The Platoon -- A Maneuverist Perspective

[Guest Pillar]

Ok, I had some free time at work today (too windy for flying) so I decided to do some writing.

Please forgive all the spelling errors etc. This is meant to be a lighthearted thing, not a thesis

The Infantry Platoon on Attack.

Note: Focus is on an infantry platoon making contact and then dealing with the enemy at hand, not the employment of a reserve.

Intro

This article is meant to provide a brief look at some unconventional, though not unrealistic ways to operate a platoon. I was inclined to write the article after using such tactics in several games of combat mission. The response I recieved has been mixed. It seems to have become common to label anything unconventional as "gamey", regardless of any attempt to explain exactly WHY such a thing is not possible in reality.

Something is not "gamey" just because any given modern army doesn't use it, much less even if it's simply not described in the field manual. Many of the tactics I am about to describe ARE used by real world militaries -- they come as a result of personal initiative and situational adaptation. Why won't you find this in a field manual? (Indeed you might) -- probably because it isn't quantifiable, "if this than", type thinking. A field manual, or a doctrine, can only provide a conceptual framework -- a way of thinking -- for a commander. There is no exact method to solve ALL problems, only correct methods based on the situation at hand. It would be impossible to document exactly how one might improvise during an opportunity. It is wrong in my opinion, to say that something "can't be done" unconventionally, and instead to rely on things like formations and rigid procedures. If anyone is interested in further reading, most historical accounts demonstrate things like this. I recommend Rommel's "Infantry Attacks".

What I'm going to do is attempt to describe how I might use a single platoon against an enemy platoon, one on one, using improvisation and unconventional methods. Everything here is situational. To understand what takes place in this article, you *must* be thinking about the situation, the terrain, the enemy etc. It's not a "formula for platoon commanders", it's more a way of thinking.

The following comes from a "Maneuverists" perspective and those who favour "Attritional" methodology will probably not agree with this. Nonetheless, it's my personal way of thinking and I don't claim it to be the ONLY way to do things. I just wanted to show how a Maneuverist might use a platoon or a squad and explain WHY.

The Squad

For me, the Squad is not the basic unit of a platoon. The basic unit of any platoon is the team, and more minutely, the man. The "unit" of a force is the smallest element that can be directed and have effect on it's own, within the context of the situation. In a platoon, or a squad, each man is valuable for a task. Machine Gunners can provide support, submachine gunners can maneuver for close combat with the enemy, riflemen can maneuver for flanking action, etc. To translate this into combat mission, when you split a squad into teams, you create a support element and a maneuver element. That is, the team with light weapons, and the team with the MG or supportive weapon.

Example: A single squad has to assault an enemy squad. Rather than have the whole friendly squad stand up and run at the enemy position, or run around the enemy position, the squad leader says the following:

"John, Rick, Aaron, you go around the left flank and try to flank the enemy squads position. Dan, Brett and Mike will lay heavy supprresive fire with the MG while you maneuver. I want Jason and Ken to maneuver far around the enemy squad and cutoff their rear, preparing to meet and delay any enemy squads coming to assist while we assault this one."

This is simulated abstractly by taking a maneuver team and a support team, using the maneuver team to envelope and close on the enemy squad while the supportive team fires on the enemy position. Combined with maneuver and supportive elements from other squads in the platoon, one can create a basic maneuver and execute it safely without taking heavy casualties.

Using techniques like this, one creates a whole new envelope of flexibility within the basic platoon and even squad.

In conclusion here, if you are interested in maneuverist thinking, one should look beyond simply the squad as the basic unit of a platoon, and start focusing on the men themselves.

The Platoon

With our paradigm now shifted, we can start to see more possibilities on how a platoon can operate.

For example, we can advance with maneuver teams using overwatch provided by supportive teams, rather than sending ENTIRE squads forward, with entire squads in overwatch.

We can more easily bypass an enemy strongpoint, since contact is made only by team rather than squad.

Using supportive weaponry and fluidity, we can react to an ambush that costs us a few men, and turn it into a situation that costs the enemy an entire platoon.

We can also spread out the platoon more on movement to contact. Now the platoon can effectively spread it's physical form out as far as the terrain permits it to support itself with fire. This is very useful during screening. If a maneuver team makes contact with an enemy squad or platoon, we can shift our supportive teams to assist immediately, AND bring other maneuver elements to bear, all without having to concentrate a platoon and make it vulnerable to artillery.

Finally, we can make it easier to support our platoons with small calibre artillery or mortar since their fluidity and physical formlessness allows the platoon leader to mold his forces better around a barrage.

This methodology is as you can tell, VERY different from the standard methods used. Instead of lining up your squads in a "formation" designed to have "all guns forward", we have a fluid multi-element, "dynamic" (changeable/changing) force more adaptable to situational factors.

Philosophic Underpinnings

Many have heard about the debates concerning "maneuver warfare" vs. "attrition". Both methods have their place and can be used given certain situations. For example, an enemy possessing overwhelming fire superiority, will be interested in trying to pull his opponent into an attrition battle. I personally tend to lean towards maneuver warfare.

First, for the purpose of this post, attrition is about achieving superior kill ratios and destroying the enemy force, whereas maneuver is irrespective of kill ratios and is based on achieving overall goals. Attrition hence is interested in drawing the enemy into unfavourable conditions to fight, maneuver is about avoiding fights unless they are absolutely relevent to the goal. For an attritionist, "movement" is something you do to better your firing position (yes, attritionsits will outflank, envelope and so forth). For a maneuverist, movement can be about giving up the fight entirely.

One analogy which Leonhard uses in his book "The Art of Maneuver" is the game of chess. The attritionist chess player makes his decisions based on exchange with enemy peices. He sacrifices a rook to kill a queen, a pawn to kill a bishop, etc. He wins the game by destroying the other players forces at an exchange favourable to himself, until eventually he has such superiority as to make the taking of the king an easy, secondary chore. The maneuverist however, is concenred with the destruction of the enemy king ONLY. He is willing to avoid opportunities (even of favourable exchange) if that means bettering his position to take the enemy king. He is willing to allow some of his units to be destroyed, again, if this means improving his ability to take the enemy king. He views the entire situation in this context, seeing a knight who can threaten a checkmate as more valuable than his queen. The maneuverist can predict what the attritionist will do next knowing that the attritionist is interested in exchange rates. The attritionist however, can have difficulty seeing logic in somewhat random and sometimes seemingly irrational moves made by the maneuverist when his goal is not known.

Another example can be seen in warfare when a maneuverist makes a sacrifice in one area in order to better his position in another. This could involve small forces taking fair casualties while larger forces maneuver around the enemy. Often an attritionist will say "That's crazy, you can't expect men to risk themselves like that for a larger force". Ironically however, an attritionist is willing to take even greater casualties, so long as it's "all together" on some main assault into an enemy ambush, and so long as the enemy takes greater casualties than himself. This often leads to friction between the two styles of fighting, and causes difficulty in mutual understanding.

The methods I describe have a strong maneuverist underpinning. I like my platoon to be fluid enough so that when I make contact with the enemy, I have options -- *including* the option not to pursue a fight or to bypass and avoid.

Others will offer advice more along the lines of an attritionist perspective. They would rather meet an ambush with an entire platoon or company and hence a ton of firepower, thus providing the ability to attack through the enemy. This methodolgy involves maximum use of combat power (so splitting squads is not viable) and emphasis on formation. If the attritionist method works better for you, there is nothing wrong with going that route. The objective is to win after all.

These two different fundamental approaches to fighting are the cause of much misunderstanding between players in the CM community. Comamnders who favour maneuver think the attritionist is "mindless", simply because they are trying to view the enemy tactics through a maneuverist template! Likewise, attritionists look at aspects of a maneuverists style, and claim it's "irrational and unrealistic" simply because they are viewing things through their own attritionist template!

I think both sides should try to understand that the different styles are simply a translation of differing personality and situational interpretation. I'd like to see this community getting away from labelling different styles as "gamey" etc. simply because they differ from popular methods.

What must be realized by maneuverist die-hards is that the attritionist is not dumb. He is always seeking to draw the maneuverist into his game of attrition (which he is aptly prepared for). Likewise, the maneuverist is always trying to avoid this trap which would seal his death. It's no wonder that maneuverists place so much emphasis on screening and reconaissance -- they aren't trying to be gamey, they are adapting themselves to avoid the attritionists strength -- they would fail if they accidently ran into a battle of attrition!

The game of Combat Mission between these two types is a game of cat and mouse. The cat (attritionists) wants the mouse (maneuverist) to try and fight him head on, and will use funneling and deceptive measures to convince the mouse to waltz into the cats jaws. The mouse on the other hand, wishes to be fast, flexible, and above all careful to avoid the cat and instead achieve his objective (the cheese, whatever)

No method is less "real" or can be labelled "gamey". Likewise, either method can win if it achieves it's objective, and makes the battle flow the way it wishes.

To bring things back into the context of this article, I would offer the following advice:

As the defender, when controlling the platoon and squads from a formation based attritionist viewpoint, the enemy wants to make you attack directly. He will use whatever methods he can to convince you to do so.

If you manage your platoon as I have described earlier in a movement to contact situtation, you can minimize your chances of falling into the attritionists trap and stay flexible enough to deal with him, without getting distracted from your mission. You can use indirect assets to turn the situation in your favour without commiting a large amount of men to the situation.

This is the funadmentals of how a maneuverist should think of and use a platoon when moving to contact during the attack.

I'm hoping through writing this a consolidation and better understanding can be developed between attritionist and conventional players, and players like myself, Fionn, etc. Through explaining my logic, hopefully people will be more understanding of my mindset.

[JoePrivate]

A few questions from a CM player's perspective re your Infantry Platoon on Attack technique.

1. What factors and/or situations are conducive to splitting squads into support and maneuver elements? Always? When wouldn't you?

2. What influence does platoon experience, C&C, HQ abilities and platoon type have on your technique?

Do you use Regulars? Or higher experience? How come?

Do you keep your platoon in C&C?

Would you use, for example, a British or German Rifle platoon in this manner? If no or depends, then what type do you favour?

3. At what range do you think you will make contact against the defending platoon with your maneuver element(s)? What do you think is the likely outcome for said maneuver element(s)?

4. Upon contact what influences your next decision whether to engage or bypass?

Using supportive weaponry and fluidity, we can react to an ambush that costs us a few men, and turn it into a situation that costs the enemy an entire platoon.

How would you best accomplish that with your support/maneuver elements being 'down' some already? Again we're talking platoon vs platoon only.

If bypass, then what do you think are the likely actions of the defending platoon you aren't engaging? How would you deal with that?

Looking forward to your response.

[Crank_GS]

Free time? wow... Can I get a job where you work?

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

Capt. Byron Crank, US Army

[Bullethead]

There's one thing I don't understand at all in this big argument of "attrition vs. maneuver", and that's the "vs." thing in the middle. To me, they are intimately linked. Moving from Point A to Point B is a waste of fuel unless you then proceed to kill the enemy at Point B. The whole point of maneuver is to achieve a better position from which to engage in attrition--to stack the deck so the exchange rate favors you as much as possible. No matter how fancy your moves are, sooner or later you get down to the nut-cutting.

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Guest Pillar]

1. What factors and/or situations are conducive to splitting squads into support and maneuver elements? Always? When wouldn't you?

Situations where I am unsure if I wish to engage in an all out fight, which is often. Typically, I use these sorts of techniques (teams etc.) when conducting my screen. Whenever I want my options as open as possible, this is how I do it. There really is no exact situation that decides it.

2. What influence does platoon experience, C&C, HQ abilities and platoon type have on your technique?

The same they would have for anyone. I use the strengths of my platoon and try to avoid weaknesses. A platoon hq with a command bonus would be better used in more open terrain, etc.

Do you use Regulars? Or higher experience? How come?

More experienced units work without command better, and being spread out sometimes command isn't always possible. My teams have to be able to react autonomously at least to some minor degree. Therefore higher experience troops do me well here. That isn't to say regulars can't handle it -- they will. You just have to think ahead a little more.

Do you keep your platoon in C&C?

If it's practical. There is no set way of doing it... if the situation calls for an action that will put me out of CC, I don't have a problem doing it, if that's what you mean.

Would you use, for example, a British or German Rifle platoon in this manner? If no or depends, then what type do you favour?

Any platoon will do. Again, just be aware of your weaknesses and strengths. (That doesn't mean not taking risks of course)

3. At what range do you think you will make contact against the defending platoon with your maneuver element(s)? What do you think is the likely outcome for said maneuver element(s)?

Usually I can sense when I'll make contact based on the terrain. You know, "This feels like a good place for an ambush"... It's rare that my maneuver element will walk directly into the heart of an ambush and get slaughtered, since ambushes can be sensed. A little paranoia helps too.

There is a small chance the enemy will surprise me and ambush me perfectly, in which case I'll loose a few men (possibly the entire team), but I'd point out that using a full squad to make contact with the enemy in said situation won't do you any better anyway. In any ambush, you can expect to loose a few men. Furthermore, with more supportive elements and so forth the chances of the "ambushee" surviving are much better.

Upon contact, the supporting elements plaster the enemy once he is discovered and 81mm is there within less than a minute. From there I look at the situation and start deciding how to handle the new threat.

It is VERY helpful to have mortar support rather than just MG's.

4. Upon contact what influences your next decision whether to engage or bypass?

The goal, the context, the terrain, the purpose of the platoon, etc.

How would you best accomplish that with your support/maneuver elements being 'down' some already? Again we're talking platoon vs platoon only.

First thing, get the hell out of the ambush zone. Then it's just a matter of maneuvering while the enemy is being distracted by artillery or other support.

Some terrain allows you to bug out and disappear back into the forest/fog etc. without even supporting elements.

Using supportive weaponry and fluidity, we can react to an ambush that costs us a few men, and turn it into a situation that costs the enemy an entire platoon.

I.E. Get the hell out/maneuver the enemy and hit him with artillery. Isolate portions of his formation with your own men if you need to do it toe to toe like that without the artillery. You have to see it done to believe it.

If bypass, then what do you think are the likely actions of the defending platoon you aren't engaging? How would you deal with that?

He'll either hold his position in which case he continues to take casualties from my mortar/support or he'll dislocate, in which case I've pushed him back and accomplished my goal. All I have to do is repeat that.

Often players will freak out when they see this sort of thing, not feeling quite comfortable with what is going on. They'll abandon their positions without me having to fight them for it. THAT, is a maneuverists dream

If he counter attacks, the formlessness works wonders. So does the mortars.

Looking forward to your response.

I've tried to give you some hypothetical reactions etc. What is important though is that rather than focus on my answers, you focus on my thought process. Exactly *what* one does isn't as important as how one thinks when it comes to understanding maneuverists.

It's all very situational.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 02-18-2001).]

[Guest Pillar]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

There's one thing I don't understand at all in this big argument of "attrition vs. maneuver", and that's the "vs." thing in the middle. To me, they are intimately linked. Moving from Point A to Point B is a waste of fuel unless you then proceed to kill the enemy at Point B. The whole point of maneuver is to achieve a better position from which to engage in attrition--to stack the deck so the exchange rate favors you as much as possible. No matter how fancy your moves are, sooner or later you get down to the nut-cutting.

It might be possible you are viewing the topic through an attritionist perspective.

Contrast what you said here:

Moving from Point A to Point B is a waste of fuel unless you then proceed to kill the enemy at Point B. The whole point of maneuver is to achieve a better position from which to engage in attrition--to stack the deck so the exchange rate favors you as much as possible.

To what I said here:

Attrition hence is interested in drawing the enemy into unfavourable conditions to fight, maneuver is about avoiding fights unless they are absolutely relevent to the goal. For an attritionist, "movement" is something you do to better your firing position (yes, attritionsits will outflank, envelope and so forth). For a maneuverist, movement can be about giving up the fight entirely.

For a maneuverist, is movement really all just "to achieve a better position from which to engage in attrition"? I would say, from a maneuver perspective, it isn't. This is still viewing movement as a means to the end - attrition, rather than a means of avoiding attrition.

Similarly, it's not right to say that since a maneuverist will fight that they are in fact seeking attritionary warfare.

A "Maneuverist" looks at every encounter as an opportunity for maneuver and firepower, and to avoid attrition. Even taking an objective is looked at through other means than attrition. If all maneuverists were was a bunch of guys who liked to move about to do attrition, there would be no distinction as you say. But there is a distinction.

The distinction is that "attrition" does not equal "combat", and "movement" does not equal "maneuver".

It's not so much about what an attritionist vs. a maneuverist does (indeed they both may use similar techniques), it's about why they do it.

That's my take on it anyway.

- Pillar

[ScoutPL]

I'd like to point out a number of errors and misconceptions in your thinking (since I used to be a platoon leader I would hope you would at least credit me with some knowledge in this area, even if you were reluctant to do so at the battalion level). But thought I'd ask before I dove in. Then it will hopefully be considered as friendly argumant rather then heated debate.

Your thinking is flawed on a number of levels and with your permission I'd like to elaborate.

[Guest Pillar]

No problem ScoutPL. All I ask is:

First, before you dive in you do some reading so you can be clear where I'm coming from. I don't mean to say you aren't well read, I just would like you to read some works that influenced me. That way you have a better understanding of my position, and formal authors can make up for some unfortunate tendancies in my writing style

Second, no status arguments. By this I mean pulling age, rank, experience, career, etc. in place of real discussion. So for example, if someone said to me "Trust me I'm a real Army Major", I'd want more than just that. That isn't disrespect, it's just a little rational skepticism. Again, not suggesting you aren't experienced or anything, I know you are. I just would like to get away from status arguments in general -- And I'm not centering you out, many are guilty of it.

The reason I ask these things is because discussion between us has tended to get heated in the past If

A) You have the root of my thoughts rather than the poor expressions I post on this forum...(and hence my unfortunate writing tendancies can be overlooked)

and

If there is no chance for people getting offended, nor chance for disrespect. (By leaving personal qualifications etc. out of the discussion we keep it to facts only)

...Then there is little chance for things heating up again...

If you're still interested drop me a line. I'd be interested to hear what you say, and I'll let you know the reading I had in mind.

- Pillar

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 02-18-2001).]

[Guest Pillar]

Originally posted by Crank_GS:

Free time? wow... Can I get a job where you work?

Well considering you have an interest in flying, and you live in Chicago, you should know how quiet a flight training facility gets when it's windy.

I'll put in a good word for you.

[Ksak]

Pillar

Methinks you are abstracting an abstraction to absurdity.

[JoePrivate]

Originally posted by Pillar:

1. What factors and/or situations are conducive to splitting squads into support and maneuver elements? Always? When wouldn't you?

Situations where I am unsure if I wish to engage in an all out fight, which is often. Typically, I use these sorts of techniques (teams etc.) when conducting my screen. Whenever I want my options as open as possible, this is how I do it. There really is no exact situation that decides it.

2. What influence does platoon experience, C&C, HQ abilities and platoon type have on your technique?

The same they would have for anyone. I use the strengths of my platoon and try to avoid weaknesses. A platoon hq with a command bonus would be better used in more open terrain, etc.

Do you use Regulars? Or higher experience? How come?

More experienced units work without command better, and being spread out sometimes command isn't always possible. My teams have to be able to react autonomously at least to some minor degree. Therefore higher experience troops do me well here. That isn't to say regulars can't handle it -- they will. You just have to think ahead a little more.

Do you keep your platoon in C&C?

If it's practical. There is no set way of doing it... if the situation calls for an action that will put me out of CC, I don't have a problem doing it, if that's what you mean.

Would you use, for example, a British or German Rifle platoon in this manner? If no or depends, then what type do you favour?

Any platoon will do. Again, just be aware of your weaknesses and strengths. (That doesn't mean not taking risks of course)

I guess I was curious about your distinction here by looking for specific examples from you. A split squad is not as 'robust' as a full one in a firefight, that's even more pronounced when they are Regular. If out of C&C then a split squad will be even more fragile and its added delay in carrying out orders makes for less flexibility, not more, allowing your opponent to get inside your 'tempo'. There's a distinct correlation between firepower/range/cover, a split British Rifle squad for example is pretty anemic, not very good at much of anything on its own.

3. At what range do you think you will make contact against the defending platoon with your maneuver element(s)? What do you think is the likely outcome for said maneuver element(s)?

Usually I can sense when I'll make contact based on the terrain. You know, "This feels like a good place for an ambush"... It's rare that my maneuver element will walk directly into the heart of an ambush and get slaughtered, since ambushes can be sensed. A little paranoia helps too.

There is a small chance the enemy will surprise me and ambush me perfectly, in which case I'll loose a few men (possibly the entire team), but I'd point out that using a full squad to make contact with the enemy in said situation won't do you any better anyway. In any ambush, you can expect to loose a few men. Furthermore, with more supportive elements and so forth the chances of the "ambushee" surviving are much better.

Upon contact, the supporting elements plaster the enemy once he is discovered and 81mm is there within less than a minute. From there I look at the situation and start deciding how to handle the new threat.

It is VERY helpful to have mortar support rather than just MG's.

That's fine, I think it's a given that a squad or team that walks into an ambush blind will be chewed up pretty good. If I *sensed* an area may contain the enemy then for sure it will be targetted with indirect or mortar fire, or smoked. That's not really what I was trying to get at. I was thinking more along the lines of your spread out platoon split into maneuver/support elements dealing with a more concentrated enemy upon contact.

4. Upon contact what influences your next decision whether to engage or bypass?

The goal, the context, the terrain, the purpose of the platoon, etc.

How would you best accomplish that with your support/maneuver elements being 'down' some already? Again we're talking platoon vs platoon only.

First thing, get the hell out of the ambush zone. Then it's just a matter of maneuvering while the enemy is being distracted by artillery or other support.

Some terrain allows you to bug out and disappear back into the forest/fog etc. without even supporting elements.

Using supportive weaponry and fluidity, we can react to an ambush that costs us a few men, and turn it into a situation that costs the enemy an entire platoon.

I.E. Get the hell out/maneuver the enemy and hit him with artillery. Isolate portions of his formation with your own men if you need to do it toe to toe like that without the artillery. You have to see it done to believe it.

If bypass, then what do you think are the likely actions of the defending platoon you aren't engaging? How would you deal with that?

He'll either hold his position in which case he continues to take casualties from my mortar/support or he'll dislocate, in which case I've pushed him back and accomplished my goal. All I have to do is repeat that.

Often players will freak out when they see this sort of thing, not feeling quite comfortable with what is going on. They'll abandon their positions without me having to fight them for it. THAT, is a maneuverists dream

If he counter attacks, the formlessness works wonders. So does the mortars.

Again I was looking more for a specific example of how you would use your support/maneuver elements to either engage or bypass. How that technique would be more effective than a traditionally more concentrated platoon upon contacting the enemy initially. Keeping in mind that if some of your elements are out of C&C, they cannot react as well in a fluid situation and we are just talking platoon vs platoon here. Sure it's easy to say then just bring up some firesupport to suppress the enemy but I'm curious simply about the platoons actions in an isolated case. Bypass means to me going around not withdrawing, lol, you agree that split squads have limitations in combat effectiveness and/or reaction times when out of C&C? Doesn't this give an advantage to the defender to get 'inside' your plans? I agree there are situations where simply maneuvering a force can threaten the enemy and cause him to move and/or react.

Looking forward to your response.

I've tried to give you some hypothetical reactions etc. What is important though is that rather than focus on my answers, you focus on my thought process. Exactly *what* one does isn't as important as how one thinks when it comes to understanding maneuverists.

It's all very situational.

Hmm, I agree with Bullethead in that I don't see this 'versus' distinction at all, as opposed to simply playing CM well, which means at some point you will have to engage the enemy.

[This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 02-18-2001).]

[Guest Pillar]

If out of C&C then a split squad will be even more fragile and its added delay in carrying out orders makes for less flexibility, not more, allowing your opponent to get inside your 'tempo'. There's a distinct correlation between firepower/range/cover, a split British Rifle squad for example is pretty anemic, not very good at much of anything on its own.

True, and the added flexibility makes it pay off for me usually. If you're running your half squads directly into confrontation with enemy full squads of course you shouldn't expect much. The key is to either coalesce your own platoon through maneuver in a manner conductive to dislocating (not necessarily destroying) the enemy, OR, withdraw and bypass.

I was thinking more along the lines of your spread out platoon split into maneuver/support elements dealing with a more concentrated enemy upon contact.

The supporting teams shoot up the enemy (three support teams), the maneuver teams try and get into good positions to isolate a single enemy squad, and artillery is called. Of course, this is all assuming you decide you want to engage. The beauty of it is that you don't *have* to engage.

Sure it's easy to say then just bring up some firesupport to suppress the enemy but I'm curious simply about the platoons actions in an isolated case.

It's an art and is highly situational. There is no exact way. It's also not easy. You basically must maneuver to positions where the enemy plan is compromised, forcing him to dislocate into your position.

Example: Maneuvering three teams to fight a single one of his squad on his flank (picture he is defending in a line), while focusing all your three support teams on this one unit. Either the defender must bring his other two platoons to YOU, (and that can be very dangerous), or he faces defeat piecemeal.

The real question isn't how you do that, it's WHY you would choose to do that as opposed to simply bypassing etc.

Bypass means to me going around not withdrawing,

To bypass I first MUST withdraw from the ambush. If I try running through the area directly I almost always am slaughtered.

lol, you agree that split squads have limitations in combat effectiveness and/or reaction times when out of C&C?

Of course, it's in the game code. Who'd argue that?

Doesn't this give an advantage to the defender to get 'inside' your plans?

Depends, are you talking attrition or maneuver theory here? If your goal is to engage the enemy in a fight of attrition (superior exchange) at every opportunity, than half-squads are useless.

Try playing a guy named "Swamp"

I agree there are situations where simply maneuvering a force can threaten the enemy and cause him to move and/or react.

Aye, that's the root of it.

Hmm, I agree with Bullethead in that I don't see this 'versus' distinction at all, as opposed to simply playing CM well, which means at some point you will have to engage the enemy.

The attrition CM player will look for opportunities of favourable exchange at every turn, every encounter. The Maneuverist is different in that respect.

I agree though that as far as CM is concerned, in the end you need to engage the enemy. I don't think firepower or fighting negate the theory of maneuver. Maneuver warfare isn't about avoiding fighting forever.

There is a very small booklett by Lind called "Maneuver Warfare Handbook" that talks about these things in more detail. Much of what I have written in this thread is simply extrapolation/transmission of his ideas. If you have some spare time I recommend it, I'd love to hear you thoughts on his writing.

[ScoutPL]

Pillar, here we go in the most unoffensive and inpersonal way I can...

I imagine, judging from your last post that you'd like for me to read Leonard. Well, he doesnt share a place on my shelf next to my FM 7 series manuals but I did take a couple hours at Barnes and Noble to peruse his book. As you may expect I found fault with most of his writings, alot of which I described back in one of the other attrition/maneuver debates with Henri. I can look it up and post it again if you wish.

As far as your "Infantry Platoon" article goes....

"This article is meant to provide a brief look at some unconventional, though not unrealistic ways to operate a platoon."

Actually, none of the "novel" ideas you posted are any different from how I was trained to "maneuver" (for lack of a better term) a platoon or evan a squad. Only in your context and scale are you off base. Allow me to eplain.

"What I'm going to do is attempt to describe how I might use a single platoon against an enemy platoon, one on one, using improvisation and unconventional methods."

As a platoon leader, worried about bringing my guys home, I would never knowingly commit my platoon or one of my squads to a one on one fight. If I was to do so unknowingly I would back out as quickly as possible unless I knew help was just a few seconds away. Like maybe an immediate suppression call for fire or something similiar. Which by the way isnt going to happen in CM, so I guess what I'm saying here is I would do everything in my power to keep that from happening when I play CM. For a number of reasons. The first being you never want to attack anything one on one. That gives at best a 50-50 % chance of being successful. On the battlefield those are chances that cost lives and terrain unnecessarily. Most armies are set up on a triangle, pyramid structure for a reason. Platoons (3 squads) attack squads, companies (3 maneuver platoons) attack platoons, battalions (3 maneuver companies) attack companies. Notice the trend here?

"John, Rick, Aaron, you go around the left flank and try to flank the enemy squads position. Dan, Brett and Mike will lay heavy supprresive fire with the MG while you maneuver. I want Jason and Ken to maneuver far around the enemy squad and cutoff their rear, preparing to meet and delay any enemy squads coming to assist while we assault this one."

OK, so here we have a ten man squad including you the squad leader. Pretty heady days to have a fully manned squad but its probably the first day of the war. We have at least a two man machine gun team and a rifleman suppressing ten bad guys (Hey, its the first day of the war remember?) Now, I know what one of my squads are going to do if they come under fire from a lone machinegun, but thats for later. We have two maneuver elements, one consisting of three men and one consisting of two. Even assuming that none of them gets wounded, lost or killed on the way to the objective, you're still taking on the enemy with a 1:2 ratio. Oops! Here it is less then a minute in the firefight and we've already lost our 50-50 % chance of success! To make matters worse we're going to split up our 5 man assault element into two even smaller teams in the hope that the bad guys will get scared when they see two OD uniforms behind them and suddenly throw up their hands so we can claim victory. Does anyone else see the flaws in this logic? What happens if the two man team doing the end run, runs into a guy taking a piss and he blows them away? How will you know? You dont seriously think two men can hold off a whole other squad do you? How would you know they were in contact? Is one of them going to run back around and tell you? So then we just have one guy holding off ten. Are you going to go with the assault element? Or with the two man element? How do you decide? How do you control the fires of your machinegun so he doesnt shoot up either or both of your assault elements? What I see here is Pillar (if he survives himself) writing letters home to John's, Rick's, Aaron's, Jason's and Ken's parents explaining what happened, neglecting to put in "why" it happened and then writing one home to his own parents trying to explain why he's on latrine detail for the rest of the war. Thats probably too personal huh, Pillar. Well I felt it was necessary to carry on with your human element to add weight to my argument. Sorry if it burns.

Now you may have used your example above as a way of illustrating how you see maneuverist theory applied to the battlefield. By which I believe I understand you to be saying that a Maneuverist can accomplish the same goal as an attritionist with fewer forces and less bloodshed. Well either I just shot your theory full of holes or you had a very poor example.

Personnaly, I think you are once again trying to compare apples and oranges when you take theories that apply to upper echelons of command and try to stick them in CM, but I'll play along. Going back to how to destroy a squad. I was trained to manuever my platoon as one body. As a light infantryman I was most often involved in fighting that took place in woods or urban areas. The one thing that these types of terrain have in common is the small amount of actual combat space that exists. When in the forest the combat space created when two opposing forces collide is only a few hundred meters at the most, or in other words as far as you can see through the trees. In a town or city the combat space will often be no more then the width of a street dividing two rows of buildings. The same principle applies to open terrain actually, the battlespace dominated by mechanized forces is roughly corresponding since their mobility and powerful weaponry actually makes things seem a lot closer.

A governing principle of combat is to always make contact with the smallest element possible. So depending on the situation, but most frequently, I used a column formation with my lead squad in traveling overwatch, meaning the the lead fire team was actually 50-100 meters in front of the platoon. A contact would go like this (this is straight out of the FM by the way, they're called battle drills and each one of them covers each of the faults I found in your suggested "drill" above).

A team, First squad(four men)makes contact with a three man OP. They seek cover and concealment and begin suppressing the enemy. Their team leader reports what they see to his squad leader by hand signal if he can, other wise by voice. The squad leader reports to me and tells me he is maneuvering against the enemy. I concur and since I am right behind his squad I move up the platoon's weapons squad (2 MG's) to the head of the column. The squad leader bounds his B team around the enemy's flank, using cover and concealment. When he is ready to assault he pops a smoke, throws a colored cloth with a rock tied in it or some other prearranged signal to the other team to shift fires. The other team shifts or lifts fires as his assault element (5 men) sweeps across the objective. By now the enemy should be reduced or at least sufficiently suppressed to give him the advantage in combat power and the OP is eliminated. As the First squad is consolidating I pass the Second squad to the front and they take over the lead. Since I know I am near the enemy's defensive position I tighten up my formation and keep the MG's forward with me. The lead team makes contact again , only this time they report back an enemy squad with a MG in support. I tell the lead squad leader to set up a SBF position as I bring the MG's forward. I quickly survey the area as best I can and if I have a weapons squad leader I quickly brief him on the assault element's route and signals to be used. He places the MG teams as he sees fit within the SBF position. If I dont have a Wpns sqd ldr then I place the guns myself and give them their instructions. As the two trail squads are moving up I brief the lead (SBF) squad leader on the plan and then move out with the other two squads around the enemy's flank. I can assault with both squads, keep one in the treeline as a reserve or have one set up as security along a likely counterattack route. When I am prepared to assault I send up a flare or throw a colored panel as well as sending a message over the radio. The SBF shifts fires and we assault across the objective. This sounds an aweful like your "maneuverist" tactics, yet its what infantrymen have been practicing since the German Breakout in 1918.

"For example, we can advance with maneuver teams using overwatch provided by supportive teams, rather than sending ENTIRE squads forward, with entire squads in overwatch.

We can more easily bypass an enemy strongpoint, since contact is made only by team rather than squad.

Using supportive weaponry and fluidity, we can react to an ambush that costs us a few men, and turn it into a situation that costs the enemy an entire platoon."

All of these are equal capabilities using the battle drills I described above, which offer greater combat power and more control (i.e. flexibility).

"If a maneuver team makes contact with an enemy squad or platoon, we can shift our supportive teams to assist immediately, AND bring other maneuver elements to bear, all without having to concentrate a platoon and make it vulnerable to artillery."

Doesnt the first part of your sentence negate the last? In other words, how do you maneuver to assist an element without concentrating somewhat? Keeping the principle of combat space in mind you will have to mass to an extent just to gain fire superiority, which will have to be gained before you can even begin to maneuver against the enemy.

"Finally, we can make it easier to support our platoons with small calibre artillery or mortar since their fluidity and physical formlessness allows the platoon leader to mold his forces better around a barrage."

What? How can calling in friendly arty be easier when you have mutiple teams spread out, alot of them totally out of contact with their leader, then when you have your unit concentrated and under control?

"This methodology is as you can tell, VERY different from the standard methods used. Instead of lining up your squads in a "formation" designed to have "all guns forward", we have a fluid multi-element, "dynamic" (changeable/changing) force more adaptable to situational factors."

Squads on line is only one formation out of six listed in FM 7-8, and is one I have personally never used. And how exactly is this different from fire teams on line? Perhaps you should read some of MY books as well.

Now by your example I have conducted an attack using maneuver to conduct an attritionist type attack. And I say your damn right I did! One thing I think you guys are missing is exactly what attrition means to those you like to label "attritionist". I'm not even sure I fit into that category of yours but I have a feeling I would. To paraphrase Gen. Patton, "The american soldiers job is not to die for his country, its to make that other poor SOB die for his." Attrition warfare to me means attrit the hell out of the enemy.

"Attrition hence is interested in drawing the enemy into unfavourable conditions to fight, maneuver is about avoiding fights unless they are absolutely relevent to the goal."

If we arent interested in destroying the enemy in the field then why are we going to war in the first place? If all I need to do is blind him or starve him then the Air Force and Navy spend more then enough tax dollars to make sure that happens.

"Ironically however, an attritionist is willing to take even greater casualties, so long as it's "all together" on some main assault into an enemy ambush, and so long as the enemy takes greater casualties than himself. This often leads to friction between the two styles of fighting, and causes difficulty in mutual understanding."

The ironic part is you are falling into the same trap yourself. I think I made it clear above that every attempt can be made to ensure you dont fall into an enemy ambush and use maneuver effectively to ATTRIT the enemy while keeping your own casualties to a minimum.

Finally one last word on "Gamey."

"I think both sides should try to understand that the different styles are simply a translation of differing personality and situational interpretation. I'd like to see this community getting away from labelling different styles as "gamey" etc. simply because they differ from popular methods."

I have labeled your tactics Gamey before because they take advantage of game mechanics that you wouldn't find on the real battlefield, not because they were novel or not written down somewhere. Another thing to keep in mind, warfare has been around for as long as man has, so there may be some reasons why some methods are more "popular" then others. Like they've been proven to work effectively over and over and over.

[Guest aaronb]

Originally posted by Pillar:

Philosophic Underpinnings

One analogy which Leonhard uses in his book "The Art of Maneuver" is the game of chess. The attritionist chess player makes his decisions based on exchange with enemy peices. […]The maneuverist however, is concenred with the destruction of the enemy king ONLY. He is willing to avoid opportunities (even of favourable exchange) if that means bettering his position to take the enemy king.

[…]The maneuverist can predict what the attritionist will do next knowing that the attritionist is interested in exchange rates. The attritionist however, can have difficulty seeing logic in somewhat random and sometimes seemingly irrational moves made by the maneuverist when his goal is not known.

1) the analogy between Chess and modern war (and CM) is suspect at best, and so has little utility. Chess simulates an era of conflict when the will to fight often resided mostly in the person of the King: take the king – or the battlefield commander, or the key castle - and the entire chain of command stops. So attaining the ‘goal’ could reasonably have priority over attriting the opponent.

In modern warfare, the chain of command is specifically built to avoid failure even when one or more levels goes away – whether that is the King, President, Prime Minister, or capital city. The same with CM. Go ahead and take the King. Then weather the counter-attack with your attrited force.

2) The manoeuverist can no more predict an attritionist than an attritionist can not predict a manoeuverist. The manoeuverist has imperfect knowledge of how the attritionist plans to achieve goals, and the attritionist has some knowledge of how the maoeuverist will achieve his/her goals. What is so random in an attack on the King? What is so predictable about ambushes/funnels leading to high attrition? Again, the Chess analogy is not useful.

You can use indirect assets to turn the situation in your favour without commiting a large amount of men to the situation.

Nit: things measured in discrete units (like men, women, peanuts, cars, hot peppers) are ‘numbered’ – “number of men to the situation”, "I sell a large number of cars each year". Only non-discretely measure things (like water or sand) are ‘amounted’ – ‘amount of water’, ‘amount of sand’. You don’t say “number of water”, so you wouldn’t say “amount of men” unless the quantities are so large that individuals no longer matter. On a tactical scale, it’s “number”.

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

my armoured assets have about the half-life of a gnat in DDT

- Germanboy

[Guest Pillar]

"Maneuver Warfare Handbook", by William S. Lind, pages 4-28.

Pillar:

This is simulated abstractly by taking a maneuver team and a support team, using the maneuver team to envelope and close on the enemy squad while the supportive team fires on the enemy position. Combined with maneuver and supportive elements from other squads in the platoon, one can create a basic maneuver and execute it safely without taking heavy casualties.

I imagine, judging from your last post that you'd like for me to read Leonard. Well, he doesnt share a place on my shelf next to my FM 7 series manuals but I did take a couple hours at Barnes and Noble to peruse his book. As you may expect I found fault with most of his writings, alot of which I described back in one of the other attrition/maneuver debates with Henri. I can look it up and post it again if you wish.

What did you think of Lind? What did you think of Rommel's "Infantry Attacks"?

In the end, I disagree with you still. I think you are viewing things from a very different standpoint or "paradigm" as myself.

I can respect your viewpoint, as I have said, "If the attritionist method works better for you, there is nothing wrong with going that route."

You should probably leave it at that.

BTW, have you considered playing as the attrition commander in this game Capt. is setting up? It's in one of these threads somewhere. Worth a look, you might enjoy it.

- Pillar

[Guest Pillar]

1) the analogy between Chess and modern war (and CM) is suspect at best, and so has little utility. Chess simulates an era of conflict when the will to fight often resided mostly in the person of the King: take the king – or the battlefield commander, or the key castle - and the entire chain of command stops. So attaining the ‘goal’ could reasonably have priority over attriting the opponent.

I disagree. Chess demonstrates mindset and paradigm. It also demonstrates the concept of attacking a decisive enemy weakpoint through maneuver, rather than destroying his forces directly.

2) The manoeuverist can no more predict an attritionist than an attritionist can not predict a manoeuverist.

Perhaps. It doesn't seem to be the case historically, but in any event, I wasn't meaning to suggest one style ALWAYS was predictable and the other ALWAYS wasn't. Situational factors rule. Sorry for the miscommunication.

By the way Aaron, good to see you here for a change

(nit noted)

[Bullethead]

Pilar said:

For a maneuverist, is movement really all just "to achieve a better position from which to engage in attrition"? I would say, from a maneuver perspective, it isn't. This is still viewing movement as a means to the end - attrition, rather than a means of avoiding attrition.

Dude, it's like ScoutPL said. Attrition is when it comes down to swapping bullets and bodies. It's the unavoidable nut-cutting of war. You cannot simultaneously avoid attrition and fight a war. Here's why:

You have to kill the enemy--that's the whole point of the war, at least at the small unit level. This is putting attrition on the enemy. And most times, the enemy is just as smart, just as skilled, just as well-armed, and just as desperate as you are. Which means he's going to kill some of your guys whether you like it or not. This is putting attrition on you. So the best you can do is arrange things so he has as hard a time killing you as possible while you kill him, so that the attrition exchange ratio favors you.

You do this by every means available, fair or foul, including maneuver. Because once units get heavily engaged, there's no going back and moving them as you'd like to--they're stuck in the attrition phase of the battle. So you'd better hope you set things up advantageously before then.

Think about this. Napolean is famed for his maneuvers, right? OK, so what was the concept behind his maneuvers? To seek a decisive battle with the enemy main army in order to destroy it. IOW, severe attrition of the enemy was the goal of his maneuvers. He'd pick a point in the enemy rear where he'd be able to fight at best advantage, then go there. The enemy would have to fall back and fight there to restore his communications, playing right into Napolean's hand, and thus Napolean had a long string of victories. Sure, a lot of French got killed in the process, but not as many as otherwise. This is the classic example of maneuver used to stack the attrition deck in your favor.

This is why I say that there is no separating attrition from maneuver. Attrition is the whole reason you are on the battlefield and were issued a weapon. You can do attrition with or without maneuver, but maneuver is never more than an adjunct to attrition, a means of making attrition work for you instead of against you.

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Guest Pillar]

Ah, I see what you mean. The thing is we are using the word "attrition" differently you and I.

I'm viewing "attrition" as a philosophy. I'm not really looking at "attrition" as in "fighting" or "destruction" etc. Know what I mean? I think the chess analogy demonstrates the two different paradigms well.

I'm just using the word differently than you BH... I'm using it to mean something of a psychological or style issue.

I was thinking of reprinting the defintional/philosophic differences as they are written in some books, but I figure that's too much work

I'll just reference them to you guys and let you do the research. Have you read Leonhard? Lind? (Lind by the way provides a pretty good written bibliography for further reading).

You bring up a worthy issue. We must all be clearer on our definitions.

[ScoutPL]

Its a good thing you brought up definitions Pillar, because I'm certain I dont fit yours for "attritionist". Realist I'll own up to but not attritionist. I think history (in all of its bloody ugliness) has demonstrated that wars are won by kicking the other guys butt off the battlefield. Not by maneuvering around him til he got dizzy and decided to quit. So, no I wont be joining anyones game that has me coming into it labeled as an attritionist, because I dont consider myself one and I'm pretty sure alot of other people wouldn't either. Including Rommel. And yes I have read Rommel's Attacks and the Rommel Papers so I think I have a pretty good idea of where the man came from. And believe me Rommel liked nothing more then kicking the sh&t out of his enemies. He was very adept at using maneuver to do it, but bottom line he used superior firepower to suppress the enemy in order to allow himself to maneuver to a position of advantage to where he could wreck further havoc on his enemy. Not attrition tactics (if there is such a thing), not maneuverist tactics, just plain common sense and "realist" tactics. Bottom line.

"In the end, I disagree with you still. I think you are viewing things from a very different standpoint or "paradigm" as myself."

Isn't a differing viewpoint the whole seed of this debate? Or is this a maneuverist way of saying this isnt a fight I want to take up so we must just be arguing about different things? To use your words:

"For a maneuverist, movement can be about giving up the fight entirely."

Guess I should throw up my hands and surrender, since I have been thoroughly defeated. I'm just too locked into my "attritionist" thinking to realize it!

[Guest Pillar]

ScoutPL,

I long since stopped trying to convince you of anything.

On Paradigms: To paraphrase Fionn, "It's a sad day when we can't understand different points of view."

You go ahead and be a realist.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 02-18-2001).]

[ScoutPL]

Understanding a different point of view means the point of view has to make sense to the rational mind. So far you havent come back and explained to me why the things I found wrong with your "point of view" are inaccurate. And Bud, its not just becuase I think I'm right and you're wrong. Your ideas just dont pass the acid test. I dont have a problem with maneuverists theory, I think some of the extreme examples are a little wishful thinking on the real battlefield but as a whole its a sound theory. I still believe the best commander is one who can blend both theories into a good solid workable technique. So far I havent seen any evidence of your examples fitting that bill.

[The Tanklord]

What do you do if the enemy has the larger force and you have no terrain advantages?

Either find some good terrain (good enough to even the score) or try to split

the enemy force up in smaller parts that you can beat. I think that everyone agrees that to stand and fight would be stupid. Both options require movement, the latter some pretty fancy dancing esp if your opponent is the cautious type.

Now if you apply this strategy even when the forces are evenly matched or when you are commanding the larger force, you get some serious advantages. Bigger reserves, can cover a larger area, (in CM) be able to buy more tanks (now that's something to think about) etc.

Simply put accomplishing more with less can never be a bad thing. Now I'm probably to much of an attritionist to fully have grasped the whole point of Pillars article but this is my interpretation and I think his reasoning is sound.

The only (game) disadvantage I can see is that you may loose focus if you micromanage to much.

[Henri]

Originally posted by ScoutPL:

Realist I'll own up to but not attritionist. ... So, no I wont be joining anyones game that has me coming into it labeled as an attritionist, because I dont consider myself one and I'm pretty sure alot of other people wouldn't either.

Fair enough, ScoutPL, but the point is that the opposing team characterizes itself as shamelessly maneuverist, and as far as I know accepts Lind's and Leonhard's views without reservation, a point of view that you vilify, decisively reject and consider unrealistic.

I don't think that the Capt. would object to the team opposing Fionn's maneuverists calling themselves "realists" instead of attritionists.This is not about labels, but about philosophies of fighting.

So why don't you put your money where your mouth is and show that you can beat the maneuverists with your "realistic" style? C'mon, be a sport! My poor fighting record can be excused by my being an amateur, but being a professional soldier, you'll need another excuse if you think that you can't win against a team of attritionists, and amateurs at that (amateurs at real war, that is...).

I have said before that I don't believe that the Capt's game will really prove anything, except that the best players of CM are maneuverists.It would be a shame if none of the so outspoken opponents of maneuver theory would dare to take up the challenge. Are they aplying the maneuverist dictum that the ideal victory is that which is won without fighting?

Henri

[Henri]

Originally posted by Pillar:

Ok, I had some free time at work today (too windy for flying) so I decided to do some writing.

Please forgive all the spelling errors etc. This is meant to be a lighthearted thing, not a thesis.

Interesting post Pillar, since you wrote it off the top of your head, I read it as you intended, not as a thesis. I presume that based on past experience, you are not surprised that some took it as a thesis and attempted to shoot it full of holes.Although I have no problem with your opinion, I do have a few reservations also off the top of my head. So in the spirit of friendly discussion, here it is.

One problem with your description is that it is about pure tactics, about which maneuver theory has little to say in such situations out of context.

Maneuver theory is all about mission intent, adapting to changing circumstances, and so on, as you well know. As Lind puts it, "Maneuver warfare brooks no rules", so attempting to reduce maneuver warfare to a set of precepts about what to do in absolute terms independently of mission intent leaves you open to criticism where your opponent is free to add circumstances that make your approach bound to fail.

As ScoutPL pointed out, some of the methods that you describe are standard fare and are not specifically maneuverist nor attritionist.

While I am at it, let me give an example of when maneuver theory would require an attrition-type attack.

Let us say that one has elite units facing a strong enemy line with very low morale and that somehow the friendly commander is aware of this. In such a circumstance, his best move could be a strong attack on the enemy line, which would have a high likelyhood of breaking, throwing the enemy force into disarray as the center disintegrates.

Although this may look like an attritionist procedure, it is simply applying the maneuver idea of striking at the enemy's main vulnerability (not necessarily his weakest point, but his "center of gravity").

Leonhard clearly states in his book that maneuver theory does not always exclude attrition.

Henri

[Henri]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

There's one thing I don't understand at all in this big argument of "attrition vs. maneuver", and that's the "vs." thing in the middle. To me, they are intimately linked. Moving from Point A to Point B is a waste of fuel unless you then proceed to kill the enemy at Point B. The whole point of maneuver is to achieve a better position from which to engage in attrition--to stack the deck so the exchange rate favors you as much as possible. No matter how fancy your moves are, sooner or later you get down to the nut-cutting.

The italicized part of the above is exactly the attritionist point of view as expressed by Lind and Leonhard. As one or both of them put it, attrition warfare uses movement in order to allow fighting, whereas maneuverists use fighting in order to allow movement.

This requires a lot more explanation than I care to write right now (maneuver theory cannot be summed up in a single snappy statement), and its misinterpretation has caused a lot of useless discussion (maneuver warfare does not consist of avoiding combat). But I just wanted to point out that what you consider a given is nothing more than the attrition warfare point of view.

I hope that this doesn't sound patronizing, but why don't you read the Marine Corps Warfighting Manual MCDP-1, which is free on the web? It is a pretty good description of maneuver warfare from a practical point of view, and it IS the USMC official doctrine of how to make war.

Henri