Change in Philosophical Doctrine

["Runaway"]

A change in doctrine, is a change in our approach to warfare.
A change in the way we think. A change in the way we plan,
grow and fight. We will now consider ourself a light Infantry unit,
which in theory is what every paintball team out there is.
The difference is that our equipment & combat loads will change
as we go forward. This also mean that some battle we will be less
suited to fight, IE. Tank Battles. Not that we will shy away from
these challenges, we will just have to be more flexible when we
face them. (In this example a infantry unit would do it's best to
avoid direct contact with tanks, unless there is no tank unit
available to deal with such a threat)

The reason behind this changes is the following.
If we plan to battle as a Light Infantry element,
it will narrow some of the options and there for
improve our reaction time, mostly during event
planing and equipment growth (our equipment
should supports one another).

What say you all?

[MrGoodbody]

well said, if we go out on a mission and confront a tank, there is know reason to try and confront that situation when all that should be done is call for back-up I.e a tank unit around or inbound. Battle doctrine Say's the most lose of life is lost and thrown away due to poor strategic planning. Runaway is right if we adjust and apply those simple tactics we as an operating unit as a whole will come out on top. Simply put, taking our time while out in the field under fire will help drastically. Think about it.

[Xman]

Just to avoid confusion, this does not mean we are abandoning the Buffalo concept...

Buffalo will still be Boxer's "cavalry unit"... To better understand how Buffalo fits into the bigger Boxer scheme here are a few definitions.

There are several types of vehicle born Infantry units....

Mechanised Infantry - Also called armored infantry are equiped with Armored Fighting Vehicles (ie Bradley IFV) that accompany tanks into battle. These types of troops can be found in tank heavy units. Also called heavy infantry, mechanised infantry ride in vehicles that can go where the tanks go. They are desinged to ride into tank heavy engagements with the tanks but can then dismount to protect the tanks in closed terrain such as forests and cities.

Motorised Infantry - Although this term is most commonly applied to soviet formations, the motorised trooper was the first evolution from purely foot borne infantry. "Motorised" refers to the fact that the infantry uses some type of motorised vehicle for battlefield mobility. This could be a truck, trains ect.... The first major application of this concept was during World War I when both sides made heavy use of trucks to increase the battle field mobility of their infantry. It should be note that durng the Civil War both Union and Confederate forces used trains to increase strategic mobility.

Armored/Motorised Reconnaisance/Scout Units - These types of units saw heavy action during Worl War II with both the allied and axis forces deploying specialized units equiped with special purpose vehicles designed specifcally for reconnaisance and raid missions. The types of vehicles used varied greatly based on the country and mission. The Germans favored tracked vehicles while the United States favored wheeled vehicles. The British SAS used truck and jeep borne forces in North Africa to conduct raid missions behind German lines. The SAS used the same tactics and types of vehicles during Desert Storm 1 and 2.

In theory, Buffalo will fall somewhere between motorised and armored reconnaisance. As I state in the Buffalo section it's hard to replicate the impact of tanks in paintball even though some people go to great links to build vehicles that come very close to looking like the real thing. Team ODX will field several such vehicles at Fulda Gap.

While these vehicles are certainly impressive to look at and will give the event a high level of realism their impact on the contest will be far less than their visual impact.

We have made a decision not to go in that direction. This means that for a number reasons both practical and economic we will focus more on the motorised aspects of what PAVs bring to the table.

The first is a level of motorisiation to enhance our tactical capability. While this will not increase our overall level of battlefield mobility, most of our troopers will continue to depend on the leather people mover, we will make use of the PAV for several specific purposes.

1. Mobile Bunkers/Gun Platforms - The main advantage of a PAV in paintball is that the players inside cannot be elimnated by a paintball shot. Additionally, you can mount multiplte guns to the platform. This set-up can be manuevered to critical points of the field where there is limited or no cover. Of course rocket launchers, grenades, and mines are still a threat but this is why our PAV's will be supported by our ISTs.

It should be noted that the weapons system does not have to be an organic part of the PAV. We can also have towed heavy weapons that would be impractical for people to lug around a paintball field on foot.

2. Gear Hauling Platforms - We definitely plan to use our PAVs to move gear and supplies accross the playing field. This ties in with the concept of Light Infantry which means our troopers can carry lighter loads since resupply can be established close to the fight.

3. Troop Hauling Platforms - one concept we have discussed is developing some type of APC (armored personnel carrier). This would allow us to move a squad of troopers right up to the action under fire, where they can dismount and close with our opponents.

4. Mobile Command Post - A critical focus for Boxer will be on effective tactical command and control. This will be one of the hallmarks of what we bring to the table. The ability to maintain command and controll of our units even while on the move will give us a very important capability that will make base overruns of less utility to our opponents. So a PAV with dedicated radios and maps for use by our command element will be a great asset.

The bottom line is that we will not organise and equip Boxer for dedicated PAV on PAV type battles. In fact our anti armor capability will conitnue to focus on the trooper with a rocket launcher, grenade or mine.

From a tactical perspective this means that while Boxer will not seek classic tank battles we will be equiped to deal with a wide range of battle field scenarios. In my opinion, this does not mean that Boxer should avoid engaging tanks (PAVs) directly, even when PAV support is unavailable, but that we should do so on terms that suit our style and organisation of fighting..

A bit of history, during 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel failed to understand the importance of the introduction of anti-tank guided missiles. Hundreds of AT-3 Sagger man-portable anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) supplied to the Egyptians by the Soviet Union inflicted heavy losses on Israeli tanks that went into battle unsupported by infantry.

During World War II German tank killer teams using Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks to great effect in destroying allied and Soviet tanks as their armored capabilities declined near the end of the war.

Finally, look at the current US/Coalition experiences in Iraq, where the insurgents have offset the United States capability in armored vehicles with IEDs.

The lesson here is that light infantry effectively trained and equiped can under the right conditions be very effective against tanks and other armored infantry. This should become another hall mark of the Boxer way of fighting.

[MrGoodbody]

Thanks X-man for the history lesson(seriously) you can never learn enough no matter how much you thought you know.

Your right we should do what best for team boxer, you definatly know the defrient attributes team boxer brings to the table, and with your experience I'm sure you'll lead us in the right direction. Just wanted to clarify will quick, on withdrawl from a situation. I commented on that, because majorally ballers are not out there at the ready with a viper or other form rpg to directly effect and attack an on coming tank. Those rocket launchers are a great investment espcially for these big scenario game.

I guess it was a reminder to some of the younger guys to remember a be patient when comfronted by one of these scenarios when in the game.

I was part of a heavy weapons unit an during a training mission in N.T.C (National Training Center) We made a hasty ambush on a large mountain facing the direction of the enemy. We had enough time to put up containment wire and two companys (ours) managed to destroy a battalion of mechanized forces. The O.C's that witnessed the event couldn't help but congradulate us on the victory and he new the reason we were not defeated was because we were prepared.

excuse the typos no spell check

[Xman]

MGB you bring out a good point that I know Runaway has been thinking about, which is what should the loadout of our squads be.

Our Squads should be equiped to handle most situations they will be confronted with in a scenario game.

Your right, the expense of RPG's make them somewhat scarce. But most scenario games, especially the big ones like Fulda, will allow a tank to be disabled. Grenades are far cheaper than RPGs.

But at the end of the day understanding your tactical capabilities and the tactical situation is key.

["Runaway"]

I love this thread, I truly do. The three of us are former Military, we must never forget the majority of the guyz are not. So we must teach them. Help them to become good leaders, with strong skills in Basic Battle Tactics, Communications and Most Importantly Selflessness & Patience. With that will be able to control more Conscripts and therefor more of the field!