Application: - Monkey see success monkey do

[sogoie]

Has anyone ever watched military movies and/or shows (especially The Unit which comes on tonight in an hour and a half) to get ideas for how to do things in a water gun fight. Not that you don't know its that you want to be right and the best? Do you think this is wrong, explain.
Notice: Monkey see success monkey do.

[WaterWolf]

I found that playing Ghost-Recon helped to improve my squad command tactics and this sniper had talked about watching movies to build up a knowlage of sniper tactics.

[Lt.Winters]

Well, if you do decide to learn something from movies and/or games, make sure that they're accurate (military wise, which means at least they have a military adivisor). It seems that the very thing that anti-fun/home entertainment activists protest against is acually educational. One way or the other.

[SilentGuy]

Nothing like Freedom Fighters to teach you fundamental squad tactics. Simply nothing like it.

The problem is that anti-games activists are often anti-war too. Which I am, if possible (and that's not a false description of me, like what Bush described himself as). Games can be fun, but killing is not. The concept is the same, but the effects are not.

[Adrian]

Due to the equipment limits, military-like strategies suffer quality issues when used in water warfare. And TV is definitely not the place to go learning military skills. It's entertainment, first and foremost.

Nothing wrong however, with borrowing a few tactics here and there.

Adrian

[DX]

However. certain older tactics and certain ambushes do work from real life. The Swinging Gate Charge comes straight out of the Battle of Gettysburg and Triple Envelopment from the Battle of Cannae. Because water wars tend to be two opposing armies of infantry, you can apply older tactics [pre-1865] in a modern setting. You've got artillery, normal guns with much shorter range, rocket launchers [but with range is short as the normal guns], and hand-thrown grenades. The actual fighting does not in any way resemble anything you'll see in a military movie, but the actual manuevers themselves can.

[Dr. D]

However. certain older tactics and certain ambushes do work from real life. The Swinging Gate Charge comes straight out of the Battle of Gettysburg and Triple Envelopment from the Battle of Cannae. Because water wars tend to be two opposing armies of infantry, you can apply older tactics [pre-1865] in a modern setting. You've got artillery, normal guns with much shorter range, rocket launchers [but with range is short as the normal guns], and hand-thrown grenades. The actual fighting does not in any way resemble anything you'll see in a military movie, but the actual manuevers themselves can.

Yeah, my Joshua Chaimberlain-obsessed history teacher showed us the "Gettysburg" movie two years back (I was only one of three people who actually were watching it). I loved it, but never thought to analyse it for strategy. Go Joshua Chamberlain for inventing the Swinging Gate Charge!
:crazy:

[DX]

Actually, the charge was a textbook manuever, though it had never been used so decisively. I've lifted at least a dozen tactics from the Battle of Gettysburg and many more from other Civil War battles. When fitted to match the style of modern war, they work really well. I've also applied Civil War field fortifications [the old Reed Hill fort in 2004 was based off of the fortification of Culps Hill in Gettysburg].

More modern movies/games give you squad and ambush ideas. But you can't just ignore the old stuff. I hate when people look down upon older tactics. Movies of modern war don't teach you line vs line tactics, which are no longer used in real war but very much so in water war. In fact, I would go so far as to say that ancient/old wars such as the Punic, Napoleonic, and American Civil have more to do with water wars than Vietnam and the Gulf. No matter how tactically experienced you are, or how good your guns are, or how well trained your troops are, you will run into old-school line vs line frontal engagements. You need to know how to flank, oblique, envelope, refuse, and other mid-range line manuevers which no post-black powder movie will show you.



Edited By Duxburian on 1161741129

[SilentGuy]

Movies of modern war don't teach you line vs line tactics, which are no longer used in real war but very much so in water war. In fact, I would go so far as to say that ancient/old wars such as the Punic, Napoleonic, and American Civil have more to do with water wars than Vietnam and the Gulf. No matter how tactically experienced you are, or how good your guns are, or how well trained your troops are, you will run into old-school line vs line frontal engagements.

That's an amazingly keen observation. Too true. I've never really thought about it that way, but it does make sense. The ranges and performance of modern weapons make battle completely different, involving more evasive maneuvers, bombs and technology, and engaging at greater ranges.

In water wars, you directly fight the opponent. Squad tactics work well, but not in the sense of modern warfare. Plus you don't have to worry about taking out that gun turret on the hill over there.

[isoaker]

Some useful tactical links on Wikipedia:

Military Tactics: general overview

Asymmetric Warfare

Fun and inciteful reading, though many parts are not quite applicable to water warfare, other parts work quite well. There are more articles on Wikipedia, but haven't had time to go through more yet.

Oh.. and a good page on Roman Army Tactics that has pictures of group formations.

[Dacca]

although today's battles are fought with smaller groups and more focused on commando and squad based tactics, there is still the need to learn larger group formations due to the fact that squad tactics tend to be a microcasm for larger group formations. I myself do like to focus more on squad based tactics but keep comming back to study the teachings of sun tzu and great generals such as hannibal.

[isoaker]

there is still the need to learn larger group formations due to the fact that squad tactics tend to be a microcasm for larger group formations.

While true, how often is one involved in an organized water war involving teams greater than 12-20 people each? I figure you only need to start discussing larger squad-based-tactics when dealing with team sizes greater than 30 people, otherwise one can simply just split the team into two squads.

[DX]

My original point applies regardless of numbers. A single person can flank another single person, so numbers has nothing to do with it. A team of 4 fighting another team of 4 head-on is still a line vs line battle, even if there's no true "line" and even though each team may be using squad formations. Any direct contact from both teams within range of each other is line vs line, except certain ambushes or certain artillery duels.

Splitting a team into two or more squads deserves an article of its own, as you never split just for the sake of it. Splitting can be extremely dangerous or extremely rewarding, depending on the situation and how well you can coordinate apart. I've seen plenty of splitting disasters and near-disasters.

[SilentGuy]

I would only split into separate squads if there is a scenario/mission-based game (such as attacking or defending certain objectives) or if you are going on a well-coordinated attack. Otherwise, you're probably better off in one spread-out group as you will be stronger and you don't need to attack any specific objective.

I personally prefer going in one strong squad. Spread out, putting most of the people on the path but a few on the flanks--well off the path and in the foliage--and move at a steady but safe pace. Opposition can be eliminated if the flanks push forward and if people move to find cover and to dodge.

That works for woodsy settings, at least. In smaller battlefields, it's pretty much the same thing with a group where people move and get angles on others, but everything gets messed up if the teams are large.

[DX]

True, although are two types of splits: Short and Long. Short splits are for ambushing and the such, when part of the team sets up somewhere else, but then rejoins soon after the intended action. Or perhaps the other goes off to sweep and moves back in afterwards. Long splits imply that you won't see the other part of your team for a "while". It could be 10 minutes or a whole war. It is the long ones which carry the most risk. If not within support distance, split squads are often vulnerable, especially against enemies who stay as one group.

Silence has the most logical method - spreading your line, but remaining within support distance. You should be able to spread and re-concentrate anywhere along your line at any time and swiftly. You also should move as one, [a skew is better than advancing in a perfectly straight front] unless you are sticking someone out ahead as bait.

[isoaker]

I never intended to mean that groups should or must be split; however as a group gets larger, while in prinicple some tactics still can apply, having them function in practice becomes much harder to achieve well. If a line gets spread out (say, 30 people, each member 10' from the next), that means the line would be a good 300' long! In a forest, even if the leader were in the middle, relaying commands to the far ends would be harder to accomplish being out of line of sight and harder to hear/communicate verbally.

As for numbers, while a single individual can flank another, I'd love to see a single individual attempt a entrapment/mouse-trap or an encirclement tactic on their own. Different tactics work more optimally with certain numbers. With three people, it would make sense to traverse a lot of terrain as a spread line, two members flanking the middle guy. However, with 30 people, it would probably be not so wise to spread out the whole group along a single line and instead opt to cluster members together a little closer with some leading and some following, providing rear cover. There may be situations when 30 people spread along a single line would be the best formation, but not likely as often as it would be for a group of three.

At any rate, this is digressing. One can come up with scenarios where various tactics fail or succeed. My point with my last post is that I am simply not aware of commonly occuring organized water wars between larger teams. RM vs. WB seem to be the most discussed organized water wars online, but that is only one pair of groups and even there, the turn outs are not huge in number (less than 10 per side). Even M4's battles did not have particularly large numbers of participants. Thus, I don't see a current need for having longer discussions on larger group formations when groups just aren't that large to begin with.

[SilentGuy]

This won't work to the fullest extent with so many people either--I was thinking around 5, which might be the number in a good war. The idea is to have everybody kinda close to the path you're using. Plus, I find it hard to interpret the separation distances that people recommend. A flat measurement is nothing compared to what it's like in the woods.

Once again, I'm not necessarily talking about a long company front, but a squad or something advancing through the woods. I generally don't mind going through foliage (I'll get a video of it from an airsoft thing--literally barging a way through thorny vines, jumping/sliding under old fences, and hopping through muddy areas), so walking a bit off the path is nothing. People would probably be farther than ten feet apart, but we look so close that it's like we're all on the path. The only time I break off the path is when we engage and have to flank an enemy.

A swift double envelopment can be pretty scary, I'd have to say.

I daresay groups of 30 wouldn't be used except for huge 1HK Elimination or CTF tournaments--which haven't happened yet in water wars. For those, I would break up into workable squads that can use the above tactic. Note that the above procedure is really only ideal for moving through foliage that might/might not have hostiles.

Nice point about long term/short term. A long term split is almost definitely a mistake if you just want to roam around, as you're accomplishing nothing. I'd actually consider short term to be for about 5-10 minutes tops--anything shorter is just a tactic.

Here's why I support one group for non-objective-based games: if you're just wandering around, split groups for one team will mean more engaging but a much lower chance for success. While one group will allow for fewer opportunities to attack, it's also fewer opportunities to be attacked. And when engaging the enemy, you have a superior force.

But for objectives, the presence of a target makes sure you're focusing on one group of guys anyway so you've still got the numbers advantage--especially when it counts, as I'd expect you'd fight when attacking an objective. As always, greater mobility is fine, but only when coordinated.

[DX]

I also had the woods in mind. Here in Ridgewood, we do anything to avoid being hit, and that's literally anything. Diving through a thorn bush, diving off a hill, running through a swamp with one shoe...

There are no set distances for traveling formations, since the terrain and vegetation are uneven. When in the open, it is smarter to travel in a more compact group, with rear, point, and side guards. The formation has to be able to pivot and meet any threat from any direction at any time.

I'm not sure I'd like a team of 30, that's a bit much. You can't really use the fluid command style with that many people.

If you are playing non-objective, splitting kind of depends on your enemy. If they know the Outnumbered Strategy, you'd want to split and minimize the amount of damage they could do to you. If they outnumber you, you'd want to stay as one. Even numbers and skill would depend on the battlefield and individual situations.