How many players have educated themselves with proper military tactics?

[chuckdyke]

Watched a tank chats video. Recon by fire the narrator called it kicking an ant hill. Looking more at the concept, it makes sense. Outposts are the top and you find out how the defense is constructed by aggressive action combined with what you would do if you were the enemy. Just scouting won't cut it. Kick the hill analyse the terrain and routes towards the objective. 

[Aurelius]

During my service, having read the tactical manuals, I have concluded the following - they are good for kindling (or if you are out of toilet paper). Much more information in technical manuals (weapons, explosives and so on).

In order to get good, you need to understand the basic structure of an attack or a defense. Selecting a target, selecting the approach route, calculating the forces and means necessary for the support and the assault, selecting a place for a base of fire, selecting a reserve place for the base of fire (because a mortar strike on the primary base of fire is inevitable), dealing with mortar strikes on your advancing troops (inevitable), the assault itself and fighting in the depth of the enemies positions, and preparations for the counter-attack.

You need to be able to predict the flow of the battle. Good news - you get better with time.

[hank24]

 Funny thing, sometimes it is just the opposite. I served in the German army as signals sergeant being responsible for my battalion HQ and being very interested in observing the tactical development on the operational map there. Did not learn very much though.

Years later I was an engineer and with one of the major German defence companies at the simulation branch. Tactical knowledge was very rare there, so after some convincing one or the other ex-officer, I was able to apply my knowledge from reading and some years experience with Combat Mission and other wargames.

Very useful when you help train officers abroad at our tactical simulator (up to division per side) or when the company starts to develop an operational simulation. For that I tried to bring Battlefront to the attention of the management, but they had already decided for another sim kernel. That was total crap and I told them, but nobody listened. Very much later they regretted that, but that is not my problem anymore - I am retired happily.

Edited August 12 by hank24

[Bil Hardenberger]

On 8/6/2024 at 2:38 AM, Aurelius said:

During my service, having read the tactical manuals, I have concluded the following - they are good for kindling (or if you are out of toilet paper). Much more information in technical manuals (weapons, explosives and so on).

In order to get good, you need to understand the basic structure of an attack or a defense. Selecting a target, selecting the approach route, calculating the forces and means necessary for the support and the assault, selecting a place for a base of fire, selecting a reserve place for the base of fire (because a mortar strike on the primary base of fire is inevitable), dealing with mortar strikes on your advancing troops (inevitable), the assault itself and fighting in the depth of the enemies positions, and preparations for the counter-attack.

You need to be able to predict the flow of the battle. Good news - you get better with time.

Maybe the Serbian manuals weren't informative,  but I have read a lot of field manuals, from the US Civil War and especially German and US manuals from WW1 to the present and though yes, not all is applicable to reality, the basics are very well spelled out (maybe not in the US Civil War manuals) and lay the foundation for tactics need to be understood before tactics can become an art and inventive.

Bil

[Aurelius]

I found that reading manuals leads to template/predictive thinking, which ends up with people being killed/maimed.

The point being, most people don't understand the basic structure of the attack/defend scenario, and piling on useless information is counterproductive in that case. Their foundation is non-existent.

In the end, I found that knowing your weapons and equipment, knowing your men (personal qualities and capabilities) guarantees a positive outcome. Reading through manuals and obsessing over minutiae will inevitably lead to decision paralysis.

[chuckdyke]

21 minutes ago, Aurelius said:

I found that reading manuals leads to template/predictive thinking, which ends up with people being killed/maimed.

On the Claymore Mine is written: "Front Toward Enemy". I don't think reading this ends up with your own people being killed/maimed.