The Debate with ScoutPL continues...

[Guest Pillar]

I'm not letting this drop. ScoutPL is giving everyone great advice on how to play CM under US Army doctrine, which is fine. But when it comes to recon, he claims anything else is just "Gamey" and unrelated to real life tactics.

This is the most US-Centric claim I've ever seen on this board.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ScoutPL said:f you define scouting to be pushing a few elements forward to clear the route of your main body as it advances then you are using sound tactics. If you define scouting as moving a bunch of small units forward to find the enemy before you even committ to a plan of attack then you are playing the game, not simulating combat at the tactical level. Which ever you do is up to you and is fine with me. But you couldnt try to sell them to anyone as legitimate tactics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. American forces send their scouts out, locate the enemy, and then leave it to their firepower to destroy what they find. But the Russians don't. The Russians scout the entire front and don't choose a route of attack until the weakpoint has been discovered. They scout at the tactical level, not just the operational level.

This debate isn't my personal gripe, and it isn't limitted to Combat Mission.

The NTC is currently actively in debate with the likes of ScoutPL to draw American Doctrine away from "route recon" which ScoutPL advocates and towards the superior "Command-Push, Recon-Pull" style of the Russian and German army.

I asked Fionn about this and these were some general points he made.

The US army picks a route, recons it to establish enemy strongpoints, and then adds how to overcome these points to their plan.

The Soviet army recon on a broad front (as I advocate) and choose where to attack based on the weaknesses.

So ScoutPL, please stop telling everyone that anything short of your US influenced doctrine is "gamey" and do a little searching for the NTC debates.

It is my opinion that the Soviet attack-recon style is superior to the US style, and I have statistics to back that up.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 11-09-2000).]

[Terence]

what about ScoutPL's contention that the scouting has already happened, once you get to the CM battlefield, and that the forces are too close, and time too short for actual recon the way the army does it? (ScoutPL -- forgive me if I misrepresent your point.)

Terence

____________

It is not enough that I should succeed. My friends must also fail.

[Croda]

Pillar, I'm going to jump into this discussion unarmed, so don't shoot me right away. Now are these Russian tactics, the same tactics that called for human-wave attacks on the East Front? It seems to me (and I really hate to make this statement, but I'm going to anyway) that the Russian doctrine treats the soldier as a tool, and if you have a lot of tools (which I believe they did) then use them up, they're no good to you when the fighting's done. The US doctrine seems to view the men as more valuable assets, desiring to retain the man and his training to fight again.

Now, having made broad sweeping statements comparing the sanctity of human life between two coutries, and most likely reigniting the Cold War, what comments do you have to this? The Russian tactic may have a lot of success in the assault, but is it the overall best tactic when fighting a large campaign with limited resources (men)? I honestly don't know, though I feel that you have loads of numbers to throw out here. Let's dive in and see what comes up.

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

"Nuts!"

[Guest wwb_99]

There is a really good explanation of German battlefield recon doctrine at Games of War (I forgot the URL, someone please post it). This approach is radically different from the approach that ScoutPL advocates.

Also, on a much more general level, the German military has a much higher proportion of 'reconissaiance' troops at every level than comparable armies. One lesson learned on the Ostfront was that 'knowing is half the battle.'

WWB

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

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salatamus.

[Guest aaronb]

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

The NTC is currently actively in debate with the likes of ScoutPL to draw American Doctrine away from "route recon" which ScoutPL advocates and towards the superior "Command-Push, Recon-Pull" style of the Russian and German army.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How is this a superior style? Is the superiority universal, or only extent in the context of a Soviet-style force composition? If it is universal, why did Soviet client states using this doctrine regularly fail against US doctrine (outside of guerilla warfare)?

In the context of overwhelming US material and technical advantage, the current recon style may be superior. For example, route recon gives better time-to-goal, since the battle plan does not wait for recon.

[This message has been edited by aaronb (edited 11-09-2000).]

[Vergeltungswaffe]

One of the problems with CP-RP at the tactical level is that it tends to cause one to commit his attack that may be the very area the enemy would like you to enter, since it is actually a fire sack. Route recon has the advantage of knowing the goal and trying to achieve, rather than looking for the goal and hoping its not illusary.

That being said, at a strategic level, I think CP-RP has real merit.

[Samhain]

For wwb_99: Games of War. Very interesting articles there.

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

Hope you got your things together,

Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

[This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 11-09-2000).]

[Marlow]

Its been a while, so forgive me if some of the details are wrong; however, I don't think that a blanket statement that U.S. tactics would not provide for recon at the CM scale is accurate. IRRC, U.S. tactics call for a recon from the objective rally point (ORP) to the target area so that the leader of element that will be doing the assault has a chance to lay eyes on the target, rather than just to rely upon maps and intel from higher up. This would often be done more or less within the timeframe of a CM game (e.g. 30 minutes prior to leaving the ORP for the assault). Think about the advantages of this recon in the context of what you have learned playing CM. For example, does a flat map adequately show you that fold in the land that would hide your approach to the target? What about that platoon of tanks that moved in since HQ intel issued its report? This type of recon is often done out of the range of friendly support. One important caveat, this would be a very careful recon from a well covered position, and not the mad dash across and open field that all to often occurs in the game.

[Pak40]

"what about ScoutPL's contention that the scouting has already happened, once you get to the CM battlefield"

I believe he's talking about scouting on an operational level (piper cubs, forward observation posts, radio chatter intel, etc...).

CM is on the tactical level and there IS a need for scouting at this level. For example: Let's say that operational intellegence has informed your CO that your unit may encounter a King Tiger. That's fine, but where exactly is it? Scouting on the tactical level can help determine exactly where that KT is located which will help your CO devise a plan to attack it.

Question: would you rather your scouts walk into an ambush or your main attack force?

Question: would you rather your scouts discover the AT ambush or your Shermans?

The scouts in the above situations act as a point man, commonly used on the tactacal level in WWII. It is not a gamey technique.

Here's what I consider gamey recon:

1) running a half-squad, bazooka, or sniper, across the map just to draw fire, knowing full well that he will be killed.

2) Using a Jeep to cruise behind the enemy's MLR, knowing full well that he will be killed.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Personally, I use both methods. The more units I have under my command, and the denser the terrain, the greater the chance that I will use the broad form of recon. If I have fewer forces, or the terrain is highly favorable to the defender, I do a more route based recon.

I do not find one inherently superior to the other. Instead, I use whichever appears to be to make the best sense since each has its own limitations and wekanesses.

However... some people try to conduct the broad form of recon in a very gamey way. I think this is what ScoutPL really objects to. And what I mean by that is taking whatever scraps or small "disposible" units you have and scatter them in front of your main force. Because of inherent limitations in CM this can often yield unrealistically beneficial information for the attacker.

I am playing a friend right now who is using such tactics and they certainly are not realistic. Unfortunately for him I had some good heavy weapons positions so his "scouting" did not get a chance to reveal my positions too much.

Steve

[Tiger]

Makes sense to me to attack the enemy where he is weakest when/if you find it. Sometimes I have a plan, sometimes I like to see where stuff is first before commiting. Depends on the map. If it works then it can be considered a legitimate use of tactics.

-john

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 11-09-2000).]

[Malmvig]

This is taken from modern tactic - BRAVOCOMPANY - 2-67-ARMOR BATTALION.

This is provided with Steel Beasts.

APPENDIX 8. RECONNAISSANCE

Fundamentals The Company will conduct various types of Reconnaissance during tactical operations. These include recon in preparation for other tactical operations, or reconnaissance as a tactical operation in itself. The various types of Recon that the Company needs to be proficient at include Leaders Reconnaissance, Dismounted Tactical Reconnaissance, Route Reconnaissance, and the Forward Reconnaissance Detachment (FRD). Along with rehearsals, reconnaissance is one of the fundamentals of tactical success.

All reconnaissance activities are concerned primarily with gaining information, and not in fighting the enemy. Sometimes a specific piece of information is sought by the recon force, and this may have to be fought for, but this is not generally the case.

Often while on a recon the chance to inflict disproportionate damage on the enemy, or to seize a fleeting opportunity may be exploited, but the general rule is to avoid contact, as once contact is gained the recon element is no longer gaining information.

The normal purpose of any reconnaissance operation is to “pull “the main effort along the route of least resistance instead of merely being pushed out to locate the enemy. The Recon focus is on locating a weak spot and how to exploit it, not determining the layout of a strongpoint. Some additional fundamentals and techniques of reconnaissance include:

- Report accurately and rapidly

- Negative contact is as important

to report as enemy contact

- Retain freedom of maneuver

- Don’t hesitate to dismount and walk a

little bit

- Listening is as important as looking

This is a quote from modern tactic but IMHO it would be build uppon many years of actually combat experience including the WWII.

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

Malmvig

[Jackal]

The battlefield will always remain fluid, thus the Recon elements allow the commander the intel to maintain this fluid momentum. The recon that ScoutPL is referring to "prior" to CM are those elements of LRRP's teams, Ranger teams, etc. that are deep in the enemy's rear long before the hardware actually begins to move. ScoutPL must understand that even the real-world infantry squad has a small recon element out front. Whether it is a one- or two-man element or a squad out front scouting the tactical necessity is the same. To ensure that the main body does not get caught off guard. In CM your recon elements, no matter their size, if used correctly and not out front running around as targets, will give you great benefits. Remember the fluid momentum mentioned earlier. . .RECON elements allow commander to make real-time battlefield decisions on troop movements, reserve committment and where to commit, as well as retrograde operations off of this intel. Soviet doctrine will most always call for a 3:1 advantage in troops, armor and artillery - they plan their reconnaissance battle accordingly. The Soviet doctrine has the American doctrine out manned and out armed. An American Scout Plt for an Infantry Bn. has 10 HMMWV's (5 with MK19 Automatic Grenade Launchers and 5 with .50 Cal MG's)with priority of Artillery fires in the beginning of the operation; the Soviet Recon elements have BMP's and BRDM's with 20mm and 30mm cannons along with AT potential along with possible attached armor close at hand. The Soviet recon element's mission is to locate the American recon elements and to destroy them, THEN locate and fix the follow-on troops and do a battle handoff to the main body. American Recon elements are there to locate Soviet recon elements but not to necessarily get into a head to head conflict with them, but to let the fellow on troops deal with those elements. American recon elements are more valuable reporting intel to the commander so that arty and air strikes can maximize damage to the soviet force.

[ScoutPL]

I think Pillars scouting tactics are more on the scale of the operational level of combat. NTC trains mech units in all levels of combat from the operational to the tactical, but I think the experiments he is talking about are more on the regimental, divisional level, which would be operational and out of the scope of CM. Also, they focus on armor/mech tactics which are very different from infantry tactics.

I have also stated from the very beginning of this debate that I used US doctrine. I have never stated that US doctrine was superior to another country's. That is a false accusation. Pillar never said he was advocating russian or german doctrine until lately. He started out advocating what he called his own innovative tactics. Those are the tactics I took issue with. They're still on the techniques board, go read them for yourself. I really know nothing about russian and german tactics except what I've learned from history books and threat briefings. What I learned (right or wrong) was that traditionally the soviets had the assets to embark on such wasteful, broad brush recons, but even then they were focused on terrain not just on finding the enemy, i.e. river crossings, key terrain, routes around population centers. Look up soviet armored formations and tell me they were concerned about security. They relied on bludgeon tactics not finesse. It worked for them of course, but they had the assets to do it.

The idea that the US attacks strength is also a fallacy. Need an example? Look at the gulf war.

Recons from the ORP are mainly done by leaders of combat patrols(raids, ambush, etc) usually the size of a platoon. When I conducted a leaders recon as a company commander I would cross into enemy territory a couple hours before the company was scheduled to move out. The XO would maneuver the company while I conducted my recon of the objective and we would link up prior to moving into the assault and support positions. Keep in mind that my recon was merely to confirm that the plan we had already discussed and rehearsed would work. Any last minute changes would be made and we would conduct the attack. This was very rare since we rarely had so much time to conduct a recon, usually we had to go with what the S2 gave us and make the best of it.

"Question: would you rather your scouts walk into an ambush or your main attack force?"

I would rather my main attack force walk into it because then I know I can destroy the ambush. My scouts walk into it and all I have is a bunch of dead, useless scouts. I'll be happy to walk around the map with my company destroying ambushes laid for half squads all day long.

"Question: would you rather your scouts discover the AT ambush or your Shermans?"

Since my tanks never move without infantry support in restrictive terrain this is a rhetorical question.

[ScoutPL]

"There is a really good explanation of German battlefield recon doctrine at Games of War (I forgot the URL, someone please post it). This approach is radically different from the approach that ScoutPL advocates."

I checked out this url. Its an online copy of the German Army Handbook, which is a manual printed by the US government in 1944 or so. Its based on experience fighting the germans, captured documents and POW interviews. Which means it is really not a primary source document for german WWII tactics but is still one of the best resources in english. The tactics discussed in the manual are mostly on the operational level, divisional and regimental. The tactics discussed for smaller units are mainly combat patrols which occur during a lull in the fighting or between major operations. Not when you're within 500 meters of a village your're about to seize. The entire manual is a great study for anyone interested in how the germans fought, and it is true, you will find a lot of parrelels in modern US doctrine.

[Banshee]

Interesting, I never really thought of it. But it turns out I use route based scouting on open terrain, in close terrain I use a broad front scouting. If the terrain is ambigious (meaning no route really looks better than another) I will tend to use broad based scouting as well.

As a matter of fact in a current game (1000pt attack QB - I'm americans attacking). I'm using 1 platoon for route based scouting and it has worked astoundingly well. With overwatch of 2 81mm FO's, 1 105mm VT, and 6 60mm mortars, as soon as I hit resistance the squad in contact withdraws and all mighty heaven pounds the opposition. For 6 casualties I have taken out 1 pak40, 1 37mm, 2 HT's, and have caused 2 MG-42's to withdraw. I think the argument here is really centering around a difference of opinion as to what recon is (i.e. scouting vs recon, I think these 2 are different)..

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 11-09-2000).]

[Pak40]

The following is an excerpt from "Infantry Field Manual - Organization and Tactics of Infantry Rifle Battalion" by the War Department, Oct. 1, 1940.

******

page 182, paragraph 246, SECTION III - RIFLE PLATOON

e. In uncovered movement of the platoon, the platoon leader covers his advance by scouts and regulates their movement by the assignment of successive objectives. The scouts precede the platoon by sufficient distance to insure its protection against enemy fire wihtin midrange. When the situation indicates probable contact with enemy elements, the platoon leader holds the platoon under cover and awaits reconnaissance of the assigned objective by the scouts. When they have reached the objective, the platoon leader moves the platoon to the line of the scouts and again sends them forward to the next objective. During the movement of the scouts, he posts himself so as to hold them under observation and maintain control over his platoon. When the platoon must pass through small woods, villages, or defiles, the platoon leader designates the far edge of the woods or the exit of the village or defile as the next objective. The method of advance adopted by the platoon leader varies in accordance with the need for rapidity of movement and security against hostile surprise fire.

f. When some of the scouts are caught under fire in unfavorable terrain, the platoon leader pushes forward reconaissance of undeveloped portions of the platoon zone in order to clear up the enemy situation before involving the bulk of his unit in the fire fight. He designates squad positions for the attack without regard to the positions of their scouts. Scouts join the squad nearest them unless otherwise directed by the platoon leader. If one or both of the flanks of the platoon are open, he provides for flank security by means of small patrols.

******

So there you have it, official U.S. Infantry tactics at the platoon level circa 1940

[ScoutPL]

Would love to get my hands on that manual, Where'd you get it?

Two interesting points: 1, its from 1940 so its pre-WWII combat experience, the majority of US doctrine in 1940(especially infantry doctrine) was based on WWI experience. I would love to see an infantry manual from 1950. Which leads me to point number two. If the tactics were so hot and survived the cauldron of combat, why havent I ever heard of them before?

I never said I knew anything about US infantry tactics from WWII (thats stated clearly in my tutorial). I use CM as a way to test my knowledge and practical application of modern US infantry tactics, which were born out of the experience of WWII. Believe me, the scouting tactic described here didnt survive the war.

Great find! And thanks for sharing.

[Guest Pillar]

Ah, good -- this developed quickly.

The Soviet style is far more careful with human life than the American style. This is because they attempt to make contact with the smallest element, and then they do *NOT* throw any more men into a well known meatgrinder. They only put their men where they know it is safe(st). They conduct the attack through emphasis on maneuver where the US places emphasis on firepower. They prefer indirectness, the US prefers direct. They prefer to have the main body slip through like sand through a man's hands, the US prefers to pound those hands with a hammer. If anything, I'd say the Soviet doctrine has more 'finesse' and less 'brute force' than the American.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Scout says:

Pillar never said he was advocating russian or german doctrine until lately. He started out advocating what he called his own innovative tactics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thread about my own 'innovative tactics' was the "Meeting Engagement" thread in the tactics section of the board. For other unrelated reasons, I abandoned that approach very quickly. Don't pretend that all this was about those tactics. I didn't start taking part in the recon debate until days after I had already rejected my past threories. Further, you didn't start taking part in the Meeting Engagement debate until AFTER I had rejected the theory put forth by myself in that very thread!

I'll assume you were genuinely confused when you wrote that, and not just attempting to backpedal out of your own comments.

ScoutPL, while I am sypmathetic to what you are and have been trying to do, I'm not going to pretend that you haven't made huge generalisations about what is "gamey" and what isn't.

I've seen a definite trend from you, especially in the "Am I the only one that uses scouts" thread. You jump on the very *CONCEPT* of broad front recon, and stereotypically label soviet tactics as "lacking finesse" and being "brutish". It sounds to me like you've been a bit.... "influenced" ..by your experience with the US Army.

You yourself admit you don't know much about German and Soviet doctrine. Considering they were the first and third largest players in ground warfare in this century, I'd say that's a pretty large gap. I only request that in light of this you keep a more open mind. You can't make claims like "Soviet broad recon only applies to the Operational Level." My posture is one of self defence, and I welcome your own contributions of US Recon policy.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 11-09-2000).]

[Guest Pillar]

This message is not directed at ScoutPL, but to the discussion in general.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ScoutPL said:

I would rather my main attack force walk into it because then I know I can destroy the ambush. My scouts walk into it and all I have is a bunch of dead, useless scouts. I'll be happy to walk around the map with my company destroying ambushes laid for half squads all day long.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is in essence the US attitude towards recon.

Do I really need to point out the glaring weaknesses?

<LI> No Economy of Force

<LI> Defender to Attacker kill ratios will be around 3 or 4:1

<LI> Defender initiative

<LI> Defender can fall back and repeat this, chipping away at the main body

Now, to be fair, there are weaknesses in the broad-front doctrine as well. If you run into hugely overwhelming odds as an attacker with a small force that gets killed instantaneously, you may gain little. But, this can be minimized through experience and good judgement. Knowing where to stop, where to take cover, using good bounding technique, and having support close at hand (81mm is great for that).

In any case, even if you loose the recon element to the ambush it is *far* better than getting your main body in a scrap with a well prepared enemy at close range. Further, your successful recon elements tell what you need anyway -- the safest route into the enemy rear and flank areas.

On Fire Pockets -- you are far more likely to run into a fire pocket using route-based recon than a broad cp/rp methodology. A proper broad based cp/rp is designed to locate firepockets in itself.

There is good and bad Route recon just as there is good and bad CP/RP recon. You can't attack the *concept* due to poor player implementation or bad decisions on the part of a single half-squad. I myself am relatively new to the Soviet approach and it takes PRACTICE to get good at using it. But when used properly, it is superior to the American method for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Think about what happens when your Route-based recon fails

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 11-09-2000).]

[ScoutPL]

"The Soviet style is far more careful with human life than the American style. "

WHAT?? Please document this for me buddy! I dont know about you but I've been reading thread after thread about how the US used its airpower and superior arty in an attempt to keep down casualties. Where exactly does the human wave concept come from? Probably from the far east, but who didnt seem to have much trouble implementing it in eastern europe?

"This is because they (the russians) attempt to make contact with the smallest element, and then they do *NOT* throw any more men into a well known meatgrinder."

Once again your're confusing your soviet operational doctrine with my US tactical doctrine. Do you understand the difference? The US uses every asset at its disposal on an operational level (just like the soviets)to find a weak point before it initiates an attack (I offer the gulf up as an example, once again). But once it decides on a point of attack it has no qualms about piling on firepower to ensure success. Read "Closing with the Enemy," the author does an outstanding job of describing how the US went to war with a maneuver based army and was chomping at the bit to launch great, bold maneuver based campaigns. But the germans had switched over to a static defense type strategy which made maneuver, for either side, virtually impossible. Which is why you get the meatgrinders of Aachen, Huertegan Forest, and Brest. Which, by the way, are nothing compared to the meat grinders of Stalingrad, Leningrad, the Korsun Pocket, or the battles around Kursk.

"Don't pretend that all this was about those tactics. I didn't start taking part in the recon debate until days after I had already rejected my past threories. Further, you didn't start taking part in the Meeting Engagement debate until AFTER I had rejected the theory put forth by myself in that very thread!"

Hate to disappoint you old boy but I've been talking about nothing but tactics, scouting tactics specifically, since this started. If you think I've been arguing about something else then we have more problems then just a differing opinion. I may have joined the debate late (I think I was out of town that weekend you initially posted)but if you werent coming back in to debate scouting tactics then what were you coming back in for? I have no desire to debate soviet/us doctrine with you. I started out voicing an opinion against your broad front recon tactics. I havent changed my focus at all except to answer some accusations and "arguments" that you and others have made. Which by the way is exactly why I left the last debate thread we had going.

"You yourself admit you don't know much about German and Soviet doctrine. Considering they were the second and third largest players in ground warfare in this century, I'd say that's a pretty large gap."

I am a university trained historian. I'm not about to get up here and make claims about something I dont have primary resources on or an indepth personal knowledge about. I know better then to do that. Thats why I've tried to keep this to a discussion of tactics. Since we only just started talking about russian/german doctrine, something you brought into the discussian not me, you really have no idea how much I know about these two country's doctrines and their history. I've never seriously called into question your knowledge or experience, I hope you would refrain from doing the same to me. You put forward what I thought were faulty tactics. You agreed they were faulty. Thats pretty much it.

Keep trying, maybe you can get someone to debate with you about what ever it is you've been trying to get me to debate with you about. I was making some points about gamey CM tactics. The majority of the posters in this thread happen to agree with me. Any "generalizations" on my part have to be a misunderstanding on yours. I've made my point(repeatedly), so this conversation is over.

[Guest Pillar]

Ouch. Sorry.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Where exactly does the human wave concept come from? Probably from the far east, but who didnt seem to have much trouble implementing it in eastern europe?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not talking about Soviet human waves of ww2. I'm talking about modern doctrine just as you are. I haven't tried to argue against you using US WW2 doctrine have I? No.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hate to disappoint you old boy but I've been talking about nothing but tactics, scouting tactics specifically, since this started.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure if this is a deliberate strawman or an honest misinterpreation of what I said. You claimed you had been addressing my own 'innovative' tactics that I spelled out in the Meeeting Engagement Thread. I was trying to point out that this was not so, but rather you have been attacking my views on broad front recon. I'm well aware of what you have been trying to debate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Keep trying, maybe you can get someone to debate with you about what ever it is you've been trying to get me to debate with you about. I was making some points about gamey CM tactics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm trying to show people that broad front recon is not gamey. My position has been on the defensive since the "Who uses Scouts" thread and will continue to be as such until my points are clearly made. You treated my ideas pretty harshly in that thread without realizing that they were nothing more than modern Soviet/German doctrine. I've pointed it out since, and you seem to be taking me a bit more seriously now.

However, it saddens me that you were previously judging what I wrote based on the fact that it was 'my own idea', rather than giving thought to what merit it might have. You labelled it as "gamey" and made quite a few generalisations about it. I had to point out that it is common Soviet/German doctrine before you started treating me like an adult.

I'm sorry you are angry with me for defending my position so strongly, but it is a choice I had to make. Either let the teacher make me the fool or show the teacher that my idea had merit, even if it meant a direct debate.

I hope you'll stop being so harsh in your assesment. While you may not be interested in a debate about the advantages and disadvantages of differing doctrines, many other people are. For that reason, I answered the questions laid out in this thread regarding those. I specifically wrote at the top of my second reply "This message is not directed at ScoutPL, but to the discussion in general." because I knew you weren't interested in that particular debate.

Please make one last effort to see that I'm not out to get you. Other people can.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 11-09-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, the two of you need to take it down a notch or two. Pillar, for what it is worth I do see that you are comparing different levels of recon. As ScoutPL made very clear, your position that the US tries to find the strongest point and assualt it with direct force is totally and unquestionably unsupported by any source from at least WWII to the present.

As for your basic point about a broad recon strategy not being gamey... yes, in some cases it is the correct method. However, if done correctly it is basically a bunch of smaller "route" based recon methods done along the whole front instead of just one sector. As I said in my earlier post, this is really only possible when you have a significant force at your disposal. I also don't see this as being particullarly usefull when the map is fairly wide open. In fact, it is usually a good way to get yourself into bad situations.

Final words of advice... Pillar, in your first post when you started this thread you made some rather judgemental comments about ScoutPL that I think were misplaced. Please try and not attack ScoutPL because he knows a lot more about recon that either you or I do. Question and debate him, that is fine, but please try and keep it civil.

Thanks,

Steve

[Guest Pillar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As ScoutPL made very clear, your position that the US tries to find the strongest point and assualt it with direct force is totally and unquestionably unsupported by any source from at least WWII to the present.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never made any statement like that before.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pillar, in your first post when you started this thread you made some rather judgemental comments about ScoutPL that I think were misplaced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you point them out specifically? I gave a direct quotation from ScoutPL that said in summary:

"If you don't advocate 'route recon' then you aren't using sound tactics and are just playing a game"

You're right, I certainly am judging ScoutPL on his comment, but not unfairly. He made a very generalized comment and has been putting forth this notion that broad recon pull methodology is gamey and unsound. I'm not about to let that go unchallenged.

Based on the way ScoutPL has responded to my posts, I'd say I AM the one being civil here. I challenge you to find anything I've said even *close* to the generalizing and labeling ScoutPL has been throwing about.

A while ago in another thread someone was talking about the encouragement of personal initiative and thinking in the German Army (WW2) vs. the view that all Germans were mindless automatons. When someone stuck their neck out an opposed the person who was calling the Germans doctrinal-obedience dogs you chimed in and helped him out.

Nonetheless, it is your message board and I will adhere to your wishes.

[Tris]

Hold on, brother! Pillar's not the only one to go overboard with his phrasing. ScoutPL came down wickedly hard on Pillar just two posts back. Go read it again. It's a matter of public record.

I think ScoutPL does have much to offer here based on his real-world experience, but no one man is the end-all to the trickle of wisdom from the fountain of knowledge. If you haven't learned or somehow fail to appreciate that wisdom then you have much to learn indeed, Steve.

Anyway, so far I'd say ScoutPL is more sinning than sinned against when it comes to the amount of abuse heaped between him and Pillar, and that's the bottom line here, not who knows most about what. That'll take care of itself in due course through the open process of learned debate--assuming that debate is allowed to continue.

Finally, I have some good advice: I have worked in media for my living (as a print jounralist, mostly), I've run a popular BBS back in the day, and I'm here to tell you and everyone else at your company that I'm not all that keen on the locking of threads, the pulling of individual posts or anything of a similar kind. I am, in fact, 100% against censorship in all of its forms for the reason that it accomplishes nothing good and often does bad for the sake of special interest. Furthermore, I notice that within a 24-hour period or so, after you'd locked the thread re politics, MadMatt waltzed blithely onto the board and laughingly opened up yet another thread re the same subject. What was that about?

You make awful good games, Steve, and for this I am pleased. I don't know about your capacity as the moderator of a board, though. Something isn't right, that's for sure.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).]