Two Man Recon team! safe or stupid?

[FOX_111]

Hahaha!

[Cpl T. Syndrome]

Also IMO they should be used for longer games..12 or 24 hour milsim..1-2 skrims would be pointless..by the time they get into what they need to do, games over

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Yes, but its more likely:

2 guys without a clue fighting 4 that are clueless, and

4 guys without a clue fighting 4 that are also clueless, and everyone complaining the other is cheating...

Hilarious! and so true!

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Yes, but its more likely:

2 guys without a clue fighting 4 that are clueless, and

4 guys without a clue fighting 4 that are also clueless, and everyone complaining the other is cheating...

Indeed...

but it does not have to be that way...

players should sort themselves out in to pairs... and as much as you can always play together with the same mate.

[Wilson]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Yes and no.

This is airsoft. There is no such thing as a "squad weapon" or a 50 cal, or a Mark 3 grenade launcher. A SAW and an M4 are the same thing in airsoft. Perhaps ROF might be a factor, but moreso psychological than real. I feel when you're going up against another airsoft squad, short of having more weapons and manpower, you're pretty much guaranteed an equal footing on weapons (providing they are all functioning). Your actions can help but if you're going up against an enemy of equal capability, you better have your game on, because it will most likely come down to people moreso than superior weaponry.

In ASC I speak from an airsoft standpoint and draw from my airsoft experience. I try to avoid relating to real steel in airsoft discussions as the capabilities of the weapon systems are so different.

I tend to avoid the games with the mag-winders, so a SAW and an AEG are most definitely two very different creatures on the field.

At our last game two HT scout-sniper teams effectively provided area denial for the entire time they were in the field. At the game before that, the high rate and sustained fire from the SAW gunner on our team tipped the firepower scale in our favour and allowed us to win the battle.

[Cushak]

In my experience, squad guns can make a difference in firepower (if there are rules inplace to achieve the goal of different levels of firepower)

Our usual local rules have different ammo limits and abilities depending on your gun/magazines.

For squad guns you can use a drum mag, and carry loose ammo on you to reload whenever you want. (Typically only guns that are used in military applications as squad guns are allowed to be under this designation, and there can be a limit on how many per squad. For instance, an M4 with a box mag is not a squad gun, and you couldn't have an entire squad with M249's.

For everything else, you can only carry one hi-cap, ~6 midcaps or an unlimited number of lo-caps, however you can only reload at designated resupply points. (And no box mags allowed)

These rules make squad guns very useful, because you know the covering fire they provide isn't stopping anytime soon.

[Skladfin]

done this before personally

just make sure neither of the two don't start telling you that they want to come back because their bored of observing the enemy for hours.

and guys that arent so kill-thirsty or fast on the trigger. It's not their objective.

[Scarecrow]

I guess what I am saying is that a sniper is really more about tactics than equipment. For instance you can ask Sha Do about the time at Deadlands, he played a sniper role and I countersnipered him using one of my guns that happen to have a good tightbore and long distance on it and kept him pinned and neutralized his attempt to deny us passage on the path we were using to transit the field. He had a BA and I had Matilda (my ghetto M16 tightbore).

If you have a sniper, with a low rate of fire and you're allowing him to deny you an area, and you have a squad, then to me, thats a failure of your own squad tactics to use manouver and fire movements to neutralize that player - your squad has the numeric and mobility advantages, so as long as you know where the fire is coming from, that one or two man team is going to be either forced to move when you apply pressure, or they're going to die in place.

[Dirtbag]

The question was about a 2 man recon team, so perhaps a look at that would be useful.

Scout/Sniper teams fall into this as can any 2 man fireteam.

They can be useful anytime assuming that you have and use radios. Without radio communication they serve no useful purpose because they cannot tell you anything.

Communication is the essential to any recce team.

The should also enter the area ahead of the rest of the team, if they are going to gather intel they need to move quietly and be far enough ahead to report the enemy before they engage the main body of your force.

Remember the job of a recce team is to locate, and report the enemy and their activities. Setting up ambushes, or engaging high value targets is secondary.

[lupo]

A 2 man team should be fine provided the members know what they are doing. Ive been involved with anywhere from 6 man recce teams down to just myself. It all depends on the terrain , players you have on your team and the enemy. You dont want to be running a 6 man recce team if your entire force only consists of 30 players. Good radios and people who know how to use them are the MOST important thing. I have used UHF radios for probably 10 years at this point because I have found that FRS just didnt cut it. My comms would get lost and my info wouldnt get out. I switched to UHF and have enough radios to provide a CO with a radio specifically for recce radio traffic. I have been in games where we started with a 4 man recce team and once getting to a target area broke into 2 2 man groups to have eyes on different trails. In the same game 1 2 man team returned to base while the other stayed in the field , alternating 1 sleeping and 1 observing. 1 man works fine as long as you have timed sitreps with your CO. So you would check in every 30 minutes , giving your location and possibly a grid of a position you were moving too , if you got into trouble you would call in a request for a qrf while you got to a safer location.

[CDN_Stalker]

A one man recce team is better than two, half the detection issues (consider one stepping on a branch, giving both away)................ is my opinion based upon experience. I prefer just myself, because I've gone that route many more times as recce, sniper, etc. and kept in radio contact with my team, and the times I've had a trusted second along with me, even in a ghillie, I see it as a hassle. Make sure they are still with you, deal with them making a mistake and getting shot at, just the entire having someone else along while I do what I need to do is a distraction. This is just me though, and I've experienced both many times, I'm much more effective by myself than having a second along.

[lupo]

Originally Posted by CDN_Stalker

A one man recce team is better than two, half the detection issues (consider one stepping on a branch, giving both away)................ is my opinion based upon experience. I prefer just myself, because I've gone that route many more times as recce, sniper, etc. and kept in radio contact with my team, and the times I've had a trusted second along with me, even in a ghillie, I see it as a hassle. Make sure they are still with you, deal with them making a mistake and getting shot at, just the entire having someone else along while I do what I need to do is a distraction. This is just me though, and I've experienced both many times, I'm much more effective by myself than having a second along.

I absolutely agree with you on this one I too have found it much easier to get stuff done by myself. Gathering intel on my own and reporting back is much quicker and easier , dont have another person too worry about. Most of the time I have had someone with me they have been smoked due to giving away thier position while I have managed to stay alive and continue reporting back. There are only a few people I actually trust even remotely to even suggest they do recce missions on thier own or with me.

[Tankdude]

Use the second guy to cover your escape route if your worried about being encircled, else just send one guy.

[FOX_111]

2 man can move as silently as 1 if both know how to.

Like in shorts bounds with times to stop to listen and observe. IMO, it's better than 1 guy, because if you get in contact, 2 is much better than one to get away with continuous fire on the ennemy.

If a single guy get smoked. Dead man don't talk. So Command would never know what happenned. And while you move, you can't observe and hear as well as when you are still. With a travel overwatch, you always have an pair of eyes and hears looking out for baddys.

As a CO, I'd never rely on one man rambo team for nothing but perimeter defence with redondancys.

[Eeyore]

I think it all comes down to leadership in the game. For example at Rawdon on the green team I felt there were no clear goal and tactics used other than for whatever group just happend to be together at a respawn. In this situation I don't think a two man team would have had any effect on the outcome of the game. However if your team has clear goals, and are aware of each others efforts and are supporting each others movments and attacks, then a two man recce team most certainly has its place.