Attack Lanes

[Flibby]

I don't know whether this might help anyone, or may be an interesting discussion point or not, but anyway...

I consistently used to look at a map and decide upon an avenue of attack based upon terrain alone. "That looks like a nice foresty side of the map, let's go that way.."

The issues I found were either:

1) The enemy was more concentrated on my avenue of attack, was as it was clear to me was also clear to them;

2) As I had overly committed to the attack on a narrow axis, my flanks were wide open and I was unable to maximise my frontage when my guys were so grouped up.

Having read through a number of WW2 era tactical manuals, my new approach is to attack over a fairly wide frontage overall, but to use narrower frontages on certain routes. Obviously this can be changed if the circumstances require it. 

You might think that this spreads your forces too widely, but remember, not all combat power is the guys on the ground. In-fact, most of your force multipliers are artillery, mortars, HMGs, tanks etc. If you focus these on the 'main effort' platoons then it doesn't matter that roughly the same number of rifle squads are spread over the front:

 

Edit - if this was really fking obvious, I apologise for everyone's time

Edited January 31 by Flibby

[A Canadian Cat]

Good post with some good thoughts. Thanks. I like the idea of some places along the wider front get prioritized. By the same token some places can be de-prioritized - I'll skip going through the middle of that field thanks, we'll move around the forested edges instead. Using terrain is super important for sure. I might consider adjusting my usage a little based on thinking about your post.

 

1 hour ago, Flibby said:

Edit - if this was really fking obvious, I apologise for everyone's time

You know it it was "obvious" it was still a good a reminder. We all need that now and then.

[Centurian52]

Everything seems obvious once you've thought of it. It's actually thinking of it that first time that's the tricky part.

[holoween]

2 hours ago, Flibby said:

I don't know whether this might help anyone, or may be an interesting discussion point or not, but anyway...

I consistently used to look at a map and decide upon an avenue of attack based upon terrain alone. "That looks like a nice foresty side of the map, let's go that way.."

The issues I found were either:

1) The enemy was more concentrated on my avenue of attack, was as it was clear to me was also clear to them;

2) As I had overly committed to the attack on a narrow axis, my flanks were wide open and I was unable to maximise my frontage when my guys were so grouped up.

Having read through a number of WW2 era tactical manuals, my new approach is to attack over a fairly wide frontage overall, but to use narrower frontages on certain routes. Obviously this can be changed if the circumstances require it. 

You might think that this spreads your forces too widely, but remember, not all combat power is the guys on the ground. In-fact, most of your force multipliers are artillery, mortars, HMGs, tanks etc. If you focus these on the 'main effort' platoons then it doesn't matter that roughly the same number of rifle squads are spread over the front:

 

Edit - if this was really fking obvious, I apologise for everyone's time

TBH thats not at all how i think about it.

I know this image is just supposed to be an illustration but if i look at it with this plan overlayed it looks to me like a failed attack. Specifically 3rd pln will be unable to advance due to flanking fire while 1st and 2nd pln will both get pulled into the same forest and get artied.

This is what id expect the defensive setup to be. assuming the brown line marks a hill and the green area is forest.

Id also expect position 2 to be lightly defended but have a trp on it to destroy attacking units there and then run a counterattack from position 3 hugging the north west side of the hill.

So for a plan id go with something like this

1st platoon attacks position 3 with 2nd platoon following behind and supported with all arty. 3rd platoon runs a supporting attack on position 2 to tie it down.
this automatically takes all troops on position 1 out of the fight, hits the likely highest troop concentration with arty, clears the way to the objective and cuts the fallback path from position 1 and 2.

[Flibby]

3 hours ago, holoween said:

TBH thats not at all how i think about it.

I know this image is just supposed to be an illustration but if i look at it with this plan overlayed it looks to me like a failed attack. Specifically 3rd pln will be unable to advance due to flanking fire while 1st and 2nd pln will both get pulled into the same forest and get artied.

This is what id expect the defensive setup to be. assuming the brown line marks a hill and the green area is forest.

Id also expect position 2 to be lightly defended but have a trp on it to destroy attacking units there and then run a counterattack from position 3 hugging the north west side of the hill.

So for a plan id go with something like this

1st platoon attacks position 3 with 2nd platoon following behind and supported with all arty. 3rd platoon runs a supporting attack on position 2 to tie it down.
this automatically takes all troops on position 1 out of the fight, hits the likely highest troop concentration with arty, clears the way to the objective and cuts the fallback path from position 1 and 2.

You're right that it was a very arbitrary paint illustration, but interesting points.

I'd be worried about not tying down eny position 1. In a static exercise they might be out of the fight, but in reality they've retained freedom of manoeuvre. They might make nothing of it, or they could flank your attacking force.

The findings I've had with the broad approach let's me orientate my main effort as I go. This approach is more prescriptive and if the enemy setup is not what you expect, it's harder to change on the fly imo.

[holoween]

8 hours ago, Flibby said:

You're right that it was a very arbitrary paint illustration, but interesting points.

I'd be worried about not tying down eny position 1. In a static exercise they might be out of the fight, but in reality they've retained freedom of manoeuvre. They might make nothing of it, or they could flank your attacking force.

The findings I've had with the broad approach let's me orientate my main effort as I go. This approach is more prescriptive and if the enemy setup is not what you expect, it's harder to change on the fly imo.

The tropps from position 1 are not in a position to threaten my flank. They can reinforce the other positions, move to the objective or stay put. If they tey to flank they run right into my fire support. If they reinforce the other positions they fight where i want to fight and so can concentrate my fire and that is if they arrive in time. If they move to the objective ivcan defeat tem in detail. if they stay put i dont even need to fight them.

Now this approach requires good terrain analysis or it will become difficult.

If the enemy deploys vastly different he isnt conforming to the terrain and simply wont be much of a challenge to defeat.

Id also challenge the idea that there is less freedom to manouver with my approach. I have an uncomitted platoon so i can react while broad front approach may find itself engaged everywhere at the same time. That might work in its favour if you have a massive firepower advantedge but id rather not count on that.