The_Capt

Guys, Good points all. I will respond in detail tomorrow. Quick one for Mr Audacity, is your e-mail current? If not can you correct or just send to me directly, Fionn wants to speak to you but as he has been cast into the Outer Darkness for being a bad boy he can't do it here.

Geez Jason, I think you and I actually agree on something, although manouevre does have it's place and I am not ready to throw it out either..balance in all things. I would also argue that you can still be intent on destroying an En(Attrition) and still be "manouevrable". A light LAV force backed by B-52s racing into the enemies rear and shooting up the place seems like a good solution to me. You see, it is the Sun Tzu "Win without firing a shot" metality I find a little bit suspicious. Yes if we can do it we should, we should turn a flank or drop airborne into the rear. We should hit CCC assets with speed and agression. Envelopment is always a good option no matter what you call it. But none of this precludes you from killing the enemy with Firepower in detail. I would argue that Attrition is a means by which to achieve Manouevre, and Manouevre is a means by which you can employ Attrition better (faster and at a weaker spot). Now when you have overwhelming firepower the question remains, why bother. In CM if I am tasked to take out a town, I usually send a Coy in first to Probe and find the enemy, then I shell him and move a larger force with armour in to kill him. If I can find a weak spot I will take it, if I can find a piece of Vital Ground he forgot about I will take it. But in the end I will destroy him in force. Now let's say I had 20,000 points to employ. Well I would buy about 10 CAS and a whack of Elite 14 inchers(the shells drop during the plotting turn), Elite 240mm rockets, TRPs a Coy Pershings and Sherman 105s, and a platoon. I would then blow the living guts out of the place, pound anything that moves with the Pershings (and a few things that don't) and then march the platoon up to take the flags. I would argue Manouevre only means something when facing an equal or greater force. Against an enemy who is as good or better than you. Then you may have a good reason to employ it. But when you are large enough and big enough, concentrated firepower centrally planned and coordinated will work very well. It almost seems as though the Doctrine is a "poor mans" doctrine when you cannot establish conditions for a straight Attrition "ass-whooping". What concerns me is that we have made it our central focus and way of doing business to the exclusion of the other doctrine. [ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: The_Capt ]</p>

Well first of all it is not just US doctrine (I am a Canadian btw and we fall somewhere between the US and Britian) which is changing. I would suggest that the New Age Manouevre is pretty much big on style but low on substance. I for one would love to come upon a true Manouevre CO. A slave to the "dark side". I would rock his world by using both methods, hell switching to Attrition is thinking outside the "new box". You have automatically assumed that a Manouevre commander could beat me and yet have not given a reason why? A new question..why is Manouevre superior to Attrition and again a little proof? Not to be critical but perhaps our view of Attrition is different hence the disagreement. I think we need some hard examples (which btw I find true Manouevrist a little short on, they prefer to take old battles and claim them as their own). Do you have a scenario or a CM battle we could work off of? Perhaps to demonstrate your point. Then maybe we could come to a concensus as to just what these two schools in fact are. I think we should get down to brass tacks, send me a problem and I'll give you what I see as an Attritionist solution, we then can compare notes.

OK to answer all three of you, Pillar, I disagree, we cannot lay this to rest until we actually get a clear understanding of just what we are debating. I agree with your analysis and the roots of the new Manouevre Religion. But it is a fundemental shift in philosophy and doctrine which has in my opinion been taken way too far. The pendulum has swung too far right and we have lost our sense of balance. That is why I have argued from the beginning that both sets of doctrine have there place, the trick is to know when to employ them. I also hate the labels, Attrition and Manouevre, as the do not really express what the two doctrines represent. mr.audacity, Well first of all I think you need to realize where I am coming from, I have spent 13 yrs in the military and been to Staff College and all that so I have a clear understanding of the two doctrines. I guess you can say "I have come out the other end" and have yet to see the light. Hence my "right" to refer to "German buzzwords" et al. Now having said that I have to say..prove it. We are switching to another doctrine and philosophy which says it is better to dance and gain victory thru "alternate means", the old school was to "sort him out" hard and fast because POWs are a pain in the ass. So the burden of proof is on the new doctrine and I have yet to see it tested. The Gulf War was a serious battle of Attrition. 30-some days we pounded Iraqi forces to the point where their OODA loop was pretty much scrambled, then we punched thru their battered lines and ate them alive. Then when we had a chance for true Strategic Manouevre we instead went for the Attritionist method and raced after the Republican gaurd, which judging by the current situation in Iraqi was not the centre of mass of the Iraqi Empire. WWII had it's moments but most of our doctrine preceding the New Revolution was drawn from this conflict. So I fail to see why we should switch(playing Devils Advocate here). So the burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulder of the Manouevrist to prove their system is better. Now having and currently commanding troops in the field I can tell you that they are going to throw that grenade regardless of the Div Comds intent. Now for the record, each doctrine has it's place and a truly gifted commander will know when to dance and when to plant. We as professionals need to give both sets of tools to our juniors and show them the strengths and weaknesses of each. But in our current state, an Attritionist is looked at as a dinosaur and should be discarded, my arguement is that the system has worked in the past and will work in the fiture so let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Riechmann, LOL! Well knowing Fionn, I doubt he would fail to mention my name and he knew full well who he was pounding in my case. He still owes me another but with his schedule it will probably have to wait until CMBB.

Oh I also forgot to mention on the rules of the game. Let's not confuse doctrine and keeping up with technology and "having no rules". You may have a night fighting ability but you will never "make day". I would argue that there will always be rules to the game.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by mr_audacity: The_Capt Not a neophyte I am afraid, but a long term preacher of the good word… In essence Von Clausewitz identified warfare as having three governing elements; primordial violence, political will, and coup d’oeil/genius of the commanders. Attritional warfare leans heavily on primordial violence, whereas manoeuvre warfare tries to balance the three in harmony, for to relegate any one occurs at the detriment of the others. I may misunderstand you but it seems to me that in many ways you equate attrition to firepower, and manoeuvre warfare to physical manoeuvre on the battlefield or front/theatre. Whereas to most professional soldiers I know and have discussed these matters with they consider fire and movement as integral to both forms of warfare. The key difference is attritionalist want to kill their enemy, manoeuvrist just want to defeat them. Their manoeuvre comes from Auftragstaktik as you know and it is a manoeuvre through time (ie higher command decision tempo through the Boyd loop than their enemy). You said: In warfare there are set rules which both sides have to live by; weather, night, time and space and each other. So you cannot simply write off "the rules" so easily. I don’t believe this to be true. The are only equal to those that treat them as equal. For instance British Infantry soldiers are taught and trained extensively in night fighting and operations. Consequently they tend to be slightly better at it than some adversaries. Therefore to a degree they have negated through training and experience one of those ‘set rule’ you believe are levellers to all. The same goes for time via Auftragstaktik type command in which commands train again and again to up the tempo, and fight 24hour wars. By this method they dislocate the enemy who seeks the respite, and negate the ‘set rule’ of time. Space again can be redefined i.e. airborne force and air power revolutionised the military use of battlespace. Satellite and orbital platforms add extra dimensions to the battlespace that many officers have yet to come to terms with. So as we see nothing is set in stone. We keep redrawing the lines of war as we develop. In CM, and at the tactical level, Manouevre really doesn't work… Leonhard would spot you as an attritionalist straight away. Manouevre is very much at the tactical level. The tactical level encompasses all formations up to at least divisional/corps level, so are you seriously suggesting that a US Army Divisional TOC could not undertake some form of manoeuvre warfare, and if not why does the USMC espouse it in their FM Warfighting? As a section/fireteam/squad leader/commander I could quite easily demonstrate examples of a manoeuvre warfare technique. e.g. An enemy soldier is in a slit trench 30m to your front. Your fire base lay down suppressing fire to keep his head down as you crawl forward and post a grenade. Does he jump out to be shot or stay put to be blown up? This is functional dislocation, an element of manoeuvre warfare. And you don’t get much smaller on the battlefield than minor tactics… I suggest you read a very good book called ‘Not Mentioned in Dispatches’ by Spencer Fitzgibbon about that very subject during the Battle of Goose Green in the Falklands Conflict.<hr></blockquote> You are a true believer aren't you!! Well I will say that I have not been seduced by the New Order. It has workable elements but many are simply rehashing the old "read Attritionist" way of doing things but if you add enough German buzzwords you somehow are Revolutionary. You slit trench attack, for example. You are describing absolutely nothing new, firebase and assault team is not Manouevre, it is basic tactics, most of which were developed from Attritionist methods. We keep preaching Manouevre at the Tactical level but it really afford little except a "that's nice" response from the troops. At the Operational level, it is a much different story.. OK as to your points. Fire and manouevre (note small "m" here) are critical to success but you seem to have missed my point on the fact that the methods of the doctrine tell the tale. Attritionist attempt to impose order on the chaos of battle in order to better coordinate overwhelming firepower at a point. It is a philosophy and methodology. An attritionist will still drive to strike an enemies soft underbelly and turn a flank. I think you have hit on one of the biggest mis-conceptions of Attrition doctrine. It does focus on destruction of the enemy thru tightly controlles use of firepower (or projection of firepower) manouevre is a means to delivery. This is not an extinct idea and will be with us for a long time. The German buzzword is Befelstaktic (sp?). Auftstragtak...however you spell it is mission command and empowering of subordinates which lend to a fast more fluid ability in your forces. The key weakness in Manouevre theory is overextension. Manouevrist always run the risk of asymetrical advances and losing control to the point where you dislocate yourself. In some conditions this is an acceptable risk, after breakthru for example. In others it is sheer suicide. The trouble with the New Religion is that it too readily throws out the previous method for incorrect reasons. It is funny you should mention Leonhard, I sat across from him in a mess dinner once, he put forward some really interesting ideas about the "Death of Manouevre". The modern battlefield is killing Manouevre doctrine before it gets out of the bag. His example is that the M1A1 MBT can travel at 80kph, yet standard speed of advance are around 5-10kph. Why because we move cautiously when under threat of contact. Well in the modern battlefield we know exactly where we are and where the enemy is (theoretically) so why can't we move in column into the enemies rear when the opening is provided. What is truly revolutionary is that the Higher commander will now see that opening before the man on the ground. SO now the OODA loop is driven by data collection and processing, the Commander doesn't need to empower subordinates when he knows more than they do. So you have Attritionist methods driving towards Manouevrist (well really both but speed and tempo are still more important) aims. We are heading towards a highbred system. I would be interested in a demonstration of CM Manouevre, do you have examples or perhaps a tactic which demostrates this. A game perhaps...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by mr_audacity: The_Capt - Surely a true exponent of manoeuvre warfare would think 'The Marquis of Queensbury Rules' a hindrance and simply kick his opponent in the nuts/bollocks (depending on which side of the pond you come from)? Playing by the expected 'norms' is an anathema to the true manoeuvrist. A manoeuvrist philosophy, that drives his tactical, operational and strategic thinking would never pit strength against strength unless there was no alternative. When that occurs your point becomes valid, for this is the recon pull or surface and gaps element where one tries to achieve a schwere punkt usually via higher tempo or OODA/Boyd cycle loop. At the minor tactical level of CM manoeuvre warfare manifests itself as: Heavy fire-to-manoeuvre element suppression (i.e. 3-1 to 6-1 as espoused by Rommel in Infantry Attacks) in the assault phase. Flanking moves design to induce the enemy to route/surrender rather than merely mow them down. Covered approaches from good recon or lots of smoke where cover not possible. Good employment of combined arms for mutual support. What cannot be modelled easily are command methods such as mission tactics vs. control by detailed order, as you the player are in God like control of your sand table.[/QB]<hr></blockquote> Ahh a neophyte of New Age Manouevre I see. Well first of all the boxing analogy is to demonstrate differences in style. In warfare there are set rules which both sides have to live by; weather, night, time and space and each other. So you cannot simply write off "the rules" so easily. Now as to "striking weakness", well Manouevre is actually designed to do several things, disrupt, dislocate and destroy. These can be done on both strength and weakness. Many have taken the doctrine to mean "we dance around and try and find holes, cause the enemy will be nice and leave them". It is possible to support Manouevre with Attrition and vice versa. Now what many don't realize is that the doctrines have two important parts, aims and method. And what is revolutionary is the methods as the aims are very often the same. Many see the Attritionist as the WWI General sending his forces to die in an ill fated frontal while sipping tea. The Manouevrist is the dashing Rommel-like cavalry man swimming against the current "a rebel who makes his own rules". Truth is neither are reality. An Attritionist aims to impose order onto the battlefield thru detailed planning and centralized command and control. A Manouevrist accepts the chaos of the battlefield and attempts to exploit it thru "mission command" and decentralized control. The empowering of subordinates to act on my intent EVEN IF it runs contrary to my orders. There isn't an Armed forces in the Western Hemishpere which even comes close to this, no matter what we spout in Staff Colleges. In any given battle both sets of doctrine are required. Attrition will provide the coordination required to stage massive firepower required to make a breakout. Any enemy worth his salt will cover the flanks and not allow fancy footwork. Hell in this day and age our own media forces us to play by a far stricter set of rules than the enemy. Attrition makes the breakout, where we mass pound for pound more firepower and resources at a given point of our choosing. Once breakout occurs, Operational Manouevre steps in, then rather than encircling the enemy Div, you charge for Bagdad (Yeesh, Gulf War, very good example of failed Strategic Manouevre). In CM, and at the tactical level, Manouevre really doesn't work....yet. The need to keep control of your individual assets to be able to ensure they don't kill each other and can effectively get at the enemy requires strict control. You can give the Pte on the ground the Div Comds intent but it really doesn't mean much. Our system requires that we have strict discipline because war is not nice and the human psyche is not prepared for it. CM is very Attritionist. You have flags which have to be taken at a certain time. And the "world" is only so big. Your troops are under your supreme control. You can look for holes and try a flanking but this is not Manouevre, it is Attrition from another direction. Almost all CM battles are the Break-In battle. Force on force, slug and shell until someone gives. I have seen some Manouevre solutions but they are few and far between. The one game I did see it doen was classic. I played Fionn Kelly once (not trying to name drop), he conducted a classic "break-in" battle followed by a "breakthru" in which he positioned himself in an area where my defence was untenable. This is Manouevre, rolling my flank and killing me in detail is Attrition. Now if he hadn't achieved breakthru then we would have slogged thru more break-in battles. There are other Manouevre tricks, rushing and withdrawing to force your opponent to waste arty for example. But I am afraid the true Manouevre version of CM would not be fun as the loss of control would not be much of a game in the end. [ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: The_Capt ]</p>

Fun?!! I am in hell!! In my latest game, I have been locked in closet with the lights turned out, my opponent and I start with our noses touching and then someone says "go". My troops are freaking out and doing their best imitations of Italian Light infantry in the "rout roll". I think the casualty rates were lower at Omaha.

Hmm, a few opinions Well I would have to say that TDs are normally bought to counter and armoured threat and usually and HMC or the like is for Infantry support. The reason for this is much like spreading your infantry out when facing arty. CM is such a lethal environment for armour that investment in high value systems is putting a lot of eggs into a single basket. The result is that the loss of the system means a significant loss of points for little gain. The "my KTs is dead, I quit" syndrome a lot of Newbies fall into. Far better to spend your money a many cheap armour and anti-armour systems and a lot of infantry. For most QBs this will have you covered. I have found on the ladder that people stick with the "safe games". "Village, modx2" ME QB is an example. Little risk and if you have a winning formula you have a good chance at success. It has been very interesting playing the Rumblings of War Tourney because it is by far more realistic. You have forces and you have terrain and weather. And you have to live with them. I know I have beaten some very good players but I can also tell they are thrown off by having to play in odd places. So if I can suggest anything, it would be to develop tactics and units which can meet any situation. TDs are a case in point. They are very good at long range overwatch yet useless in a low vis or heavy trees area. In these situations a tank would be prefered, more armour, more punch for infantry and armour. Personally for the vanilla QBs I like to take a risk and buy AT guns for the flanks and overwatch. You run the risk of bad terrain but they can fire from hiding, they are cheaper and they are tougher to kill than a Hellcat. Of course you lose movement.

Gentlemen, I think you are only looking at a narrow view of the German performance in the War. Let's face it the Western Front was a sideshow, a very important sideshow, but not where the big league games were played. I have read from various authors that German's were much better at the tactical art of warfare than the more inexperienced Allies, yet they failed at the Operational and most importantly Strategic level. Take a look to the Eastern Front, the Russians beat them due in large part to the fact that they would not play the Germans on their level. The Russian concept was (and this you can follow all the way up thru the Soviet Cold-War era) is Operational Manouevre. Divisions are used like Bns or Bdes in our Western mentality. It was in the scale and ability to use their resources effectively at that scale which led to the German forces having their asses handed to them. The Germans were simply not prepared for the scale and momentum of the Soviet Advance. Now to try and suggest that the Germans "lost to their own beat", is I think a bit silly. I would argue that their ability and experience at the Tactical level lengthened the war but failures at the other two levels made the outcome inevitable. Many Western militaries are currently undergoing a "Wermacht" (sp?) Revolution. We are embracing the doctrine of the German Army as gospel and a holy grail. "Manouevre" this and that and German buzzwords like "fingerspitzengefuel" and "aufstragtaktic" (again forgive my mispelling but German is not my mother tongue). We have to keep in mind that this doctrine is like German, we are not going to learn the language and culture in a few lectures and a few words. We in the west need to adopt elements and make our own path. Already technology has driven our mentality away from manouevre. Now with the e-battlefield, an attritionist method will be used to make manouevrist gains. Whoops, bit of rant there....

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Treeburst155: Only two more games of "We Can't Wait" still to be completed. Treeburst155 out.<hr></blockquote> And one of them is one between Bertram and I. It will be a while in finishing so nobody should get their hopes to high. Sorry.

OOOoooo! Good question. Was the Western Front won by attrition or manouevre? I would argue that one can win at the tactical but be defeated at the strtegic. YET can one lose the Operational and still win at the Strategic or vice versa (yet strong arguments can be made that you can always lose despite the best of conditions)?

I hear ya Slappy, These were the days!! Back when tactics were king. Now it's mod this, Newbie that and "When is CMBB coming out". I do miss talking about war.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JPS: Treeburst155 - actually, I am participating in the RoW. Nevertheless, I hope that doesn't invalidate my suggestion The_Capt - yep, that is one way to state the potential problem. And as it happens, it was our battle in the tournament that made me to think about it!<hr></blockquote> And so it should ya flag robbin bastard It will help the problem but not solve it. A player owning the flag will still lose points but not as many. Better than nothing I guess.

Geez CG, you still owe me a game and a few others. Maybe you should "destroy" us first before you take on Swamp. Or I guess we just don't measure up to your exacting requirements Note to self "practice more so the CG will actually play me".

That wouldn't be to avoid the "?" flag steal would it.

You're on Shirley, Drop me a line and I will educate you gently.

Thanks guys, well everybody but Iron Chef. I guess I will take the leap and hope for the best, if all else fails I guess I can keep playing on the old steamer. As to Bill Gates, well he ran over my dog and then stole my girlfriend so we are finished he and I. Oh ya, his OS's have caused me more heartache and anger than should be allowed by law.

I have made women faint, I have made men lose control of their bowels, Please to meet you can you guess my name... But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game... Oh ya I also post the "Once whenever I feel like it Lurker" which may have brought a smile to a face or two.

OK I'll start right off and say I am not a tech type. I will not be fiddling with power or refresh rates, intalling Russian software drivers some guy found in a dark back alley of the internet from a guy with greasy hair and breath like Satan's armpits. So that being said, I am looking at purchasing a new system. My old one is just shy of being made a Heritage Computer by the government, plus the coal I have to use to heat up the steam is not "environmentally friendly" apparently. Now I am looking at buying a Dell 8200, 1.8 Ghz (roughly 8 times faster than old Pete) running Windows XP (I still hate Bill Gates on basic principals but by all accounts this OS works) and one of those hyper-light speed-more wattage than an aircraft carrier-smack my ass and call me Shirley, Nvida Geforce cards. Now rumour for us in the outer darkness of the tech "know" is that XP and Nvida have recognized that CM will eventually dominate their marketplaces. (Yup people will just buy CM instead of a new computer or graphics card, hell it almost happened to me.) And have conspired to ensure that CMBO is damn near unplayable with this unholy combination. So my questions is ( yes I do have one). Is this true and what (if anything) can be done about it?

Well have played four fo the seven games now (two complete) and I have a few comments. Wild Bill you are a lying SOB!!!! You say British Attack in the briefing but what I get is; British Attack, Meeting Engagement British Defence I am not sure what the hell is going on now. Seriously, can you and your crew give us some insight on how you designed these things? I mean they are extremely finely balanced. Do you have a formula or something?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Patrik: Allied: Daimler, looks cool wasp, sets things on fire assault boat, the only one you desperatly need or don't need at all German. Puma, looks cool SPW 251/16, sets things on fire If tanks are allowed Allied: Churchill crocodile, realy sets things on fire German: Wirbelwind, infantry be gone<hr></blockquote> Is it just me or does this lad seem a little fixated on something? Favorite Vehicle AVRE, not because it is particularly useful but c'mon you can't beat that gun for coolness. Favorite unit. Red Devils, cool look and not to bad in the firepower department.

Hey Treeburst, Do we have any scenarios which have been entirely completed? Getting curious to see how everybody is doing.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai: Do not slight the memory of President for Life, Field-Marshal, Idi Amin Dada, MC, VC and Bar, marksman badges! Can anyone guess which of the above awards/decorations/titles/honorifics, Idi Amin was genuinely awarded/won on the field of battle? Extra points if they can also indentify the leader of the regime which proved instrumental in his toppling? BTW, at last report, Idi Amin Dada was living in Riyad with his extensive family. He apparently attempted in the mid-1990's to immigrate to the US to become a professional ten-pin bowling player. The charges of cannibalism were made by the regime which toppled him and which was from a rival tribe, so I'd take them with a big pinch of salt.<hr></blockquote> And a healthy slathering of BBQ sauce!!!

Heh ya I saw John's quote before, it is a classic. Well I would say the response has been pretty thin so far...hmm makes me wonder what those damn monkeys are up to... OK so I'll chmage the conditions. Let's look for the all time stupidest quote ever posted on the forum. Now I realize there a line up of smart guys who may be foolish enough to see this as an opportunity to take a shot at the ol Capt. Be forewarned I am a horrible force of nature when raised to anger...Fear me for I am your God!!!! Wow that probably shuld have come out in public, never mind. OK I'll start "Do those tracers come in different colours?"