CavScout

Do you guys somehow consider "defense" or "holding" a flag to mean impermeable?

jasoncawley@ameritech.net the only problem I see with this is that Germany and the US went to war after Pear Harbor. When Japan started the war with the US they were alone in fighting the US.

As I understand it, Yamamoto wanted to take Midway to force the Americans into a decisive battle where they could destroy the American fleet. Even the great Yamamoto was looking for that big battleship battle...

These "excuses" miss the mark. A bum-rush by units that can't move a force off the location or survive long, except for the saving grace of the time-limit, are gamey. If you like these "tactics" just say so, don't sit around trying to justify them. [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 02-21-2001).]

Probably because the regular Army can afford to shoot real bullets.

Perhaps, I just find it odd that Yamamoto would be out seeking the "decisive" battle if he thought it would not help them win.

Ironic that the thread showing the death of a game character is locked up and this one continues on... "I find watching someone suffer and die to not be all that enjoyable personally and would DEMAND that you refrain from posting such material to this forum again." Huh?

Then why did Yamamoto put the Midway operation into play? He hoped to force a decisive battle there.

many military leaders search for that "decisive" battle. Maneuver proponents seem to be of this ilk... everyone wants to lead in the one battle that wins the war. But like the "decisive" battleship admirals of WWII, want and reality are sometimes stark adversaries.

Kinda of ironic on a forum dedicated to playing games based on war. I guess war is fun, just not funny.... Cav [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 02-21-2001).]

At what point do these "partisan" units become "partisans"? Some sound like detached or cut-off regular military units....

The Waffen SS wasn't that sort. They were a "counter balance" to the Heer. The Nazis never really trusted the military. The W-SS was about as necessary as the Lutwaffe's infantry.

Hence the problem. They have simply co-opted something that has exsisted and claimed that it is their invention. It is nothing new and is what has been practiced in war before. Maneuverist simply claim what has worked as "Maneuver Warfare" and what hasn't as "Attritionist Warfare".

That is the break-out/exploitation of combat. It is not exactly a new thing.

How where they "better" at "making war", a war that they lost? [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 02-20-2001).]

A supply situtation worsened by Rommel driving for the canal against the orders of higher command.

They certainly were on par, Lee and Rommel. Both began to believe their own press clippings, thought they were invincible, and wasted away possible victory on poor gambles.

Another thing "maneuverists" are good at is picking "historical" examples as "proof" of the 'maneuver theory' yet anyone examining these examples will not find 'maneuver theory' discussed in contemporary works of that time. Nothing like saying, "they were great maneuverists even if they didn't know it." Cav ------------------ "Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade Founder of the CMers who like playing the Allies Club

Well said BulletHead.

Enjoy! CM is a great game.

Sounds like maneuverists are trying to co-op the basic tenants of "fire an maneuver" as their own. Before you know it, the simple act of deploying to the battlefield will be considered maneuver!

The "School of Manuever" is good at finding what "worked" in history and attributing it to manuever, that is for sure. Read the dissenting opionons in there as well. Cav ------------------ "Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade Founder of the CMers who like playing the Allies Club

You are right that I was fighting to your left (my right) but it was because of the strength you had/have on your right (my left). God damm Panthers... instead of trying to fight them, I am fighting away from them. If my TDs would have done their freakin' jobs and killed a tank or two, instead of bouncing shell after shell off of them, I'd be OK. I had the perfect ambush, so I thought, on the flanks of your Pantehrs as they crossed the bridge. I thought I would score some hits there. Useless tungsten... I still think there is a surprise or two left up my sleeve if you want to finish the game. (I saved it, I think) I am still wondering what the hell that Puma was doing! Cav ------------------ "Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade Founder of the CMers who like playing the Allies Club [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 02-19-2001).]

It certainly doesn't. How often do you hear "I'll buy this for X amount and if I take out one of these, I'll be have won the point battle."? Or, "I'll split this squad and run them out untill they run into somehting. There worth more dead and finding the enemy than alive to me.." Cav ------------------ "Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade Founder of the CMers who like playing the Allies Club