Violence of Action: Forward Momentum on the Battlefield

by Matt GedersTacticsPosted on Comments are Disabled

What is the objective of armed conflict? The answer, in its purist form is to impose will. This means to impose our will upon our opponent, both for brief moments of time and for a lasting duration. Imposing will for a lasting duration is decidedly not a military objective – at least not solely a military objective. That would require the influence of diplomatic, economic, and informational coercion. However, to impose will for brief moments of time is very much a military objective of armed conflict.

Imposing will begins at the tactical level. Each opponent attempts to force the other to yield terrain, facilities, material resources, or influence over an indigenous population.

Tacticians tend to think of this in terms of purely attrition – that is, shooting more numbers of the bad guys than they can shoot of friendly forces. And attrition is certainly a factor, though there are more decisive and progressive means of imposing will.

Consider two incidents within your own repertoire of experiences.

Remember the last time you waited weeks to get back out into the field? You spent a couple hours prepping for the mission and searching for the enemy. And at the first sound of the firefight, everyone dove for cover and – nothing. No assaulting enemy. No mad push through to overwhelm an enemy patrol. There was just a short burst of fire and now complete silence. You look around to see another member of your patrol peering through the vegetation to try to get a fix on what’s going on. This is called the ‘bunker-down’ effect. It is not decisive. And in fact, it is most often a tactical error in which the friendly patrol hopes to win through attrition. But hope is not a plan, nor is it a combat multiplier.

Now think back to the time you and your buddies were pinned while conducting an assault. The rest of your team has lost its forward momentum and is taking unbearable casualties. It’s just you and a few of your fireteam members huddled together, only meters away from the enemy line. Retreat seems hopeless because you’ll expose yourself to withering enemy fire, and you cannot coordinate with the rest of your quickly depleting force to move left or right.

There are only two choices left – sit here and be picked off one-by-one, or charge forward into a certain wall of fire. Insane. Desperately you turn to your few buddies and say, “On the count of three.” And it’s one, two, three! With a vicious yell you charge fifteen meters forward and catch an opponent off guard, then another. A heartbeat later you’ve taken the enemy position and your buddies are firing back into the enemy line.

Now something very unexpected happens. The enemy defense scatters like BBs hitting the kitchen floor! Amazed, you’re left exhilarated, and asking yourself, “What just happened?”

The answer is the phenomenon known as violence of action (VOA). This is the exact opposite of the bunker-down effect.

While an experienced tactician recognizes that such a desperate charge could have just as easily ended in catastrophe for your fireteam, in this case it worked because you surprised the enemy.

Surprise? The enemy, after all, knew exactly where you were. They had been pouring on suppressive fire just moments before your charge. Yes. But they had not anticipated (and readied themselves) for your violent charge forward. They expected your fireteam to take another course of action, and your charge forward caught them off guard. The inability to react to an enemy’s action is also an element of surprise.

More to the point, your application of VOA at the local point of engagement had a more generalized effect on the entire enemy’s defense. But why?

The simple answer is perception. Perception is a fickle thing that can change at the blink of an eye. It may be that the enemy thought they had the upper hand. Or it may be that they had no idea of their devastating effect on the assaulting force. Whatever the case, when your fireteam managed to seize a foothold within their defensive line, their perception changed. The enemy now began to see themselves on the losing end of the engagement. Too, it is very difficult to place effective fires within one’s own defenses, so your opponent decided it was time to fall back and yield the terrain to you.

This all happened almost instantly. And the single greatest contributing factor was the violence with which your fireteam displayed in your attack forward. In a very real sense, VOA renews or continues the forward momentum of the engagement.

VOA is a combat multiplier. It is not a silver bullet. Good tactics and successful engagements still rely on careful planning and an excellent mastery of battle drills. Still, when engaging an opponent, or engaged by an opponent, the immediate application of extreme violence lends a ferocious momentum forward that is irresistible. Nine times out of ten, this VOA dominates the engagement because the enemy is caught by surprise – regardless of how ready they think they are!

So, in addition to planning and well-rehearsed battle drills, VOA is a factor in determining success, more commonly than not. If you were to break down the variable components of a successful implementation of VOA, you would notice that VOA is most effective when (1) you mass your force at a local point that outnumbers the enemy force, (2) you maneuver your force violently forward, and (3) your actions have caught the enemy by surprise.

The last element of a successful implementation of VOA is the enemy’s perception. Yes, the enemy gets a ‘vote’, too, and perception can be very fickle. It may work in your favor, or against you. This fourth variable is the unknown – you cannot control it, only your opponent can.

When we analyze the military objective of conflict, it comes down to imposing our will over an enemy force. For small unit tactics, this relies heavily upon the implementation of violent acts, and VOA is the forward momentum of our action. When employed by smaller units against a superior sized enemy force, VOA is a combat multiplier.

This article was originally published on odjournal.com (Olive Drab: the journal of tactics) and has been transferred here with permission.

 

Hasty Attack

by Matt GedersOffensive OperationsPosted on Comments are Disabled

This article was originally published on odjournal.com (Olive Drab: the journal of tactics) and has been transferred here with permission.

Contemporary Issues Q&A: MILSIM

by Matt GedersWarriorshipPosted on Comments are Disabled

[Truncated excerpts from the September 10, 2007 broadcast of “Coffee in the Evening with Chris and Drew” on KCXL 1140 AM Radio.]

Drew: What is MILSIM?.

Chris: MILSIM is simply an abbreviation, meaning military simulation. However on a broader scale MILSIM falls under the category of action pursuit gaming—paintball, airsoft, and even “real steel” which are actual firearms that use blanks.

If you look at a broader perspective, action pursuit games could arguably be classified as either speedball or scenario games. MILSIM falls under scenario games and has a specific emphasis on real-world military missions. Compare that to speedball games of capture the flag, or even other scenario games such as PSY-FI alien invasion games and you begin to grasp where MILSIM is quite different than other games.

Drew: So MILSIM is a sport outside the mainstream?

Chris: Oh yeah. That’s a fair assessment—cable television has classified the speedball tournament games of paintball as an “extreme sport” along with skateboarding, skydiving, and surfing. It’s my opinion that MILSIM is every bit as extreme.

Take for example a comparison of speedball vs. MILSIM and consider just the size of the field and the duration of games. Speedball is typically played on a 1-acre field for no more than three to 30 minutes. MILSIM is typically played on an 80-acre field for three to 30 hours.

The time and space of the playing field sets MILSIM very much apart from speedball. That comment is not intended as a slam on speedball. Speedball is a fantastic sport regardless of whether it’s played with paintball or airsoft—though admittedly it’s far more popular with the paintball crowd.

Drew: Then there is some rivalry between speedball and MILSIM groups?

Chris: Sure, there’s some rivalry, but I think it’s mostly good natured. You’d have to be pretty immature to think your game is better than everyone else’s. These groups are pretty good about recognizing that the focus is to have fun. This may be a “big boy” game, but it’s still just a game. No one could credibly compare themselves to those men and women in uniform who are bravely protecting our American way of life.

Drew: But you do have veterans and actively service members mixed in with the gaming community?

Chris: Oh yeah, yeah. Certainly. MILSIM pulls a significant minority of their players from veterans and even those warriors currently serving. And to be certain, MILSIM is a martial art—the word martial meaning “military”. Of course MILSIM is very different from most people’s perception of Eastern martial arts because MILSIM is team-focused and places very little emphasis on the individual. But sure, MILSIM draws veterans and service members. I’d argue that MILSIM follows the warrior path, or at least continues to develop those warrior skills.

Drew: Okay, what’s the big draw to MILSIM? What do the participants get out of MILSIM?

Chris: The answer to that also requires another contrast and comparison between the similar sport of speedball and MILSIM.

Speedball, for example, requires precisely honed individual field craft. That means the ability to shoot, move, and communicate as an individual and as a part of a team. Furthermore, the battle drills of successful speedball teams are absolutely outstanding! But that’s pretty much where the martial skills end.

We have to look at what the military would delineate as martial skills, and those could be summed up as field craft, battle drills, and tactics. Speedball makes use of only the first two competencies, field craft and drills. MILSIM makes use of all three.

MILSIM can do this because the game takes place on a much larger battlefield in terms of time and space. Tactical skills and leadership development becomes every bit as important as the individual’s field craft or the team’s battle drills. A command group might lead a team of ten players or perhaps as many as a couple thousand players!

This requires hours, days, and even perhaps weeks of planning in order to coordinate resources and synchronize combat power. And since no plan survives the first shot, contingency plans, branches, and sequels must also be carefully considered.

Think of what’s involved. A commander or command staff must analyze the situation and generate multiple courses of action. They then assess each course of action for intended effects, risk assessment, and logistical concerns as they array their forces. Once a course of action is selected, a plan must be written and issued to the troops and subordinate leaders. Then the implementation of the plan must be guided by these leaders. Finally, after the mission is completed, everyone sits down to discuss how they can improve their performance as part of a community of reflective practitioners.

This is really intense stuff! And live simulation gaming like MILSIM is finally being accepted by even academic communities and thinkers. Certainly militaries from around the world have been doing this for centuries.

Drew: I get it. MILSIM players learn how to be leaders. But aren’t you concerned about the violent image it portrays? I mean, why did this game have to model the military and warfare? Couldn’t you achieve the same effect with a non-violent model?

Chris: (Sighs.) Yeah. Okay, let me try to answer that. First, yes it does look violent. I recognize that. But let’s put that into its perspective. When I turn on the TV and watch the football game highlights with the quarterback being sacked in slow motion—feet flying over head and crashing to the ground—that looks pretty violent to me, too.

Drew: True. I’ll give you that, and I appreciate your point. Football and many other sports are pugilistic in nature. They can be very violent as well—

Chris: They look violent. They are not actually violent. There is no malice or intent to actually harm anyone during these sports. If there were, that would be a criminal act. It’s the action of the sport that merely looks violent. And the same is true for MILSIM. But you have to remember that these opponents are actually friends—members of the same community.

And yes, instead of MILSIM we could use a manufacturing plant model or an office call center model. But that’s problematic.

First, what are the overarching goals for a call center? What is the lineage of the leadership’s command? And what models are there for problem solving? These answers are not intuitive and more often than not the actual applications of these issues are muddled and convoluted.

Playing “Army” is far more intuitive—whether such a statement of our society is viewed as good, bad, or indifferent. Got a machinegun nest on top of the hill that’s pinning down the team? Well, the solution is pretty intuitive for anyone who has ever watched a war movie. And the chain of command is pretty simple, too. Linear, yes, but simple.

Second, what does it cost to rent a warehouse and enough power equipment to simulate an actual manufacturing plant? What are the safety considerations and liabilities? Is a call center any cheaper with office space rentals and the requirement of numerous computers linked to a common data bank? The cost and resources necessary for such live simulation can quickly become non-starter issues.

By comparison paintball, airsoft, and even real-steel groups such as military re-enactors are far more feasible. The equipment involved is still very expensive overall, but far less expensive than a manufacturing plant. Furthermore, since military equipment is issued individually, it becomes far more feasible for the individual to make purchases that benefit themselves, their team, and the community.

The last issue is what might be called “sex appeal”. I mean, who’s kidding who? Wargames and all the really cool equipment that come with it have a definite attraction for the adventure seeker. I just don’t think the same could be said for the call center cubical. Call centers are not attractive, not sexy, and definitely not an engaging environment for playing or learning.

Drew: What about the possibility of recruiting a potentially dangerous individual? I mean, isn’t there potential danger for MILSIM in encouraging this type of sport for a person who might be emotionally unstable?

Chris: Yes, there is a concern. Anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous. The idea of participation by terrorists or even an emotionally unstable individual is a definite concern for the MILSIM community—all MILSIM communities. We have to remain vigilant in watching for this.

I mean, the US military and militaries around the world use wargaming very much like MILSIM to teach the same set of martial skills. So would terrorists want a similar program? Sure they would!

Look at the “Fort Dix Six” terrorist cell in New Jersey this past May, or the 12-man terrorist cell in Toronto, Canada that was broken up in June last year. Both cells reportedly used paintball as a means of tactical training. That’s completely believable.

What is equally important to note is that it is also reported that neither terrorist cell played paintball within a gaming community, on either a commercial or private field. They weren’t taking part in the sport. They weren’t part of the MILSIM community!

Why? Well, because again MILSIM players are a community of friends. They know each other, hang out with each other at their homes, and talk, call, and email each other on a regular basis.

Our notion of terrorists being poor, uneducated radicals is changing. On the contrary, we’re finding that terrorists often come from middle class and upper-middle class intellectual elites. At the same time, we’re also finding that terrorists are loners that shun group participation and have been ostracized from society. In short, the last thing they are willing to do is come make friends within the community of a fun sport!

It’s the same for emotionally unstable people. I don’t know that the Virginia Tech shooter ever even tried to come to a MILSIM game. I’m not making that statement one way or the other. What I can tell you is that he likely would have been shunned as “unsociable” or “unsafe”.

Angry people preaching hate and violence are quickly alienated in MILSIM. They’re shown the door and asked not to return because the community members feel these people give the sport a bad name.

Drew: Okay, so you’re saying that the sport polices itself through the social aspects of the game community. I get that. And honestly, it sounds like a lot of harmless fun—not so different that most other sports. So you’re promoting MILSIM as the next great thing, and a game that has leadership potential?

Chris: Right. But understand that I am not promoting the act of running around the neighborhood, back yard, or public park shooting airsoft or paintball systems! That’s not MILSIM—that’s dangerous. Not only could someone be seriously injured by the projectiles that these simulation systems shoot, but the mere appearance of these simulation systems is very threatening. They look remarkably like real firearms and can fool even an experienced police officer!

I’m promoting a safe gaming environment on either commercial or private land with regulated safety features in force. This involves the MILSIM community’s associations, teams, and commercial vendors—like any other martial art competition.

This article was originally published on odjournal.com (Olive Drab: the journal of tactics) and has been transferred here with permission.

 

Worst Case Scenario: Weapon Jam!

by Matt GedersTacticsPosted on Comments are Disabled

It happens. Weapons jam no matter how sophisticated or primitive. Even a club can break. Frankly, the more moving parts in a weapon system, the greater the chance that something will fail—particularly in the rugged demands of the battlefield.

Let’s be clear here. A weapon may fail for many reasons. It might be out of ammunition, air, or batteries. It might have experienced a double-feed or some similar malfunction. Most of these failures are not catastrophic. They’re fixed quickly through a simple drill that is learned as part of the warrior field craft.

But what happens when a weapon fails catastrophically? What is the best course of action?

For many MILSIM paintballers and airsofters, the nurturing effect kicks in. A wail of “My Baby!” can be heard over the roar of battle as the troop carefully attempts to nurse and coax a collection of metal gadgetry back to life. (Okay, in truth what is more commonly heard is a series of vulgar expletives that really shouldn’t be repeated.)

A bit embarrassed and with a sheepish grin the troop typically resigns to the situation and walks off the field, upright and seemingly oblivious to the projectiles whipping about his head. Okay, for sake of posterity—don’t do this!

Let this be the first rule of a weapon jam. Don’t leave the battlefield. We could add to that rule by saying that standing up in middle of a BB storm is generally a bad idea, too.

But why not leave? The weapon system is useless. Ah true, grasshopper. But you are not useless.

First, look at this situation from the opponent’s perspective. It’s simple mathematics. If your opponent has six troops to contend with, and one of them gets up and walks away, that opponent now has only five troops with which to contend. You’ve made it easier on the bad guys by abandoning your team. And you’re not going to win popularity points like that!

Remember that your opponent is likely unaware of your weapon jam. By simply moving with your team you are continuing to complicate the enemy’s situation.

Second, consider your leader’s perspective. When high-speed projectiles are zinging about the field, most troops head right for the ground. That’s good, but their situational awareness is just as diminished as their view of the battlefield. More sets of eyes on the battlefield are a good thing. Without a functioning weapon, you can still act as a spotter and communicate what you see. This adds to everyone’s situational awareness, most notably for your leader and crew-served weapon teams.

Last, consider your combat buddy. What’s that you say? You don’t have an assigned combat buddy? Well, shame on you. Every warrior needs a combat buddy. They keep you out of trouble, and you should do the same for them. When coupled together as combat buddies, the life expectancy of troops in battle is significantly increased.

If you experience a catastrophic weapon jam, you should maneuver quickly to your combat buddy to assist in any way you can. Act as a spotter, fill ammunition magazines, work the radio, or carry burdensome equipment. The point is that you move with your combat buddy not only to help him, but to complicate the situation for the enemy. They will easily pick off your combat buddy if he has to go it alone. So go with him!

Will you eventually have to walk off the field to fix your weapon system? Of course. But timing is everything here. First, deal with the battle at hand. Remain focused on the objective and loyal to your team.

If you experience a catastrophic weapon jam during battle:
Do NOT leave the battlefield.
Link up immediately with your combat buddy.
Assume roles as a spotter, radio operator, ammunition re-loader, or pack mule.
Keep moving forward with your combat buddy and team members!
It’s simple mathematics. Your opponent has no idea your weapon went black and so he still must deal with you. After all, you’re not a casualty—so why go back to the casualty collection point or assembly area? Equally as important is that your combat buddy and team members have multiple tasks they must achieve in the heat of the battle. Your assistance will be welcomed, as will your presence.

This article was originally published on odjournal.com (Olive Drab: the journal of tactics) and has been transferred here with permission.

 

Hand and Arm Signals

by Matt GedersProceduresPosted on Comments are Disabled
[swf src=”https://warnerds.com/wp-content/uploads/handandarm_form.swf” height=”750″ width=”1000″][/swf]

This article was originally published on odjournal.com (Olive Drab: the journal of tactics) and has been transferred here with permission.

 

Vocal Commands: Building Situational Awareness

by Matt GedersTacticsPosted on Comments are Disabled

Paintballers and airsofters in general spend a disproportionate amount of time honing stealth techniques for tactical gaming, and rightfully so. Noise and light discipline are essential to remaining elusive. Yet some of the most successful teams employ a great deal of noise and yelling to seemingly fantastic results. So which is it? Should noise and light discipline be enforced, or should these considerations be scrapped for running amuck while yelling back and forth?

The answer is, oddly enough, both. Up until the moment the team is engaged and trading shots with an enemy force, stealth must be employed. Stealth allows us to maneuver to a point and attack from a direction that the opponent is ill-prepared to defend. What’s more, stealth allows us to elusively withdraw from that very same position if the situation no longer looks favorable. So stealth is a critical tactical factor in regard to maneuver, mass, and surprise.

However, once engaged by enemy fire any notion of stealth is futile—even counter-productive. More than half a century ago General S.L.A. Marshall coined the phrase “organized chaos” when referring to the battlefield. His premise was that although a battlefield is comprised of numerous individual gun fights that are chaotic beyond any semblance of control, the battle can still be won by focusing all of this chaos toward a single, unified goal. This premise holds true today.

Can vocal commands really be expected to unify everyone toward a single goal over the chaos of battle? Frankly, yes. Communication threads its way through every facet of MILSIM game play and that most definitely includes vocal commands.

Let’s take a moment to review. Field craft are those skills each individual troop needs to survive and succeed on the battlefield. Namely that means shoot, move, and communicate. Battle drills are the rehearsed plans in the portfolio of each fireteam, squad and platoon that enable the team to initiate or react to enemy contact. Each drill must be communicated before it can be executed. And tactics are those plans that require careful deliberation, risk assessment, and the arraying of combat power against an enemy force. In each of these cases—field craft, battle drills, and tactics—vocal commands are the means of disseminating information and executing maneuvers.

More to the point, since no plan survives the first shot, vocal commands become even more critical as the small unit leader adjusts the plan to the ever-changing battlefield situation! More commonly than not, this information is given by vocal command and not by radio or hand and arm signal.

So, vocal commands are used to initiate action against the enemy, and they are used to adjust the plan and transition into the next battle drill or phase of the operation. But vocal commands have far more depth than merely being a means of communicating battle drills over the roar of combat. Teams achieve some semblance of situational awareness through vocal commands, and that is equally as critical and significant as the dissemination of information.

When the BBs start flying and chaos rears its ugly head, most troops head straight for the ground. That’s logical enough, but in doing so they unintentionally isolate themselves from other members of their team. Commonly this means the leader cannot be seen. Vocal commands can help overcome this isolation.

Leaders who bark out commands while under fire instantly reassure their troops. First because the troops are able to confirm that their fearless leader is still alive and functioning; and secondly, the troops are now able to identify an approximate distance and direction to at least the leader of their unit. Combat isolation is broken, offering a momentary relief and resurgence in confidence.

When troops respond verbally to the leader’s vocal command, there is a synergetic effect that bolsters the confidence of all team members within earshot. And again, the team’s efforts are now refocused on a common objective.

That’s the brilliance of vocal command—some of it is obvious, some of it is more subtle. Over the chaos of battle leaders must shout out orders and provide a common goal. With their confidence renewed, team members yell back to identify enemy positions and obstacles, further feeding the leader’s situational awareness. And again, the leader uses vocal commands to adjust to the constantly changing battle.

It sounds chaotic. It looks chaotic. But as long as the unit is continually pushed toward a common goal, organized chaos actually favors the team. Experienced teams know this, either consciously or subconsciously. If your team sounds more like a swarm of church mice in battle, you might want to give this yelling stuff a try.

This article was originally published on odjournal.com (Olive Drab: the journal of tactics) and has been transferred here with permission.