The_Capt

As suggested on another thread, I am wondering what the feelings of the pro's and amateurs are on the RL application of what we do in the game to reality. Little, lot or somewhere in between? I will reserve my opinion but I think points that come out might be able to make CM2 a better game, provided anybody listens to our ranting of course.

Yup same game, Shadow I'll e-mail you with the concept soon, still looking for a committed GM (got one want two) Looks like we have enough players though

I'll put this discussion in the same file as "no running with an MG" which has also been hotly debated.

To clarify, that is one "game" per week not a turn..so 3-4 turns per day or a network game.

I'll out this out again. Concept: CM in a Bde setting. Two Bde clash against the other. I am looking for three people for a CM Brigade game. I need: 1. 2 x Bn Comds, any shape or size just be half-decent player. 2. 1 x GM or Ref, E-mail me or post a response here. I would like to get going on this. Members will need to commit to a moderate level of game play (maybe one per week) and be ready to act in the role as assigned.

Jason has graciously declined sighting personal reasons and a general problem with the concept in general. I respect that and have volunteered to "put my money where my mouth is" so-to-speak and take command of the Attritionist alliance. I intend to bleed white Fionn and his fancy feeted (is that a word)unholy horde. I intend to set military doctrine back 75 yrs and crush might with might on the battle field. "Recce pull", I can tell you what I think about that but it would get me banned like...well you know. Now I need some hearty volunteers ready to take on Mr Kelly and give him the thrashing he has been long overdue. Note: Fionn won't actually be in command of any CM battles so he will have to rely on his yet "untested" strategic ability. Please post your name on this board or e-mail me. I need sub-unit commanders who are master CM tacticians. Solid troops capable and immovable. Fancy feet need not apply.

OK, I am willing to take the helm of the other team and play an Attrition based game but now I need a volunteer to Ref the damn thing. I have a set of rules i'd be willing to discuss and have dicussed the the Great Prowler Fionn who concurs so anybody interested?

OK, I've pulled together a Brigade(Bde) model for a CM game. I have one Commander for one side and I am looking for another player who feels he/she is ready for Bde Comd. Bde Comd will command other players in battle against the other Bde. This is a simplified model which should be less cumbersome than larger historical ventures. I need someone who is ready to step up out of the trenches and take Comd of Battalions. I would prefer someone who is familiar with Bde level operations but right now any warm body will do. Any takers? Post a brief description of your experience and style ans we'll talk.

We have the one the only: Destroyer of egos; Profane blasphemer of forums He who was cast into the darkness He who has lethal happy feet FIOOOOOOONNN KELLLLLY!!!! 130 wins no loses, all Manoeuvre, he evens sleeps moving! Fionn Kelly defunct and banned bad boy of CM has volunteered to lead the forces of "decision" and defend the mentality of Manoeuvre or as you Yanks say "Manuhver". Fionn has gather a collection of hand pick evil disciples to do his unholy bidding in a bloody Operational Battle royal which will redefine "JOI DE GUERRE"!!!!! Now calling all followers of Attrition or anyone else who will stand against the Heathen Lurker...He Who's name shall not be mentioned? We need a great man..no a great killer who's desire to shed the blood of his own men is only tempered by the thirst for that of the enemy. Where is our Attrition Hero?!!

Still looking for an Attritionist volunteer. Going once!

Combined Arms, You are correct but there has been heated debate as to which doctrine is or should be dominate. As well as which doctrine has been historically used. I am not going to force two commanders to "play a certain way". I instead plan to start with to opposing views and then watch the fireworks. Once the commanders are chosen and detailed hashed out, each side will need about five strappin CM volunteers to play sub-commanders. You won't own units but points. For example, if you are a sub-unit commander you will start on the board with 1000 pts. You will purchase units according to your pre-determined arm (combined, armoured and I am going to have to add Recce) then you will recieve orders from the commander and move on an Operational map. As the game unfolds and you start smacking the enemy (battles to be determined by QB) you will have to be resupplied (by points) by the commander. The commander will only have a set pool from which to draw from and distribute. To spice things up, deep penetrations will reduce that pool, modeling logistic units getting pounded. In addition I am looking at command and control getting scambled as an enemy gets deeper into friendly territory. The catch is that a penetrating unit will only be resupplied if it isn't cut off. If it is cut off it can't get points or reinforcements) and I will begin to reduce it ammo loadout. It will run out of gas eventually and die. This way we keep a balance between rapid movement and a need to maintain a logistics chain. I have a lot more but I am going to wait to talk it out with volunteer commanders so that we can all agree on the rules. As to a web site, I have absolutely no idea as to how to build on but I will keep the forum updated on the results. Now I still need someone who favours Attrition strategy.

Henri, I will just have to ask you to trust me on this one. I am looking at taking CM and moving it up a level. The concept is (and this is open to negotiation with the commanders) is to put the CM QBs into a operation setting which will mimick a Bde in operations. I really want to avoid over complication of this so I intend to simplify the "over-game" without losing the basic elements of warfare. It is very hard to explain here and I want to talk to the commanders Mr Kelly has volunteered to be the Manoeuvre Commander and now I just need an Attritionist to command the other side...Mr Cawley where are you? I don't really want to 'accomplish" anything but I think the expirement will be interesting and rewarding. Not to mention fun which is after all what this is all about. I think if we use CM as a tacticl engine we can command players on a simple field of battle and see what to radically different adherents to two schools of thought will do.

Ok to clarify, I am planning to setup an operational scenario in which the play of the actual CM QBs only provide results for individual battles between sub-units in order to model the effect the "Tactical" has on the whole. We are talking of taking CM and dropping it on a "GO" board type scenario. I will be adding a terrain factor so that everybody can try what they like. This is not the definitive answer but I think it may allow some of the more antagonistic members of the debate to release some aggression and maybe learn something. For Maj Tom, may I suggest you read the various threads on the subject. You will find that we have gone quite deep into that area and the balace of the two systems in warfare.

ALS Vetran, we are agreeing loudly. I totally agree that warfare is a balance between Attrition and Manoeuvre. Jasons position (which seems to have shifted) in it's original context is no more dangerous that the extreme of Manoeuvre which has sprung up. Both have to be weighed and used where appropriate.

OK, I think I have worked out a very simple method to emulate an operation. It is gamey in some respects but only to keep it simple. The aim of this exercise is to allow for a CM environment in which we can truly test Attrition vs Manoeuvre against each other. I am looking for two Commanders. Now before everybody jumps on this, I am going to be snobbish about who gets to command (there is room for decent CM tactician later). I am looking for someone who is either professional military or has a professional level of knowledge of what I am talking about. Mr Cawley springs to mind as the Attrition Commander but I will take other applicants. I am looking for a brief description of which side you prefer and why and why you should be allowed to command one side or the other. The Commander will be in charge of other players who will fight the QBs which determine the flow of the game. The 'map" is very simple and is in no way a "recreation" of Kursk, Normandy or some such monstrosity. I hope this will allow us to put to rest the continuing argument and allow us to learn the one true lesson which is CM.."Forgiveness" I will be talking details with the two Commanders and then will allow them to "handpick" a team of players who will fight the battles. Your thoughts,

I guess this clearly shows a seperation between CM and RL. Mortars are to be feared, in the extreme in Rl. 1. They give no warning unless you are close enough to here the "snap" from the tube and my opinion that is waaaay too close to the MG team covering the mortar. 2. They have a much smaller impact area than Arty. So when you are caught by a mortar barrage you know it's personal. 3. Their rate of fire is obscene and should be banned by the Geneva Convention. One minute all is quiet, the next the ground is boiling and you are trying to be a gopher. Arty is effective too but at least it gives you a little warning and it is an area weapon so you don't feel like you are being picked on. My thoughts

First of all I am Canadian and contrary to popular belief we are not the 51st state and still use the proper English spelling. Or at least till they give it up and we all talk Yank. I think it may be time to settle this like men and CM it out. I am trying to develop a CM Campaign system which would allow us to test these theories but I am having a hard time. It needs to be very simple but built around CM battles. Let me chew on this and I'll take suggestions. Mr Cawley, Everybody hold your hats but I think I agree with most of what you say. Even though the length of the disertation was extreme. I think there are some serious dangers associated with the "cult of manoeuvre" which can lead to disaster if not tempered with a healthy dose of realism. I shy away from the "bleeding of the screen" idea however as it smacks of real attrition. I think the Manoeuvre is the "desired end-state" of any strategy, operation and Tactic. The ability to hit the soft underbelly, smack the chin, get the ball behind his defence or whatever. It is Manoeuvre which (it is believed) will win wars by getting the enemy in a reactionary stance and keeping him there. It is a good philosophy but a little narrow (as American driven philosophies tend to be...cheap shot but I couldn't resist), as you have pointed out Mr Cawley, often Manoeuvre is not possible. We have listed several reasons: Troop Quality Differential: If our boys are a poorer quality in training, experience and motivation, the system by which we attain Manoeuvre will break down. Our jr leaders cannot be entrusted or empowered to execute intent over orders, a tenant upon which the whole freakin house of cards rests. Duration of conflict and Political will. As conflicts protract without the quick victory our "Nintendo generation" has come to expect, the will to conduct bold, risky plans really falls flat. In fact current political climate favours attrition far more than Manoeuvre. I will use a case which will raise eyebrows, Kosovo. The attrition strategy worked. Let's bomb em from high altitude until he's had enough and leaves. It even led to a loss of political power. I think we won that one but it was't Manoeuvre. Manoeuvre was the Russians rolling into the airport at Pristina (sp?) saying, "go ahead send in the airborne...I dare you". That was risky as hell, could have cost them a lot of lives but paid off in political consessions. American Manouevre would have been a major Airborne operation onto the border of Serbia, followed by amphibious assault link up. We would of caught most of the Serbian forces in Kosovo before they could withdraw and set the stage for a push into Serbia and settled this once and for all. Problem is most North Americans (including myself) would call that insane. Why should we get a few thousand of our boys killed when an air assault can do the job? Let's commit the ground troops after they have been bombed into submission, a much better plan but not bold Manoeuvre. Technological Tempo; if our kit allows us to move, see, think and plan faster we have a better chance at Manoeuvre. If it is the other way around, you have a problem. I think time to front or reaction also falls into this category. Opportunity or timing; a very "touchy feely" concept but one must be able to know when the conditions of Manoeuvre are ripe. Is it a gut feel or a checklist of conditions. I am not sure and contrary to modern doctrine, neither are they. In conclusion, I think that reality is "shades of grey" in which both systems will be employed. An attrition defence may provide an opportunity to conduct Manoeuvre. A Manoeuvre may set the stage for Attrition. It is the use of both of these tools and what I believe is coming (the techno hybrid of Attrition control/Manoevre mentality) which seperate the winners from the losers in future wars. Finally to Mr Abteilung, this is not "b*llsh*t" nor is it simple. These types of discussions elevate our concepts of warfare and put us on the road to a professional viewpoint rather than an amateur one.

AT guns are deadly but only when sighted in pairs (or even threes). Keys to taking them out is isolate and destroy or heavy arty. Smoke em off and get a platoon (at least) within range and assault. May I also suggest a flank approach. You can use armour but always ensure you have at least one more gun firing at them than they have at you. Two regular tanks can usually take out an AT gun if they can both see it. That is the trick. A good defender will place his ATs in positions where the only tank which is going to see him is a dead one.

I may not know a thing about WWII armour penetration or the effectivness of the old grenade against an HT. But... A satchel charge is about 12 pounds of HE, which even if it doesn't blow a hole in the tank, it is going to a) concuss the occupants to the point that they will become casualties and Anything not welded onto the inside surface where the charge is placed, is going to fly around in there. Creating an early version of a blender. If a engineer assault in which one or two charges actually hit the tank isn't causing a veh casualty there is a serious problem with Close Assault.

Sorry, Yup that's it. I forgot about the follow thru and hiding the Platoon HQ. I've actually done that in the game and got the whole mortat group wiped out by counter-mortar.

Mike, Double click your Platoon HQ so that the mortars are "boxed" too and give the target command. Also make sure your mortars aren't hidden. This feature is to duplicate the need for the mortar group to be "under command" of the HQ with LOS.

Excellent post Mr Cawley, I think I am beginning to like you...even though you are an Artsman. We should play a game sometime. To answer your question. They don't know. In fact the ability to make that decision (plant or dance) is highly instinctive and really separates a good commander from a great one. I can offer a few conditions which may make one system better than the other; a. Manoeuvre is very dependent on the system of "empowering subordinates" and instilling commanders intent. In simply terms tell the boys why they are doing something, or more importantly know why we are doing it in the first place. This system, dangerously presupposes that our troops can in fact be trusted with this information. If you have a highly trained and experienced force OK but conscripts..forget it. I strongly believe the first Decision Point is in the quality of the troops. Second is the enemy. A highly trained enemy is going to lay barbwire, sight it with a machine gun and train troops to be so aggressive as to charge for close combat. Using your analogy, the real concern is the MG bunker (or Strategic Concern if you will) the Tactical concern is the lunatic with the sword. If the enemy was of poor quality, had forgot the barbwire, carried a dull/rusty sword and is blindfolded but still had a fairly decent working MG then your concern is to side-step "Samurai wanna be" and try to take out the MG. In short the quality of the enemy will also determine the usability of Manoeuvre. If he is really good you wont have a chance until you have won the Attrition battle or the "dog-fight" as I like to call it. The political will. Manoeuvre is risky. It can get out of control and, against a prepared enemy, you can find yourself "suckered" really quickly. Manoeuvre can lead to over extension and asymmetrical advances, very dangerous if the enemy knows what it is doing. These risks will cause casualties and (as Blackhorse has stated) has an increased effect on the length of conflict as it usually leads to more dead people. Opportunity. The ability to recognize an opportunity for Manoeuvre is the real trick and nobody here can tell you whether or not it has arrived. It will be a best-guess and if it works you are brilliant and if not you are dead. Technology. The nuts and bolts of battle also determine on the viability of Manoeuvre. One has to have the ability to "move" troops, collect intelligence, process intelligence and plan faster than the other guy at a sufficient rate in order to obtain Manoeuvre. How much faster, the best minds will spout numbers but I will stick to fighting and say "when it looks right". You are perfectly justified in your frustration with "the community" on these subjects. Strict adherence to Manoeuvre "in all things" is in my opinion very dangerous. I agree with you that WWII showed clearly that Tactical and Operational Manoeuvrist mentality doesn't add up to much if you are being pounded Strategically. It is not surprising in my mind that Germany was Strategically Attritionist (let's take em all on, in brute force). The driving force behind their Strategy was a Cpl in WWI and had obviously decided to apply the lessons "not learned" from that War to his level in the Second. I strongly believe (and history will back me up on this) that the two systems are two sides of the same coin and a truly masterful fighter is not only capable of switching but also knows when to do it.

Sorry boys, been away having a life and missed all the good juicy bull**** flying hither and yon. Mr Cawley, I have followed your tirades now on several threads and I think you really need to define just what the hell you are asking. The gist seems to be some sort of angst about Manoeuvre and Attrition. And as I have stated before you wouldn't even be asking the questions had you any real understanding of the two schools of thought. I do not find it surprising that you are in fact an academic and an Artsman no less. Please phrase your question in one maybe two sentences and clearly define you required response. Do you want to talk Strategic, Operational, Tactical or philosophy? Are you looking for a definition, a concept or a counter argument? Are you trying to define the use of the two schools or simply refute one of them? I am sorry, I am a poor Army officer who needs the "aim" clearly spelt out and you "smart fellas" tend to overwhelm us. Now let's let the healing begin and perhaps we can come to a few conclusions about Manoeuvre and Attrition. Now as Mr Cawley has desperately called out for, a clear model or example where Manoeuvre actually works and what are it's limitations. Now rather than pontificate about old battles which we really don't understand because a) We weren't there and We cannot recreate the mind set of those that were. Any and all speculation as to the events of these battles when trying to determine something as nebulous as doctrines of Manoeuvre and Attrition is but mental masturbation and slightly amateurish in my humble opinion. I would ask for someone who actually commanded a major formation (Bn or higher) in operations to come forward with an inside example. If not let's stop babbling in circles. I will present an example, at it's lowest form and remove the questions of motivations and systems of employment. I will instead use the area in which I learned the most about warfare and the two schools; the boxing ring. The "square ring" represents to me warfare at it most distilled form. All of the elements are present and much easier to examine and explain. Much more productive than "the Battle of Kursk" or trying to encompass any enormous event in a few paltry paragraphs. In short, what Mr Cawley failed to recognize as an option for his limited responses is the fact that a true answer would be a Master's Thesis not a few quick blurbs on the CM forum. Now boxing. Fighters exercise tactics, operations and strategy. For example, a 1-2 hook, duck, upper cut is a tactical drill to be applied to an opponent when he moves into range. A round is an operation, with a specific aim, do we try and tire the opponent out, feel him out, or pound him. The entire fight has a strategy based on foreknowledge of the opponent. Should we go for the quick kill because this guys "got legs" or should be play "tag" and wear him out? Now for Attrition and Manoeuvre. Fighters usually lean one way or the other. Attritionists tend to be big, ugly guys that will try and pound you into "meat-mash" even if they have to take a few hits themselves. The are betting that their bodies will not tire as fast as yours and that they can take more punishment. You may note, that even these fighters try and hit weak spots on their opponents and not the fists (although I've met a few). This is a Manoeuvre goal but delivered via attrition. Manoeuvrist fighters tend to be light and fast. They hop into range, throw a few and back out. They do try and wear down an opponent but at the Operational level they seem to be practicing Manoeuvre. They can also however, look for the "decisive battle" in which they can end it once and for all. Lastly, there exists the truly gifted fighter who can do both. Ali was a clear case in point. If you want to learn "hammer and nail" or "rubber meets the road" lessons in warfare watch Ali. This guy could move like a feather-weight even when he was a heavy. He could dance around for three rounds and then "plant and cook" an opponent just when he was getting used to doing the chasing or retreating. Now pay attention, no matter how fast and light you are there is an opponent who will be so big and powerful that you are going to get killed unless you introduce something truly revolutionary to the process like a "stun-gun" or never get hit. The problem is, he can miss 99% of the time and still win. You have to be perfect. Much the same if you take a fighter so huge that it takes him 5 min to throw a punch, a fast guy will "beat him to death with pillows" even if it take a few days. In these simple exercise lies most of the lessons you need if you want to talk "reality" and they are a lot more attainable than a detailed analysis of the Battle of Stalingrad or any other such exercise.

My price is simple; Three virgin maidens of negotiable continuation of their virtue The head of Bill Gates in a jar of wine and honey A moment of true contentment The resurrection of John Wayne The death of all things "Pop!" with a special pole for the heads of "boy bands" The overthrow of G.W. Bush for someone more moderate like Yosemite Sam. The end of violence outside of a non-reality medium. A CM afterlife.

For, Mr Cawley. I think you are at last seeing (or perhaps where just keeping it a secret all along) the entire picture. One cannot address tactics at any level without first addressing the philosophies and methodology of the two schools. You have focused on historical example and direct tactical problems. Now in your last post you have addressed the "systems" which sprung from the "spirit" of the two schools. Now take a hard look at the mentality or philosophies of the two schools and we can get somewhere. The problem with historical analysis is that "we are here and they are there". It is very hard to determine if Napoleon was a genius or just lucky. (Probably both). If you wish to look forward and talk about the future of war or if what we are speaking of has an application to CM, I believe it would be more productive.