Force Versus Battalion Recon in Order of Battle

[SeaQueen]

Hi Guys!

Lately, I've been pondering how to represent any differences (if any) in Force recon platoons versus battalion recon platoons in TACOPS. Operationally, the biggest difference is just command and control, with the Force recon platoon belonging to the command element of the MEU(SOC) or MEB, while battalion recon platoons belong to the BLT commander. The thing is, that doesn't really show up in TacOps.

In TacOps, we have the "recon team" unit, which is a two man team with a 5.56mm sniper rifle, and an M-16 and the "scout team" unit, which is similar but with two M-16s. I used the "recon team" to make up a Force recon platoon and the "scout team" units to make up the battalion recon platoon. I'm still bothered by that, though because if their only essential difference operationally is command and control (and by extension, how they're used) then why should they be armed differently? After thinking a bit more, though, I find myself going back to the original idea because if they're used differently they should be armed differently. In the end, I'm left thinking it's probably just as good to use either "recon team" or "scout team" units for Force or Battalion recon, depending on the scenario.

None the less, I'm curious what other people's thoughts might be.

 

[GCoyote]

The units are more than just differently armed. The Scout Team is basically a two man infantry section if I recall. No special properties, and that is about right per their usage in the Army. Because they belong to a battalion they don't normally get more than 5 - 10 kilometers away from back up if they run into something. Army scouts normally work in sections with two or three section in mutual support. A scout team is valued at 13 attrition points.

The Recon Team has a higher % chance to spot nearby enemy units and is harder to spot itself when not moving. This reflects a small unit intended to go deeper into bandit country and the specialized training and prep for doing so. They are more likely to work dismounted and without immediate support. A Recon Team is valued at 26 attrition points.

Hope that helps.

 

[SeaQueen]

The units are more than just differently armed...

So maybe the best thing to do is make force and battalion recon platoons all just "recon" units.

 

[GCoyote]

If you want to reflect a higher level of training for some reason that's fine. In my Army scenarios I only use the Recon Team unit when I'm depicting LRPS's, Rangers, or other more specialized troops. Otherwise I use the Scout Team unit which correctly reflects Army practice, especially in Armored, Mechanized and Cavalry units.

In USMC scenarios, I use the Recon Team unit when I have a chance [i.e. some transport] to get it out away from the main body where it's extra abilities can be exploited. Otherwise it ends up being just one more section in the mass battle. This seems to reflect differences in the USMC doctrine for their use and the additional training I believe they get.

That's seems to be the intention of having the two types of units in the game.

 

[SeaQueen]

In USMC scenarios, I use the Recon Team unit when I have a chance [i.e. some transport] to get it out away from the main body where it's extra abilities can be exploited. Otherwise it ends up being just one more section in the mass battle. This seems to reflect differences in the USMC doctrine for their use and the additional training I believe they get.

That's the thing, in real life, both force recon units and Battalion recon units receive the same training. The force recon units just get orders from a higher echelon headquarters. I'm thinking of using these units in two types of TacOps scenarios:

1) Smaller operations where a force recon platoon is engaged in a "special operation," sort of scenario like seizing some kind of very specific critical objective like a WMD site or what not. In this kind of scenario their ability to surprise the enemy with their stealthy movement will count big time. Of course, they'd probably be supplemented by aviation of some kind.

That actually makes me think of another question: How to represent Navy SEALs? I'm thinking just another "recon" platoon.

2) Battalion or brigade sized operations where the various recon platoons would act to create a security zone or maybe operate even deeper. For example, I might disperse the battalion recon to form a security zone in front of the rest of the MEB and set their engagement range to 0. That way, unless I tell them, "Kill that guy." they just observe, avoid contact and spot for artillery and airstrikes. In this sort of scenario, they're not likely to stand up to the larger, battalion or regiment sized mechanized force, but their powers of stealth make them critical.

Then I could have the force recon hunting for some of my opponents rear echelon heavy-hitters like artillery, and call in air strikes on it. That'll give 'em something to think about. :bite:

 

[GCoyote]

The Recon Team unit has been used to reflect small special ops teams in several multiplayer games. Seems to work pretty well as long as you keep with in their doctrinal use and only break cover to engage critical targets or for self defense.

Scout teams work well as dismounted OPs and short range dismounted movements to look into a suspicious position but with their transport in nearby cover for quick repositioning or evacuation.

Have fun!

 

[BadNews]

That's the thing, in real life, both force recon units and Battalion recon units receive the same training. The force recon units just get orders from a higher echelon headquarters. I'm thinking of using these units in two types of TacOps scenarios:

1) Smaller operations where a force recon platoon is engaged in a "special operation," sort of scenario like seizing some kind of very specific critical objective like a WMD site or what not. In this kind of scenario their ability to surprise the enemy with their stealthy movement will count big time. Of course, they'd probably be supplemented by aviation of some kind.

That actually makes me think of another question: How to represent Navy SEALs? I'm thinking just another "recon" platoon.

2) Battalion or brigade sized operations where the various recon platoons would act to create a security zone or maybe operate even deeper. For example, I might disperse the battalion recon to form a security zone in front of the rest of the MEB and set their engagement range to 0. That way, unless I tell them, "Kill that guy." they just observe, avoid contact and spot for artillery and airstrikes. In this sort of scenario, they're not likely to stand up to the larger, battalion or regiment sized mechanized force, but their powers of stealth make them critical.

Then I could have the force recon hunting for some of my opponents rear echelon heavy-hitters like artillery, and call in air strikes on it. That'll give 'em something to think about. :bite:

Marine force recon no longer exist, it has been replaced by MARSOC (Marine Special Operations Companies. These companies have a CE, a security plt and 8 5-man DA/SR teams. We started using the AU/NZ recon teams for this purpose as they are better equipted for Direct Action scenarios.

 

[SeaQueen]

Marine force recon no longer exist, it has been replaced by MARSOC (Marine Special Operations Companies.

Whether you call it MARSOC or Force Recon there's still a recon unit attached to the command element of a MEB in addition to battalion recon units.

 

[GCoyote]

Two Questions

Marine force recon no longer exist, it has been replaced by MARSOC (Marine Special Operations Companies. These companies have a CE, a security plt and 8 5-man DA/SR teams. We started using the AU/NZ recon teams for this purpose as they are better equipted for Direct Action scenarios.

Good point, some of the existing units are a little outdated.
Questions:

1. Do MARSOC teams have a similar mission profile to the old Force Recon? [Sneak and Peek?]
2. Do the AU/NZ Recon Teams have the same special attributes in TacOps that the USMC Recon Team has?

 

[BadNews]

Whether you call it MARSOC or Force Recon there's still a recon unit attached to the command element of a MEB in addition to battalion recon units.

Yes but, MarSoc as it is presently configured adds a lot of flexibility. i.e. more potency to attck targets of opportunity, the ability to carry out direct actions such as raids or ambushes and the abilty to act as a separate manuever unit in infantry ops. I am not arguing the use of recon, only saying that the AU/NZ teams provide a more realistic and current depiction of what recon/direct assets are available to the MEU/ MEB

 

[BadNews]

Re: Two Questions

Good point, some of the existing units are a little outdated.
Questions:

1. Do MARSOC teams have a similar mission profile to the old Force Recon? [Sneak and Peek?]
2. Do the AU/NZ Recon Teams have the same special attributes in TacOps that the USMC Recon Team has?

1. Yes, plus the capabilty and occasional mission to perform direct actions on targets of opportunity, raids and the like. Marsoc's Core Task are 1. Special Special Reconnaissance (Same as FR) 2. Direct Action along with CT and internal defence but with regard to TacOPs only 1 & 2 would apply

2. As far as stealth yes, weapontry is similar, the current US recon teams do not have the potency however to anything beyond sneak and peek. MARSOC teams also have an increased capabilty for calling in Fire and Air Support so maybe an arty direction bonus would be appropriate.

 

[BadNews]

I meant the Current Recon capabilty in TacOps not recon capabilty as awhole

 

[GCoyote]

Thanks for the info.

Side Note: Unfortunately you've arrived in the middle of the dreaded "summer dead zone". TacOps has been out for over a decade and we have a relatively "mature" user community. That means lots of commitments during the summer. Even the mailing list is nearly dormant. Things typically pick up in the fall.