What is maneuver warfare?

[Holdit]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri:

consider the case where Rommel had his tank commanders wave white handkerchiefs as his tank battalion rolled unmolested right through French lines.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they went straight through the french lines, where's the manoeuvre bit? How does using subterfuge to get through as opposed to

fighting your way through constitute manoeuvre warfare?

I'm not so sure about it being such a new idea. Wasn't Napoleon's "Manoeuvre sur les Derrieres" based on similar principles? His encirclement of Mack at Ulm is generally held to be an example of this, but how often was such a result achievable even by the great man himself? Not very often, especially once his enemies had cottoned on to the tactic. Even in the course of that particular episode of the 1805 campaign, battles had to be fought for key locations, if I remember rightly. Surely in the world of the continuous front, the scope for such pure manoeuvre is even more limited.

[General Panic]

Okay, here is my grossly over-simplified definition of "maneuver warfare": It's the form of warfare practiced by forces with superior mobility to their enemy.

Put differently, manuever warfare is doing everything you can do to avoid fighting until YOU are ready and hopefully the other guy isn't.

On the CM level, using Henri and Steve's now well-beaten dead horse about capturing a bridge, manuever warfare is about getting the bulk of your forces in position to attack along the axis of least resistence before the defenders know what direction the attack is coming from.

These definitions probably won't fly in scholarly circles, but they work for me.

------------------

Two Rules to Live By:

1. Never Get Out of the Boat.

2. Charlie Doesn't Surf.

[Blackhorse]

Curiously enough, there have been no responses to my arguments....anyhoo

Heinz Guderian, in his excellent book, Achtung Panzer addresses the German way of war…the Blitzkrieg

After reading it, you’ll be able to draw your own conclusions regarding the Germans and “maneuver warfare”. I personally find this bit fascinating and enlightening.

The Tactics of the Panzer Forces and Their Cooperation With the Other Armspg. 178

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> By way of illustration we shall set our panzer forces the task of gaining a decisive victory. This they are supposed to accomplish by launching a concentrated surprise attack against a line of enemy filed fortifications, aiming at a point which has been selected by our commander and which is favorable for the deployment of tanks. We have chosen the breakthrough of an enemy position as our example, in preference to alternatives such as mobile operations, envelopments or pursuits, since a breakthrough is perhaps the most demanding mission that could be set.

In this instance we are uncertain whether the defenders have laid out minefields. But, we know for sure that their anti-tank weapons are capable of piercing our tanks at entry angles in excess of sixty degrees and ranges up to six hundred meters, and that they have about as many tanks as we have.

The attackers now have to choose their method of assault, considering first of all what elements of the enemy defenses are respectively the most and least dangerous. If there are mines in front of their positions, they could exact a heavy toll on our tanks…

We next have to reckon with the anti-tank guns. These will be deployed throughout the entire depth of the zone of defense…

The attacker must now do something to attenuate the fire of the guns in question. He cannot afford to go on to assault secondary objectives as long as he is under their muzzles, which leaves him no alternative but to destroy them outright, or arrange to have them silenced.

To destroy anti-tank guns our tanks must either take them under direct fire at the halt from behind cover, or overwhelm them by a mass attack. In addition the anti-tank guns can be suppressed by artillery or machinegun fire or blinded by smoke…

The tank’s most dangerous enemy is another tank. If we are unable to defeat the enemy armor the breakthrough has as good as failed, for our infantry and artillery will be unable to make further progress. Everything comes down to delaying intervention of the enemy anti-tank reserves and tanks, and getting in fast and deep into the zone of the hostile command centers and reserves with our own effective tank forces – and by effective we mean forces that are capable of waging a tank battle. The best way of delaying the intervention of reserves is through aircraft, and this is probably one of their most significant contributions to the ground battle…

As we have seen, the breakthrough battle imposes some pretty tough demands on the tanks. Success is probably attainable only when the entire defensive system can be brought under attack at more or less the same time (Blackhorse: MANEUVER???).…

It is therefore of great importance to strive to bring the entire depth of the enemy defense under simultaneous attack. This ambitious task can be fulfilled only by a large force of tanks deployed in sufficient depth, and with tank units and tank leaders who have learned to fight in large formations and, when the enemy puts up unexpected resistance, to smash that resistance with speed and resolution.

In addition to depth, the breakthrough attack also needs a broad enough frontage to make it difficult for the enemy to bring the central axis under flanking fire. If a tank attack is so narrow that the area of the assault is actually enfiladed by machinegun fire, the other arms will be unable to follow the tanks, and no durable success will be achieved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackhorse:

Curiously enough, there have been no responses to my arguments....anyhoo

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, this whole discussion snowballed and then petered out prior to any added comment from me earlier. But I wish to state, Blackhorse, that your earlier post citing the "principles of combined arms warfare" from the Leonard "maneuver" reference was the best post offered on this topic so far. I also appreciate the conciliatory tone you took with Henri, in that you disagreed not with his argued principles on maneuver but rather with Henri's interpretation of "maneuver" as handled in CM's scale.

(Hmm, the verbage above seems a bit cumbersome... )

Anyway, Blackhorse, good effort. Carry on.

[RMC]

my brain hurts. I will now seek enlightenment by meditating on the nature maneuver warefare.

A warrior asked Master Haryo, "What is maneuver warfare?"

Haryo said, "An open-eyed man falling down a well."

ohm.

It is like a water buffalo passing through a window. Its head, horns and four legs all pass through. Why can't its tail pass through, too?

ohm.

There is no grasping the nature of maneuver warfare

And no casting it aside.

Only so can the center

Of the unattainable

Be attained.

It is silent when it speaks

And speaks when it is silent.

Wide open stands the mighty door

Of the giver

Truth.

ohm.

[BigFatGeneralSafeAtHQ]

And here I thought this thread would cover aggressive parking methods outside malls during the christmas rush.

------------------

"What, me worry?" - Alfred E. Newman

[IntelWeenie]

For the truly curious, this is what happened to this thread:

"That's it, I'm outta here..." http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/011721.html

Anyone care to continue this discussion(debate?) about maneuver warfare?

------------------

Cats aren't clean, they're covered with cat spit.

[Guest Pillar]

Interesting how history repeats itself.

Wish I had been given a chance to read this thread before.

Would have saved myself the effort.

[Louie the Toad]

Blackhorse, I agree with your thinking, mostly. (I have not read all of the postings in this thread so maybe what I say has been said, but if so it bears repeating:

1. CM is tactical. If there were an operational component to CM ( for instance a game on a larger scale with the smallest units being battalions) and that game generated the tactical encounters, then the taking of a hill, crossroads, bridge or town would be placed in the context of the player's overall operational plan and the reason for taking a position would be clear. The flags in CM are an attempt to put that kind of context into the tactical game w/o playing an operational game. I have done this type of wargaming and it gives significance to tactical objectives.

2)I repeat, CM is tactical. In an earlier post, Guiderian was quoted as saying the tank engine is as important as its gun. He is talking about operations here. The Blitzkrieg. Unfortunately this is not modeled in CM. The speed and mass of an armored sweep is simply not a part of the game because you get caught between the edge of the map and the enemy. Dont get me wrong, I love this game but lets be honest. CM tank actions are mainly shoot and scoot.

3)Yours and my solution: A larger map will give more operating space to all units. I have posted this request before. Please BTS, lets have larger maps so there is room to maneuver out of range and sight of the enemy. Right now a battle of 2000 pts. per side is carried out on approximately 1200x1200 meters. Lets have maps "the size of Texas". Well, at least 2500x2500 meters for 2000pts. (I am tired of the quick battle shootouts where units can"t move from their set up positions because they get into firefights on the second turn) But I do still love this game.

------------------

"Too much of a good thing...

is wonderful." -- Mae West

[Guest Pillar]

I think there is plenty of room for maneuver warfare in a 1200x1200 map with 2000 points worth of force. Plenty.

I'm not going to debate it however. Just my humble opinion.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Speedy:

I have always considered maneuver warfare to be the concept of winning a battle through maneuver.

Or to put in another way maneuvering your forces into a battle winning position before engaging the enemies main force. Winning the battle through maneuver as opposed to firepower.

If that is the case, then it is mostly a matter of psychology. It would not matter what your force has done so much as what it threatens to do. To some extent, this is how the Germans won the Battle for France in 1940.

But I think you overstate the case a little. In real life, we nearly always find that a maneuvering force has to do some shooting somewhere along the way. Indeed, one of the purposes of maneuver (especially at the tactical level of CM) is to achieve a local superiority of firepower.

Michael

[iggi]

Shouldn't the correct term be relative manouver warfare?

The blitz would be an example of a static line faced with an overwhelming stress at a point whereas air land battle deals with a fluid force and the force you place on it as it is in motion.

So the blitz is a special case where the defenders speed=0 and the relative motion at the point off attack is at it's maximum and therefore most effective and in that case, with pressure along the French front, the French are too distracted to react in time.

In airland battle, the defensive line retreats and attacks are conducted along the enemy advance. What is happening then is that the defender is manouvering with the attacker to decrease the relative motion thus avoiding overwhelming force at a point.

Since the Russians depended on hordes of tanks, communication gets more difficult the faster you advance. The russian's speed becomes it's distraction. Nato, using smaller high tech units reacts faster ie manouvering faster. So in a sense nato is blitzing because it's relative manouver at a given point is faster than the soviet's.

[This message has been edited by iggi (edited 01-31-2001).]

[Dr. Brian]

My o.o2 zlotey....

You can't use manuver warfare to it's greatest extent in CM. We are limited by the maps, and the fact that the maps have boundaries (i.e., edges).

This makes application of the Boyd cycle difficult.

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Guest Big Time Software]

True to some extent, Dr. Brian. But as has been pointed out before, beyond the map edge is not necessarily hospitable territory for movement (terrain and/or strong enemy forces). This is the inherent problem with map edges.

The player is both protected and restricted by map edges at the same time. But it has to be that way since every military unit has its boundaries, either through orders ("your sector is here"), through circumstance ("enemy forces too strong there, so we aren't going that way), or due to terrain ("that area is all swamp/water").

The only TRUE way to simulate maneuver warfare, as outlined by Pillar and Henri, is to bump up the scale of the game to, say, Divisional or higher. Then you would get comand of one tiny slice of that force, be issued orders from SOMEONE ELSE, and then act upon those orders at the next lower level of simulation.

For example, let us say the game is Divisional. There would be a front with say at least a dozen divisions from each side, positioned in a frontline of some sort. You would be given command of one Regiment, or perhaps Battalion, of one Division. That is ALL you would be able to command. The next higher unit would issue your orders ("advance to X, take Y, defend against enemy assault, etc.") and you would have to obey them to the extent allowed by the parameters of your level of command. You would issue general operating orders to your units in concert with other units on your left and right. Then you would get to order the units themselves, within the boundaries of the higher orders, to acheive the desired goal/s set forth by them.

That folks is the only way this type of maneuver warfare can be simulated in a game. Combat Mission is just ONE tiny slice of the big picture. Therefore, you obviously can't experience the whole deal because at CM's level you aren't supposed to (in real life or in the game). You are just a bunch of grunts following orders. You do not have the authority or knowledge necessary to operate in a vacuum from what else is going on around you. And if you attempted to exceed your local level of authority, you would most likely find yourself peeling potatoes for the rest of your military service. Plain and simple.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

That having been said, there is room for tactical maneuver warfare in CM. For example, the defender can set up his forces where he wants. This follows the spirit of the command structure of maneuver warfare (i.e. let the local commander work out the details). The attacker can either opt to engage the enemy's mail line of resistance or skirt it, assault head on or try a pincer, take the objective or instead concentrate on anhiliation, abandon the attack instead of fighting to the last man, switch point of effort instead of being forced to stick with the original plan, and in the case of multiple flags... decide which objective to go for and ignore the others.

Keeping all this in mind, CM does in fact simulate maneuver warfare as defined by Pillar and Henri. The critical difference is that at CM's level you do NOT have control of certain decisions. You can not say "nah... I don't like this battle, I wish to fight a different one" nor can you say "I want 1000m of more room on the left side of the map, without any more friendly or enemy units on it", nor can you say "I don't think taking that bridge is very important, even though my commander instructed me to take it do or die". And that is all very realistic. In CM, you are just too far down on the ladder of command to make these sorts of requests/decisions.

Steve

[Dr. Brian]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

You are the company commander ordered to take a bridge. Specifically, your orders read "Captain, take your company and assigned assets, secure the railroad bridge over the Schwift River by 10:00 hours, and hold out until releived. It is the ONLY bridge in the sector and the river is not crossable by any other means.

Steve, this is the whole thing about the Boyd Cycle. You don't need to "physically" take the bridge.

Most of the time, just possing a hill, or twon, or some key, dominating peice of terrain will accomplish that.

I think that's what others (well, at least me) are saying in way too many words.

What it comes down to is your definition of manuver vs. Henri's or my definition of manuver. And that is based on how much schooling we've each received.

There is no clear cut definition. And your manuver is my attrition.

Thoughts appreciated.

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Dr. Brian:

Steve, this is the whole thing about the Boyd Cycle. You don't need to "physically" take the bridge.

Most of the time, just possing a hill, or twon, or some key, dominating peice of terrain will accomplish that.

I think that's what others (well, at least me) are saying in way too many words.

How is taking any terrain "maneuver" warefare?

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

[Guest Big Time Software]

Dr. Brian wrote:

Steve, this is the whole thing about the Boyd Cycle. You don't need to "physically" take the bridge.

Crossing a bridge you don't physically control is a rather cool concept My examples was a rather common one for an attacker in a WWII setting. Bridges are a critical "tactical" componant of operational maneuver. If you can't cross a river, you can't get to the other side, meaning you can't do squat until you do.

Most of the time, just possing a hill, or twon, or some key, dominating peice of terrain will accomplish that.

True, so long as you do not need it for your own uses. Demolishing a town center and not taking it might denny use of the road network to the enemy. If that is the goal, then it would be silly to take the town. But if the goal is to control the road net for your own use, then somehow you need to get the enemy out of there. Obviously, getting him to pull back on his own is the best method. But WWII shows that wishfull thinking wasn't a very valuable planning tool

I think that's what others (well, at least me) are saying in way too many words.

What it comes down to is your definition of manuver vs. Henri's or my definition of manuver. And that is based on how much schooling we've each received.

It also heavily depends on how it is applied. There are CLEARLY different ways/limitations of implementing grand thoughts of maneuver. In relation to CM, the larger concept of maneuver warfare, as described by Henri or you, is simply not applicable to CM's level of combat. At least not to the extent being argued for when this thread started.

There is no clear cut definition. And your manuver is my attrition.

Totally agree. However, once the battle is joined (i.e. CM scenario) attrition is very much the name of the game. At some point you actually have to take out the enemy's forces, and that time is what is simulated in CM.

Steve

[Dr. Brian]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

True to some extent, Dr. Brian. But as has been pointed out before, beyond the map edge is not necessarily hospitable territory for movement (terrain and/or strong enemy forces). This is the inherent problem with map edges.

The player is both protected and restricted by map edges at the same time.

Yep ... I see your point.

On another note, i hate to call myself a follower of "manuever warfare." I do prefer the "indirect approach."

As defined by Lind and the "spirit" of his book, it is my opinion, that CM has difficulty modelling this.

Well, at least the scenarios I've played.

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[PeterNZer]

Perhaps we shall learn some more of Man. War. in the CMMC coming soon, where division shall clash with division in a titanic struggle, phwoa!

*can't wait*

PeterNZ

[Dr. Brian]

Originally posted by Dr. Brian:

As defined by Lind and the "spirit" of his book, it is my opinion, that CM has difficulty modelling this.

And Steve says....

Totally agree. However, once the battle is joined (i.e. CM scenario) attrition is very much the name of the game. At some point you actually have to take out the enemy's forces, and that time is what is simulated in CM.

You just addressed my opinion. I see it, and so do you.

So, when does a game of "indirect approach" get developed?

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Michael Dorosh]

So is the "board-edge creep" as borrowed from SL/ASL an example of

a) brilliant maneuver tactics

or

a gamey solution

??

PS - I hate the word blitzkrieg - mainly because as far as I know, the Germans didn't actually use it. I am told it was a British reporter's word, used to describe what the Germans themselves called "schwerpunkt" - the practice of concentrating forces on a small point. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm this?

------------------

http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm

[Guest wwb_99]

Personally, I think manuver warfare is very appliciable to CM. Personally I define manuver warfare as 'creating an advantage for your force by forcing the enemy to manuver in response to your manuvers.'

In this category falls all manner of feints and flanking moves, generally forcing the opponent to anticipate your move and shift his forces or change his plan to account for it. Gaps in his lines will form and some forces will be moved out of the battle area in the process. Taking advantage of these gaps is manuver warfare.

A good example of this, while quite out of CMs reach would be Cannae. Here Hannibal presented a weakened center that persuaded the roman general (blanking on his name) to attack, thus pulling him forward and allowing Hannibal's wings to close in behind him and crush him.

WWB

------------------

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[PeterNZer]

Not sure about who said it, but I read in Guderian that it wasn't a term (Blitzkreig) that they used themselves, (the Staff).. not sure who thought it up.

PeterNZ

------------------

"Patriotism is the virtue of the viscious" - Oscar Wilde

"Don't F*CK with Johnny Cash!" - Chupacabra

[Guest Big Time Software]

Dr. Brian wrote:

So, when does a game of "indirect approach" get developed?

Hehe... LONG way off

Michael:

...as far as I know, the Germans didn't actually use it.

Your understanding of the origin of the term is correct. However, if I am not mistaken the Germans quickly adopted it because a) it aptly described the way Germany was conducting warfare (at that time) and because it had a lot of propaganda value as a term. But it was never, to the best of my knowledge, used as some sort of official military term by the Germans at the time.

Personally, I think manuver warfare is very appliciable to CM. Personally I define manuver warfare as 'creating an advantage for your force by forcing the enemy to manuver in response to your manuvers.

I share this definition with you. But it is not what the theory of "maneuver warfare" is all about. To over simplify it, you aren't ever supposed to get into a straight up battle with the enemy. If it looks like a tough fight, do something else. As others have said, this is a good theory, but it can not work as a day in, day out method for shaping actual operations in the field. It is, in my opinion, a good concept that should be executed whenever it makes sense. Just as rushing at an objective with all guns blazing sometimes makes sense too. There is no magical solution to warfare, so claiming there is only one "right way" to do it doesn't lend much credibilty to whomever is arguing that there is.

Again... at some point the enemy forces MUST be engaged. At least in a large scale war against a determined and cunning foe. You should use large and small scale maneuvers to achieve maximum advantage (concentration of numbers, hitting ill prepared defenses, etc.), but eventually combat must be engaged. And anybody that thinks that they can ALWAYS do so on their own terms is just fooling themselves. It doesn't work that way in the real world.

Steve