The Medium
Battalion
To dig or not to
dig?
© Michael K. Robel
This After Action Review examines the results of the Medium Battalion standing on the defense with and without significant engineer support.
The Medium Brigade has only an Engineer Company for mobility, counter-mobility, and survivability support. Reports indicate that this company will be more focused on improving mobility for the Medium Brigade rather than the other two engineer functions. This is perhaps more in tune with the role of the brigade in Stability and Support Operations (SASO) and Military Operations in Urbanized Terrain (MOUT).
Two different simulations were used: TACOPS (available at www.battlefront.com) and Brigade Combat Team (available at www.shrapnelgames.com ). In each case a medium battalion fought against a motorized rifle regiment. For a comparison of these two simulations, see http://www.strategypage.com/wargames/default.asp.
For TACOPS, TF Gallagher was used as the basis of the test, substituting a Medium Battalion for the heavy task force provided in the scenario. In this version, the MRR was a BTR-80/T-80 equipped force. The terrain in the scenario was wooded with some hills. TF Gallagher was modified instead of using a custom scenario to have access to TACOPS OPFOR AI.
For BCT, the standard scenario was used which pits a Medium Battalion against an OPFOR MRR with BMP-2/T-80s. This scenario takes place at the NTC.
A total of 20 simulation runs were made, five with engineers and five without for each simulation.
In the scenarios run without engineer units, defending units were told to seek defilade or cover. No mines were permitted in either scenario except for scatterable mines. For TACOPS, this meant there was one FA delivered minefield and BCT provided one scatterable minefield and two volcano minefields. No ditching, wire, or dug in positions were used for this test.
With engineer support TACOPS used a dug in position for each vehicle on its primary positions, two hand emplaced minefields, and a scatterable minefield. BCT provided dug in positions for about one-half of the vehicles and one-third of the dismounted infantry. The total minefield length was about 5,000 meters in both simulations.
Without engineers using TACOPS, the BLUEFOR won each time, with an average ending strength (of all unit types) of 50% and an average OPFOR strength of 37%. (Table 1) In the BCT version, BLUEFOR also won each time, with an average ending strength of 81% and OPFOR strength of 16%. (See Table 2)
With engineers, using TACOPs scenarios, the average BLUE end strength was 59% and OPFOR was 36%. In BCT, BLUE strength was 89% and OPFOR strength was 23%.
Note in both cases the increase in survivability for BLUE was about 10%. This difference may be significant in defending against a follow on force. The difference in BCT OPFOR strength is attributed to the improper placement of the minefield in such a manner that the BLUE force could not range most of it.
Each game was played generally the same. In my minds eye, the medium battalion was protecting an airhead or beachhead while other elements were deployed. As such, there was little opportunity to maneuver widely and the emphasis was on the battalion defeating or destroying the enemy attack so as to give the other arriving forces time to prepare for combat.
The reconnaissance platoons sought to strip off the enemy recon elements (usually fairly successfully, though casualties in the recon platoon were heavy) and for the battalion to defeat the OPFOR attack on its initial positions. Each game had some maneuvering of forces, but most fighting took place on the primary battle positions.
TACOPS provided 3 155 batteries, an MLRS battalion, and several air sorties in support of the Medium battalion while BCT provided 3 155 batteries and 4 A-10 sorties. All Fire Support assets were used in TACOPS while in BCT, the air sorties were not used. Neither scenario provides for PGM attacks and only HE and Smoke were available for the 120mm Mortars.
In TACOPS, I defended with two companies up and one back, while in BCT I defended with one company forward, and two back. The forward company would then displace to a battle position deeper in the sector. Surprisingly, the forward company usually destroyed about 70% of the first echelon and got 75% of its strength back to a reserve battle position.).
In both games, casualties were higher when shifting battle positions or counterattacking by fire was attempted, highlighting the difficulty of knowing when to start the movement of friendly forces to subsequent positions.
The difference in BLUE survivability between TACOPS and BCT is at least partially attributable to the difference in direct fire algorithms. TACOPS uses a range-based value to penetrate armor while BCT uses MILES values that are pretty much the same over the whole range of the weapon. Both games allow for aspect when computing direct fire results. (The review cited above explains the algorithmic difference in more detail for the two simulations.)
Another difference was the difference in artillery effectiveness between TACOPS and BCT. IN TACOPS, the artillery fell quite accurately on the BLUE fighting positions while in BCT games, the OPFOR never really hammered the BLUE positions because the enemy was destroyed before they could get good positions on BLUE to relay to their guns. (In other BCT scenarios the tester has played, the effect of OPFOR artillery is devastating – much more similar to TACOPS.)
Fighting positions and mines increase survivability of the battalion and enable it to inflict greater casualties on the enemy force when barriers are properly emplaced.
The LAV is very susceptible to artillery fire; they are only generally proof against 152mm fire at burst ranges of greater than fifty feet.
While hardly conclusive, this test indicates that a full engineer battalion is required for the brigade instead of only a company. This is necessary to both impede enemy attacks, to improve fighting positions, and to provide improved routes within a battalion sector. It would also enhance the mobility of the force in the offense, in SASO, and MOUT operations.
A way must be found to reduce the vulnerability of the force to artillery fire.
Increase the size of the Engineer unit for the Brigade to a full Battalion.
Equip the brigade with one AN/VLQ-9/10 Shortstop Electronic Protection System (SEPS) per platoon to counter artillery and mortar proximity fuses.
Table 1 TACOPS Results
TACOPS |
|||
|
Blue |
Start |
TACOPS w/o EN |
TACOPs w/EN |
|
Unit |
Strength |
Average Strength |
Average Strength |
|
Coyote Recce |
6 |
0.4 |
1.6 |
|
Inf Scout Team |
6 |
0.8 |
1.8 |
|
LAV AG |
12 |
7.2 |
5.8 |
|
LAVIII TUA (+) |
4 |
2.8 |
2.2 |
|
LAVIII ISC (+) |
47 |
19.8 |
22.2 |
|
INF TEAM |
47 |
25.6 |
35 |
|
Javelin |
45 |
17 |
23.4 |
|
LAV LOG |
10 |
10 |
10 |
|
M121 120mm Mortar |
10 |
10 |
10 |
|
LAVIII FOO/MFV (+) |
4 |
2.2 |
2.4 |
|
UAV |
1 |
0.8 |
0.4 |
|
Total |
192 |
96.6 |
114.8 |
|
Total % |
100.00% |
50.31% |
59.79% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red |
|
|
|
|
BRDM2 APC |
8 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
|
INF TEAM |
2000.00% |
12.2 |
11.4 |
|
BMP2 IFV |
4 |
0.2 |
0 |
|
INF SQUAD |
85 |
47.4 |
38 |
|
T80U TANK |
31 |
8.2 |
3.4 |
|
BTR-80 APC |
144 |
23.6 |
19 |
|
PKM MG TEAM |
27 |
12.6 |
10.8 |
|
AGS17 TEAM |
18 |
12.2 |
10 |
|
AT7 |
27 |
14 |
10 |
|
SA16 |
30 |
14.6 |
10 |
|
SPG9 |
6 |
3.4 |
1.6 |
|
AT4 |
12 |
7.6 |
2.8 |
|
2S23 |
18 |
12 |
28.6 |
|
BRDM2 AT |
9 |
3.4 |
2.2 |
|
ZSU-23-4 |
4 |
1.6 |
0.8 |
|
122MM SP HOW |
18 |
16.4 |
18 |
|
Total |
344 |
129.6 |
167 |
|
Total % |
100.00% |
37.67% |
36.23% |
Table 2 BCT Results
|
BCT |
|||
|
Blue |
Start |
BCT w/o EN |
BCT w/EN |
|
Unit |
Strength |
Average Strength |
Average Strength |
|
155mm Howitzer |
18 |
15.6 |
18 |
|
LAV-AT |
4 |
3.2 |
4 |
|
MICLIC |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
Fire Team |
54 |
45.6 |
45.6 |
|
LAV-M |
12 |
13.8 |
11.8 |
|
Volcano |
2 |
1.8 |
1.2 |
|
Javelin |
45 |
39.2 |
42.4 |
|
LAV-25 |
50 |
29.8 |
40.8 |
|
Sniper |
15 |
13 |
13 |
|
Weapon |
9 |
7.8 |
8 |
|
A-10 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
Truck |
6 |
5.6 |
6 |
|
LAV-AG |
12 |
7.8 |
11.2 |
|
Total Blue |
234 |
190.2 |
209 |
|
Total % |
100.00% |
81.28% |
89.32% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red |
|
|
|
|
T-80 |
37 |
0.8 |
0.4 |
|
BMP-2 |
122 |
2.6 |
5.6 |
|
BRDM2 AT |
36 |
0 |
0.6 |
|
2S19 |
36 |
0 |
0 |
|
AT-5 |
10 |
4 |
2.8 |
|
2B11 |
32 |
1.6 |
14.8 |
|
2S1 |
18 |
0.6 |
8.2 |
|
Enemy ACE |
9 |
0 |
0 |
|
2A45 |
9 |
0 |
0.2 |
|
Enemy Fire Team |
65 |
23.6 |
24.8 |
|
Enemy CEV |
3 |
0.2 |
0 |
|
BM-21 |
18 |
18 |
18 |
|
2S5 |
18 |
18 |
20 |
|
Total Red |
413 |
69.4 |
95.4 |
|
Total % |
100.00% |
16.80% |
23.10% |