Would you count an ambush as attack or defense?

[Centurian52]

I was just filling out my Combat Mission Career Record Tracker spreadsheet with the results of my latest battle when I hit a bit of a snag. You have the option of identifying the battle type as Allied Assault, Allied Attack, Allied Probe, Meeting Engagement, Axis Probe, Axis Attack, or Axis Assault. The problem is that the scenario I've just finished, TWC Right Hook at Valguarnera, opens with an ambush. The document doesn't have an option for ambush. So I started scratching my head as to whether an ambush is closer to attack or defense.

In one sense the ambushing side resembles a defender, in that they are in a static position, and the ambushed side resembles an attacker, in that they are moving. But then I thought, no, that's the wrong way to think about it. Who's attacking and who's defending isn't about who's static and who's moving. After all, it is possible to conduct a mobile defense, and it is possible to attack with fire alone. If I were to ask Clausewitz he would say that the attacker is the one conducting the weaker form of warfare with the positive objective, while the defender is the one conducting the stronger form of warfare with the negative objective.

Here we hit another snag though. The ambusher is clearly conducting the stronger form of warfare (springing an ambush), but they have a positive objective (destroy the enemy). Meanwhile, the ambushee is clearly conducting the weaker form of warfare (getting caught in an ambush), but they have a negative objective (don't get destroyed). One solution might be to say that, while the defense is typically stronger than the attack, Clausewitz was wrong to roll the relative strength and weakness of attack and defense into his very definitions of attack and defense. Perhaps the important part of his definition is the dynamic between positive and negative objectives. In that case the ambushing side, being the side with the positive objective, is clearly the attacker. A better solution might be to say that an ambush is its own thing, neither attack nor defense. But that solution isn't available on that dropdown menu in the Combat Mission Career Record Tracker. So what do you think?

[A Canadian Cat]

The scenario in question identifies itself as and "Axis Probe". I think you can see that on the Battle screen when you have the scenario selected. You can also see that in the scenario editor, plus it is visible here: https://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/FortressItaly/Scenarios/TWC Right Hook at Valguarnera.html

For the purpose of the my CM Career Record Tracker I just go with what the author designated it as. That stops all that hard thinking

[Andrew Kulin]

I will say side waiting in ambush is defender.  My logic being Attacker is side moving from A-B.  To attack you start at your initial position and move to your (hopefully) captured objective.  If attacker never moves to the location where the defender lies in wait then nothing happens.

[Vacillator]

2 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Combat Mission Career Record Tracker spreadsheet

I also have a snag.  I didn't know there was such a thing as this .

Mostly I would tend to think of an ambush as part of defending, but I suppose you're right it's not always.

[A Canadian Cat]

2 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

I didn't know there was such a thing as this

Check this out: https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/uncategorized/cm2-ww2-combat-mission-career-record-system/

It is pretty dang cool.

[Vacillator]

2 minutes ago, A Canadian Cat - was IanL said:

It is pretty dang cool.

Thanks Ian.  While you were kindly typing that, I was downloading it LOL.

Looks good, thanks to @Ithikial_AU .

[Centurian52]

11 minutes ago, A Canadian Cat - was IanL said:

For the purpose of the my CM Career Record Tracker I just go with what the author designated it as. That stops all that hard thinking

Well yes I suppose that would be the easy way out.

[Centurian52]

4 hours ago, Vacillator said:

Mostly I would tend to think of an ambush as part of defending

That thought did occur to me. I will usually try to include ambushes in my defense plans wherever possible. But counterattacks are also a common element of defense. So clearly it is possible for some of the elements making up a larger defense to be forms of attack.

4 hours ago, Vacillator said:

, but I suppose you're right it's not always.

And also that. Sometimes ambushes are their own isolated engagements that aren't part of a larger defense. And it is even possible for ambushes to be used as part of a wider attack. The example that comes to mind for ambushes as part of an attack would be Allied paratroopers ambushing German reserves moving up to reinforce a defense or conduct a counterattack during either the invasions of Normandy or Sicily.

The more I think about this the more I keep coming back to the dynamic of positive vs negative objectives. I think Clausewitz's definition was half right. I think the core element of an attack is that it has a positive objective. That is the defining attribute that is universal to all attacks. The part of his definition about attack being weaker than defense, while generally true of most attacks throughout military history, probably shouldn't be baked into the definition. From that point of view I'm inclined to think of the side springing the ambush as the attacker, since that's the side with the positive objective.

Edited January 17 by Centurian52

[Ithikial_AU]

Ian beat me to it. Just use what the designer selected in the editor. Another good rule of thumb, that lines up mostly with what designers generally determine their mission as:

- Meeting Engagement - Both forces attack each other... what it says on the tin.

- " " " Probe - Usually a small engagement with one side trying to get to a specific point on the map or spot enemy positions.

- " " " Attack - One side has a clear advantage any attacks a force that is on the defensive from the outset  (probably your ambush)

- " " " Assault - As per attack but the defender is usually dug in, in prepared positions or spread through an urban environment. Offensive side generally has a large advantage in troops and equipment up front.

For those trying out the little spreadsheet for the first time a video guide to help you out (older version but basics are all the same):

 

Edited January 18 by Ithikial_AU

[chuckdyke]

For an ambush you need prior intel and the objective could be anything. Examine the bodies for more intel or just destroy the enemy unit or see it as a spoiling attack. 

[Centurian52]

Ok yes, for the purposes of filling out the CM Record spreadsheet I could just use what the scenario is designated as. I usually ignore those designations since I figure they're really more relevant to quick battles, and don't always have much to do with what I actually find in a scenario. In any case, the point of my original post wasn't really about how to fill out the spreadsheet. I was mostly hoping for a discussion about what makes an attack an attack, and what makes defense defense (is it the relative movement vs lack of movement, or is it something else). The rest was just background to what raised the question in my head in the first place.

[Centurian52]

Since I brought up Clausewitz (and I'd be happy for someone to bring up anyone else who has offered opinions on how attack and defense should be defined), it occurs to me that I should define his terms.

Positive Objective: You seek to achieve something. You want to change the status quo by either gaining something for yourself (ground, resources, intelligence, etc...), or taking something from the enemy (manpower, equipment, ground, combat effective units, etc...). You are trying to make something happen.

Negative Objective: You seek to keep something, or prevent the enemy from taking something. You want to prevent a change to the status quo. You are trying to prevent something from happening. A good way to think about whether an objective is a negative objective or not is to think about whether it makes sense to phrase it with a negation, such as "don't". For example, you're objective may be "don't get destroyed", "don't lose a bit of ground", or "don't let the enemy gather intelligence".

Stronger form of warfare: Conducting this form of warfare gives you an innate advantage over an opponent conducting a weaker alternative. They will need to harness other advantages in order to overcome your innate advantage, such as an advantage in numbers, an advantage in fire-support, an advantage in training, etc...

Weaker form of warfare: Conducting this form of warfare puts you at an innate disadvantage next to an opponent conducting the stronger alternative. You will need to harness other advantages (numbers, fires, etc...) if you hope to win despite your innate disadvantage.

Clausewitz's definitions:

Attack: The weaker form of warfare with a positive objective.

Defense: The stronger form of warfare with a negative objective.

As the son of a logician it is very tempting for me to extend his definitions to get a very nice looking four part symmetry (looks a bit like a two variable truth table if you put ambush at the top, then defense, then attack, then reaction to an ambush):

Ambush: Stronger form of warfare with a positive objective.

Reaction to an Ambush: Weaker form of warfare with a negative objective.

An alternative, which I'm actually warming up to, is to just remove the bit about strong/weaker forms of warfare from the definitions. So an attack is simply defined as having a positive objective, and a defense is simply defined as having a negative objective. It is then possible to acknowledge that defense is usually much stronger than attack, without having to make their relative strength/weakness part of the definitions. The ambush then becomes a form of attack (the exception to the rule that attack is usually weaker than defense, without outright breaking the definition), and a reaction to an ambush becomes a form of defense.

[Limbo365]

Ambushing is doctrinally an offensive action, it can be carried out in the support of a wider defence objective but so can any other offensive action (spoiling attack for example)