I've baseline familiarity with the concept of "reconnaissance by fire" (RBF). For a WWII adaptation of Jon Tuffley's "DIRTSIDE II" I've come up with a mechanic for RBF I'm happy enough with to eventually playtest when it comes to an infantry unit using RBF to try to get a hidden infantry unit to betray its position by firing back (as a function of leadership quality and unit quality/experience).
What I frankly haven't much of a clue to is how armored (sorry! "armoured") vehicles should be handled.
Let's say an armoured vehicle uses its inherent MG in an RBF attempt on a patch of cover in which an infantry unit is hidden. Assuming it's firing from outside the infantry unit's anti-tank weapon range, would there still be any worthy-of-being-modeled chance of the infantry firing back? It wouldn't be logical, but as responding to RBF is partly a matter of losing one's nerve (isn't it? :-\ ), logic isn't all that's involved here.
Would there be any worthy-of-being-modeled chance of a hidden armoured vehicle breaking cover by firing back at a unit using just small arms or MGs for RBF? Assuming the small arms can't damage the armour, logic would suggest "no", but again -- is logic all there is to a potential response? I mean firing back (revealing their position) against the player's wishes; obviously the unit could fire back in its next activation if the player wishes it.
Have any of you read of examples from the period where direct-firing guns (tanks, ATGs, assault guns, whatever) were used in RBF attempts to flush out other vehicles or infantry?
Have any of you ever come across wargames rules for modeling RBF?
Hi Badger
Interesting subject matter.
It became a standardized, widespread doctrine during late World War II for Allied forces — particularly U.S. armoured columns in the European theater. It was formally adopted by the Allies and relied on as a practice to maintain speed and suppress hidden anti-tank teams when requiring to advance at speed through dense terrain. To effectively 'flush out' enemy AT units.
To be honest ... I am generally 'dubious' about how widespread this practice actually was.
My reasoning being that unless a unit/force is exceptionally well supplied with ammo (as the US forces were in late 1944 onwards) the natural tendency for most soldiers is to retain/conserve the limited ammo supplies that they can actually carry. Putting an occasional shell into a barn or hay-rick might produce the result of flushing out the single lurking Pak40 team or hidden StuG, but the idea that a line of Sherman advances towards a densely overgrown wood edge 'all guns blazing', just on the off-chance some enemy might be hiding in ambush there, does seem all very 'Hollywood'!
Modern Usage has continued (we have examples of the Russians using it to try and flush out Ukrainian infantry 'tank-hunter' teams) but with the advent of better electronic sensors (thermal etc) it tends to only be used today when electronic sensors fail or terrain is ambiguous, directing direct or indirect fire into suspected ambush areas. Modern forces must balance the tactic with strict rules of engagement to limit unnecessary destruction or collateral damage, although I suspect that is more a 'western' democratic concern (if truth be told).
I can also find no historical examples of RBF actually forcing enemy units to shoot back. It appears to almost be an attempt at mass suppression - putting down such a blizzard of fire into the terrain that the enemy cannot safely operate and are pinned down. Personally, I doubt that in your example any infantry (of any real experience) would fire their AT weapons back outside of effective range. If the advancing armour is using its HMGs (which is probably the most effective armourment to use) then the infantry are probably just going to sit tight as the range difference is not that great and if the enemy armour is advancing at speed, they will soon be within range. Poor quality infantry might shoot back but as that will just focus the attacking RBF on their fire position I suspect it might only happen once!
I've not see it modelled in any micro-armour rules, partly because there is the issue that in most sets of rules hidden units are usually represented on-table, but are 'hidden' in so much as they are ineligible to be shot at or reacted to (if that makes sense). Because, by & large, most rules allow all players a high degree of 'omniscience' replicating RBF becomes very complex.
In the Commander set of rules, the concept of units breaking cover, is covered by way of Command blunders. However, Ambushes are not depicted on-table in a set position, so the ambushing player would just not deploy the ambush in the terrain subject to RBF.
In a set of rules with limits on ammo I could see an RBF mechanism working, but I also think it is going to be very hard to replicate.
But I'd be interested to hear the views of others?
Cheers
Mark
Brassing up likely cover is and has been a thing.
Most of my reading suggests it happens when there's one rather obvious bit of dangerous cover.
I'm reminded of Monty Python's "How not to be seen" sketch.
Ammunition and time constraints are certainly limiting factors.
My rather British brain also thinks of easier solutions.
* Drench the threat area in smoke.
* Get on the w/t set and have the R.A. take care of business.
Years ago, driving through Normandy with an army-barmy 8-yr-old boy in the back seat, we had him well trained. Whenever we approached a hamlet or manor farm, he'd say "Light 'em up with Besa!".
(Not sure if that's useful evidence for the practice but it's my best offer.)
Generally agree with Big Insect here, a unit just cannot carry enough ammunition to do 'recce-by-fire' all the time. I would allow it as like a pre-planned fire mission that is carried out by the moving unit on a pre-designated feature (or features) en route to their objective. Because we know in real life platoons and companies were usually given terrain objectives to get to. Troops don't really randomly move about the battlefield looking to kill each other.
My impression is it was done on suspected positions, rather than on just positions at random. Again I don't see it as a trick to make a hidden enemy fire, but just to keep their heads down or even better make them bugger off.
In my own rules, if it was attack-defence and the defender hidden on map, then the attacking units can shoot up where-ever they want, but with the caveat that the most they can do is suppress units, however good their dice roll, and the usual blunder rules apply, rolling double maximum (in this case it would be 2x 20s on 2D20s) would mean you used up all your ammo.
What we do do, if fire has been received from a terrain feature, say a town or wood or hilltop, other units that would otherwise be out of spotting range of firers but in LoS, can use the same suppressive fire on that terrain feature; and if an OP is in LoS of that terrain feature, then the feature can be targeted by indirect fire systems as well.
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 24 August 2026, 10:33:38 AMYears ago, driving through Normandy with an army-barmy 8-yr-old boy in the back seat, we had him well trained. Whenever we approached a hamlet or manor farm, he'd say "Light 'em up with Besa!".
Forgive me, but I don't know the "Besa" referent. ???
Quote from: Badger on 25 August 2026, 11:00:48 AMForgive me, but I don't know the "Besa" referent. ???
The bow and coax machine guns on a Cromwell tank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besa_machine_gun
For anyone looking for further info
Quote from: sultanbev on 25 August 2026, 11:52:17 AMThe bow and coax machine guns on a Cromwell tank.
And used as the mg on all other British Tanks from 39, A9 an 10 have Vickers, and Canadian built Valenties had Browning 30cals. Also used on Damiler, Humber and AEC a/cars.
I was going to say that :)
Pronounced 'Beezer' from contraction of Birmingham Small Arms 'BSA' (who made it under licence).
QuoteI was going to say that :)
Pronounced 'Beezer' from contraction of Birmingham Small Arms 'BSA' (who made it under licence).
I didn't know that was the pronunciation
I'd assumed it was bess-ah
QuoteI didn't know that was the pronunciation
I'd assumed it was bess-ah
Those family and friends who had lived through WW2, and mentioned it (a sizeable proportion once the stories started flowing), pronounced it "Beesah"
Thanks for the "Besa" explanation, etymology, and pronunciations!
Thanks, too, for the insights on RBF. I still like the idea of allowing it, but also of limiting it somehow to prevent its indiscriminate use. I'm envisioning its use largely as an attempt from a safe(-r) distance to reveal Hidden opponents waiting in ambush instead of blundering into them (as well as suppressing them to a degree). The ability to have Hidden units would be both scenario-based and -limited; making RBF a limited resource could persuade the attacking player to use it sparingly so as to not lose it before he might most need it.
It will almost certainly be an optional rule anyway, and only feasible in games with a referee.