Echelon Attack

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Hi all. I am working on echelon attacks at the moment. These are when a force attacks with a series of sub attacks one behind the other. The e is tingha code sees the first sub attacks objective the same as the mission objective. Subsequent sub attacks have objectives beyond the mission objective. They extend in the same direction as the assault.

This can see them heading away from their original advance route. So, I'm looking to have these subsequent objectives angled back onto the original advance route.

But the question I have for you is how far should the force exploit along the route. If a Bde has three Bn sub attacks and each is say 1km apart we can end up pushing ahead 2kms.

Perhaps it might be better to limit this to a 1km range. If so, what do wedo with the third Bn sub attacks objective?

We could have just two Bns assault and one in reserve or we could have theirs objective short of the mission objective. What do you reckon?

 

[Keydet]

Let me begin my reply by passing on to you the translation of the 988th VGR 20 Dec 1944 order. Notice paragraphs 2 and 3. Sorry about the poor state of the copy I made. Copying the pages was difficult as the source book had the highest quality pages but the binding was as cheap as you can get. I will add my perspective in an additional reply.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Thanks Paul,

So, this indicates that any further advance is subject to future orders. Though I suspect that the commander would make an assessment as the lead force nears his first objective and just order the supporting force to continue on to his second objective. In effect, it would be a continuation of the attack rather than a new attack with all the delays for preparation, forming up etc. This is what I was hoping to simulate with an exploitation phase of an echeloned attack. BTW when I am talking "echelon" here I'm not referring to an echelon left or right which sees a flanking force positioned behind and to the left or right. I'm really talking about successive lines where we see one Bn behind the other, each in line formation.

 

[Keydet]

Dave,
My opinion about echelon attacks is derived from the teaching in the US Army Advanced Infantry Officer course, the direction of my battalion in field exercises by a superb Vietnam vet commander and readings of mil history. In the beginning I and many others of my peers strongly disagreed. Eventually I came to agree. More about this later.

BLUF: The range limit should be randomly drawn from a normal distribution about a number assigned to the aggression levels of the commander giving the order to the sub units. Then given the aggressiveness, of each of the subordinate commanders the range would possibly be further modified down or up. Examples:
* The National Archives has a collection of 12thUSAG daily, could be weekly, frontline traces. One of them was shocking to me. There was a narrow finger jutting east from the front lines about 60 miles, give or take. This was the 4th AD. It had advanced so deep and so fast it caught the 17th SS PG Div regrouping and destroyed it.
* That Vet Nam battle in the IA Drang where a platoon leader pushed too fast and got separated from the battalion.
* Col Showalter was awarded the MoH for his actions in Korea. Despite what the citation says he told me he did what he did because he goofed and had gotten his unit in a jam. He had outrun his battalion.

The more timid leaders would possibly stop short of their assigned objectives regardless of the situation and call it a day. For instance the FJ battalion in front of Peiper on the evening of Dec 16.

 

[Keydet]

So, this indicates that any further advance is subject to future orders. Though I suspect that the commander would make an assessment as the lead force nears his first objective and just order the supporting force to continue on to his second objective. In effect, it would be a continuation of the attack rather than a new attack with all the delays for preparation, forming up etc. This is what I was hoping to simulate with an exploitation phase of an echeloned attack. ....

Exactly. I've taken up the habit of selecting the objective and moving it as the attack progresses. Works as hoped some of the time.
in the example the regimental commander, having the Division commanders intent in mind (or his own reputation/ambitions) might exploit unexpected momentum, lighter casualties than expected or just trying to avoid/disrupt the defenders riposte or artillery barrages. Etc. Etc.

... BTW when I am talking "echelon" here I'm not referring to an echelon left or right which sees a flanking force positioned behind and to the left or right. I'm really talking about successive lines where we see one Bn behind the other, each in line formation.

Also exactly. I have found the successive lines attack is more likely to be successful than the others in CO2. That was taught to us in Infantry Officer Advance Course (1978) My battalion commander practiced it in our field exercises. (I believe this requires well honed coordination measures for passing another subunit through the lines of the lead unit in contact. If the lead unit has just successfully taken an intermediate objective and the enemy has withdrawn (to lick their wounds or otherwise) It might not be too hard. But if the lead unit has stopped short of the defended objective under fire the follow on unit has to have good coordination with the proceeding units. In other words green units are going to screw this up.

 

[Keydet]

Thanks Paul,

So, this indicates that any further advance is subject to future orders. ...

The information the translated order provides and the pattern of US orders is the subordinates are informed of the next level up commanders intent. Then the commander gives his objective and the subordinates missions followed by "and then on order we continue the attack to <fill in the blank>. The commander will then use FRAG orders to adapt as the attack unfolds. Knowing the overall intent subordinates ought not be thrown off by the FRAG orders.

 

[jimcarravallah]

Hi all. I am working on echelon attacks at the moment. These are when a force attacks with a series of sub attacks one behind the other. The e is tingha code sees the first sub attacks objective the same as the mission objective. Subsequent sub attacks have objectives beyond the mission objective. They extend in the same direction as the assault.

I viewed the echelon attack as a kind of hammering -- the first rank in the attacking force causing what damage it can at the point of attack until exhausted and the second rank joining the battle to cause fresh damage. When the objective is accomplished, the force is ordered into a new disposition to either hold the objective or to form into a new attack to press on.

I don't see a need to change the echelon attack beyond that capability for the human player.

What you're looking into may be worthwhile for an AI opponent option assuming the attack could be designed as a first move in a scenario or the AI considers same options as the human player has to order an attack.

This can see them heading away from their original advance route. So, I'm looking to have these subsequent objectives angled back onto the original advance route.

But the question I have for you is how far should the force exploit along the route. If a Bde has three Bn sub attacks and each is say 1km apart we can end up pushing ahead 2kms.

The standard for advancement would be suited to the level of aggressiveness in the force. Under standard aggression, each battallion would advance to the edge of its designed zone of control.

If a battalion is designed to control a hectare of map space, it's advance after successfully taking its first objective would be 1-km beyond the objective. The second battallion would move 1 km beyond that and the third another kilometer deeper.
A more aggressive force would take a longer step for each batallion, perhaps up 2-km increments for the most aggressive attacker.

This assumes that unit health considerations don't lower a battalion's aggression level going into the attack.
If they degrade the aggression number, then the distance for penetration would be reduced by the same ratio.

Perhaps it might be better to limit this to a 1km range. If so, what do wedo with the third Bn sub attacks objective?

We could have just two Bns assault and one in reserve or we could have theirs objective short of the mission objective. What do you reckon?

My premise is based on the hammering principle discussed above to take the objective and an AI decision to penetrate beyond the initial objective.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

JIm,

I like your hammering analogy. It would require coding up an assessment to be done say each minute of the assault. This would assess whether the current lead Bn is still fit to continue the assault and if not then to change its task to defend in situ, from where it can support the next Bn to take the lead. I like it.

The assessment though IMHO should err on the side of caution rather than let the lead Bn become totally unfit for further offensive action. Would need to carefully choose and calibrate the force attributes. I'm thinking, cohesion, fatigue and recent casualties. Any others?

 

[Tommy.w]

Suppression?

 

[jimcarravallah]

JIm,

I like your hammering analogy. It would require coding up an assessment to be done say each minute of the assault. This would assess whether the current lead Bn is still fit to continue the assault and if not then to change its task to defend in situ, from where it can support the next Bn to take the lead. I like it.

The assessment though IMHO should err on the side of caution rather than let the lead Bn become totally unfit for further offensive action. Would need to carefully choose and calibrate the force attributes. I'm thinking, cohesion, fatigue and recent casualties. Any others?

You may not have to even dig that deep.

It seems like the decision to halt a rank and have it go over to hold for the echelon attack would be based on logic similar to the probe task, adjusting whatever parameters are used to determine when the probing unit halts to allow more aggression for an assault.

If you wanted to craft a routine specific to the echelon assault I was going to add leadership quality unless it already plays in cohesion.

 

[Keydet]

May I come at this sideways? How does Pieper commandeer a FJ battalion not subordinated to his regiment on the night of Dec 16. The FJ battalion as well as the superior regiment had called it a night. Pieper shows up, sizes up the situation and orders the battalion to get on his tanks and they are off.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Yes Paul, it's definitely sideways. Though I'm not sure how this case relates to our echelon attack discussion. We currently don't model mounting foot units on top of tanks. At best you can cross assign these units.

 

[Keydet]

At best you can cross assign these units.

Jumping on the tanks is not the focus. I am speaking to the player does not cross assign the unit. The battalion was instantaneously commandeered by a KG commander not in its chain of command. Your Echelon thread brought this to mind. A battalion has suspended its advance out of fear but suddenly a Tasmanian devil blows through and sweeps the unit back into advancing. Something like the proximity of a superior performing aggressive command not in its chain of command can compel a battalion to resume the advance.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Paul,

Fair enough. Thanks for explaining your point there. We certainly don't model that type of behaviour at the moment. Piper was just an obstinate bully - the exception that proves the rule. I'm not sure we want to spend time on modelling him or other similar commanders. Right now my hands are more than full just trying to cover the basics.

 

[jimcarravallah]

May I come at this sideways? How does Pieper commandeer a FJ battalion not subordinated to his regiment on the night of Dec 16. The FJ battalion as well as the superior regiment had called it a night. Pieper shows up, sizes up the situation and orders the battalion to get on his tanks and they are off.

Again, my concept of addressing a scenario history is doing the at start set up as accurately as possible and inserting the externally planned events such as supply delivery and reinforcements over its duration.

If the remaining AI actions for the scenario are to play exactly as history recorded it, there's no compelling reason to play the same scenario more than a couple of times, because nothing the human player can do will alter the outcome.

The goal of addressing history is to allow the historical outcome to be one of the possibilities from playing to completion, but offering the human player to change it by using his / her tactical knoledge and the tools the historical leader had at his command.

The grading is done by comparing the playing outcome with the historical outcome.

So, if the Peiper move is critical to the historical outcome, it should be writte n into the start of the scenario rather than a scheduled event during the play either by the AI (the human player could have failed so miserably the move wouldn't be necessary during game play) or the human played side (it denies the human player an opportunity to craft his / her unique tactic during play).