A Gamer's Guide to Small Unit Tactics

[Oldwolfe]

<chuckle> Yeah, the 10-22 is also my plinker.

 

Aye, there's two weapons I'd like to see in-game. The M-14 in .308 and the Mini-14 in .223.

 

Someone did a nice M-14 scoped sniper mod, but it's got a black pistol grip stock and the scope is really high tech. It's nice, just not for me.

 

Somehow, the M-14 just HAS to be the wood stock version.

 

Or better yet, the M1A scout version with Walnut stock done by Springfield Armory.

 

That's the one rifle I always wanted to buy for myself in real life. If I had one, that would be my weapon of choice. But I'm a retired soldier, and not overly wealthy. The guns I have I pretty much got by getting good deals on them.

 

I'm not sure I would have chosen stainless for my mini-14, but a gun shop owner was going out of business, and was dumping his very last pieces for next to nothing. The stainless was what he had.

 

If it had the wood stock I would have retained that, but I didn't like the feel of the plastic stock with the stainless model so I got the Hogue overmolded one.

 

I guess that makes me what's called a "traditionalist".

 

Translation: Grouchy old fart set in his ways.

 

PS.

 

Now that I think about it, the M-14 is probably heavier than I personally would want. I'm not planning on fighting any more wars. I'll stick with my mini-14. If someone surprises me nearby, I want the speed of swinging that sucker around fast.

 

So much of games, numeric damage is important. However, in real life, hit someone center of mass with a .223 and they going to be out of the fight most of the time.

[Oldwolfe]

I was thinking a bit about leadership, and why my style worked for me. While I am sure this was not all of it, it's got to be at least part of it.

 

I was hard on my troops. But I was always harder on myself.

 

This is a very important point I want to bring up. NEVER expect more out of your troops than you expect out of yourself.

 

I've known guys that had the attitude that THEY could take it easy BECAUSE they worked their troops hard. I always despised people like that. There are no words strong enough for how I hate those people. I positively LOATHE them.

 

I remember being inspected by this lieutenant that gigged me for my shoes not being shined enough, yet his hair was so long it was touching his collar. I really had to grit my teeth and bite back what I wanted to say. I was so pissed, the twerp actually took a step back at the expression on my face.

 

I'd occasionally get in trouble for lack of respect for people with that attitude. (Yet another flaw of mine, intolerance of certain people. HUGE intolerance. And a complete inability to hide it.) I was amazed that I actually made E-9 with my attitude issues. I still am.

 

I don't think it's a gray area. I don't think it's something to brag about. It's simply a standard that MUST be met. Don't demand standards in others you won't live up to yourself.

 

While you can't expect yourself to be better at something than someone under you in a DIFFERENT field... the common stuff, that's different. Like Physical Training test scores. Don't expect your troops to hit standards you yourself cannot meet. If your room is always filthy in the barracks, don't expect them to get perfect inspection scores all the time, etc. When you inspect your troops, look at your own uniform FIRST!

 

The army has annual job skill tests called ARTEP. Let's say I have a radio operator attached to me. I can't expect for myself to pass his test. I CAN expect him to get passing scores in his field, and let's say I want him to get a passing score PLUS an additional 20%. Then I better darn well get at least a passing score +30% in MY field. Or I have no right to expect the +20% from him.

 

This isn't a "patting Oldwolfe on the back" posting.

 

But it is a MORALITY that I strongly believe in.

 

A sincere belief in a topic about right and wrong.

 

Don't demand standards in others you won't live up to yourself.

 

Here's another important point:

 

Don't change standards without giving adequate warning.

 

I remember being stationed somewhere that NEVER did room inspections. As a result, the barracks generally looked awful. Then some general was going to visit the post and look around the barracks. All of a sudden the chain of command got all uptight and they did snap room inspections. They actually panicked enough worrying about the general's visit that they prosecuted a couple of the worst offenders for "Failure to Follow Instructions" or something like that, to make an example out of them. When they previously hadn't done a single room inspection in TWO years.

 

Now, the criteria was clearly set. The standards of room cleanliness were posted right there in each room. But they had never been enforced. And honestly, in their zeal, they were expecting better than the posted standards too.

 

That is horridly unfair.

 

You would not believe how much that hurt unit morale. The guys in the barracks drifted towards surliness, and a "them verus us" attitude towards the chain of command.

 

A standard isn't "real" if it isn't enforced all along.

 

I think you need to establish CLEAR standards and enforce them. This is the most fair. If the standards are going to change, give adequate notice in advance.

 

If everyone knows where the clear cut line is, then if they cross that line, it's their fault. But no one is comfortable when they aren't sure exactly where that line is.

 

You shouldn't get in trouble today, for what was perfectly acceptable behavior yesterday.

[Oldwolfe]

This is to Bben46,

 

If you like the stock peep sight, more power to ya. Just thought I'd show you this. Bear in mind I was unfamiliar with the camera, it's not mine, and my photography stinks. How come I can shoot a gun straight, and can't shoot a camera straight?

 

Old Peep Sight (Advantage: Accuracy)

 

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l141/Oldwolfe/peepsight.jpg

 

Ghost Ring Sight (Advantage: Speed and less obstructed view)

 

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l141/Oldwolfe/ghostring.jpg

 

 

The sight I bought came from Cabelas and comes with a tritium front sight. I tried the front sight, it's nice, but chasing coyotes away from the livestock at night I discovered it really isn't much better. It doesn't work with the muzzle brake, and I'd rather have the muzzle brake on since my night vision is a bit clearer on followup shots.

 

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l141/Oldwolfe/muzzle.jpg

 

And an overall view just for the heck of it: (I told you my photography stinks)

 

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l141/Oldwolfe/overall.jpg

[humanbean234]

<snip>

A standard isn't "real" if it isn't enforced all along.

 

I think you need to establish CLEAR standards and enforce them. This is the most fair. If the standards are going to change, give adequate notice in advance.

 

If everyone knows where the clear cut line is, then if they cross that line, it's their fault. But no one is comfortable when they aren't sure exactly where that line is.

 

You shouldn't get in trouble today, for what was perfectly acceptable behavior yesterday.

Tell me about it! I submitted a memorandum for my Squadron Commander's signature to allow me to live off-post (I'm in Korea, up in Area 1, and there's no post housing for enlisted... gotta' live on the economy).

 

The memo sat and fermented, awaiting his signature, for a week before it got kicked back for... get this... being written in Times New Roman, and not the new SCO's preferred Arial. Ooooookaaaaay.... so I resubmitted it Tuesday morning... and here it is, Friday, and it STILL isn't signed.

 

All-the-while, my wife (an American citizen) has to be housed in a hotel, since by USFK regs you can't close on a Lease on an apartment without being cleared by Housing, and that requires the signed memo.

 

It's Friday morning, here, I'm about to do P.T. I'll wait until the Troop Clerk goes to pick up this morning's distro... if that memo isn't in the mix, I'm filing an I.G. complaint.

[Oldwolfe]

I feel for ya pal, be happy you didn't marry a foreign national. That can be a nightmare. The big question, how good is your Top Kick? Can you go to him to get that sort of thing "fixed"?

 

I spent a lot of time in that job. One of my favorite and most hated jobs in the military at the same time.

 

A good top kick can fix almost anything. Or, more importantly, he knows who can.

 

It sounds like in your case, it's hinging on the commander. But the First Sergeant should be able to light a fire under the commander, in such a way, that the commander doesn't realize he's being manipulated.

 

A couple commanders I worked for would come in after roll call and ask me what they had to do today. More like they worked for me, than vice-versa. I had one commander, Captain Ring, who used to joke that he actually did work for me.

 

My best commander was a Colonel Jessup, he specifically requested me as his First Sergeant. In cases where some officers overstepped their bounds on MY enlisted men, he actually gave me the go ahead to give those officers a dressing down. But he made sure that first they knew he was backing me up. In many cases, when someone gets in trouble, the first thing the commander does is go straight to the first sergeant and ask him if the person is salvageable. I've never known a commander to disregard the advice of the top kick.

 

Well, that's not entirely true. I had one commander that came in with the idea that "I'm the commander and everyone else is scum, my least whim is LAW." He didn't last long. And that is a subject I don't think I'm going to go into.

 

The First Sergeant and Commander have to get along. The relationship between the first sergeant and commander can make or break a unit. And most commanders are well aware of that. Quite often the commander will let the first sergeant set priorities for him, in cases that involve the enlisted personnel. So if your first sergeant doesn't even know about your problem, it's possible the commander has it as a low priority because the top kick isn't telling him it's a serious issue.

 

Don't be afraid to see if your First Sergeant can help you. It's all in how you approach the first shirt.

 

It's good to start out, "Top, can I talk to you? I've got a problem and I need your advice."

[humanbean234]

1SG Bolden's a good man, and has already made his attempt to expedite; he got stymied by our adjutant (effin' butterbar). The Troop CO's a good man also, and if he weren't on Leave right now, I'd have tried that route as well. The whole bottleneck in the process is the Adjutant and the Squadron Commander (mostly the Adjutant... the NCO's in our S-1 process stuff same-day). We'll see what happens after 0900 and the clerk picks up morning distro. Here's hoping...

 

Thanks for the sympathy, but the business of Arial -vs- Times New Roman was a prime example of "changing standards without warning," I thought.

[Oldwolfe]

Exactly

 

------

 

Remember how I said to be glad you didn't marry a foreign national?

 

I married a Swede while stationed in the Netherlands. The Dutch wouldn't marry us because neither of us were Dutch. We couldn't get married on the base because by agreement with the host country, the chaplains couldn't do marriages there. So we had to get married by Swedish law, at the Swedish consulate, which while in the Netherlands was legally Sweden. Sweden doesn't do International Marriage Certificates.

 

My problem was mostly with INS, not the military.

 

The INS lost all of our paperwork SEVEN TIMES! Each time they lost our paperwork I had to get a new legal translation done. Almost a thousand dollars a pop.

 

It got so bad that my commander, Colonel Jessup, with the backing of several generals, sent a request for help directly to the White House. The packet we sent included copies of all my correspondence with the INS and was four inches thick.

 

My wife eventually entered the US by order of the President (in reality, probably some secretary, the pres probably never heard about it). We had been apart for almost two years. During the eight years we were married, I actually spent four years with her.

[Oldwolfe]

I was just watching the "History Channel"'s special on modern pirates again.

 

For me, it seems that at least one possible solution is so obvious, if a bit savage.

 

There are so many pirates in that part of the world because it's relatively safe and profitable. Remove one of those two factors, and you'll drastically reduce the amount of piracy.

 

About 50% of the piracy today is concentrated in one little area. The Somoli Straights, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

 

The answer, is Bait Ships. Cargo ships outfitted to be death traps to anyone who boards them, holding well armed and armored troops. Those ship modifications can be made modular to be moved from one ship to another with little fuss.

 

Word would get around rather fast, so you'd have to change the vessels you are using as bait periodically.

 

When it stopped being such a safe enterprise, then only the most hardened pirates would keep at it.

 

I could be wrong, but I think that would be VERY effective at drastically reducing piracy. Some of it would probably shift to other locations, but where most of it is located now is there because of the blind eye local governments turn towards it.

 

As for legality, if it's done in international waters, I don't think anyone could be prosecuted for it. And there's no mistaking innocent bystanders and killing them by accident. If someone forcibly boards you with guns, they are bad guys.

[LHammonds]

...For me, it seems that at least one possible solution is so obvious, if a bit savage.

 

There are so many pirates in that part of the world because it's relatively safe and profitable. Remove one of those two factors, and you'll drastically reduce the amount of piracy.

 

About 50% of the piracy today is concentrated in one little area. The Somoli Straights, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

 

The answer, is Bait Ships. Cargo ships outfitted to be death traps to anyone who boards them, holding well armed and armored troops. Those ship modifications can be made modular to be moved from one ship to another with little fuss...

Could even extend that to become an international attraction where hunters/mercenaries/weekend warriors all over the world can gather and "take part" in the fun of repelling pirates!

 

Even though I jest, the sad truth of it is that seems like the best immediate solution. On a related note, it doesn't require a very smart criminal to know that s/he can be relatively safe carrying a gun in a "gun-free" zone. I say do away with "gun-free" zones.

 

LHammonds

[Oldwolfe]

It would be very easy to start a gun control argument here and I want to avoid that. However, what I sort of want to share may do that anyway.

 

One thing the gun control crowd cannot, and has never been able to deny is this:

 

Prior to adding their concealed carry laws, Florida ran a test. They took two cities in Florida with as nearly identical demographics, population, and crime rates as they could manage to find. In one city they completely banned guns. In the other city they made it a requirement that every adult (who wasn't a conscientious objector) attend gun safety classes and own a gun.

 

In the gun-less city: Crime increased over a period of time, and more criminals started carrying guns.

 

In the gun-required city: There was an initial spike in gun violence as the hotheads who now had guns used them. After they were all jailed, there was a steady decrease in the amount of violent crime. The crime stayed, but it became less violent. More burglaries, and less crimes that involved personal interaction such as the "armed robbery" type.

 

So...

 

Florida went ahead and enacted their concealed carry law. Most of the country followed a similar pattern as the "gun-required" city.

 

It became so evident that the Florida Bureau of Tourism petitioned to remove the concealed carry law. The reason: Many (not all) criminals were AFRAID to commit crimes on Florida residents and crimes on tourists spiked dramatically because the criminals started to consider them as "safe" targets. Elegant and unexpected proof that the concealed carry law had a deterrent effect on criminal activity. One that NO ONE can reasonably dispute.

 

Notes:

 

1) Some places where crime is incredibly thick already, such as Miami, the concealed carry law had much less impact on crime rates. Albeit, those are the sort of places I'd rather be packing, myself.

 

2) After that initial spike had passed, the concealed carry law had no discernible negative impacts on the crime rates.

 

3) A criminal or gang-member simply isn't going to go through the registration and training process necessary to acquire the concealed carry permit. So the law had no impact as to whether the criminals were going to carry guns or not. All it did was make them more available to the primarily law-abiding citizens.

 

4) While gun control lobbyists point to the school spree shootings as what can happen when there is more access to guns, lets look at pure numbers. While horrible and tragic, the school spree shootings simply cannot come close when you compare them to the amount of lives likely saved by the deterrent value enacted in Florida's Concealed Carry Laws.

 

5) I'm using Florida as an example because they well documented their testing and the results of their concealed carry laws. You can argue morality and ideals until you are blue in the face. You can't argue with those sort of documented historical examples.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Up to now, I have been talking in facts, not opinions. Here's my thoughts and opinions:

 

Despite the fact that I enjoy recreational shooting, I'd support a total gun ban IF you could guarantee that you could keep guns out of the hands of criminals too. But no one can.

 

The SINGLE MOST POPULAR gang weapon now is the "chopper", or fully automatic AK-47. This is a weapon that isn't even manufactured in the United States and being fully automatic, is illegal to import. While it's legal to import some semi-automatic versions, which the gang members then modify to semi-auto, most of the captured ones are actual military fully automatic AK-47s.

 

The military model of the AK-47 is the gang-banger status symbol and most of them want that, specifically. That, and the Glock.

 

These days, more and more gangs are found to have military weapons to include grenades and even rocket launchers. There are millions, yes, MILLIONS of AK-47s around the world in the black markets. You can drive down to Mexico and buy an AK-47 for 89-120 bucks. (According to the FBI, that's the average pricing as of last year.) You'll pay more in Juarez than you will further south. However, to a drug-dealing gang, that's pennies.

 

This should be PROOF that criminals will get guns from outside the US even if we were to completely stop making them here and shut down ALL American gun factories.

 

Gun control lobbyists LOVE pointing at England as an example of viable gun control. It's viable in England because IT'S AN ISLAND! They don't have Mexico on their border.

 

If we can't keep foreign-made and illegally imported guns out of the hands of criminals (our attempts to do so aren't even making a dent), what possible effect can domestic gun control laws have?

 

I know if I were a career criminal, I'd be tickled to death at the thought of a complete American gun ban.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now that said, I DO support some forms of gun laws:

 

I think a gun in a house with minor children NEEDS to be safely locked and secured. (That doesn't mean inaccessible.)

 

I think anyone who applies for a concealed carry permit should have to pass a weapons safety class first.

 

I think it should be illegal for anyone with a felony record, a history of violence (such as spousal abuse), or insanity to own a gun.

 

I think any weapon that is purely offensive in nature with a high chance of added, unintended casualties should be illegal. (explosive types such as grenades and fully automatic weapons)

 

(No, scoped hunting rifles don't fit into that category. While purely offensive, they have a very small chance of unintended casualties)

 

As a result, I don't see eye to eye with the NRA.