Forums → The Tavern → Military Strategies Debate
| 14 | 2247 |
This form is to talk about military strategies and combat situation decisions, not a role play game. New situations will be posted daily where people can talk about what would be the best decision to make and the positive or negative outcomes if certain actions where taken. Also check out the club page on my profile.
Situation #1
If you where in charge of a 5 humvee convoy where the first humvee hit a road side IED and blew up killing 2 soldiers and badly injuring 3 other soldiers. The convoy would have to stop and try to evac the injured. Flight Evac and support is about 20 minutes away. From the hills about 400 yards away heavy shots come raining down. This area is also know to get hit with mortars. The road out of there most likely has more IED's. What would be a better decision, hold out for air support or drive down the road? What would be some consequences of those actions?
- 14 Replies
if not you move in to a heavily forest area
Since we're just making up landscapes now,
Carry the dead back for eating later, and pretend to care about the 3 other soldiers while your stomach is thinking otherwise. Then, jump over to the hill and flank the heavy shooters. This battle is on the moon.
I'm going to go ahead and say turn around. I mean.....you came that way, so it has to be safe.
Keep a rear guard and retreat to the origin
after the successful retreat of convoy, rear guard should retreat too.
Secure the dead and wounded first. Lay down covering fire on the hill while a squad attacks said hill. Withdraw when you can be covered by air support.
I'm going to go ahead and say turn around. I mean.....you came that way, so it has to be safe.
This.
you came that way, so it has to be safe.
Not necessarily. I recall a skirmish in a jungle in Asia in WWII where a handfull of soldiers (I think it was the Gurkha, but I'm not certain) surprised a marching enemy battalion by flanking them and using guerrilla warfare to make their numbers seem bigger. When the battalion retreated in fear, a much larger group had circled behind them and it was a bloodbath.
I'm not sure why they would go into an area pre-targeted for mortar fire, lined up with IEDs, and only 400 meters from large enemy forces in the first place, but I don't think that (from your description) helicopter evac would even be a possibility. This is especially unthinkable when inferring that the enemy would have access to Anti Aircraft in addition to their other heavy munitions. However, they can't just leave either or the MGs (you said heavy fire, I'm assuming you mean machine guns) will tear them to shreds. They would probably have to call in a drone to neutralize the majority of the enemy threat so that the ground forces could clear up the rest on their own and possibly even take the location.
What's the point of devising a strat when the first leader was so moronic as to send his men to a wonderfully savage and mortality-realizing place?
What's the point of devising a strat when the first leader was so moronic as to send his men to a wonderfully savage and mortality-realizing place?
Some one from king Leonidas's blood line perhaps
Not necessarily. I recall a skirmish in a jungle in Asia in WWII where a handfull of soldiers (I think it was the Gurkha, but I'm not certain) surprised a marching enemy battalion by flanking them and using guerrilla warfare to make their numbers seem bigger. When the battalion retreated in fear, a much larger group had circled behind them and it was a bloodbath.
Yea, but you're in Humvees.....
What's the point of devising a strat when the first leader was so moronic as to send his men to a wonderfully savage and mortality-realizing place?
It's not necessarily an incompetent leader, it's more like the force in humvees is on daily patrols of a region. They have to go into every area, even the dangerous ones.
The patrol situations become even more unpredictable when mortars and IED are used, because they can be used from almost anywhere. Any pile of roadside trash can hide a decent IED, and all the mortar team has to do is zero their mortars in on the site of the IEDs, and get the timing right. They fire maybe five or six rounds, and withdraw, while the troops in the hills withdraw. The damage has already been done, with minimal risk to the attackers.
That being said, the question was what to do in the actual situation, not to second guess the higher ups during a fire fight, getting more people killed in the process. Other posters have answered this pretty well already though.
Topic #2
Would like to discuss the benefits of militay grade body armor. Heavy armor reduces mobility, strength and can impact a soldiers stamina. Although it stops shrapnel and smaller bullets, large rifle rounds can still go through. Body armor also leaves many spots vulnerable on the body. Is having body armor in combat zone worth it? What about in extremely hot conditions where soldiers are required to move fast and long distances? Would you rather have more mobility or more protection in combat?
Interceptor Mk. II does a great job with protection. And its fairly light, all things considered. Dragonskin has even more protection, and weights about the same.
Same issue came up in WWII with the battles in the sky over the pacific. Japanese had faster planes; America had more heavily protected planes. What ultimately screwed the Japanese over was, when their pilots were attacked, it was easier for them to get shot down. It wasn't so much that they lost the plane, but they lost a highly trained pilot. American planes were more rugged, so losing a pilot wasn't as common. You can't afford to lose highly trained personell; its more valuable than any peice of equipment.
It all depends on the nature of conflict,
if u r in urban environment body armor is less exhausting and bullets also tend to cause more casualities in an urban environment as usual skirmish distance is decreased.
But in rough terrain like its pretty much exhausting as it weighs 30 pounds.
One more thing, more ppl are killed by IEDs than firearms in Afghanistan.
And firearm causalities are more in Iraq.
You must be logged in to post a reply!