More on Doctrine

[kevinkin]

You may have viewed this via a post here ... if so here it is again. It is right up our alley ....

 

 

 

[Flibby]

Sorry I had to stop watching when the narrator clearly didnt understand the first world war. No mention of Cambrai, hultier ractics or Rommel. 

[kevinkin]

The focus was not on the details of WWI but rather the overall concept of maneuver warfare vs attrition warfare in winning campaigns and wars, not battles. There will be elements of both in most military conflicts especially at the tactical level. Hutier and Rommel may have advocated and or practice maneuver warfare at that level. But there was no way in WWI to follow up successful maneuver tactics strategically and in the end attrition warfare always settled back in without a decisive result. Comparing France in 1917 and 1940 may not be the perfect example. But most people watching the presentation will be quite familiar with those wars compare to earlier conflicts in history.

Kevin

 

[sand digger]

I'm not going to spend all that time listening to something I've probably familiar with but comparing the development in warfare as of late WW1 to that of early WW2 is entirely legitimate, German fanbois should remember that it was the Allies who won and they did so by developing all arms warfare to the extent that the Germans were beaten because the Allies were able to penetrate through miles of defences until there was nothing stopping them except their lack of suitable equipment, a situation which of course was addressed in WW2. 

German infantry, just like any other infantry, was going nowhere without mechanical support which is where the future lay. As WW2 showed.

[JasonC]

kevinkin - sorry for the lateness of the reply.  The problem I have with your comment is that WW2 was also very clearly decided by attrition  processes.  Maneuver theory never offered more than some force multipliers in either war, tactical in the first if you like (though they did reach operational scale importance in the east and early on), but never strategic or war winning even in the second  war.  Attrition as the overall strategic wrapper in great power war is not something maneuverism has repealed or overthrown, despite the claims of its advocates. In fact, it has lured its practitioners into forms of military "gambling" in  which they attempted more than they could accomplish, failed to achieve the decisions they loudly proclaim they were aiming at, and at best just managed to inflict a better loss ratio against the enemy, which was only ever of attrition-logic importance.

[kevinkin]

Did I say WWII was decided by maneuver alone?  I am not sure what you are disagreeing with Jason. 

[Michael Emrys]

Jason has a tendency to get a mite touchy when the subject of maneuverism comes up. My own opinion, if anyone cares, is that maneuver is important in battle if it gets you someplace where your fire is more effective; if it gets you onto an objective that the enemy cannot abide so that he is forced to attack you on your terms; or it compels him to retreat from a location that you would rather not he be. That strikes me as pretty self-evident and not at all revolutionary. The point that I've seen Jason make more than once is that at some point you are going to have to shoot somebody in order to win a battle, you can't win just by swanning around. You may have to fight a break-in battle to get room to maneuver and you may have to fight another battle at the completion of your maneuver. You fight these battles primarily by killing and destroying the enemy's ability to resist. This is normally called attrition.

In any event, as I understand it, maneuverism is more of an operational and grand tactical concept involving larger formations than we see on the CM battlefield, although it can come into play there too.

Frankly, I find it a bit hard to see what all the noise and controversy are about. I suppose the maneuverists are trying to offer an alternative to the bloody and futile frontal attacks of the First World War. But at some point a frontal attack might be the only option one has. And provided one has the necessary superiority of force, it need not be futile at all.

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

Makes eminent sense @Michael Emrys. What ever way you slice it you will need to move in order to be able to fire on the enemy and ger the needed fire power advantage.

Jason seems to enjoy taking whatever anyone writes in a way that allows him to declare them wrong and his point of view correct so he can remind us again how we are all wrong and that his is the one true voice.

[Wodin]

I'm not going to spend all that time listening to something I've probably familiar with but comparing the development in warfare as of late WW1 to that of early WW2 is entirely legitimate, German fanbois should remember that it was the Allies who won and they did so by developing all arms warfare to the extent that the Germans were beaten because the Allies were able to penetrate through miles of defences until there was nothing stopping them except their lack of suitable equipment, a situation which of course was addressed in WW2. 

German infantry, just like any other infantry, was going nowhere without mechanical support which is where the future lay. As WW2 showed.

and sadly the British and other allied nations never looked at developing the combined arms idea after the war. However the Germans did,  they could see the huge potential in the Tank and so worked on pefecting combined arms with increasingly more advanced AFV's and so where miles ahead at the start of WW2. The British had decided there wouldn't be another War and really didn't want to contemplate Warfare and hwo to fight future wars, nor really take a look at the Tank and how to really unleash it's full potential in combined arms warfare.

[JasonC]

Kevinkin - you ask what I was disagreeing with.  In relevant part, you wrote 

"the overall concept of maneuver warfare vs attrition warfare in winning campaigns and wars, not battles... there was no way in WWI to follow up successful maneuver tactics strategically and in the end attrition warfare always settled back in without a decisive result."

I claim the sentence after the ... is just as true of WW2, and that maneuver warfare was only important in winning battles, and not wars.  (At least in that era - 6 days war might plausibly be argued either way).  I agree that in WWI, maneuver only mattered tactically, and at the strategic level attrition was always the decisive issue.  I claim that in WW2, maneuver occasionally mattered operationally, a step above tactically, if you like, but never strategically, and attrition remained the decisive issue at the strategic level throughout WW2.  

Going beyond my disagreement with your statement to further positive claims of my own, I claim there is more essential similarity between the two wars than most suppose. I claim WW1 generals were not too stupid to practice maneuver, and WW2 generals were not more clever because they did practice it.  Both practiced it, both expected too much from it, and in neither case did it deliver what they expected of it.  It did provide some tactical force multipliers in both wars.  It could be done well or badly, likewise in both.  The best performances applying it did get more out of it in WW2 than in WW1, but made up for it by betting the farm on successes from it that it simply could not deliver.  I claim such mistakes lost the war.  I claim the only sound grand strategy for any of the sides in WW2 was an attrition strategy, and to the extent any of them thought they were in any other kind of war, they were wrong, and that it hurt them mortally to be wrong about so critical an issue.

Clear enough where I am coming from?

 

[kevinkin]

It does not matter. I made a general reference to winning campaigns and wars not specifically 20th Century conflict. Note the use of the phrase "overall concept" above. So you are disagreeing with something I never stated. 

Kevin

Edited March 17, 2016 by kevinkin

[JasonC]

kevinkin - as long as you agree that maneuver never won anything - before the 6 days war at least - while attrition was always the decisive question, we have complete agreement.  If you disagree and think that maneuver is a better way to win campaigns and wars and that attrition is only an unintelligent fall-back that arises when people aren't smart enough to win through maneuver, then we have complete disagreement.  What you previously said is entirely irrelevant to the question; it turns only what you try to maintain is true, now.  If the answer is "nothing", you are free to say so.

[Rinaldi]

kevinkin - as long as you agree that maneuver never won anything - before the 6 days war at least - while attrition was always the decisive question, we have complete agreement.  If you disagree and think that maneuver is a better way to win campaigns and wars and that attrition is only an unintelligent fall-back that arises when people aren't smart enough to win through maneuver, then we have complete disagreement.  What you previously said is entirely irrelevant to the question; it turns only what you try to maintain is true, now.  If the answer is "nothing", you are free to say so.

k lol

[Michael Emrys]

kevinkin - as long as you agree that maneuver never won anything - before the 6 days war at least...

Your reference to the Six Days War reminds me that one book that I read about it reported that the instructions given to the field grade officers were succinct: "Get in the enemy's rear, raise hell, and keep us informed of where you are and what you are doing."

Michael

[MOS:96B2P]

Your reference to the Six Days War reminds me that one book that I read about it reported that the instructions given to the field grade officers were succinct: "Get in the enemy's rear, raise hell, and keep us informed of where you are and what you are doing."

Michael

That sounds like an interesting book.  If you remember the name of it, and can post it, I will see if I can find it on Kindle.  I just finished my last book and I'm looking for another to read. 

[Michael Emrys]

That sounds like an interesting book.

It is, and prior to last summer I could have simply gone into my library, pulled it off the shelf, and rattled off the title and name of the author. Alas, another casualty of having to liquidate my collection. Breaks my heart.

I looked on Amazon under the topic but nothing looked familiar. I expect that Eric Hammel's account is likely to be the most useful, FWIW. Also, I happened to notice that the copyrights on the editorial reviews place it in about the right time frame for what I read. And there is a Kindle edition.

Michael

[MOS:96B2P]

<Snip> I expect that Eric Hammel's account is likely to be the most useful, FWIW. Also, I happened to notice that the copyrights on the editorial reviews place it in about the right time frame for what I read. And there is a Kindle edition.

Michael

Got it!  Thank you, Sir!  

[Michael Emrys]

Got it!  Thank you, Sir!  

Hope you find it a satisfying read. The more I think about it, the more confident I feel that this in fact is the book I read twenty some odd years ago. I am tempted to get the Kindle version for myself, but I prefer books that I can hold in my hands while sitting in bed.

Michael

[76mm]

On 3/20/2016 at 0:20 AM, Michael Emrys said:

I prefer books that I can hold in my hands while sitting in bed.

OK, but I'd like to point out that reading a kindle in bed is actually better than a book, because it is lighter and backlit, so you don't need other lighting.  I've spoken with lots of people that for some reason resist reading on a kindle, but i've come to prefer kindle books to the paper versions.  

[MOS:96B2P]

On 3/20/2016 at 4:20 PM, Michael Emrys said:

Hope you find it a satisfying read. <Snip>

It is a great read.  I am really enjoying it.  Learned a few things about the early days of Israel I didn't know as well.

1 hour ago, 76mm said:

OK, but I'd like to point out that reading a kindle in bed is actually better than a book, because it is lighter and backlit, so you don't need other lighting.  <Snip>

This reading in bed with no external light is one of the most useful features of a Kindle IMO.  You can also highlight and write notes in the Kindle.  A list of these highlights and notes are recorded in the notes section of the book.  When you click on any of the items in this list it takes you to their location in the book.  Very useful for reviewing and retrieving information.  

However I do prefer the look of the "real" books I have up on the bookshelves. 

The one worry I do have is if anything were to happen to all the highlighted, notated books I have stored in the Kindle "cloud".  Maybe due to some electronic problem or virus issue?  I guess the "real" books in the library could also all be lost in a fire or tornado............ Oh well, happy thoughts only. 

[Michael Emrys]

36 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

The one worry I do have is if anything were to happen to all the highlighted, notated books I have stored in the Kindle "cloud".  Maybe due to some electronic problem or virus issue?  I guess the "real" books in the library could also all be lost in a fire or tornado............ Oh well, happy thoughts only. 

The thing is, in how many locations is the cloud stored? If it is only one and that one goes down, then everything is lost. If you lose a printed book, that is only one copy gone, and unless it is an heirloom one of a kind, easily replaced.

Michael

[JonS]

You're also at the mercy of the vendor. Amazon arbitrarily decided several years ago that they didn't want their customers to retain ownership of books they'd bought ... so they revoked that and deleted copies remotely. Ironically one of the books was 1984.

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/some-e-books-are-more-equal-than-others/?_r=0

 

Edited March 25, 2016 by JonS

[76mm]

4 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

The thing is, in how many locations is the cloud stored? If it is only one and that one goes down, then everything is lost. If you lose a printed book, that is only one copy gone, and unless it is an heirloom one of a kind, easily replaced.

I don't get this argument at all...with a digital book it is in at least two places--on your kindle and on the cloud.  You can also have it downloaded to several other devices if you want.  Usually I'll have a book downloaded on my kindle and on my iPad using the kindle app; the book is synced between the two, so I can always open to the current page; sometimes I'll download to my iPhone as well.  If you lose your kindle, your can re-download all of your content for free.  Meanwhile things like magazines and newspapers are delivered automatically and for free via wireless.  I can honestly say that living overseas, having a kindle has been a "life-changing experience"--I can get almost all of the US books, magazines, and newspapers delivered instantly--it is a huuuuuge benefit.

If you're worried about the cloud "going down", presumably you mean Amazon going out of business?  If you see that coming, you can just download all of your content to your devices.  If it is a short-term crash, I am fully confident that Amazon will have it back up quickly, along with all of my content.  

Meanwhile, with a printed book if you lose it, is gone.

2 hours ago, JonS said:

You're also at the mercy of the vendor. Amazon arbitrarily decided several years ago that they didn't want their customers to retain ownership of books they'd bought ... so they revoked that and deleted copies remotely.

Yes, that happened exactly once as far as I know, and that was several years ago; Amazon has promised (for whatever that is worth) that they won't do it again.  To me, the tiny chance that Amazon will go bust in the forseeable future or make a regular practice of deleting purchased books are far more than offset by the benefits described above.  Moreover, this feature can also work to readers' advantage, because books can be "fixed" with corrections and/or updates.

Of course I also still really like a nicely printed book, but at this point I only read them sitting at home, and moreover I'm out of space on my bookshelves so have to be very selective about what new paper books to buy.

Edited March 25, 2016 by 76mm

[Michael Emrys]

51 minutes ago, 76mm said:

...moreover I'm out of space on my bookshelves so have to be very selective about what new paper books to buy.

In my situation, this is the most convincing argument I've heard.

Michael

[Bud Backer]

One of the advantage of Apple's iBooks over the Kindle format is that I can back up all my Ebooks to backup drives. I don't have to redownload if I don't wish to. 

Like 76mm, I have so many books that storage is a major issue, and much as I love the feel, look and smell of paper, nothing beats the electronic copies for simplicity of storage. 

I do an enormous amount of reading now on the iPad. 

Edited March 25, 2016 by Bud Backer