1963 US Army Vietnam War Armor Operations ... - Survival Books

WWW.SURVIVALEBOOKS.COM(3) During the analysis, the estimator may (2) Since each course of action will eithermake major changes in courses of ac-use different terrain or use the sametion; eliminate one or more from terrain in different ways, terrain isfurther consideration; or form a newnormally a governing factor.one. (3) Enemy and friendly dispositions(4) No attempt should be made to compare usually affect courses of action differowncourses of action during this war ently and are usually governinggaming. It is neither possible norfactors.practicable to reach a conclusion atthis point since only one basis of com-(4) Enemy capabilities may be governingfactors.parison, the enemy, has been used.The enemy can defend in place on (5) Time may be a governing factor.Hill A with long range antitank fires. (6) The governing factors in this situationThe defense can be overcome with myare terrain and enemy dispositions.superior firepower and mobility. TheMy dispositions and enemy capabilitiesenemy can withdraw to the north,effect all courses equally and, therewhichwill affect my chosen courses offore, do not become a basis for comactionequally, so I will not consider parison, and sufficient time is availthiscapability any further. If theable to employ anyof the three coursesenemy attacks, a new situation isof action.presented which requires a new esti-The comparison of own courses ofmate, so I will not consider this capa-action in the light of the appropriatebility any further. Course of action Igoverning factors reveals the advanversusenemy capability to defendtages and disadvantages of each courseavoids his best defenses (to his front)of action. The mental weighing of theadvantages and disadvantages and theand requiother him fires to move his antitankdetermination if any, of the governinggun and other fires to his left flank.factors exert a decisive influence, de-Course of action 2 versus enemy capa-mands sound professional judgment,bility to defend moves in an approach military experience, and an analyticalconcealed from his observation, butmind. No formula, arbitrary system ofthe woods will slow down my move-weighing factors, or rules of thumbment, and his antitank gun is on thiscan substitute for these qualities.flank. Course of action 3 versus enemy The terrain in course of action 1capability to defend puts my platoongives me an approach with cover butin the open directly in front of the is the longest route. In course of acenemy'sbest defenses; however, it willtion 2 the woods hinder my movement,place me on the objective in the short-but conceal my platoon. Course of acesttime.tion 3 is the shortest route but it isd. Comparison of Own Courses of Action open to observation and fields of fire.(step 4). Terrain favors course of action 1.(1) The first problem in making the com- Enemy dispositions in course of actionparison is the selection of the govern-I are hit from the flank, avoiding hising factors under which the courses ofbest defense. In course of action 2 heaction will be compared. The govern-is hit from the flank, but his maining factors are isolated from the study antitank weapon is on that flank. Inand deductions of METT in thecourse of action 3, I strike the enemyanalysis of the situation and from theat his greatest strength. Enemy discomparisonswith enemy capabilities.position favor course of action 1. MyTo be useful, a governing factor mustconclusion is that in this situation Inot affect all courses of action equally.can strike the enemy at his weakestAGO 9139A 247