RE: RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216

From: <eivind.borgeteien_at_...>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:35:30 +0200

I can see your point regarding the psychological situation. But I dont think we should aply combat effects from CC only and neglect the shooting part. Pinning/supression would be fine.

Eivind
>
> Fra: <jyrki.saari_at_...>
> Dato: 2003/05/19 Mon AM 11:44:09 CEST
> Til: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> Emne: RE: RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext [mailto:eivind.borgeteien_at_...]
> > Sent: 19 May, 2003 12:33
> > To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: RE: [NetEpic ML] Digest Number 1216
> >
> >
> > Well, if we go down this road and makes some rules for
> > withdrawal from CC, I feel we have to be consistent.
> >
> > One question pops up: Why would casualties taken from CC be
> > any different from casualties taken from incomming fire?
> >
>
> The psychological situation is completely different. When you take casualties from firing, the enemy usually is "out there" at least some distance from you. If you run you present a larger target plus a moving one which is easier to see than a stationary one, hence the instinct is to hit the ground and stay put (suppression/pinning).
>
> When you take casualties from CC the enemy is "up close and personal"; if you stay put they'll eventually come for you. Hence the instinct is to withdraw if the situation gets too hot (pushing back).
>
> > Eivind
> >
>
> Jyrki Saari
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Received on Mon May 19 2003 - 10:35:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:59:54 UTC