Fire superiority: Key to the assault

[KasperX]

I suggest reading this book for those of you who haven't done so yet.



Kasp

[[R-MOD]Mongolian_dude]

I think this is a marvelous OP, as the 'middle tactics' to winning firefights are often overlooked by SLs in game. Commanders will have an idea of how they want to the team to proceed as a force, and infantrymen will usually know the does and don'ts of the battlefield. It is comon for SLs to get bogged down in Policin' 'dat mostach! and the general disciplin of the squad.
Ideally, an SL would designate the most senior soldier in the squad as a sort of 'NCO' to fulfill that role, focusing on aspects such as spacing, formation, fire direction etc; allowing the SL to focus on those 'middle tactics'.


Yet, with the ever increasing detail in project reality, such tactics cannot offer their full potential at merely a squad level. Two squads organised at a Platoon level will give disproportionately better results; be it two infantry squads (assault and support), or A Mechanised INF squad with armoured (or perhaps even motorised) support.

Transaction complete:$00.02


...mongol...

Originally Posted by KasperX

I suggest reading this book for those of you who haven't done so yet.
Kasp

I don't know man. I'v never read the thing myself, but I cant see it being a necessary factor in performing well in PR. A bit overkill...

...mongol...

[Shaihuluid]

okay, responding to the comments:

Originally Posted by Skull

in my humble opinion your post doesnt say anything at all
the only thing you wrote in those 30 lines were
a) shoot at enemies
b) keep shooting at them
c) always find cover
d) ask others to support
and that is no strategy at all

yeah, that's an accurate comment. I was in an essay-writing mood . Just giving a heads-up on another potential tactic... in terms of other tactics/strategies it's all up the SL

Originally Posted by ChizNizzle

Very important thing is to actually recon the area of attack first, but not only that area you are planning to attack/seize but predict the chances of enemy support coming in the time that you plan and attack, and what direction they will be comming from, incase they appear.

Secondly, the firepower isnt usefull everytime. IF you're going for an object where you need to kill enemies to achieve it, fire is necesarry, but if you're going for an object of smaller scale, but wich is cruicial for further actions, you have to consider if it is worth putting so much effor on whole squad or send only a couple of guys out on a side mission.

Fire Superiority is basically just an abstract tactical concept, one that doesn't always transfer over to PR. As mentioned prior, the real effectiveness of it would be in inter-squad operations.

I'm taking most of the se suggested tactical cues from ww2-era German infantry squad composition, so many would argue that this is not taking into account the impact of speed and stealth on a battlefield. In squad-level operations, these are still very important factors.

Fire superiority is best practiced against densely fortified enemy structures (7-12 hostiles), where friendly squads are in a position of numeretical power and want to maintain it

(Note: I don't mind tactical criticism.In fact, It'll probably lead to a much more pragmatic approach to the concept)

[KasperX]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Mongolian_dude

I don't know man. I'v never read the thing myself, but I cant see it being a necessary factor in performing well in PR. A bit overkill...

...mongol...

If you haven't read it...you don't know anything about it. Actually the first 7 to 8 chapters can relate to a lot of PR strategy. Overkill? Yes, if your looking for PR strategies alone. But if you're interested in strategies and don't mind reading then it is a great book. Just read the first few chapters...and let me know. I couldn't put the book down once I started reading it. If you don't like reading, pick up the audio book and listen to a few chapters before you go to sleep.

Kasp