Jump to content

Rye

Members
  • Content Count

    468
  • Joined

core_pfieldgroups_2

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Australia
  • Interests
    CQB

Recent Profile Visitors

862 profile views
  1. For note, Thawk and I did a basic CQB course. It was recorded and put on YouTube but I can't seem to find it. If you're interested in any old lesson plans, give me a bump.
  2. https://sofrep.com/50065/cqb-room-anatomy-part-1/ https://sofrep.com/50074/become-close-quarters-combat-master-room-anatomy-part-2/ Will be making updates through this series.
  3. Hey guys. I made this ages ago: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hJ3wntjnOnIZAO1QS_zhpFVa2SEAnvH1NSDkHoKfPF0/edit Unfinished. If anyone wants to use it to do a course, go ahead. It's piss easy to teach. All the concepts are there that are useful. You can include or exclude them at will. If you get stuck on need help, PM me. Just fill in the blanks, it's not hard to get your head around.
  4. I'll give it a shot. First comments I want to make are: Equal strength forces in an urban assault is not good. The defenders have an advantage, most of the time, especially when not contained to one area of the city or one building. Although the 3:1 attack ratio is recommended, I have read of sources stating 10:1 upwards. Urban areas are extremely difficult because of their nature - 360 degrees of "anything can blow me the f- up". With such open ground anyone with an RPG can peek and shoot the Bradley within seconds. This means that infantry have to foothold before bringing in the video. Leading to my next point... This is a combined arms question. Utilizing the Bradley and Heavy Weapons Team (AT especially) is vital to success. Maneuver without their support would be fatal, none the less them taking lead is not a good tactic. There is a lot of open ground before even meeting the town. Navigating around it therefore may be dangerous, even to get a better angle of attack on it. There are also numerous road/obstacle crossings involved. I can't really tell how the terrain lies and do a good map analysis and I haven't planed CinderCity in AGES so I might be off on some points. Let's start by splitting up the objective. Not necessarily for multiple teams but like phase lines for each initial region to hit and for communication purposes: Red is dangerous. Especially for maneuver against the attacking element. Orange is heavily defended residential area. Probably to put off the idea of a frontal assault. This area can be reinforced. Yellow is the most dense urban area where the HQ and CCP are located. I suspect units there will remain in place to defend HQ. Example 1, Western Assault (Flank): Not a bad idea if the Bradley and Heavy Weapons Team/Anti-Tank Team are capable. This could lead to a clogged up firefight which is reinforced, none the less. These 9 buildings in orange clearing room-by-room could take a while. Example 2, Frontal Assault: A nightmare. No doubt would lead to the most casualties. Therefore no center-penetration is recommended. I think another maneuver like enveloping or pincer might split the forces numbers too low if they become dispersed or too far apart. And they're already low. Concentrating them and keeping the Bradley capable and the Heavy Weapons on overwatch is a priority. There is also limited terrain to do any kind of fighting patrol structure so it comes down to ducking behind one another and avoiding bunching. Satellite patrolling or paralleling would not be advantageous. My main points would be: Destroying IFV and MG bunkers from afar is a good plan if capable. Countering IFV approach to outmaneuver the static bunkers and assault them is also a good plan. Getting into short-range firefights risks not only losing a lot of men but getting clogged down where the enemy can reinforce or out-maneuver. Therefore the Bradley and HWTs should be in support of infantry, and each infantry unit in support of one another. Infantry should use good combined arms approaches. Sending scouts forward. Checking corners and streets before moving. Covering 360 but reinforcing areas of likely approach. Infantry should also have light AT capable and towards the front of the group. The target buildings (TBs) are big areas to clear that may also provide a greater view of the battlefield. Getting trapped/isolated or picked off in these buildings, however, is a bad idea. The center fourway is very dangerous due to multiple IFV potential COA, infantry reinforcement and the MG nest. This place is a cluster. Destroying the IFV and potentially the MG nest will be the only way for a safe road crossing unless you find concealed angles/dead ground. Pushing West may lead to an engagement with multiple IFV. If IFV2 has to maneuver, it is coming from an urban area which may provide cover/concealment. As opposed to IFV3 which is already in a make-do fortified area. Therefore pushing East might lead to a prolonged engagement. Infantry also has more cover from the West, both on approach and once inside where they can set up in buildings.
  5. Immediate vs Limited Entries. Enjoy! http://www.slideshare.net/Ryean1/immediate-versus-limited-entries
  6. TG days with MilesTeg leading the way. Chernarus Airport Assaults!
  7. Yeah I skipped a few things. I'll remember windows for a future update. Thanks beta. Here's a presentation on how CQB is changing/has changed: http://www.slideshare.net/Ryean1/close-quarter-battle-a-thankfully-changing-paradigm. It has most of the points Militant brought up in another thread. Enjoy!
  8. Rolling T is used on open linear hallways, he was talking about when that formation changes to hit a T-intersection. Treating a T like a center-fed room. Rolling Thunder to Cross-Cover to Buttonhook. Cross covering (or segmented/incremental searches, dual partition, doesn't matter the terminology) is done in nearly all limited entries. Then probably back to rolling T in the direction of travel. A "V" formation is usually something similar to a cloverleaf.
  9. This is one of the limited entries I was talking about. It was developed by Devin and Trevor at HTS LLC. Part of the HTLE is the snap-bound section previously discussed. It sounds like the Israeli Limited Entry or some modified version of. http://cqb-team.com/israeli_limited.php Here is an example of it in the PowerPoint I am making.
  10. That was a really good read! I have a PowerPoint in the works that talks about these concepts. I will post it on here when I'm done. This is a targeted approach to room clearing. The core way I believe in, there are too many known unknowns in other approaches. This entry I have heard named: Modified or Combination Simul/simultaneous That is a cross-hook working together. On the other hand going straight and running the long wall, or running the wall to draw fire... I have heard called numerous things depending on how it is done: Running the Rabbit Snap-Bound Maybe even a near-far or other forms of limited entry. For example it is very similar to the High Threat Limited Entry by HTS LLC.
  11. Glass over what exactly?
  12. Yeah I did not advertise, I stated what other communities do differently, especially the one I know internally, and how UO could learn from it. This included a systems similar to barrier of entry, the way training is held and a tiered/specialized approach (as opposed to "regular" versus "non-regular"). As well as how missions, streaming, Youtube and events are organized to keep interest. Shack Tac and Spearhead Gaming are two prominent examples I used. AUSARMA is another, which is now nonexistent due to the owner ignoring the community. Examples, not advertising. Because these communities keep a player base and keep tactical play. The exact issues UO is facing. Give me another warning point to confirm how bad this community has really gotten will you?
  13. Tactical Play To put it bluntly I have never seen UO as the best tactical play available. Nowhere near. UO was the best place to come if you wanted to learn about with Platoon TTPs, RTO, artillery or mortars. And now with less and less active members and competition in terms of other communities, I don't see that anymore. I always thought UO lacked when it came to small stuff from gameplay. Jimbo was/is doing a good job in that way to bringing it up to standard with his Fireteam Operations. Small improvements done by many people is a large improvement. I always thought UO was pretty darn rigid too in the way it did things. Like a 1980's infantry battalion. "Don't do it this way, do it my way!". Nonnegotiable people. People making a downright make-your-eyebrows-stand-up plan or order. You do what they say just because they say... Die because of it then log off for the night. Far from a "FNG" problem. Mission Cycle Why not an active 24/7 mission? ALiVE? The mission cycle can continue. The old linear missions are still there if people want to change. Zeus operated by specific GMs is available. You have a 24/7 mission awaiting you. Just get in and have fun. If the overall objective is say to clear the map in three days then that can be a large community event. UOTC UOTC I can see improving with some key members and initiative. Visual is definitely the way to go. Videos are great. Pictures and guides are a plus. It just keeps interest. I've always appreciated UOTC. It was one of the best parts of this community. And sometimes you just have to ignore baseless opinions. Some people you just can't please. So UOTC shouldn't aim to. They're not worth your time. UOTC shouldn't get into a rut. It should just keep progressing without taking two steps back for one step forward. <edited advertising portion> User received a warning point for this post.
  14. Where the hell has the idea of "racist bully" come from? I'm pretty darn sure Wolfie is not advocating open and acceptable racism.
×
×
  • Create New...