Should one have a reserve....?

[Trooper]

Think about this one for second.. Without automatically coming out with the usual stuff about being able to react to enemy actions, or being able to reinforce success (Or defeat, should you wish!)

A line struck me in the book 'Fleet tactics' which said that over history, military commanders have done things simply because it's the way things had always been done, be it send out flanking forces or outposts or what-have-you. He also states that there's no point in a reserve in the case of sea combat, as all it does is remove potentially balance-tipping firepower from the fight initially. You are only fighting with 3/4 of your force at best, and when you do commit the last bit, you're just going to get chewed up piecemeal. He does accept that in land combat, a 'reserve' makes more sense

However, to an extent, I wonder if he means more in the strategic than tactical sense. You have to stop with the 'reserve' business at some point. A platoon doesn't have a reserve. About the only time in a PBEM that I will usually have one is in a static defense, where I would need some mobile ability to deal with the enemy thrust. I'm a serious believer in concentration of firepower, and a reserve simply dilutes this.

So who else just throws most everything forward then?

NTM

[dalem]

Trooper-

I always try to keep a reserve, even if it's just a squad or two back from the main line. Has paid off more often than not. It's sometimes critical to be able to bring in a couple of fresh units when the rest of the field is scattered, maybe broken or shaken, and low on ammo.

-dale

[Havermeyer]

I think it is critical in many of the CM scenarios. After reviewing a map, I try to reserve up to 1 platoon to throw into the mix, moving them near the area I believe my line will crumble first. I also try to reserve noncombat vehicles to speed their ability to mix it up. I think it is indispensible on both attack and defense.

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

"Two World Wars and One World Cup, do da, do da!"

--British Hooligan, sung to Camptown Races

[Jarmo]

I leave the reserve out only in desperate situations, when

I really need to strike at one point with all I got.

When defending, a reserve is a necessity. Without it, you

have to guess where the enemy is going to strike.

On attack, I tend to first test the defences, and only after

locating a suitable position for attack, I go with full strength.

Note, that the reserve doesn't need to be very large. For me,

in a normal quick battle, it's usually just an AFV or two.

[paullus]

On the defensive, I tend to keep my AFVs in reserve until I can tell where the enemy attack is coming from. I also try to clear out the most obvious threats (Fireflys, Churchills, etc), before committing my own tanks.

I also try to keep a couple of squads, an AT team, and maybe a MG in a central location and start moving them towards the hottest area of combat. This tactic has saved my butt more than a few times just as a position was about to be overrun. Even one full-strength squad can make a difference late in the game.

[Supertanker]

As others have said, I almost always have something in reserve. It might be a couple of squads or a single AFV, but it can help to have something. Speed being a force multiplier, I prefer a couple of AFVs.

I just finished Doubler's book, and he notes that though doctrine called for a reserve, there were many times where American commanders entered the fight without one (Aachen and several key Bulge battles). They did this on purpose because they wanted all guns front to maximize firepower. I think he is talking about larger formations than those of CM, though, and most of the battles he discusses involve some form of mobile reserve to prevent a breakthrough.

[Henri]

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

You have to stop with the 'reserve' business at some point. A platoon doesn't have a reserve. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are cases (see the infantry formations tutorials on Thegamers) where the standard procedure is to send two squads forward and one behind in reserve.

In many infantry formations, one can consider a flexible formation where one or more units lag behind ready to support the others as the use of a reserve in the wide sense of the word.

If you don't have a reserve and your line breaks or the enemy shows up at an unexpected location, especially in situations where reaction time is slow, you can rapidly find yourself up the creek without a paddle.

The "reserve" idea is just one implementation of the concept of maintaining flexibility in the face of uncertainty. Clearly the side with more ability to adapt should carry the day.

Having said this, there are cases where a reserve is not appropriate because it removes units fromthe fray; one such case is when the disposition of the enemy is fully known, and where he is on the defensive. That didn't happen too often in the real world during WW2: just ask the Germans who failed to spot the massive Soviet reinforcements coming in the battle for Stalingrad.The lack of a reserve force to plug up the collapsing flanks doomed the Germans to defeat.

Henri

[IntelWeenie]

The size of the reserve depends mainly on the size of the unit in question and the situation.

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

A platoon doesn't have a reserve.NTM<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As Henri pointed out, most common platoon formations do include a reserve. The platoon's reserve is one squad (or even a 1/2 squad). Does this mean that squad is supposed to hang back far enough to not be engaged? Not always. It just needs to be back far enough to be able to easily break contact and maneuver. Likewise, it needs to be close enough to be able to react in a timely manner. Depending on terrain, that can be as little as 20-30m or as great as 80-100m.

The same holds true for larger formations. I almost never keep fully 1/3 of my force in reserve, but will keep enough back a bit to plug holes, exploit success. How far back depends on the range of their weapons and their mobility. Notice that if the reserve's weapons are long ranged, they can still be used for fire support if you need it and remain out of the main fighting.

I think the only unit that would not have a reserve would be the squad.

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

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[Trooper]

I don't consider the concept of a unit lagging behind, as in Soviet doctrine, to be a reserve, since it will be committed to battle, it's just a question of where.

That said, no matter what the enemy does, I tend to ignore it unless it poses a real and immediate threat to my mission. I've found that one of the worst mistakes you can make is react to your enemy. You lose the initative. If you're barrelling towards the objective, and suddenly a unit appears heading for your rear on the other side of the map, just keep going. Finish what you were going to do, then once the place is secure, deal with the new unit (If required for your mission) If the unit is close enough to affect your achieving the objective, and you need reinforcements to deal with it, then they're going to the same place anyway. Might as well bring them along to start with.

This policy has done me well in the past. I've seen too many games lost because a player has lost sight of his objective and instead decides to try to kill the enemy.

NTM

[Guest Rommel22]

The best tacticians in WWII stated that reserves are a must. Like evryone here siad, you need to bring in fresh troops if the situation is dire.

Also you can use those resrves to sneak the behind enemy lines trough a unprotected area. When all his forces are tied up with yours at the front, and you a have a platton in resrve you can flank him with that reserve via a different route. This is what resrves are for, counter-attacks on the enemy and to restore the front.

I also never put my tanks in the front, I always put inf. in the front and armor behind them. Armor I use for counter-attacks. Read books like: Erwin Rommels' Infantry Tactics. That book tought me so much about inf. tactics.

I met with retired and current soldiers in the U.S. military and they all said they issue Rommels book as a must read, so cinsider that.

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

Russian tactics as said by von Mellenthin "Bridge heads everywhere"

[coe]

Interesting thing to consider about reserves.

Attack: "reserves" can be shifted to place additional emphasis at a certain point of battle, such as a weak spot or a necessary place that needs to be taken - but this should be distinguished from lets say the exploitation force in a break through (which has a very specific role)

Defense: Reserves can be applied once the direction of the main assault is determined.

In Naval Battle, often the first to strike has won (and you better strike decisively) and when you think that in Naval Battles there isn't really any front line, and supply lines behave a little differently.

Especially as Germans in terms of reserve deployment - you must be very careful that the reserves can make it to where they might need to go, i.e. pre-plan your approach routes when positioning them...imagine if they are spotted at a distance - think - airpower, artillery, will they make it there in time, in one piece? On a more combat missions related era, one might examine what happened as the panzer reserve was released to help fight the allies at the beaches.... I believe Panzer Lehr lost something on the order of 100 vehicles in one day marching alone due to airpower.

[paullus]

Actually, Panzer Lehr & 2nd SS Panzer did lose about 100 vehicles (not AFV's) on the march to Normandy, but since each unit had several thousand vehicles, this was not as large a hazard as some would have you believe.

[Henri]

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

That said, no matter what the enemy does, I tend to ignore it unless it poses a real and immediate threat to my mission. I've found that one of the worst mistakes you can make is react to your enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ho boy! How about the adage that no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy?

"Captain, I just spotted three German tanks approaching on our right flank!"

"Just ignore them and follow the plan, Sargeant; we don't want to lose the initiative!"

I thought that having the initiative consisted of forcing the enemy react to your actions. Not reacting when one is on the receiving end in no way ensures that one has the initiative.

Of course you are correct in saying that there are situations where one is better off coninuing with the present plan, but that is a choice that one must make and which cannot be made in advance.

IMHO there are more cases where the appearance of some unexpected event requires a change of plans than cases where one just carries on. Of course, if the plan is good, some flexibility has already been incorporated into the plan.

Henri

[buddy]

Preserves? Never use 'em on the battlefield. Always buy fresh, that's my motto.

Um...oh, reserves.

[Trooper]

"Captain, I just spotted three German tanks approaching on our right flank!"

As I said.. "Unless it poses a real and immediate threat to my mission" Three Germans may well pose a threat, so I may stop advancing, deal with them, and then continue.

Elsewhere on this site, look up the CPX AARs for TacOps, you'll find a lot of the players during the self-criticism section keep saying that they wished they had gone with a plan and stuck with it, instead of dithering here and there.

NTM

[coe]

Well, there is something to say for keeping with the objective, and sometimes you need to ignore the threat - but the appearance of enemy tanks might make you want to re-evaluate things from time to time.

As for loosing a 100 vehicles in two days of

march to Normandy, even if you have a several thousand vehicles, that's still significant - especially if they are nice support vehicles, and fuel trucks. And I doubt one could last long at that rate.....

[IntelWeenie]

First off: good thread, no flames

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

[bElsewhere on this site, look up the CPX AARs for TacOps, you'll find a lot of the players during the self-criticism section keep saying that they wished they had gone with a plan and stuck with it, instead of dithering here and there.

NTM<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO, having at least some forces in reserve is an integral part of any good plan. As stated before, flexibility on EXECUTING one's plan is often one of the keys to victory. Having a reserve force does not mean it should be wasted on unimportant tasks.

Within the scope of CM, I find a platoon reserve to be really helpful in longer scenarios when everyone's ammo starts reading LOW and they're the only ones who can shoot.

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

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>paullus: Actually, Panzer Lehr & 2nd SS Panzer did lose about 100 vehicles (not AFV's) on the march to Normandy, but since each unit had several thousand vehicles, this was not as large a hazard as some would have you believe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. Possible typo? 'several thousand'? That estimate contradicts everything I've ever read about...well...anything.

Since I'm bored at work....

If I'm really generous and grant that a German Panzer Division had say, the equivalent of six whole battalions of vehicles (two of tanks, two of SPGs, and two battalion-equivalents of SPAA, SPA, Recon, and transport), well then even granting each battalion fifty functional vehicles (again very generous), I can only get 300 vehicles per division.

If I've got 300 functioning vehicles and 100 of them get whacked, I'd consider that significant, even if the casualties are limited to 'just' the transport/supply vehicles.

Even assuming I'm wildly off in the wrong direction and giving 500 vehicles to a division means 100 of them is 20% of my total mobile assets.

Oh well, back to work...

-dale

[Talenn]

To me, the mark of a good wargame is one that make me WANT to have a reserve. If I can just put everything on the line and blast away (and win), then the game's modeling is a bit off IMO. CM generally makes me want to keep some troops back from the line so as to have a cohesive unit that I can throw where I want it.

I think any game that has good FOW creates a more favorable atmosphere for wanting reserves. In games like ASL, you basically KNOW were the bad guys are, so having a reserve is not quite AS necessary IMO. But to me, a reserve ALLOWS surprises and/or PREVENTS enemy surprises.

My only issue with CM in that way is that it's often too hard to move reserves to the point of decision unoticed and intact. There are far too many keyhole shots and unexpected LOS holes to move about once the shots start flying. I think that units are able to spot a bit TOO efficiently in some cases. Its not overly dangerous, but annoying when the enemy can always see every move you make.

That makes me WANT to put everything on the line, as at least then I'll be in fighting holes and/or in position to surprise the enemy when on the defensive. On the attack, I follow Soviet doctrine, i.e...attack across a broad front, identify the weak points and pour everything and it's mother through the hole your troops create. I take horrid casualites on average in the initial assault, but I pay the enemy back in Spades.

In this situation, I feel that reserves are critical. Its hard to extricate your troops once they fully engage, so I like to have an uncommited (and preferably mechanized) element to exploit any weaknesses discovered by the assault teams.

I guess its all a matter of play style.

Last question: Are you basing your lack of need of reserves on games vs the AI or do you play Multi as well? I've found that the AI RARELY does anything surprising to me, so the need for a defensive reserve is greatly diminished. When I play against local friends, I'd have to be out of my mind not to have SOME sort of reaction force.

Talenn

[Fionn]

I think people are mixing two things up..

Following one's plan is an entirely different issue to keeping a reserve.

Generally I think that one should always follow one's own plan but that a reserve is a great force to keep to prevent the enemy's plan from interfering with yours.

Also, I'll point out that a plan to simply sit and react to the enemy's actions IS a valid plan.

In many cases it can even be quite a good plan.

[Henri]

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

Also, I'll point out that a plan to simply sit and react to the enemy's actions IS a valid plan.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From reading your AARs, it is not the kind of plan that you use very often...

You're not trying to set up your next opponent for one of your "attacking is the best defence" strategies, by any chance?

Henri

[Formerly Babra]

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

A platoon doesn't have a reserve...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't yet read any of the replies to your excellent question, so my apologies if this has been addressed, but I must point out that even platoons keep reserves. Standard Brit/Com Doctrine in late '44 was "two up - one back" or "one up - two back" depending on mission and frontage. This applied right down to platoon level and right up to Division (if not higher).

As to what *I* do, well that would be telling, wouldn't it?

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

It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE.

[Darwin]

Trooper, your no reserve strategy is valid and probably works well but their are myraid tactics of various strengths and weaknesses.

Some keep almost everything in reserve while probing with a minimal force till targets are identified and prioritized. This also is a valid strategy.

As to which is better I would say it is mostly situationally dependent with your personal style playing big as well.

I like to have reserves if at all possible.

[Trooper]

Well, I don't know about 1944 Brits, but my 1999 cavalry troop (Platoon equivalent) tended not to.

I do vastly prefer to play against humans. IMNSHO, I'm good at it too. (For evidence, see my TacOps trophy elsewhere on this site!)

I find the 'single-minded' approach works better against humans than against AI. There's no double-guessing potential deviousness. AI is usually a little more direct.

I do accept that keeping to the mission, and not keeping a reserve are seperate philosophies, but it seems to me that the one enables the other to succeed better. I'm not saying that my philosophy is best, I'm just wondering if there's anyone else that follows my line of thinking. Maybe I've just been playing too much Harpoon...

NTM

[This message has been edited by Trooper (edited 07-25-2000).]

[Fionn]

Nah Henri, it is simply that I don't have a single tactic I always use.

I simply "go with the flow" and that often results in my playing wildly differently games at the same time. One time I'll attack into the mouth of an enemy assault while sometimes I'll do a phased retreat while other times I'll pick a line and hold it to the death etc etc.

It pretty much is just random what I do. Remember that I've played 50 or more PBEMs but you've only seen 2 or 3