previous training but the SL would conduct 2 squad attacks and the first would be coached i.e. I would steer them and give hints on what they could/should do. Then on the second, they would get let loose to enact what was highlighted on the first via coaching and debrief. It would be nice to pair people off and have them run through the theory of the Squad Attack but we are already pushing time and people complain if training runs too long or is considered boring.
I understand the point about having some time in the beginning to as a team talk about how you are going to control the movement of the Squad and fireteams. I think the whole first practice is most likely to be removed and instead concentrate on two patrol lanes instead but you are right we should factor in time for the Squad to have time to talk and get ready.
The other type of ready calls you talk about is up to leaders to enforce if they want them. If the SL asks you to step off but you need time with your FT then tell him/her to wait out over the radio, job done no need to explain or waffle on the net.
Also telling your fireteam to get ready to move is a default I don’t think we really have to cover it unless you really think we are that bad 
but you are right if it is not happening then we need to mention it because it is just basic information sharing.
[quote user_id=“16848188” avatar=“https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/16848188/avatar/medium.1470025417.jpeg” name=“Delta”]
Suppressive fire
A comment to this and the envelopment shown on the last slide of the lesson:
From the way we train in Denmark you can have around two contacts/engagements before you need to resupply, being dangerously low on ammo. Infantry have more mags than combat engineers, but still. The envelopment in the slideshow, which looked like a trek of 500 meters for one fireteam, while the other is actively suppressing, is a long time to suppress. I would never see this IRL training. It would rather be 50 meter, though that would probably be a squad-squad manoeuvre. 500 meter envelopment would be bigger units, vehicles. It’s hard to determine the critical differences between Arma and RL and what effect that should have on tactics. I guess I just fancy doing things realistically.
Using so much ammo, could have been what kept you alive(?), and a critical ammo state could be avoided if I called the cease fire, or if not a Squad alone attacked an objective so big over so much ground.
We have a saying from where I’m from when bounding. Recruit stuff. "I’m up (running), the enemy sees me, I’m prone". A sentence to remind soldiers of how short time they should be running. So in a matter of maybe 6 seconds a fireteam has bounded 15 meters or so, which alternates forward.
Each of our bounds in the training and OPs are like 100-150 meters. If we at least agree upon doing it like this, I’d be happier. But instead it feels like; what so happens to happen during a manoeuvre is what we learn/train and applause afterwards. That leads me to the last feedback for the training set-up:
A full scale manoeuvre without enemies (walk and talk), where the trainers guide, standardise and possibly discuss what the manoeuvre should should look like, while participants can see it with their own eyes.[/quote]
I am sorry Delta but I have to take issue with this because the example shown during the brief is a distance of around 250m but it is just an example of what you need to do when planning and the process, not you must engage at the enemy at 250m. However, to say that you train on contacts IRL at 50m’s is not a reason to then train only at 50m in Arma. Also, it is not realistic to practice contacts at only 50m’s in real life anyway or in Arma. The enemy decides when and where to engage you and unfortunately, it is not always 50m which would be great as you could role over them with maybe one mag, it would also mean you wouldn’t even need to use an envelopment because that distance is probably too short to matter.
I am by no means saying that attacking a position with just a squad at 300m is the ideal scenario but it is the best training scenario in order to practice ammo preservation and very fast and fluid movements to get the assaults over and done with.
300m would be the upper limit really for a Squad Attack. longer distances are for the platoon as a whole to handle. I agree that certain objects are not suitable for a single squad. The reason for Yellow running dry nearly on ammo was the huge distance of the first obj which I agree was huge and the fact that there were little to no ammo conservation methods used.
I 100% agree with you on the bounding size as we really do take the piss in CNTO when it comes to bounds. We have pretty much the exact same saying for bounding here and pretty sure every military uses the same. Although I agree with you that our bounding is beyond massive I think that we should not use the "I’m up, they see me, I’m down" here in CNTO for no other reason than I think it will slow things down and because as your saw we are not even properly saying set and move so adding in many more bounds would cause massive delays on an attack and also it is not really required in an Arma setting. In an Arma setting, I have always said I think 50m is the absolute maximum you should be bounding as a FT in a Squad. It is really the job of the SL to control this and I have to constantly tell teams to hold where I play as SL becasue they want to bound 100m because it means they get to a nice bit of cover.
What do you think if the 50m max in an arma 3 setting? and what do you think of a 300m (theoretical) max for squad attacks?
I would love to do a walkthrough talk through and I have done them on SL/FTL qualifications before but people seemed to hate them. It is very hard to balance training here and it has really shown over the years that the majority hate training when they don’t get to actually shoot anything, they also hate walking or anything that doesn’t involve shooting. I wish I had 20 Deltas and Koffers that love learning this stuff properly but we don’t so we do what we must.
I went off on tangent their but I hope you understand I little more why things are the way they are.
Here is the original plan I wrote up.
FIRETEAM TRAINING PLAN
Goal of Training.
Increase the community’s proficiency in all the core elements of infantry Platoon tactics and procedures. Incentivise the attendance on these regular training sessions. By attending these training sessions members will have a good understanding of all the aspects that make for a smooth event improving the performance of the Platoon as a whole and of each individual.
When pages are referred to, we refer to the page number. Not the PDF page.
Format of Training.
-
The training sessions will last approximately 90 minutes. They will run min. every 3 months.
-
The training will be conducted as follows:
5-10 mins brief on formations and basic movement while patrolling. Soft vs hard contacts, RoE, and enemy vehicle actions on. Contact reports covered. Details on the mission ahead and training session as a whole.
Patrol to waypoint 1. The squad patrols to waypoint 1 under orders to observe and report enemy movements. 1 soft contact encountered and one enemy Helo to practice reactions on enemy vehicle contacts. This patrol section will cover the following key learning points:
Reaction to enemies: [ST-Guide p. 153-162]
Actions on Enemy vehicles [Vehicle Types: ST-Guide p. 218-221, LAT: ST-Guide p. 76-78, MAT: ST-Guide p. 107-109]
Soft vs Hard contact [ST-Video Universal Rules of Engagement]
RoE [ST-Guide p. 31-32]
Contact reports [ST-Guide p. 117-119]
Movement tactics:
Bounding [ST-Guide p. 170-172, ST-Video Bounding Overwatch]
Formations [ST-Guide p. 166-170]
360 security [ST-Guide p. 10-13]
(Waypoint 1 is an opportunity for the squad to ensure correct formation and spacings when moving North to WP 1. The squad will cross a larger open area which they should bound across but can also move across together in a squad formation, they should not cover from the tree line and one team cross as the area is too large. When crossing or after they have crossed the squad should spot a patrolling APC to the west, they should go firm give a full-contact report and this should be passed onto Plt Comd. There is also an enemy Helo on a trigger that should pass overhead around the time of crossing, this is to get the correct response to all enemy vehicles, take cover and report.)
5-10 mins debrief on previous waypoint performance and brief on reaction to enemy fire, the 4 F’s and Regroup.
Patrol to waypoint 2. The squad patrols to waypoint 2 under orders to assault any enemy positions encountered. 2x enemy positions placed along route for the squad to practice squad attacks covering the key learning points below:
Reaction to enemy fire:
Immediate reactions [ST-Guide p. 153-154]
Achieve fire superiority
Take cover
Maintain fire superiority
Contact Report [ST-Guide p. 117-119]
Orders [ST-Guide p. 133-138]
4 F’s [ST-Guide p. 176-181]
Regroup
Use of Smoke [ST-Guide p. 175-176]
AT Firing Procedure [ST-Guide p. 76-78
Movement tactics:
Fire and Movement [ST-Guide p. 172-173]
Fire and Maneuver [ST-Guide p. 172-173]
(Waypoint 2 contains two possible enemy positions marked on the map along the Patrol route. The first position contains 1 enemy APC and light infantry this is so that the squad can set up and engage the enemy using the correct AT procedure and then attack and clear the position in accordance with the 4F’s. The second position is a bunker, building, and mounds with 3 personnel in the bunker. This is also an opportunity for the squad to execute the 4F’s and treeline perfect for a right flank.)
5-10 mins debrief on previous waypoint performance and brief on withdrawing tactics and Peeling/breaking contact. Also covering reaction to injuries and casualties under fire.
Patrol to waypoint 3. The squad patrols to waypoint 3 under orders to withdraw from any enemy contacts encountered. 1x enemy position placed along route for the squad to practice squad withdraw and peel, the key learning points are below:
Movement tactics:
Withdrawing [Withdrawing/Breaking Contact: ST-Guide p. 154, Disengaging: ST-Guide p. 183, “Three Mag” Rule: ST-Guide p. 39]
Peeling [ST-Video Peeling]
Breaking contact [Withdrawing/Breaking Contact: ST-Guide p. 154, Disengaging: ST-Guide p. 183, “Three Mag” Rule: ST-Guide p. 39]
Casualty procedures [ST-Guide p. 53-57]
When to heal yourself: [ST-Guide p. 53-57]
Prioritise firefight over light wounds.
Unconscious or unable to move picked up by buddy.o
How to heal yourself
Always tourniquets before bandaging anything
When bandaging treat head wounds first
Check the blood pressure before applying morphine - when blood pressure is “low” do not administer morphine
Never apply more than one morphine at a time
CCP Setup EDIT AFTER APPENDIX SECTION IS WRITTEN
(Waypoint 3 will see the squad move to the extraction point but they will be ambushed on the route by trainer controlled AI, this ambush is designed to suppress our members. The Zeus then selects players max of 3 depending on group size at random and makes them a casualty by making them go unconscious with light wounds. This is to force the squad to withdraw under fire with casualties.)
5-10 mins debrief on previous waypoint performance and overall performance, key points.
Communication and chain of command throughout.
Communication [ST-Guide p. 110-120]
Chain of Command (CoC) [Appendix Guide p. 3-6]
Succession
Thanks for the responce Dachi.
My thought was that the pair-rehearsal-thing and the coached walk n’ talk would substitute the second full exercise in terms of time.
Did the coaching in first training result in bounding overwatch more to your liking?
50m max for squad bounding. I guess yeah. For a proper infantry manoeuvre, it sounds reasonable. - if half of the squad isn’t turned into some full blown vehicle/heavy weapons hilltop fire support element.
300m (theoretical) max for squad attacks? I don’t know. I’m no officer, let alone sergeant who makes these decisions. But the way I see it in a proper war frame, is that a squad advancing to a target or maybe pursuing a target small enough for the squad to handle, 300m into enemy territory, will likely soon be fighting on more fronts than one. And they will be out of reach of support of neighbouring units.
But as nearly all Arma 3 gameplay taste like "armed assault" (this is no longer the official meaning of ‘Arma’), where a military unit of a small size compared to terrain size, move to certain objectives as dots on a map, to do "armed assaults" or defend from same, the same considerations doesn’t really apply IMO:
In Arma, these additional "fronts" I said the squad would run into, are enemies that, that squad is going to fight anyway.
Two squads can manoeuvre and adapt faster than a front line. Either Alpha advances 300m and Bravo follows, allowing support to Alpha whether Alpha moves or stays. OR Bravo is way off attacking from another angle not able support Alpha when Alpha is advancing nor if they didn’t. So you might as well advance.
But that was two arguments that doesn’t go well with Arma. A third argument could be that a 300m fire and manoeuvre is the maximum distance in terms of ammo you should expect from a squad. I’m down with that.
[quote user_id=“16848188” avatar=“https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/16848188/avatar/medium.1470025417.jpeg” name=“Delta”]
My thought was that the pair-rehearsal-thing and the coached walk n’ talk would substitute the second full exercise in terms of time.
Did the coaching in first training result in bounding overwatch more to your liking?[/quote]
The coaching on was more to do with positioning, planning and consideration for the attack itself as the bounding distances were covered in debrief.
We are having a Training Team meeting on Monday feel free to tag along and voice any suggestions but I will suggest we remove the bounding part of the training and replace it with a walkthrough talk through squad attack. Although I can pretty much guarantee this will not be received well as even though it has great training value it is considered extremely boring by most. I have done walkthrough talk throughs in the past for many subjects including peeling and people just want to get on with it in action even if they don’t have it fully down yet. A lot of people feel it is beneath them to practice such basic things or like I said is just too boring for them.
[quote user_id=“16848188” avatar=“https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/16848188/avatar/medium.1470025417.jpeg” name=“Delta”]
50m max for squad bounding. I guess yeah. For a proper infantry manoeuvre, it sounds reasonable. - if half of the squad isn’t turned into some full blown vehicle/heavy weapons hilltop fire support element.[/quote]
All our training really revolves around the basic infantry squad and platoon.
[quote user_id=“16848188” avatar=“https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/16848188/avatar/medium.1470025417.jpeg” name=“Delta”]
300m (theoretical) max for squad attacks? I don’t know. I’m no officer, let alone sergeant who makes these decisions. But the way I see it in a proper war frame, is that a squad advancing to a target or maybe pursuing a target small enough for the squad to handle, 300m into enemy territory, will likely soon be fighting on more fronts than one. And they will be out of reach of support of neighbouring units.[/quote]
I won’t go into detail because it is tactical doctrine but in a war setting you would still send out patrols designed to find and destroy the enemy this is why when doing so you are given LOE’s so you have less chance of running into those enemies in-depth positions which I covered on the brief. No patrol would do this without support though and in CNTO we can have Air, Mortar or Arty support. I think we need to train what we should be doing as a lone Squad and then work into how that relates to the platoon in the actual SL/FTL qualifications because although you have a point about neighboring units this is void when operating in a platoon as your support units are Bravo and Charlie.
[quote user_id=“16848188” avatar=“https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/16848188/avatar/medium.1470025417.jpeg” name=“Delta”]
In Arma, these additional "fronts" I said the squad would run into, are enemies that, that squad is going to fight anyway.
Two squads can manoeuvre and adapt faster than a front line. Either Alpha advances 300m and Bravo follows, allowing support to Alpha whether Alpha moves or stays. OR Bravo is way off attacking from another angle not able support Alpha when Alpha is advancing nor if they didn’t. So you might as well advance.
But that was two arguments that doesn’t go well with Arma. A third argument could be that a 300m fire and manoeuvre is the maximum distance in terms of ammo you should expect from a squad. I’m down with that.[/quote]
Yeah, I like I said in my previous response above if you are a squad on your own or in a platoon with bravo, for example, you should always consider the LOE of any attack to avoid those enemy in-depth positions. When you are operating with Bravo or other elements it then becomes a lot easier to control because you should always remain supported by other elements within the platoon. We should always be sticking together it is the aim of the community to have team gameplay as a platoon with support elements so your scenario 1 is what we should be striving for. Just as the Squad should be tackling objectives together so should the Platoon. We should be sticking together as much as possible mission and scenario dependant of course.
For example, the squad and its fireteams should not be more than 500m apart from each other at any time really and 500m is the extreme otherwise why be in a squad because you can’t support each other. The same goes for the Platoon the squads should not be kilometers apart for the same reason. Yes, the 300m (theoretical) max is there to conserve ammo and also because if the enemy engages you at 600m (idiot AI) and you want to engage, then you would advance toward them in whatever way is suitable for the terrain to a min of 300m and then launch your assault. This is for ammo like you said but also just speed of the assault you want it done quick before they can reinforce or move off target.