DCS A10 and Gazelle: JTAC controls during a troops in contact

Playing the worst JTAC on earth in this troop in contact scenario. Using Combined Arms, some triggers and a healthy dose of imagination to put together a little scenario to highlight how rotary and fixed wing assets can work together to support the guy on the ground. Made a few mistakes in the JTAC role but hopefully you can forgive my ignorance and enjoy the mission. Sorry at times the visuals aren't too exciting as my track file didn't save properly.

[@mikesolyom6884]

Great work on this, guys. One thing I wanted to mention (and it might sound like a nit pick but hear me out on this). At one point a JDAM was requested and the readback was "GBU". While technically JDAM equipped bombs fall in the GBU line you want to be more specific in a CAS situation. The reasoning being that a "GBU" can be a laser guided munition. In the middle of a stressful situation (like maybe combat) its easy to get tunnel vision and select the laser guided GBU on the rack because that's the last thing you remember being said. In that case you have the possibility of a loose laser guided bomb coming down in a TIC with no guidance (because JTACs generally lase to ensure they aren't being lased). Its unlikely to happen but still the risk is there. That's why readbacks need to match what you said exactly. You don't want to leave stuff vague. Because in the end the bombs are falling in your direction when you're making terminal attack calls. Really enjoyed the video. You guys did awesome.

[@FuriouslyFurious]

Great video. Enjoyed it a lot! One funny thing, which I'm sure you noticed already, dark cloud quickly became dark star, then back to dark cloud, then back to dark star. Tough when most of us DCS players are so familiar with dark star to change it up on us.

[@CasmoTV]

FuriouslyFurious haha yeah that happened. Dark cloud was the JTACs I was used to working with at Bragg so I wanted to give them a shout out. But when stuff gets heavy callsign can get screwy. Long as everyone knows who means what

[@aarnoman1088]

Really enjoyed this video. Would love to see more content of this sort, focusing on JTAC/FAC type stuff. Super interesting and will definitely try something like this in my group.

[@nacionalistadaesquerdacent9069]

Wow Another different and 'attention grabbing' perspective of the battlefield. Very dynamic. As a policeman of a 'calm' city I can only imagine how much more dangerous must be the real theater of operations. Nice one, man!

[@Happy-tp4jd]

One of the best DCS videos I have seen... Second only to the one that's next....

[@CasmoTV]

Editing right meow...

[@Happy-tp4jd]

@@CasmoTV I'm shaking

[@roostercogburn3272]

Speaking from experience, that is the closest recreation of a fairly typical TIC I've ever seen simulated in DCS so far. Except for abandoning the damaged vehicle, but even if DCS had fire extinguishers and a truck towing mechanic, I don't think I'd watch a 10-hour video of soldiers babysitting the spot, waiting for the wrecker to show up, lmao. For real though, that was great. I did try to get into multiplayer once, but it was all chaos. Maybe I should check out low-level-hell again.

[@CasmoTV]

Blow it in place and haul ass. I’ve seen it done but yeah, no one likes sitting around for that drama lol. Least of all the pilots circling overhead who couldn’t care less about a burned out truck lol.

[@brittoncooke1890]

I have never been very excited about the DCS Combined Arms module but lately I have seen a few multi-player videos that really bring out the value of Combined Arms. Maybe I should give it a second look for the multiplayer environment. Have you thought about putting OpFor under CA control?

[@CasmoTV]

Absolutely and have. You can even set it up so you can control ground forces from the cockpit. CA is a good module if you are keen to make scenarios more than just “go here, bomb that, fly home”. In this I had enemy spawn with radio triggers but I could also move them around if I needed to.

[@TNT-tf9jd]

We did that once, not everyone has the stomach for it.

[@TNT-tf9jd]

Really enjoyed it, looking forward for more. Keep up the great work.

[@christopherlarsen7788]

Disclaimer Up Front: TRADOC guy, former INF...take this for what it's worth. Just one perspective. This scenario is heavily scaffolded to a JFAC-CAS scenario. And in that realm, it works well. It is a ground situation that is being developed by multiple assets, and the enemy escalates a TiC situation. Great. That creates more targets for air/ground ISR, plus JFAC and CAS. On the other hand, from a ground-pounder perspective this scenario is swatting flies with a sledge hammer. No worries, if it kills bad guys good 'n dead. Win-win. Here's the thing though...your enemy in this scenario are no more clever than cardboard cutouts. And your INF/CAV patrol behaves in a manner that is exactly like an outpost. In short, the INF/CAV do not behave like INF/CAV. There is a reason INF/CAV practice action on objective in 2-minute increments. The enemy gets a vote. Intelligent (read: experience, trained, and/or well-led) enemy will hit-and-run. The CAS conducts its first gun run at 9:15 in the scenario, yet the enemy has already vacated their position some 7 minutes earlier. At a hustle, the enemy are already a half mile away and safely under some measure of cover or concealment. Indeed, the only reason for the enemy to stay beyond the 2-minute mark is if they intend to overwhelm and destroy the friendly objective. And in this scenario the enemy appear to have the resources to do exactly that. However, the gradual escalation of the enemy commitment to battle benefits the JFAC-CAS assets in a way that only the most inexperience, untrained, and poorly-led enemy would present itself. This is a "day 1" scenario in a COIN operation. By "day 30" the enemy would be utterly and completely defeated...or much more capable than this. This is an INF/CAV patrol. Moreover, it is a Stryker platoon. Now, on a route recon it is quite feasible in the contemporary OE that such a patrol would push well outside the ARTY umbrella of support and thereby need to rely on CAS. No questions. That is a fact of life in non-linear, non-contiguous OE. Still, this is an INF/CAV Stryker platoon. It needs to behave as such. One Stryker down by IED still in the kill zone? Suppress, secure, and leave one functional Stryker in rear security to aid in the extraction of friendly casualties. The other three Strykers engage and press the attack. This is done in a single minute or less, so that the Stryker can either (a) catch the enemy in their routes of egress, or (b) push a decisively engaged enemy force back in order to gain the space from which the platoon can extract with casualties recovered. Don't misunderstand. "Strykers engage and press the attack" is a hyper-violent predatory act. It is the closing with and slaughter of human life. The sort of primal acts that alters the psyche of a human being and is recalled in sorted detail of nightmares for a lifetime. Infantry are predators. We need to hunt because we need to devour the flesh of our enemy. This scenario completely ignores the reality of an INF/CAV platoon, and it completely ignores the self-preservation of an intelligent enemy. Again, this is fine for scaffolded JFAC-CAS training. No Harm Done! But...when you are ready to take the simulation to the next level of authenticity, you will need to account for this reality. Because, the battlespace will look very, very different for the JFAC-CAS than it does in this simulation. Yeah? I enjoyed this video. Honestly. It was fun, and it seemed to hit the overarching relation protocol between the JFAC on the ground and CAS assets. Good stuff. I was just a bit caught off guard by how much the INF/CAV and enemy forces all behaved like a machine gun qualification range. It doesn't look anything like this in FoF.

[@CasmoTV]

I mean sure. There is a ton that would happen in real life but the modeling of that in game is a Herculean effort and kinda slides away from the intent. In this video you have to make some assumptions. One being that the infantry guys are doing something; shooting, moving, all kinds of stuff. All that being said; I’ll tell you after 3 deployments ive spent more time over infantry guys more than willing to sit in strykers and let the aircraft handle all the problems for them. The problem in dcs is that dudes with rifles rarely shoot. Then I spawn those guys in the trucks kill them immediately. It’s not a great infantry simulation tool. Thanks for watching!

[@christopherlarsen7788]

@@CasmoTV - Understood on the limitations of the sim engine, as well as the learning outcome. Even re-reading my comments, I sound a bit condescending. That's not what I mean at all. Two of my years I served as a (medium) machine gunner. The qualification range always made me chuckle a bit because the targets acted nothing like real targets. But ultimately, the US Army wanted to know - "Hey there gunner, can you and your crew hit those four individual pop-up targets at 800 meters under these specific conditions?" And frankly, that qualification process would have been way cooler and more engaging with the thought and complexity you've added to this simulation video. So, good job. Sincerely. As for the INF allowing CAS to do the work...yes, that is a reality very specific to the operational/strategic objectives of COIN. Our patrols carry enough force protection to literally sit inside the kill zone (most of the time, anyway) and extract our casualties to a safe place to CASEVAC. Got it. But, that is because we don't want to cause any unnecessary harm - protect noncombatant life, protect noncombatant infrastructure, and believe it or not sometimes, just sometimes, we even intentionally minimize the death of our enemies. After all, in COIN the objective is to decrease violence and transition to peace. Big picture. But...then why would I call in an A-10 to drop 200 rounds of exploding 30mm on a village of noncombatants? Why bomb the home of a civilian just because some jackass with a Kalashnikov is hiding there? No bueno. In manuever warfare with a peer or near-peer enemy, the battlespace looks even more different. Again, this is semantic. I'm discussing authenticity, and that's not the intended learning outcome here. In this simulation, the training scenario is complicated just enough by the ground and air ISR to create a very cool simulation for the JFAC and CAC process. I get it. And well done.

[@CasmoTV]

Yeah no worries. What I wanted to do is give a taste for the guys flying (except barundus as he’s been there/ done that) of what it can be like. I’ve been in very similar scenarios in Mosul, and I wanted the A-10s cause I’ve seen how close they can engage with friendlies. It’s really a sim for the radio chatter and some cool visuals. And to show how you can use the combined arms module and triggers to make stuff happen. I wish that DCS would allow units to suppress one another instead of always one shotting. Would make a much better fire fight than me squeezing off a few rounds here and there.

[@Barundus]

Good discussion. Great points, Chris. But - to Casmo's point; I'd often found my self wondering as I was responding to a TIC, only to arrive on-station to see a convoy of up-armored HMMWVs or MRAPs stationary on a road, WTF they weren't unleashing hell into the wadi, or treeline, or compound, or whatever. I flew around in a single engine beer can, with very limited ammunition and short legs. Invariably whenever there was a random pot-shot or two from a woodline, the "TIC" call was made and everyone hunkered down and waited for the helo's to arrive. Don't get me wrong; I don't fault anyone for calling for extra support. Why wouldn't you? And we lived for it. No matter what was going on, a TIC changed the mission and we'd pull every bit of collective to get there in a hurry. But in some ways it became a crutch. As you say; no reason a Stryker or MRAP couldn't close and engage some dismounts in a woodline. To be fair; the INF/CAV guys likely wouldn't have buttoned up and waited for the cavalry (literally, lol). In those cases where it happened, it was likely a loggy convoy or some-such. Anyhow, your points are well-made, and I appreciate the civil attitude. Scouts out!

[@Barundus]

Enjoyed this one. Gotta brush up on my reporting, lol.

[@Wrootplonk]

"A little more deliberate", he says :D Understatement of the week. Looked like you had a lot of fun, though, and judging on the reaction of the peeps in the Discord it was s a good one.

[@skykaptain007]

Would it be "visual" when they have eyes on you where "tally" is eyes on an enemy?

[@CasmoTV]

Visual- see friendlies. Contact- see item or point of interest. Tally- see baddies. That’s the basics. But these terms also get kinda messy when the heat is on, especially contact to visual or contact to tally.

[@BenTrem42]

Is "Aireal Fire Support" the new CAS?

[@CasmoTV]

Nope. Two different things. Think artillery when you think Aerial fire support

[@BenTrem42]

@@CasmoTV Right. I came across that distinction in an article about phasing out Apache.