Perimeter defences plan for a military base for the GWOT - Page 5




 
--
Boots
 
October 5th, 2012  
Peter Dow
 
 

Topic: Christmas is early this year!


Quote:
Originally Posted by rattler
Again inserting answers. Please note, though, that I have the feeling that we are about to be hijacking the thread, so it might be better to open a new thread on TascOps management.

Rattler
Thanks again Rattler.

No worries about the thread - it is all on topic, no danger of a hijack here. I am the OP and I think TacOps simulations of a likely attack against my towers defence must be on topic if that is what I need to do to prove my defence plan works.

Oh, look what a google search turned up!

This looks just what I need! - TacOps HQ - Map Room

Maps, map-making tools.

It says for TacOps v3 but I suppose the maps will work for my TacOps4 program?
October 5th, 2012  
Peter Dow
 
 
OK, I downloaded the TacOps Map Tool v.102 for the PC from the TacOps HQ Map Room.

For the purpose of use with the map tool, the user first creates a .bmp file of the map background and I just want a simple flat surface so I created a simple one-colour image and the biggest size the map tool will accept is 3100 x 3100 so that's the size I made.

A bmp file 3100 x 3100 is 28,155 KB in size which is too big to attach to this post but anyone following along can make their own using an image editor easily enough.

I have attached the map data file for my 3100x3100 bmp here - it's in the zip file "map310c.zip"

The data file inside that is "map310c.dat" and is all of 188 bytes.
The image file needs to be called "map310c.bmp" to match with the data file.

The map tool says there are strict naming conventions for the map files
image file - "map" + 3-digits + "c.bmp"
data file - "map" + 3-digits + "c.dat"

For my 3 digits I picked "310" to represent "3100 x 3100" pixels.

So I guess I am ready to build my first tower!
Attached Files
File Type: zip map310c.zip (348 Bytes, 0 views)
October 5th, 2012  
rattler
 
 
Yes, maps created with it will work with v4.

Rattler

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Dow
Thanks again Rattler.

No worries about the thread - it is all on topic, no danger of a hijack here. I am the OP and I think TacOps simulations of a likely attack against my towers defence must be on topic if that is what I need to do to prove my defence plan works.

Oh, look what a google search turned up!

This looks just what I need! - TacOps HQ - Map Room

Maps, map-making tools.

It says for TacOps v3 but I suppose the maps will work for my TacOps4 program?
--
Boots
October 5th, 2012  
rattler
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Dow
... For my 3 digits I picked "310"...
I am not sure, but if memory dont fail 310 is in use already. At TO HQ there should be a low fidelity list (long time no update) of number ranges available for new maps.

Also, it is recommended to mail any new map numbers used to TO HQ so the list can be updated.

Rattler
October 5th, 2012  
Peter Dow
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Dow
so I created a simple one-colour image and the biggest size the map tool will accept is 3100 x 3100 so that's the size I made.

So I guess I am ready to build my first tower!
I realised that I would need to draw a detailed map to the TacOps scale so that I could see where to place the items when creating the data file. I took the opportunity to make a few small changes to the design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rattler
I am not sure, but if memory dont fail 310 is in use already. At TO HQ there should be a low fidelity list (long time no update) of number ranges available for new maps.

Also, it is recommended to mail any new map numbers used to TO HQ so the list can be updated.

Rattler
I joined the TacOps email list and send them an email with a copy of my map (in .jpg form) which they can convert to .bmp easily enough by opening the .jpg with an image editing program then saving it as .bmp

I asked for "310" but asked them to pick another number for me if that is taken.

I have also selected a portion of the whole image to use as a legend, as shown here.



Image 1588 x 802 pixels - 16km x 8km (346 KB)

The full-size map

Image 3100x3100 pixels - 31km x 31km map (1062 KB)

The differences in this revision are
  • Towers now have mortars
  • The infantry barrier is now from 100m to 2000m from the towers
  • The vehicle barrier is now from 2000m to 3000m from the towers

Towers tunnel - Although not drawn in, I now propose an tunnel circle which connects the towers together underground via internal staircases / lifts from the tunnel to the gun turret.

A towers tunnel would allow each 3 man-team to either deploy as all three men in one tower or one man in each of three neighbouring towers; the team could change its deployment without being observed by the enemy.
October 5th, 2012  
brinktk
 
 
You control nothing by hiding behind a big, cumbersome, inefficient base like that. The enemy simply goes around you and continues on, business as usual. What do you accomplish by having these giant bases? How are you defeating the ideology? How are you legitimizing the ANA ANP to the average everyday Afghan? There's no such thing as an impenetrable fortress, human ingenuity will defeat these stationary beheamouths every single time. Active defense is always prefered over a passive one. And that's exactly what this is, a passive defense. You impose your will nowhere on the insurgency. You connect with the locals in no way. You tie down numerous soldiers that could be used actively hunting down the bad guys or helping to train the local Afghans. The list is endless.

Sun Tzu said it best "he who defends everywhere, defends nowhere"
October 5th, 2012  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Dow
That would help a lot because TacOps is a new program to me and the best way to learn a new program is to learn from somebody who has done it all already.
The best way to learn anything is with and from people who have done it before which I would suggest includes the people you are "designing" these bases for, surely your best option here is not to continue designing larger and larger monoliths from your imagination but rather to ask what it is that the people you are apparently building these things for need?

Just a thought but in the 5 pages of this thread to date not once have you asked what is actually needed.
October 6th, 2012  
Peter Dow
 
 

Topic: If not proved, then not disproved either


Quote:
Originally Posted by rattler
As for Peters reply, I used the mortars to blast a track throught your minefields, and (a) bomb truck(s) to blast through the barriers then, made it into strike range in the numbers described.
Although I've never fired a mortar or cleared a minefield in my life I'd be astonished if the method described was a quick and easy method to clear a minefield.

I just don't buy the idea that attackers will have time to use mortar teams to carpet bomb the mines and truck-bomb the obstacles to clear a path through the vehicle and infantry barriers nearly 3000 metres / yards long in the 15 or 20 minutes it is going to take before the other 2/3rds of the defence force has reacted.

The Reaction Force can deploy attack helicopters and long range artillery to eliminate any enemy mortar teams which are attacking the minefields. Even if those enemy mortars trying to clear the minefields are just out of range of the tower mortars they won't be out of range of the reaction force when it springs into action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rattler
As I said, for the third scenario the mortars were used for supressive fires,
The new mortars in the towers I have added to my design will be at least as well protected as an APC mortar carrier and so if anyone is getting suppressed by mortars it will be those who have set up on the ground or on the back of a Toyota pickup to try to fire mortars at the towers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rattler
Etc., etc., I wont go on discussing this with somebody who obviously does not have a real clue but a firm idea, as I said: Run your scenarios through TO and see where you get.

Rattler
Well I have now had a go with TacOps demo version using the custom scenario with my map.

I stared off with a mortar duel to see who would win between
  • my armoured mortars in the tower (simulated with entrenched CA Mortar Carrier 81mm Bison, because it was the only mortar carrier APC that was available in the demo version - in reality I would use 120 mm or bigger mortars because weight is no problem in a fort and the greater range of the bigger mortars enable more towers to join the defence to help to eliminate an enemy position which has grouped many mortar teams to concentrate an attack on only one or a few towers),
  • and the enemy mortars attacking the towers

but before we had a winner I got this error message -

Quote:
"This mode of play with this scenario
has a turn limit in the demo version.
There is no turn limit in the full version.
The demo version will now quit."


which is a bit disappointing but then TacOps demo version was for free so I can't complain.

But by the same token Rattler you should not complain that I am not prepared, keen and enable to use a free military simulator to prove my point if one was available for free.

I did try but the turn limit in the TacOps demo version stopped me getting very far with it, even though I was making excellent progress up until that point.

So I am not going to be able to prove my points in full using TacOps demo version after all but I remain convinced that with a bit of fine-tuning of the plan, like I just did - adding mortars and a towers circle tunnel - this defence plan will do very well against any terrorist or insurgent group like the Taliban and would even give a regular army pause for thought too.

Thanks again Rattler - you have been very helpful.
October 6th, 2012  
Peter Dow
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
You control nothing by hiding behind a big, cumbersome, inefficient base like that.
The base would be controlled, the Central Base and it's contents would be secure.

So that would contrast with the likes of Bagram and Bastion air bases where recent enemy attacks have killed our people and destroyed NATO aircraft at great expense. The existing perimeter defences of those bases were "controlling nothing" and have been proven to be "inefficient".

Two out of three little piggies who think building solid defences is too cumbersome regret their shoddy workmanship later when the big bad wolf blows their house down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
The enemy simply goes around you and continues on, business as usual.
Not quite. One piece of enemy business-as-usual can come to an end. I mean the enemy's protection racket business of demanding bribes to leave poorly defended bases alone. That business at least can stop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
What do you accomplish by having these giant bases?
The accomplishment of my perimeter base design is base security but that is not achieved because the base is "giant". A beached whale is a giant beast but it is not secure.

We need to sack the base designers who are offering us "giant" or any other size of base and hire Peter Dow who is offering us secure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
How are you defeating the ideology?
A secure base could contain a satellite up-link to broadcast our ideas via satellite TV or it could contain jamming equipment to jam an enemy satellite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
How are you legitimizing the ANA ANP to the average everyday Afghan?
Every cent / penny spent on such a base is one cent / penny not available to be paid to Karzai to make profits for himself and his corrupt cronies by recruiting bad individuals to the ANA and ANP.

Afghans can only view an Afghan military or police force as legitimate if they pay for it themselves and can hold it accountable. Therefore we need to stop giving Karzai any more money for a supposedly "national Afghan" force but in reality ends up as Karzai's own private army and police force. We don't hold Karzai accountable and the Afghans can't because they don't control the purse strings.

You are asking about the whole war on terror strategy in Afghanistan so I suggest that you read my topic here

How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)

In particular, in post #11, I address the issue of the ANA - Afghan forces. Green-on-blue attacks. The solution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Dow
Split up the Afghan green force into two distinct forces -
  • a national Afghan army which Afghans pay for and is commanded by the Afghan president and whichever general he/she wants to appoint. (“dark green”)
  • a NATO-ISAF auxiliary force of Afghans and others, funded by the US and other NATO countries and international donors. This would be commanded by our generals. (“light green”)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
There's no such thing as an impenetrable fortress, human ingenuity will defeat these stationary beheamouths every single time.
Well if we employ an ingenious defence then it makes it that much harder for the enemy. If we employ a stupid defence, a house of straw, then the enemy doesn't have to be all that smart to defeat it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
Active defense is always prefered over a passive one.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
And that's exactly what this is, a passive defense.
No it isn't. In terms of base defence, 2/3rds of the defence force is held in reserve "off duty" and is available to react to any attack.

In terms of a stronger offence against the Taliban and their state sponsors such as Pakistan, then see my topic How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)

Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
You impose your will nowhere on the insurgency.
No, my complete strategy, as outlined in my other topic defeats the insurgency. This topic is purely about base defence and it imposes our will to have a secure base better than the existing bases defences where the enemy has attacked, killed our people, damaged our aircraft, and challenged our will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
You connect with the locals in no way.
The base could be used as a broadcasting centre.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
You tie down numerous soldiers that could be used actively hunting down the bad guys or helping to train the local Afghans.
It's one infantry battalion of about 800 soldiers supplemented with some additional units, such as attack helicopters and artillery.

The base could be used as a training base and it could be used as a base from which to hunt the enemy. Again, this plan describes the perimeter defences. This topic does not claim to present all the answers - for all the answers to Afghanistan then please see my other topic

How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)

Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
The list is endless.
Sure, you can think of a million things this plan doesn't do. It doesn't cure cancer, for one. But it does defend a military base and that's all this plan is intended to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
Sun Tzu said it best "he who defends everywhere, defends nowhere"
He who cannot defend his own home base, defends nowhere.

This topic presents a plan to defend a base, it is not a plan to defend everywhere.
October 6th, 2012  
brinktk
 
 
Sigh...I guess I have no idea what I'm talking about. Excuse me oh brilliant one, how dare I question what you propose that has zero applicability in reality. I mean, one logically knows that having zero experience in these matters absolutely makes one a credible authority on what will work and what won't. And those with over a decade of experience or more, and numerous combat tours can't simply know at all what they are talking about.
 


Similar Topics
Next US President
Great Military Leaders vs Military Education
What was said on the 3rd presidential debate.
*Joining the Military - Questions Abound - Help Appreciated!
Kerry Unveils Plan To Overhaul Military