The Platoon -- A Maneuverist Perspective

[Guest Pillar]

hehehe

Cmon share your thoughts first

[Geier]

If I may just butt in and ask a question to Henri here.

You have decided that Bullethead (and others, but let's use BH as an example) belongs to something you call "the attritionist camp".

You have decided that the USMC teaches and practises something called maneuver warfare.

Now, knowing Bulletheads background, could we assume that the USMC would have gone to rather great lengths to prevent someone who did not agree with, and conform with, "the USMC way of conducting warfare" from commanding troops under any circumstances?

Could we not also assume that any Marine is thoroughly drilled in "the USMC way of doing things", including Bullethead?

That in fact he does know exactly what he is talking about and maybe you don't?

I'm sorry Henri but you have failed to convince me that your part in this whole discussion is about anything more than semantics and your ego.

And that's what I think this whole thing is about, semantics.

Pillar, I honestly think that your first post was a step in the right direction even if you (to me at least) failed to prove your point. I believe that you are viewing this rather "abstractly" (best word I could find) while your "opponents" are very practical. I think maybe you should try to give more examples of how your view differs from the professionals.

My guess is that you in the end will find that it doesn't but I've been wrong before.

Johan

[Ksak]

Pillar

The reason people took off on you is because you are, in some cases almost literally, taking things out of the Field Manuals and redefining then them into some Alice in Wonderland "Maneuver" theory. Wasn't it the Rabbit that said that words only mean what we say they do?

BTW, a screening force is a defensive element. Maybe ScoutPL will help you out in properly defining the reconaissance you described in an earlier post.

[Guest Pillar]

Pillar, I honestly think that your first post was a step in the right direction even if you (to me at least) failed to prove your point. I believe that you are viewing this rather "abstractly" (best word I could find) while your "opponents" are very practical. I think maybe you should try to give more examples of how your view differs from the professionals.

My guess is that you in the end will find that it doesn't but I've been wrong before.

Ok. I realise that you mean this in a nice and helpful way, but it's really getting annoying now that people reading this thread still don't seem to get it.

I'm not here to "proove my point" or lay out my opinions on maneuver warfare. I'm here to try and understand Bullethead's and CavScout's points and views. Maybe, AFTER those have been VERY clear, I will get involved with a debate with these guys. It could, as you say, turn out they are saying the same thing as I am using different language. In that case, why bother debating? I must determine these things first.

You people viewing this thread should quit looking at this thread like I'm trying to debate something at the moment which clearly I am not.

Is there anyone following this thread who isn't blind to what I've been doing?

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 02-22-2001).]

[Ksak]

Pillar

gniladep kcab ?

[Guest Pillar]

Originally posted by Ksak:

Pillar

The reason people took off on you is because you are, in some cases almost literally, taking things out of the Field Manuals and redefining then them into some Alice in Wonderland "Maneuver" theory. Wasn't it the Rabbit that said that words only mean what we say they do?

These kind of accusations without detailed support are not taken kindly by me.

Originally posted by Ksak:

BTW, a screening force is a defensive element. Maybe ScoutPL will help you out in properly defining the reconaissance you described in an earlier post.

Sure, or any of the military guys. I'm not sure the US has an exact term for what I use because their doctrine is different. The Soviets call it a "screening" or "security" element (translated) even on the attack.

Scout(s)? BH?

[Guest Pillar]

Originally posted by Ksak:

Pillar

gniladep kcab ?

You'll have to translate that for me.

[Ksak]

Pillar

Not accusing you of plagiarism. Only pointing out that there is not much new under the sun about land combat that is not in the Field Manuals.

Read it backwards.

[Guest Pillar]

No, you said:

"The reason people took off on you is because you are, in some cases almost literally, taking things out of the Field Manuals and redefining then them into some Alice in Wonderland "Maneuver" theory. "

Where's your support? When did I *ever* reference a field manual? When did I *ever* claim all techniques were unique to Maneuver Warfare?

You don't have a clue, congratulations, you've just made the killfile list.

[Geier]

Originally posted by Pillar:

Is there anyone following this thread who isn't blind to what I've been doing?

No, we're all complete nincompoops. You are right, I did not figure out that you started a thread in order to attract posts from BH and CavScout, in order to understand basic military strategy and tactics. I agree that they write durn interesting posts though.

Johan

[Guest Pillar]

Originally posted by Geier:

No, we're all complete nincompoops. You are right, I did not figure out that you started a thread in order to attract posts from BH and CavScout, in order to understand basic military strategy and tactics. I agree that they write durn interesting posts though.

Johan

Johan, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to come across as being condescending to you.

I have stated throughout this thread a few times that I'm not debating maneuver theory so much as just trying to listen to what Bullethead and Cavscout have to say.

Since writing those intentions numerous times, AND following through with them, 3rd parties have kept jumping in going "Pillar you aren't prooving your point" etc.

Again, I'm sorry. I'm just getting a bit aggravated with some people who haven't been reading everything carefully.

Bullethead has been treating me with respect for taking such an "all ears" position rather than trying to batter at him with my own opinions. I'd like to see the third parties do the same.

Bullethead, some support here would be nice.

[Ksak]

It's unfortunate that you did not reference any Field Manuals because if you had we all could have been spared your incoherent dribble.

On the upside the military type respondents kept the thread interesting and informative.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Pillar:

hehehe

Cmon share your thoughts first

I think using a screening/recon force is OK, to a point. What you do with the info depends on your mission. Can jumping through a "gap" work? Sure, sometimes. But is it always smart? Hell no.

Playing a game with ScoutPL I found a "gap" up the middle and two "surfaces", one on the right and one on the left. Being a "maneuverist" I suppose I should have pushed my main force through that, towards the objective. In my mind this would be folly.

The surfaces were armor strong points. Diving between them exposes me to flank fire. Instead I choose to attrit him, but I would use maneuver to make it favorable to me. To the left was several Panthers and Mark IVs. To the right, was light armor/cars and some assualt guns. Did I attack his strength? No, I attacked his weakness, the right side. Am I a maneuverist" because I am trying to avoid the enemy's strength? Or am I an "attritionist" who like to have the odds stacked in his favor?

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Pillar:

No, you said:

"The reason people took off on you is because you are, in some cases almost literally, taking things out of the Field Manuals and redefining then them into some Alice in Wonderland "Maneuver" theory. "

Where's your support? When did I *ever* reference a field manual? When did I *ever* claim all techniques were unique to Maneuver Warfare?

You've missed his point, I believe. He isn't claiming you took it from a FM but that it is IN the FMs. What he his saying is what you think is maneuveristic is simply 'normal' war.

[Guest Pillar]

Originally posted by CavScout:

You've missed his point, I believe. He isn't claiming you took it from a FM but that it is IN the FMs. What he his saying is what you think is maneuveristic is simply 'normal' war.

I've never claimed there was any new techniques in Maneuver warfare. Nor have I ever said that the Field Manuals are incorrect. Nor have I claimed only a maneuverist could use any given technique.

What is important, and I've stressed it right from my first post in this thread, is the thought process. That is certainly not in the US Field Manuals. It is implicit in many officers in the US Army and Marines. Maneuver theorists try to make explicit that thought process. General Patton was conducting "Maneuver Warfare" before it even existed as such.

The contribution to military art which Maneuverists offer is not so much of inventing a military art, as much as identifying and making explicit aspects of military art which they feel are important.

Ksaks tone in this debate has not been kind, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed it.

[Guest Germanboy]

D'uh - forget this post, too tired to keep track of threads. My apologies.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 02-22-2001).]

[Guest Pillar]

Originally posted by CavScout:

I think using a screening/recon force is OK, to a point. What you do with the info depends on your mission. Can jumping through a "gap" work? Sure, sometimes. But is it always smart? Hell no.

Playing a game with ScoutPL I found a "gap" up the middle and two "surfaces", one on the right and one on the left. Being a "maneuverist" I suppose I should have pushed my main force through that, towards the objective. In my mind this would be folly.

The surfaces were armor strong points. Diving between them exposes me to flank fire. Instead I choose to attrit him, but I would use maneuver to make it favorable to me. To the left was several Panthers and Mark IVs. To the right, was light armor/cars and some assualt guns. Did I attack his strength? No, I attacked his weakness, the right side. Am I a maneuverist" because I am trying to avoid the enemy's strength? Or am I an "attritionist" who like to have the odds stacked in his favor?

Sounds to me like you found his gap. A gap isn't a physical attribute of space on the battlefield or a piece of terrain.

It's stereotyping the concept to say that in a "V" enemy formation the lowest point of the "V" is the gap, and the two pointy ends are the surfaces. Cleary that's not the case.

None of this is incompatible with what I've read on "Maneuver Theory".

The firesack is not a gap, but is in fact a surface. It's a place where the enemy is strong and our forces are vulnerable. In your example, the gap was his supporting elements, which you correctly chose to attack.

I guess "Surfaces and Gaps" isn't a good term is it? Maneuverists should stick to the traditional "strength and weakness". I suspect the term was probably used simply because the German Army used it, and Maneuverists have tried to model a lot off the German organization in World War 2 (without the really crappy strategic planner)

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Pillar:

I've never claimed there was any new techniques in Maneuver warfare. Nor have I ever said that the Field Manuals are incorrect. Nor have I claimed only a maneuverist could use any given technique.

This has been said several times, but it doesn't make sense. It seems that you imply that "maneuverists" have simply repackaged old ideas and are trying to sell them. Is that what you mean?

What is important, and I've stressed it right from my first post in this thread, is the thought process. That is certainly not in the US Field Manuals.

I have to disagree.

"The forms of maneuver and the forms of tactical offensive operations complement one another (see Figures 7-2 and 7-3) and may apply to either linear or nonlinear battlefields. Further, a commander's statement of intent or concept of operations should articulate how fires will be used to support whatever form of maneuver he decides to use.

Reconnaissance is a precursor to maneuver and fire. Reconnaissance elements maintain contact with the enemy, develop the situation, and forewarn maneuver units prior to initial engagements. Orienting their movement on the movement of the enemy, reconnaissance elements avoid decisive engagements."

This says something fairly similar to your opening post on this thread, IMO. More to the point, your "surface and gaps" is defined in FM 100-5 as, "Infiltration uses covert movement of forces through enemy lines to attack positions in the enemy rear. Light infantry units are especially valuable for infiltration operations. Commanders may use infiltration to attack lightly defended positions or stronger positions from flank and rear, to secure key terrain in support of the main effort, or to disrupt enemy rear operations. Commanders are careful to avoid alerting the enemy as to their intentions by the position of maneuver and artillery units and the effects of fires in support of the infiltration. Commanders normally use infiltration in conjunction with other forms of maneuver."

It is implicit in many officers in the US Army and Marines. Maneuver theorists try to make explicit that thought process. General Patton was conducting "Maneuver Warfare" before it even existed as such.

Again, I have to disagree. The military espouses the "though process" and the importance of tempo.

"The purpose of these operations is to deny the enemy freedom of action and to disrupt or destroy the coherence and tempo of his operations."

"At the point of their attack, commanders avoid the enemy's main strength, turning him out of his defensive positions, isolating his forces from sources of support, and forcing him to fight in an unintended direction over ground he has not prepared. By attacking this way, the disadvantages of fighting exposed and surprised shift to the defender. One experienced soldier once put it this way, 'Hit the other fellow as quick as you can, as hard as you can, where it hurts the most, when he isn't looking.'

At times more direct attacks are possible. However, such attacks are nearly always costly in lives and materiel. Commanders should undertake them only when no other approach will accomplish the mission."

"The main feature of an offensive battle is the outflanking or bypassing of the defender--that is, taking the initiative. The aim of the commander in an offensive battle is to expedite the decision. Surprise, concentration, tempo, and audacity characterize offensive operations and are components of initiative. Initiative, combined with maneuver, makes decisive offensive operations possible."

The contribution to military art which Maneuverists offer is not so much of inventing a military art, as much as identifying and making explicit aspects of military art which they feel are important.

But these are identified in the manuals.

"The basic tenets allow the commander to focus on these characteristics. In a violently executed attack, agility is particularly important. It requires that commanders anticipate developments and prepare branches and sequels so that they are ready to exploit opportunities by shifting forces and activities quickly. Agility requires units to be able to rapidly change formation alignments and shift from one form of maneuver to another without pause. To preserve synchronization on a fluid battlefield, commanders conduct detailed initial planning. Subordinates understand the intent of the next two higher commanders so well that they can properly exploit battlefield opportunities even when communications fail. At every level, commanders develop options so that whatever happens, they can maintain the momentum of the attack."

Ksaks tone in this debate has not been kind, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed it.

There has been several bad tones in the thread, but nothing to terrible.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Pillar:

Sounds to me like you found his gap. A gap isn't a physical attribute of space on the battlefield or a piece of terrain.

It's stereotyping the concept to say that in a "V" enemy formation the lowest point of the "V" is the gap, and the two pointy ends are the surfaces. Cleary that's not the case.

And certainly not what I was implying.

None of this is incompatible with what I've read on "Maneuver Theory".

The firesack is not a gap, but is in fact a surface. It's a place where the enemy is strong and our forces are vulnerable. In your example, the gap was his supporting elements, which you correctly chose to attack.

I don't know about that. He didn't have a "firesack" but one can not allow two manuevrable "surfaces" to be allowed to run unmolested on the flanks.

[Guest Pillar]

Good quotes CavScout.

I particular took fondly to this one:

"Surprise, concentration, tempo, and audacity characterize offensive operations and are components of initiative. Initiative, combined with maneuver, makes decisive offensive operations possible."

That's a great one because it puts "maneuver" into the context it's designed to accomplish -- the success of the mission through maintaining the initiative.

"Maneuver" without context is just as poor as "Firepower" without context in my opinion. You probably agree.

"But these are identified in the manuals."

That's good to know.

This has been said several times, but it doesn't make sense. It seems that you imply that "maneuverists" have simply repackaged old ideas and are trying to sell them. Is that what you mean?

I think the intent is to bring forth some aspects of warfare they think have been important throughout history, and stress that they will be important in the future.

There is no malevolent attempt to take credit for ideas which are not theirs. Bibliographies attest to that.

Edit:

And certainly not what I was implying.

I know.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 02-22-2001).]

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Pillar:

...Maneuverists have tried to model a lot off the German organization in World War 2 (without the really crappy strategic planner)

And this gets me back to something I posted earlier, that the Germans did really well against weak or uncertain foes, but couldn't overcome anyone on a near equal basis.

I think a very important factor in maneuver warfare (as I understand it) is the mental state of the opposing army, especially the commander. Armies that are prone to panic and collapse are easy meat for Maneuverist tactics. But against a steadfast and resourceful opponent, a maneuverist might be lucky to escape with his hide. Again I refer you to Rommel's Dash to the Wire in December, 1941. It likely would have worked against Cunningham, whom Rommel thought he was facing. It didn't work against Auchinleck who had relieved Cunningham.

I do believe that the choice of which strategy and tactics one employs, in addition to all the usual factors we are all familiar with, must also include a shrewd assessment of your opponent's character, his mental and emotional constitution.

After all, the whole point in fighting a war--or a battle--is to "persuade" your opponent to cease resisting your policies. Therefore, it is incumbant upon you to select those tools that will best serve the task of "persuasion".

P.S. IMO Hitler's greatest mistake was to color entirely outside the box with regard to the USSR. He hadn't the slightest interest in persuading them of anything. He simply intended to obliterate them. Thus he committed Germany to a conflict to which there could be only one survivor. Since, IMHO, there was nothing that compelled him to do that, it was purest folly.

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 02-22-2001).]

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Pillar:

That's a great one because it puts "maneuver" into the context it's designed to accomplish -- the success of the mission through maintaining the initiative.

"Maneuver" without context is just as poor as "Firepower" without context in my opinion. You probably agree.

I certainly do.

[SirOscar]

Pillar

You slammed me for not reading what you wrote, ok try this, YOU wrote, quote

"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."

Hummmmmmmmmmmm sure seems like you are saying that I do not have to worry about killing off enemy forces as long I "Maneuver" correctly, in fact I can "win" the war while taking more substantial loses then my enemy, I can even be in a very terrible tactical situation, at the end, as long as I take that "KEY" objective.

Sorry what other conclusion can I take from YOUR comments.

[Guest Pillar]

Oscar,

You missed the point of the chess analogy.

You also ignored the many times I said firepower was part of maneuver theory.

I'm not interested in indulging malevolent types like yourself.

"I don't think firepower or fighting negate the theory of maneuver. Maneuver warfare isn't about avoiding fighting"

- Pillar (From this thread)

[ScoutPL]

Pillar,

YOU must need to go back and read past posts since you obviously missed the one where I explained that I purposely wanted CavScout to think he had found a gap so I could attack his flank with my reserve forces. I presented weakness on that side in hopes of drawing him across the map and giving me an open flank.

Another key point is that CavScout continued to acheive Mass and Security while keeping his Objective in mind the entire time. He didnt go bumping into my line until he found a gap. From his point of view it looked like he had destroyed, broken or suppressed (dare I say attrited) the majority of units on that flank, so he decided to commit his Main Effort there.

Also this back pedaling of yours is rather disappointing. You have always been an advocate for maneuver, maneuver, maneuver. You even started this thread with a broad proclamation about maneuver (at many different levels of command). I can get quotes if you'd like but would rather just refer you to your first post as a whole. I see nothing but statements in that post, not questions. Hardly the kind of writing someone looking for advice or opinion would write. And you also seem a pretty smart guy to me, so you should be very aware of what sort of response such a post would receive. I even asked you if I could respond in kind and you agreed.

But now all of the sudden you have decided to shut up and listen for a change. But then you get "holier then thou" when some of the guys make the mistake of assuming you're still defending the same position you've been defending for the past 6 months. I like that you are beginning to understand that allof this is all more interrelated then you originally thought. Perhaps next time you'll think a little more before making such broad, unfounded statements.

I think the most telling evidence on this board so far has been the "maneuverists" reluctance to take up my challenge and "put their money where their mouth is" as some other great mind said earlier on this board.