CavScout

Unless you had some "experience" with Yamamoto what are you trying to say? I suppose you wouldn't attribute any of what they said to be slightly skewed. I am sure they wouldn't want their "Hero" to have made a mistake. Blame it on someone else.

Sorry, but sounds more like a "cover" for the mistake he made at Midway.

I find it hard to believe that Yamamoto didn't think it had some chance as he planned the battle. Why would he plan something he thought had no chance? Midway was his baby.

Some good points. Also bear mind, this was my description of my view of what was happening, if it jives with reality is another thing. ScoutPL points it was his intention to draw me to that side, me I was just scared of fighting Panthers so I went the other way!

What he said rings true. Partisans did not fair well against front-line combat units. To stimulate what the partisans on the East front did you'd have to include not only the partisan units but the German REMF units they generally attacked. Can't wait for that... "Let's play a QB Partisan Raid, I'll be Soviet partisans you can be the combined REMF unit with the cook squads, the rail workers, the mail handelers, and the folks not good enough to fight with a line unit." Should be fun....

I certainly do.

And certainly not what I was implying. I don't know about that. He didn't have a "firesack" but one can not allow two manuevrable "surfaces" to be allowed to run unmolested on the flanks.

What is DFDR?

This has been said several times, but it doesn't make sense. It seems that you imply that "maneuverists" have simply repackaged old ideas and are trying to sell them. Is that what you mean? I have to disagree. "The forms of maneuver and the forms of tactical offensive operations complement one another (see Figures 7-2 and 7-3) and may apply to either linear or nonlinear battlefields. Further, a commander's statement of intent or concept of operations should articulate how fires will be used to support whatever form of maneuver he decides to use. Reconnaissance is a precursor to maneuver and fire. Reconnaissance elements maintain contact with the enemy, develop the situation, and forewarn maneuver units prior to initial engagements. Orienting their movement on the movement of the enemy, reconnaissance elements avoid decisive engagements." This says something fairly similar to your opening post on this thread, IMO. More to the point, your "surface and gaps" is defined in FM 100-5 as, "Infiltration uses covert movement of forces through enemy lines to attack positions in the enemy rear. Light infantry units are especially valuable for infiltration operations. Commanders may use infiltration to attack lightly defended positions or stronger positions from flank and rear, to secure key terrain in support of the main effort, or to disrupt enemy rear operations. Commanders are careful to avoid alerting the enemy as to their intentions by the position of maneuver and artillery units and the effects of fires in support of the infiltration. Commanders normally use infiltration in conjunction with other forms of maneuver." Again, I have to disagree. The military espouses the "though process" and the importance of tempo. "The purpose of these operations is to deny the enemy freedom of action and to disrupt or destroy the coherence and tempo of his operations." "At the point of their attack, commanders avoid the enemy's main strength, turning him out of his defensive positions, isolating his forces from sources of support, and forcing him to fight in an unintended direction over ground he has not prepared. By attacking this way, the disadvantages of fighting exposed and surprised shift to the defender. One experienced soldier once put it this way, 'Hit the other fellow as quick as you can, as hard as you can, where it hurts the most, when he isn't looking.' At times more direct attacks are possible. However, such attacks are nearly always costly in lives and materiel. Commanders should undertake them only when no other approach will accomplish the mission." "The main feature of an offensive battle is the outflanking or bypassing of the defender--that is, taking the initiative. The aim of the commander in an offensive battle is to expedite the decision. Surprise, concentration, tempo, and audacity characterize offensive operations and are components of initiative. Initiative, combined with maneuver, makes decisive offensive operations possible." But these are identified in the manuals. "The basic tenets allow the commander to focus on these characteristics. In a violently executed attack, agility is particularly important. It requires that commanders anticipate developments and prepare branches and sequels so that they are ready to exploit opportunities by shifting forces and activities quickly. Agility requires units to be able to rapidly change formation alignments and shift from one form of maneuver to another without pause. To preserve synchronization on a fluid battlefield, commanders conduct detailed initial planning. Subordinates understand the intent of the next two higher commanders so well that they can properly exploit battlefield opportunities even when communications fail. At every level, commanders develop options so that whatever happens, they can maintain the momentum of the attack." There has been several bad tones in the thread, but nothing to terrible.

You've missed his point, I believe. He isn't claiming you took it from a FM but that it is IN the FMs. What he his saying is what you think is maneuveristic is simply 'normal' war.

I think using a screening/recon force is OK, to a point. What you do with the info depends on your mission. Can jumping through a "gap" work? Sure, sometimes. But is it always smart? Hell no. Playing a game with ScoutPL I found a "gap" up the middle and two "surfaces", one on the right and one on the left. Being a "maneuverist" I suppose I should have pushed my main force through that, towards the objective. In my mind this would be folly. The surfaces were armor strong points. Diving between them exposes me to flank fire. Instead I choose to attrit him, but I would use maneuver to make it favorable to me. To the left was several Panthers and Mark IVs. To the right, was light armor/cars and some assualt guns. Did I attack his strength? No, I attacked his weakness, the right side. Am I a maneuverist" because I am trying to avoid the enemy's strength? Or am I an "attritionist" who like to have the odds stacked in his favor?

We should play a game Pillar.

Nothing is that set in stone. If the Japanese had been able to force the US fleet into a fight at Midway and had had destroyed the Pacific fleet, there is every possibility a settlement or stalemate could have been reached. No one really knows. It is a "what if".

If the "technique" is not limited to maneiver theory why frame the post as "The Platoon -- A Maneuverist Perspective"? I would argue that what you have said is called "conventional warfare". Besides, "Against a disorganized, ill-trained foe deployed ineptly accross terrain favorbale to the attack, plunging through gaps works. Against a determined enemy, what looks like a gap can often turn out to be a fire sack."--D. Bolger "Maneuver Warfare Reconsidered" [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 02-22-2001).]

Ironic that WWI started out as a war of maneuver, the Germans trying their best to "maneuver" into France to avoid a long war, but it failed.

I have read and reread the first post of this thread. I'll ask again, what does it have to do with "maneuver" or "attrition"?

What's this have to do with "maneuver" and "attrition"?

Leonidas has some good points. Another solution is to not end untill all flags are uncontested, by either side. No contested flags. If the game is scheduled to end on turn 30, begining at turn 30 the game checks the status of each flag. If none are contested it ends the game.

Does CM model random break-downs, thrown track and the like?

As a good "maneuverust" you and attempting to avoid battle.... You said, "BTW, it may be tempting as some have done to say that Maneuver Theory and Attrition are just two sides of the same coin. They are not, the MCDP manuals say they are not, and you and CavScout and other attritionists believe that they are not, otherwise you would not be attacking Maneuver Theory." You seem to want to use the MCDP as you "book" of choice to prove that maneuver and attrition are not "two sides of the same coin" but you conveniently want to 'maneuver' away from the Army's manuals that say that they are. "Maneuver is both an element of combat power and a principle of war. Forces undertake tactical maneuver to gain operational results. As the commander develops his concept of an operation and considers the maneuver of all his forces, he retains a balance when applying maneuver, firepower, and protection. Generating combat power on the battlefield requires combining the movement of combat forces and employment of their direct fires in combination with fire support. The brigade commander creates the conditions, largely through maneuver, that will allow his subordinate elements to accomplish the unit's purpose."--2-16 MANEUVER FM 7-30 [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 02-22-2001).]

DATs...

From ST 100-3 Battle Book: a. Maneuver is a principle of war, an element of combat power, and a battlefield operating system. (1) Principle of war: "Place the enemy in a position of disadvantage through the flexible application of combat power." (FM 100-5, Jun 93, p 2-5) (2) Element of combat power: "* * * movement of combat forces to gain positional advantage, usually in order to deliver—or threaten delivery of—direct and indirect fires.* * * "Commanders may achieve the effects of maneuver without movement by allowing the enemy to move into a disadvantageous position. * * * Maneuver is rarely effective without firepower and protection." (FM 100-5, Jun 93, p 2-10) (3) Maneuver operating system: "* * * movement [or employment of forces] relative to the enemy to put him at a disadvantage * * * to create the conditions for tactical and operational success." (FM 100-5, Jun 93, p 2-13)

If Maneuverists want to have a quotes battle, then fine by me. "The infantry has been the force that closes with and destroys the enemy in the decisive phase of the battle. Before delivering the decisive blow, the infantry sets certain conditions to allow it to accomplish the mission with the minimum number of friendly casualties." "Desert Storm demonstrated the potential for using intelligence and precision fires to set the conditions and reserving the maneuver force for employment in the decisive phase (Figure 1-1b). These maneuver forces are highly mobile combined arms forces. Before forces are committed, certain conditions must be set. These conditions include destroying the enemy's integrated air defenses, blinding the enemy, winning the information war, and eliminating the enemy's ability to attack with fires. With these and other actions, the conditions are set for decisive operations. In this phase, the highly mobile combined arms forces will be vectored in to dominate the enemy's combat formations." FM 7-30 THE INFANTRY BRIGADE Maneuver or attrition? Or both? Or more to BH's points, "Maneuver is both an element of combat power and a principle of war. Forces undertake tactical maneuver to gain operational results. As the commander develops his concept of an operation and considers the maneuver of all his forces, he retains a balance when applying maneuver, firepower, and protection. Generating combat power on the battlefield requires combining the movement of combat forces and employment of their direct fires in combination with fire support. The brigade commander creates the conditions, largely through maneuver, that will allow his subordinate elements to accomplish the unit's purpose."--2-16 MANEUVER FM 7-30 "maneuver (JP 1-02, NATO) — 1. A movement to place ships or aircraft in a position of advantage over the enemy. 2. A tactical exercise carried out at sea, in the air, on the ground, or on a map in imitation of war. 3. The operation of a ship, aircraft, or vehicle, to cause it to perform desired movements. 4. Employment of forces on the battlefield through movement in combination with fire, or fire potential, to achieve a position of advantage in respect to the enemy in order to accomplish the mission. (Army) — Employment of forces on the battlefield through movement of combat forces in relation to the enemy, supported by fire or fire potential from all sources, to gain potential advantage from which to destroy or threaten destruction of the enemy to accomplish the mission. See FMs 100-5 and 100-40."--FM 101-5-1 "Offense is the decisive form of war. The main purpose of the offense is to defeat, destroy, or neutralize an enemy force." "The commander uses initiative to select the time and place to concentrate and synchronize his combat power to overcome the enemy defense; destroy his command, control, and communications system; and to defeat him in detail."--17-95 Cavalry Operations "Agility is the ability of friendly forces to react faster than the enemy and is a prerequisite for seizing and holding the initiative. It is as much a mental as a physical quality. Greater quickness permits the rapid concentration of friendly strength against enemy vulnerabilities. Forces will need to mass their effect rapidly so that by the time the enemy reacts to one action, another has taken its place, disrupting the enemy's plans and leading to late, uncoordinated, and piecemeal responses. This process of successive massing against locally weaker or unprepared enemy forces enables smaller forces to disorient, fragment, and eventually defeat much larger opposing formations. To achieve such a defeat, leaders and units must be agile."--FM 71-2 THE TANK AND MECHANIZED INFANTRY BATTALION TASK FORCE Hell, even the Marines MCDP-1 says, "Pure attrition warfare does not exist in practice.."

Works fine with IE 4.0 (v4.7) as well.

Well, it is actually easier to set upa simple network with Macs... But still, buy two PCs!