The Platoon -- A Maneuverist Perspective

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

A couple of posters upthread described some of the tactics Pillar was using as infiltration tactics. I've thought about this off and on for the last couple of days, and the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that *this* is what Pillar (and Fionn) are really doing. Their tactics are not so much maneuverist as they are infiltrationist.

In some of Fionn's AARs, for example, he will talk about how if he can get a couple of units behind the enemy's front line, he can use the units to attack unguarded support weapons that, being slower, are behind the front line and thus probably unguarded by regular infantry units. The overall advantage of doing this is that the front line units will be without support weapons when it comes time for heavy combat.

I think that Pillar tends to follow the same type of strategy. In a thread from several months ago, I asked Pillar some questions about how he would apply the tactics he was describing to a scenario I was playing in which I had tried and failed to use similar tactics. Pillar loaded up the scenario and by using his maneuverist/infiltration strategy, managed to get a platoon plus FO on a flank in the enemy rear, which had the effect of breaking up the attack, giving the rest of the defenders information about where the main attack was, and gave the defenders an outpost in the enemy's rear to use for attacking. There are a lot of advantages for the player who can do this, as Pillar amply demonstrated in his (illustrated!) posts on this topic. But the advantage lies not in the fact that he was going after a rear headquarters unit or something like that (in fact, I'm sure he didn't know what he was going after, specifically, when he moved behind the enemy troops), but in the fact that the unit in the rear forced the other units to divide their attention between the rear unit and the main enemy body in the front, which they hadn't yet identified.

IMO, this is an example of infiltration. For all the discussion of "surfaces and gaps" or even "recon pull," it doesn't look like either Fionn or Pillar are seeking to find a gap through which they can push a largish unit so that that unit can attack a specific target in the rear areas. Instead, it looks like both of them are interested in finding gaps through which they can push the recon elements that found the gap, and then attack rear area targets of opportunity with the recon unit. I think that this is classic infiltration, and only appears to be "maneuverist" because it appears to fit within some of the overbroad descriptions of what maneuverism is.

So I'm not sure what the new dichotomy would be, but to maintain the maneuverists' tradition of using a loaded term to describe people who disagree with them ("attritionists") perhaps infiltrationist vs. stick-in-the-muddists would be appropriate.

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

WOOT!

[ScoutPL]

Classicly an infiltration is a type of deliberate attack in which you break your unit into subunits and attempt to "sneak" them past the enemy's MLR, have them regroup and attack a key objective in his rear. First of all this sort of attack is usually conducted in a low-intensity type conflict where the "front line" isnt really very well defined to begin with. The objective is always known before hand, some info is generally known about the routes (often scouted before hand) and the infiltration attack is usually used to support another major attack.

I would argue that the reason Pillar was able to get a full rifle platoon and an FO into the enemy's rear by bypassing on a flank is chiefly due to game mechanics not solid tactics. On a real battlefield units on the defense are tied in with one another, making the sneaky flanking maneuvers so common in CM very dangerous in real life.

Now I know alot of guys are going to scream its just a game, quit comparing it to real life, blah, blah. Well, I'm not the one getting on here and telling the pros their own doctrine is in the can because it just doesnt work that great in CM, especially compared to TTP's that take advantage of the game mechanics.

I dont have a problem with guys playing CM, however they want to play it. They're welcome to use 10k by 10k maps with 50 Pershings against 50 Tigers if they want to, I dont care. I wont play with them but there are enough people that enjoy this great game that they'll always find someone to play with. What bothers me though, is guys who get on here and tell me the doctrine I have been trained to use is sub-par, because it can be defeated in CM. Well it can be defeated in CM because CM is a game with limitations. I get immense pleasure out of simulating real world, historical combat on CM but I have to put myself and the folks I play with under certain restrictions that keep it as real as possible.

Bottom line: Infiltration works for Pillar and Fionn because it takes advantage of the game mechanics. Nothing wrong with that. But if you're playing a die hard realist then you may want to ask about sideline buffers, etc. before jumping in with them for a game.

[Fuerte]

Allied strategies!