Arrangements at the Front

[Webstral]

I had an evil thought tonight. The war in Europe in 1999 is characterized by long-distance penetration raids. Obviously, the formations nearest the enemy bear the brunt of this. Obviously, it’s impossible for the number of troops remaining to control the whole front. The formations nearest the front would be expected to mount patrols into the areas they couldn’t control directly. This would suck for them. What if some of the units at the forward edge of the NATO or Pact occupation zone in Central Europe strike an arrangement with their counterparts on the other side. Say, for example, the 476th Motor Rifle Division foresaw that there would be no need to patrol a given area during a specified time on a specified date. If enemy raiders penetrated this area and tore up friendly units in the rear… well, those sorts of things happen when the units at the forward edge of the occupation zone don’t get enough supply or reinforcement and find themselves obliged to make arrangements with the enemy across the way so that the higher-ups in their safe rear area command posts can feel good that the war is being prosecuted without us poor s.o.b.s who got unlucky enough to be stuck at the front all getting’ killed for no good reason at all.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I had an evil thought tonight. The war in Europe in 1999 is characterized by long-distance penetration raids. Obviously, the formations nearest the enemy bear the brunt of this. Obviously, it’s impossible for the number of troops remaining to control the whole front. The formations nearest the front would be expected to mount patrols into the areas they couldn’t control directly. This would suck for them. What if some of the units at the forward edge of the NATO or Pact occupation zone in Central Europe strike an arrangement with their counterparts on the other side. Say, for example, the 476th Motor Rifle Division foresaw that there would be no need to patrol a given area during a specified time on a specified date. If enemy raiders penetrated this area and tore up friendly units in the rear… well, those sorts of things happen when the units at the forward edge of the occupation zone don’t get enough supply or reinforcement and find themselves obliged to make arrangements with the enemy across the way so that the higher-ups in their safe rear area command posts can feel good that the war is being prosecuted without us poor s.o.b.s who got unlucky enough to be stuck at the front all getting’ killed for no good reason at all.

Absolutely. This sort of thing happens from time to time in war.

This sort of small unit, impromptu front-line diplomacy is an aspect of the T2K game that most games seem to neglect. I know that most PCs like the combat part of T2K, but it seems that in the T2KU of '99 and 2000, a lot of folks would do just about anything they could to avoid taking casualties, up to and including talking to the enemy.

In a brillant T2K PbP I played in a few years back (Stalemate War on RPGnet), a company-sized unit of the 5th ID was surrounded in a town outside Kalisz (Blazki, I think) by elements of a Soviet MR regiment. They both took a lot of casualties in the battle for the city. The American company commander contacted the Soviets (or vice-versa) to arrange the "escape" of the American unit. Neither side wanted to lose more men KIA/WIA, so the Soviet commander agreed to give the Americans a couple of trucks and look the other way during a two-hour window. That way, he looked good for taking the town without any more casualties and the Americans avoided fighting to the last man or ending up as POWs. I though the way the GM set this scenario up was pretty genius.

[Adm.Lee]

I read in Marlantes' book about the arrangements one of Rommel's recon units made with the British recon regiments. Since the desert is really, really dark after sunset, both sides shut down at that time, for fear of getting very lost. They arranged an informal agreement to stop patrolling at 5pm. That then grew into nightly radio calls to let the other side know if one of their patrols was lost in the desert, or had been picked up during the day, and so on.

[Graebarde]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Since the desert is really, really dark after sunset, both sides shut down at that time, for fear of getting very lost.

First it is not really really dark in the desert at night unless it is overcast. The billlions and billions of stars supply an amazing about of illumination...
(I lived and worked in the desert at least fifty miles from ground lights.. the heavens are beautiful when uncluttered by ground wash or smog)

but I CAN understand the disorientation if you don't know how to read the stars. It's like being at sea.. a sea of sand in the case of north Africa.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by Graebarde

First it is not really really dark in the desert at night unless it is overcast. The billlions and billions of stars supply an amazing about of illumination...
(I lived and worked in the desert at least fifty miles from ground lights.. the heavens are beautiful when uncluttered by ground wash or smog)

but I CAN understand the disorientation if you don't know how to read the stars. It's like being at sea.. a sea of sand in the case of north Africa.

Yeah, my father remembers how bright the sky was with all the stars and Mily Way when he was on a ship going across the Pacific on his way to Korea in the mid-1950's. I also talked to a fellow ham radio operator who served aboard the USS Melvin in World War II. The destroyer did get hit by a torpedo from a Japanese sub and they lost 256 shipmates at one time. That story was hard for him to tell, but he also remember, like my father, how bright the stars were.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Graebarde

First it is not really really dark in the desert at night unless it is overcast. The billlions and billions of stars supply an amazing about of illumination...
(I lived and worked in the desert at least fifty miles from ground lights.. the heavens are beautiful when uncluttered by ground wash or smog).

I live in the desert about 15 miles north of Tucson. When the moon is full, I can go for a walk in the wild without using/needing a flashlight. When the moon is waning, though, this is not possible. With a new moon, it's just way too dark. The stars are gorgeous, but they don't provide enough light to do anything by.

[Graebarde]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I live in the desert about 15 miles north of Tucson. When the moon is full, I can go for a walk in the wild without using/needing a flashlight. When the moon is waning, though, this is not possible. With a new moon, it's just way too dark. The stars are gorgeous, but they don't provide enough light to do anything by.

Well I could detect burros, wild horses, and coyotes sneaking around in the dark by starlight once the eyes got adjusted to the dark. No, I didn't go creeping around out there in starlight only.. good way to get poked. FB

[Legbreaker]

It depends on the individual. For me, starlight alone is more than enough light, but then I do have a UV sensitivity and need to wear sunglasses outside or suffer headaches.

[Webstral]

I was surprised to find that I could drive a track in a march column on a dirt road with only 2% illumination without night vision. I hated the night vision device, because the headband got crushed into my skull under the tight-fitting CVC helmet and the greenness gave me a headache. However, I discovered later that I cannot see well enough to shoot using iron sights in 15% illumination. Guess how that went. Fortunately, it was training and so not an especially expensive lesson.

Low illumination would be an excellent excuse for letting enemy raiders pass unmolested. One could almost predict when the enemy would make his move.

Though I'm supposed to be working on a new piece for Thunder Empire, I've been moonlighting (pun intended) on something truly evil. I'm fleshing out an idea for a megapunk gang that takes over the southeastern portion of New Hampshire. The Zombies are very bad news. They spend the daylight hours in basements and come out only at night. They use cosmetics and tattooing to give themselves an undead aspect. They engage in ritual cannibalism. They conduct raids for captives and booty only under very low illumination conditions. They keep themselves well-stocked with combat drugs. They engage in hand-to-hand combat with short spears, tomahawks, and knives. They are probably the best night actions light infantry in New England. They are able to operate this way because they have struck an unholy alliance with another megapunk gang who handles the daylight hours and the slave labor. My own creation disturbs me, but I feel the need to give them (un)life.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

For me, starlight alone is more than enough light, but then I do have a UV sensitivity and need to wear sunglasses outside or suffer headaches.

Yeah, I can relate. Pale blue eyes, great for night ops but bright sunlight is difficult for me to deal with without sunglasses.

[HorseSoldier]

I was surprised to find that I could drive a track in a march column on a dirt road with only 2% illumination without night vision. I hated the night vision device, because the headband got crushed into my skull under the tight-fitting CVC helmet and the greenness gave me a headache. However, I discovered later that I cannot see well enough to shoot using iron sights in 15% illumination. Guess how that went. Fortunately, it was training and so not an especially expensive lesson.

I hate driving under NODS, be they goggles or things like the driver's night sight on the A-Zero Bradleys (which turns the whole world into a neon green fish bowl). Back when I was a Brad driver I used to just pop the hatch a bit and drive by ambient light when I could get away with it.

Ditto on the shooting at night, also -- iron sights even with the big aperture on the M16 sights -- pretty much a noisemaker except at point blank range when body position and point shooting comes into play, for me. Performance gets better with a CCO/EOTech or an ACOG where I can actually see a sight picture.

[rcaf_777]

In Canada you were lucking if you had a pair of NODS per infantry section, I never use them as a grunt unless I was maning an OP or Crew Served Weapons, I don't think any drivers for any vehciles had them, the Army had M113 or AVGP and I don't they had night sights for the driver or crew, Leapord I might have had something but I was no tanker

[Legbreaker]

In my time I saw a grand total of one pair. They were in the hands of an M113 Lieutenant and on the edge of completely worn out.
Only saw one rifle mounted night sight as well. Shame the mount (which replaced the slide cover on the SLR) prevented the breach block from moving...

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

In Canada you were lucking if you had a pair of NODS per infantry section, I never use them as a grunt unless I was maning an OP or Crew Served Weapons, I don't think any drivers for any vehciles had them, the Army had M113 or AVGP and I don't they had night sights for the driver or crew, Leapord I might have had something but I was no tanker

Depends on the unit and it's current tasking really, so you were probably just unlucky. One year a reg or even reserve unit might have enough for every man or two, and the next year those sets might be allotted to another unit prepping for deployment or whatever.

[Graebarde]

NODS??? I was OLD army where we 'saw' the OLD mod zero 'starlight' scope, which you could detect something some time, but compared to the new stuff were a genuine POS. FB

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Graebarde

NODS??? I was OLD army where we 'saw' the OLD mod zero 'starlight' scope, which you could detect something some time, but compared to the new stuff were a genuine POS. FB

Ah, those were the days. When soldiering was all about individual field skills and so much less about what technology you carried.
All these new fangled contraptions! Bring back muskets I say, nay, crossbows and spears! Put the sport back into warfare!

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Depends on the unit and it's current tasking really, so you were probably just unlucky. One year a reg or even reserve unit might have enough for every man or two, and the next year those sets might be allotted to another unit prepping for deployment or whatever.

not unluckly just back in "day: the Canadian Army did have alot of that stuff unless you on deployment or training for deployment, they have alot of that stuff now, I keep asking for it but my CQ keeps says Clerks are not allowed to have NODS, GL's, machneguns, hand gerandes, C-4, rocket lauchers, or any eles cool, instead I get a labtop, printer, cd burnner, paper, pens, paperclips, a coffee maker, a box of fudgie O Cookies, and enough paperwork to flatten a small village if it was dropped from a airplane

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

not unluckly just back in "day: the Canadian Army did have alot of that stuff unless you on deployment or training for deployment

If you read my post again, you might see that this is just what I said.

[pmulcahy11b]

Bright stars, the Milky Way, a full moon...those all go best with a fire and a warm girl to snuggle with...

[Sanjuro]

In WW1, both sides carried out trench raids, with parties numbering from a handful to as many as 500 raiders. These raids were partly to try and take prisoners and seize documents, partly to damage enemy morale, partly to keep an aggressive spirit in troops in otherwise static positions, and partly to prevent any arrangements of this sort.
Source: Brave Men: Allied Trench Raiding in the First World War- Efstathiou, Nicholas E.
Yes, it was a Kindle download!

[B.T.]

I've been thinking this over for some weeks now. And this is a quite special issue.

If we have a look at the rules book and the situation presented in it, my conclusion is: There must be some kind of arrangement! I know, that several of the board members use a different approach, but I allways understood it the way, that a lot of soldiers of both sides live in cantonment. That means, a lot of them would be placed as a kind of guard or occupation unit in some village or farm. The rear units and HQ will not allways be in contact with such a small unit, leaving those handful of soldiers pretty much alone. Allthough given a (more or less) specific task, supply will not allways be there. The unit living next to you - be it another unit of the same division, another unit from the same military "pact", or even an enemy unit - is a logical supplier for all goods, you do not have. And these other guys are in the same situation, as you are. And they face the same problems: Raids from deserters or marauders a likely the problem for both neighboring units.

Now, there are two ways, to solve the problem: Conflict or cooperation.
The cooperation approach would not work in all places, but if two isolated units from both sides, both understrength and both under attacks by marauders, could bury the hatchet for a certain time, stack their forces and kick the marauders a$$.

On a limited basis, I can even see some kind of trade, like this:
The Soviets have this old coal-mine, we have more vegetables, than we use. Off course, the normal procedure would be, sending our stuff back to our lines/HQ or something. Same goes for the Soviets. Should we try a bargain?
That could be done in a way, that is not so obvious: Let our Polish civilians trade with the Soviet civilians. They just trade our goods.
In such a situation, the American and the Soviet commander would both be aware of the true facts, but they would avoid fraternisation, therefore avoiding court martial in the future (Hopefully, that is!).

I'm not saying, such incidents would be the norm, but they would certainly happen, from time to time. The background mentiones whole WarPac units converting to NATO. And lots of individuals leave their units and change sides. All these units and individuals must have some opportunity to get in contact with the enemy, other than fighting!

The whole situation in the T2k universe reminds me off several historical settings: WWI trench warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Day_Truce), the siege of Acco/Acre before the 3rd crusade, John-Wayne-cavalry movies and the frontier life in the "French and Indian war", intermingled with some medivial feudal system. And in several of these situations some kind of collaboration between the war parties took place.

As usual: Such incidents or arrangemants would not be the norm and would defenitely end with full hostilities. But in regions with a lot of scattered units and a relative "safe" situation something like that could happen. It all depends on the attitude of the commanders.

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by B.T.

I've been thinking this over for some weeks now. And this is a quite special issue.

If we have a look at the rules book and the situation presented in it, my conclusion is: There must be some kind of arrangement! I know, that several of the board members use a different approach, but I allways understood it the way, that a lot of soldiers of both sides live in cantonment. That means, a lot of them would be placed as a kind of guard or occupation unit in some village or farm. The rear units and HQ will not allways be in contact with such a small unit, leaving those handful of soldiers pretty much alone. Allthough given a (more or less) specific task, supply will not allways be there. The unit living next to you - be it another unit of the same division, another unit from the same military "pact", or even an enemy unit - is a logical supplier for all goods, you do not have. And these other guys are in the same situation, as you are. And they face the same problems: Raids from deserters or marauders a likely the problem for both neighboring units.

Now, there are two ways, to solve the problem: Conflict or cooperation.
The cooperation approach would not work in all places, but if two isolated units from both sides, both understrength and both under attacks by marauders, could bury the hatchet for a certain time, stack their forces and kick the marauders a$$.

On a limited basis, I can even see some kind of trade, like this:
The Soviets have this old coal-mine, we have more vegetables, than we use. Off course, the normal procedure would be, sending our stuff back to our lines/HQ or something. Same goes for the Soviets. Should we try a bargain?
That could be done in a way, that is not so obvious: Let our Polish civilians trade with the Soviet civilians. They just trade our goods.
In such a situation, the American and the Soviet commander would both be aware of the true facts, but they would avoid fraternisation, therefore avoiding court martial in the future (Hopefully, that is!).

I'm not saying, such incidents would be the norm, but they would certainly happen, from time to time. The background mentiones whole WarPac units converting to NATO. And lots of individuals leave their units and change sides. All these units and individuals must have some opportunity to get in contact with the enemy, other than fighting!

The whole situation in the T2k universe reminds me off several historical settings: WWI trench warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Day_Truce), the siege of Acco/Acre before the 3rd crusade, John-Wayne-cavalry movies and the frontier life in the "French and Indian war", intermingled with some medivial feudal system. And in several of these situations some kind of collaboration between the war parties took place.

As usual: Such incidents or arrangemants would not be the norm and would defenitely end with full hostilities. But in regions with a lot of scattered units and a relative "safe" situation something like that could happen. It all depends on the attitude of the commanders.

Actually this is supported by canon - in Alaska this is confirmed as happening.

Also remember comms will be harder as radios are less common. I often have encounters with lone messengers (or with an escort for more important ones). This makes this trading easier.

i like the idea of Polish intermediaries.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by James Langham

i like the idea of Polish intermediaries.

Except that in canon, the vast majority of Poles stay loyal to the Pact. Best to use civilians of whatever nationality is available for the limited trade that may go on. All in all I'm sure civilian traders will be the only ones moving between the lines and only in relatively quiet areas (nobody likes getting hit by crossfire).
For appearances sake you may see "raids" taking place though on "lightly guarded" supplies. And of course one raid requires retaliation against their "lightly guarded" supply dump that just "happens" to have exactly what you need in a coincidentally equal value amount....

[Webstral]

Something very much like the above happens in the American Southwest after the outbreak of the Second Mexican Civil War and before the Constitutionales and Milgov agree to a formal ceasefire. Marauders are a problem in northern Sonora and southern Arizona in Autumn 2000. Nogales Brigade, which has joined the Constitutionales along with the rest of Second Mexican Army, contributes a battalion task force to a multinational anti-marauder mission. SAMAD contributes a battalion task force as well. The prize money, so to speak, gets split right down the middle.

[B.T.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

For appearances sake you may see "raids" taking place though on "lightly guarded" supplies. And of course one raid requires retaliation against their "lightly guarded" supply dump that just "happens" to have exactly what you need in a coincidentally equal value amount....

Now, doesn't that sound sweet?

[headquarters]

I read mischief is a plenty among the forumites - fratrnizing ? Why, I never heard such outrage!

Sound like good field commanders to me.

A twist to this is of course the more advanced fraterization scam where the HQ is being fleeced directly - firstly convincing the HQ that allocating resources to the objectives in your sector is important - then the phony war with the partners in crime across the lines. All the action reports and dispatches warrant even more resources less crucial progress be lost...

send more supplies - we are being pushed back..

[Legbreaker]

That only works until HQ puts their own eyes on the situation at which point some very pointed questions get asked and charges laid.....

[B.T.]

Act 1, scene 1:
The American Camp, Thunder and lightning, enter the commander and three soldiers.

Commander: Hail, brave soldiers.
Three soldiers: Hail to you, commander of the rightous fighters for fame and glory.
Commander: Do thou have any knowledge about the camp of our brethren, the former rightous fighters of the stars and stripes, where so much of our support goods seemingly are taken by the evil Reds, with no KIA, WIA or MIA?
Thou should go there and investigate these foul business!

Thunder roars. All four vanish in the mist.

...

To be continued ...?

[atiff]

CO: "Philips, how many stragglers did we pick up last week?"

Phillips: "Four, sir."

CO: "OK, write it up as six, and then we can have two KIA's reported in the 'raid' on Sunday..."

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

That only works until HQ puts their own eyes on the situation at which point some very pointed questions get asked and charges laid.....

That is true. In peacetime this is generally around annual or quarterly reviews - in war time I guess it might "vary".

how sad it will be when the officers sent from HQ gets killed in that ambush ..

I see some great plot seeds evolving from this