OP Turn 3 Planning

[Double Deuce]

Here you can discuss your 3nd turn orders. I will post your beginning intelligence information so you can use that to make your 3nd turn plans.

[Katusa]

What do you think about replacements? I think we should get more armor to G, and then strike eastward, and surprise gouvernment forces while they are still drunk after their lucky battle. :drink:
I propose to buy 7 MT-LBs, or 4 BMP-R/BTR-70A. With them, and all armor we already have we could deal a surprise blow, and have a mobile strike-force finally. :cheeky:

What do you think?

[aef027]

I like the purchasing, but I think we should reinforce G and flush the UN out of Zone C. They have some APC's and a mine plough M-60 tank in that zone. We cannot afford to get attacked moving forces from A to G. We lost our trucks and almost lost the AA.


-Al (manhunter)

[Katusa]

I disagree. I do not think the UN is a grave danger by any means. They do not have enough infantry to attack us in G, and they are pretty thin on reinforcements - so they will not waste manpower attacking fortified positions. The other point is, if we move 2 coy strenght through C, they will not attack either. Armor in itself is not good attacking infanrty, while they do not have the quality and quantity of infantry to attack out inf. Ours is better than their UN troops.

They also expect us to strike back, so it would not have the element of surprise. With the govt, where we seemingly lost badly, we can deliver a suprise blow.

But if we decide to move on the UN, we should committ ALL of our armor there to deliver a powerful and quick blow on them. We should have massed formations to be successful. Remember, we have Russian technology, and it was meant to be used that way, not in piecemal fashion.

K

[aef027]

After reconsidering...I feel you are correct. We should try to hammer the pro government forces, so we can try to win the hearts and minds of our own people. Confronting the UN may cause us to lose sight of our main objective, which is to liberate our homeland. I back the proposed plan.

[Katusa]

Force Commander, what is your view on that? We have to act decisively, time is running against us, our enemies have bigger resources than we have, our only strenght is that of "interior lines," so we have massed force in the center, we can switch our forces quicker to one front to another than they can do. (On the outer perimeter of the circle it requires more movement.) So we have to strike fast and hard.

[dita]

Hmmm, a bit of a tough choice here, go on the offensive big time, or consolidate and only only limit ourselves to a small stikes in C this turn.

I think the threat does need to be neuralized in C, but I do see the need to continually move forward. i`ll have to think further on this one.

On the purchase front, I see the need to armor, with more hitting power and mobility, but the terrain I have seen in the two battles i`ve been envolved don`t necassary cater for such mobile tactics. A more hard punch such as mortars in addition to some mobility is called for I think.

The MTLbs are probably of little use, if memory serves, can be knocked out by .50mm mg. Would be good for outflanking or exploitation manuvere maybe?

Will post more soon after I`ve had a think :)

[Katusa]

OK, going against the UN has its advantages as well. They are sitting on our line of communication, so chasing them away from C has certain advantages.
On the other hand, I think, our adventure in I has a clear lesson: either we move IN FORCE (and I think ARMOR is the key), we will be rebuffed as we were last time. So wherever we push to, I am for committing all our armored assets. If you do not like MTLBs, then BTR-70A is the choice, I think. I am not sure, whether BMP-R can accomodate an inf. squad inside. If yes, then I would rather go for it.
But we have to move, I insist on that.
Mortars: I see very-very limited use of them against dug-in troops. Mobility is more important now, I think.
So my last proposal, encorporating your ideas is to get 3 BTR/BMP, some light mortars, then go to C with a tank-heavy force, and fight off the UN. Or do the same in I, while using our 2 inf. coys to push out UN from C. That is possible as well. Others would entrench themselves in G, building fortified positions.
K

[aef027]

I feel we should spend some points on mines for G. This would surprise those who think they can just waltz back into our city. Also, we should start building some militia, irregular fighters (Insurgents), Inf-AA units, or ATGM units to assist in defending the city. If they bomb the city we can show the deaths of civilians and maybe win over some support from the population. I think the UN and/or the Pro Government forces are planning a mass scale attack on G.

[Katusa]

I think we should keep mobility to win. If we bog down in static defenses, they will overwhelm us, either by numbers (2 against 1), or by technical superiorty (UN reinforcements). Our situation is pretty much like of Germany in 1914. In order to win, we must take the initiative and finish quickly, otherwise we are doomed.
K

[Temujin]

First thoughts, if we are to be outnumbered 2-1 in G at least we are defending, this will even the gap, we should get the mines happening, digging in is not a good idea as it gives away our positions, unless we dig trenches all over the place to confuse the advancing enemy.

Once we clear out C we can go on the offensive around the north, by massing in the woods up there and heading thru H and presurring the Pro-gov forces, their lines of supply are more stretched than ours.

First of all we set up listening posts in the northern wilderness areas and start building an offensive force up there ready to strike the pro gov forces, even better if we can strike behind them as they attack us in G. But first lets clear C get some heavy firepower setup, mortars and armour inf-sams and AA and afv's, if we put a bit aside for defensive and offensive armaments in each turn we can defend and attack at once.

[Katusa]

OK, then lets clear out C! My opinion is, that we should enter the zone from south-east, with a large armored formation, (buy APCs and have inf. riding on tanks), and push UN forces north, where the 2 coys already in the zone would wait for them. Anvil and hammer... We also have the 2 AA guns in the zone, it gives us some coverage from Mirages. Then we can start consolidating our land from A to G, eventually extending it to J with the flanking manouvre you suggested. But now we should use all mobile formations in a battle of annihilation against UN. Losing a coy would throw them off balance for a while.
K

[dita]

Yep, C should certainly be cleared out.

I won`t be surprised that an assult on G is planned. My last opponent said that their forces were very strong in the area.

Also, If troops are to remain static in G, then they could build some trenches, as I believe, they are free. There were also some already present, I assume they are still present?

[aef027]

A few ATGM may limit the effectiveness of the APC's and M-60 tanks I encountered. They gave my opponent an edge the last battle. Would have loved seeing some of those get blown up.

-Al (manhunter)

[dita]

I second the call for some ATGMs.....but, looking at the rules I cannot see any to purchase!

There is 100mm AT gun. The BMPs do have some AT capability. Think they have ATGMs? Obviously the T54 has some use

[Katusa]

Did you see ATGMs in the eqipment list? I did not. The closest thing you can get is a 100 mm AT gun, I think. Which is good, but not mobile. I would rather buy a tank then...
K

[Double Deuce]

The only AT capable weapons other than RPG-7 are the T-54 and the 100mm AT Gun. The BRM-1 and BMP-R do not have ATGM capability but do have the 73mm main gun.

[aef027]

I was thinking about trying to get some from outside ;) There was discussion about someone assisting our cause.

[Temujin]

What to do about UN armour? We really need to try and surprise them with some AT weapons. we have enough inf squads in the area, so we can use AT guns and rpg, this can come from A,

Obviously, they need to engage our inf with thier armour or our inf will win over their inf. Yet their armour has an advantage over ours.

We will need mortars and afv's carrying rpg units and AT guns, with tank support. This way we have a 3 tiered deployment, inf, at, tank. inf engage, they bring in armour we pull back inf so our AT can engage their armour, and our tanks are held in reserve to either support the AT or engage in a flanking manouvre. Well something to that effect.

There is also the probability that the UN will withdraw from C. Lets get more AT gear into C and sit there, and we will beef up G with? Heavy Mortar and MG's or rpg's or AT gun?

Also, i think we should send a very small scouting party into F from G and into B from A, that way if all is clear we have the option of using these zones for movement purposes, and to see if the UN or Gov enter these zones.

[dita]

That sounds good Temujin.

At the risk of sound like a stuck record, sronger mortars are a must. The ATG and maybe a few tanks. The infantry may be able to ride on the tanks.

Do we need something to tow the ATG, or can it be used stationary?