Attritionists and Manoeuvrists: Let the healing begin!

[The_Capt]

OK, I think I have worked out a very simple method to emulate an operation. It is gamey in some respects but only to keep it simple.

The aim of this exercise is to allow for a CM environment in which we can truly test Attrition vs Manoeuvre against each other.

I am looking for two Commanders. Now before everybody jumps on this, I am going to be snobbish about who gets to command (there is room for decent CM tactician later). I am looking for someone who is either professional military or has a professional level of knowledge of what I am talking about. Mr Cawley springs to mind as the Attrition Commander but I will take other applicants. I am looking for a brief description of which side you prefer and why and why you should be allowed to command one side or the other.

The Commander will be in charge of other players who will fight the QBs which determine the flow of the game. The 'map" is very simple and is in no way a "recreation" of Kursk, Normandy or some such monstrosity.

I hope this will allow us to put to rest the continuing argument and allow us to learn the one true lesson which is CM.."Forgiveness"

I will be talking details with the two Commanders and then will allow them to "handpick" a team of players who will fight the battles.

Your thoughts,

[Terence]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

OK, I think I have worked out a very simple method to emulate an operation. It is gamey in some respects but only to keep it simple.

Your thoughts,

It sounds great. I'm eagerly anticipating the results, and Ive been following the debate closely.

When you (and the commanders) are done with the scenario, please post it somewhere so the rest of us can fiddle around with it.

[Spook]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

I hope this will allow us to put to rest the continuing argument and allow us to learn the one true lesson which is CM.."Forgiveness"

Your thoughts,

OK, then I will forgive you for spelling maneuver "wrong"

(Sorry, cheap joke, and I know of the Commonwealth spelling. I'm just giving you the chance to catalog me as a typically dumb US denizen too )

Anyway, Capt, I am intrigued by your effort for this exercise, although I'll note here quickly that I don't qualify for a "command role" per your specs. (As I've often stated earlier, in real life it would be miraculous for me to command a ditch-digging detail.)

In that earlier "attrition & maneuver thread," I commend both you & Jason at least for keeping attention on one important factor in the "warfare methods calculus": knowing the nature & capabilities of your opponent.

But truthfully, I don't expect that even your exercise will help to resolve the traditional "maneuver vs. attrition" debate, although its grand-tactical premise is more relevant than a single CM game.

I feel that a comparison of the noted warfighting methods in a modern-era setting would be better demonstrated in an operational level game like TOAW2 or TOAW-COW. But regrettably, there is much still lacking to the TOAW series to properly capture the dynamics of "dislocation, disruption, and demoralization." It can be done, but only with a lot of programmed events through the scenario editor.

Regardless, if you're curious, I can e-mail you a TOAW2 scenario I playtested last year (assuming you have TOAW2). IMO, this particular scenario aptly demonstrated situations where both attrition & maneuver found good application.

[Major Tom]

You can't judge the victor over just one battle, or even a series of battles. Terrain playes an important part in which tactic will succeed over the other, same with the makeup of both the forces. When one knows of your enemies tactic as well, they will do their best to counter it. One battle could be decisively set up to warrant an attrition type player to have an easier time over a manuver type player (heavy woods, lots of buildings, big hills, streams and rivers, etc...). Another could really help a manuver player (flat terrain, many avenues of advance, small hills for covering manuvers, pockets of trees, etc...).

This really won't heal anything, but probably just spark more anomosity. It is like trying to debate wether pure capitalism or pure communisim is better. Since neither has been experienced in their pure forms, independent of any outside interference, then we cannot say for 100% assurance wether one can be adequately modeled or is better than the other.

Since the debate still exists in the scholarly world, one or two battles in CM will not be able to solve this dilemma. Maybe, just maybe, they BOTH are good tactics for different situations!! Ever think of that?

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 02-14-2001).]

[The_Capt]

Ok to clarify,

I am planning to setup an operational scenario in which the play of the actual CM QBs only provide results for individual battles between sub-units in order to model the effect the "Tactical" has on the whole.

We are talking of taking CM and dropping it on a "GO" board type scenario. I will be adding a terrain factor so that everybody can try what they like.

This is not the definitive answer but I think it may allow some of the more antagonistic members of the debate to release some aggression and maybe learn something.

For Maj Tom, may I suggest you read the various threads on the subject. You will find that we have gone quite deep into that area and the balace of the two systems in warfare.

[Spook]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

This is not the definitive answer but I think it may allow some of the more antagonistic members of the debate to release some aggression and maybe learn something.

Under those terms, then, I think your idea is excellent.

And by proposing this, you certainly are demonstrating some of the "initiative" that is ballyhooed often in the warfare schools debate.

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 02-14-2001).]

[Henri]

As has been pointed out a number of times, most notably by Steve of BTS, the CM game does not model maneuver warfare very well. IN any case, I doubt whether or not your interesting proposal will allow to resolve the debate, since the ability of the players may well be the determining factor much more than the style of play.

For example, in chess, if you had a group of classical (Tarrash) and Hypermodern (Nimzovich) advocates playing together, there is little doubt that the classics would win if they had Morphy and Capablanca on their side, whatever the merits of the Hypermodern theory.

In any case, the clear leader of the maneuver forces is Fionn Kelly, whose win/loss record speaks for itself and who is a vocal advocate of maneuver warfare.Unfortunately he is banned form this forum, but he is not banned from playing.

BTW, I don't see why the French word "manoeuvre" is a better word than its English equivalent "maneuver", and it ethymology means "to work by hand" which has little to do with movement. Although French is my first language, I prefer to continue to use "maneuver", although Liddell-Hart's "indirect approach" is probably more accurate.

Henri

[M. Bates]

BTW, I don't see why the French word "manoeuvre" is a better word than its English equivalent "maneuver", and it ethymology means "to work by hand" which has little to do with movement. Although French is my first language, I prefer to continue to use "maneuver", although Liddell-Hart's "indirect approach" is probably more accurate.

Sorry to nitpick but manoeuvre is an English word as well as a French word, although their meanings may differ.

[Henri]

Originally posted by M. Bates:

Sorry to nitpick but manoeuvre is an English word as well as a French word, although their meanings may differ.

I don't really want to start a debate on this, but the English language has adopted many French words (sometimes changing the meaning over time) and "manoeuvre" is one of them. "Oeuvre" in French means a piece of work (not necessarily artistic) such as a sculpture, a building or the writings of an author, and the ethymology of "man-" is clear enough.It is not used otherwise in English except for the French-borrowed "hors-d'oeuvre" (pronounced by some as "horse-dovers" .The most common use of "manoeuvre" in French is to designate a manual worker without a specialty.And the most common use of the verb "maneuvrer" is "to manhandle".

"Manoeuvre" is also used in French in the military sense identical to the English, and it is clear that its use in English has been borrowed from the French. As usual the Americans have their own spelling more closely corresponding to the pronunciation, and there is nothing wrong with that.

In any case, "manoeuvre" is definitely not a word of English origin.

Henri

[Spook]

Out of curiosity, Henri, is there an existing wargame system that you advocate for studying attrition & maneuver principles? I cited TOAW earlier, as you know, but I also consider that game system to be still limited in certain respects. There's also the Panzer Campaign (PzC) series and Keating's model for the "Ardennes Offensive" (TAO) game.

There is also the recent entry of Combat Command. But I've only played that per demo, and am uncertain how well it models its "grand tactical" premise.

[Henri]

Originally posted by Spook:

Out of curiosity, Henri, is there an existing wargame system that you advocate for studying attrition & maneuver principles? I cited TOAW earlier, as you know, but I also consider that game system to be still limited in certain respects. There's also the Panzer Campaign (PzC) series and Keating's model for the "Ardennes Offensive" (TAO) game.

That is a tough question. Any victory-flag-oriented game is going to make it difficult to model maneuver warfare. I haven't played Combat Command 2 much yet, but I have played all of the other computer wargames.

There are a few large scenarios of East Front that allow some degree of maneuver, and I have written an AAR of one that can be found on the Gamesdomain web site.Another EF one for which I wrote an AAR somewhere is a large tank battle with plenty of Tigers and Panthers against JS tanks and a bit of infantry, with a name something like "Clash of Titans".

War in Russia and Pacific War allow some maneuver warfare at the operational level.(WIR 3 will be available in a few days...).

Henri

[Guest Pillar]

Capt.

What do you wish to accomplish with this?

[The_Capt]

Henri,

I will just have to ask you to trust me on this one. I am looking at taking CM and moving it up a level. The concept is (and this is open to negotiation with the commanders) is to put the CM QBs into a operation setting which will mimick a Bde in operations. I really want to avoid over complication of this so I intend to simplify the "over-game" without losing the basic elements of warfare. It is very hard to explain here and I want to talk to the commanders Mr Kelly has volunteered to be the Manoeuvre Commander and now I just need an Attritionist to command the other side...Mr Cawley where are you?

I don't really want to 'accomplish" anything but I think the expirement will be interesting and rewarding. Not to mention fun which is after all what this is all about. I think if we use CM as a tacticl engine we can command players on a simple field of battle and see what to radically different adherents to two schools of thought will do.

[Guest Pillar]

Surely sounds interesting.

With those players lined up, and the immense interest in the topic, you ought to make a fair bit of money charging people to view such a "theatre" of war

Are you going to put up a website etc.?

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

"test Attrition vs Manoeuvre against each other."

I'm curious to see the outcome of the proposed test, but can I humbly suggest what seems to me an obvious point? It's NOT "attrition vs maneuver." It's attrition AND maneuver--both together, logically integrated and inseparable. More specifically and accurately, perhaps, its maneuver THEN attrition.

In most cases attrition and maneuver are logically related in a cause and effect relationship. First you try to maneuver (i.e. attempt to place your forces into the most advantageous position from which to attempt attrition). THEN you seek attrition (i.e. complete or partial destruction of enemy forces.) One without the other won't work. Moreover, this maneuver then attrition pattern tends to happen over and over in a single CM or RL battle. First you maneuver into a good attacking position, then you attrit the forces blocking future movement. Then you can manuever into a new position, from which you attrit a new set of forces, etc., etc.

[Guest Pillar]

I disagree.

No military thinker who follows maneuver theory is going to prepare for a battle of attrition -- that would defeat the whole purpose of maneuver in the first place.

"Attrition" does not Equal "Fighting"

and

"Manuever" does not Equal "Movement"

That is way too simplistic. The Captain has it right when he makes the distinction as an overall style rather than simply a 'phase' of the war.

"Maneuver" does not only involve getting ready to fight, nor does "Attrition" involve fighting, without movement in preperation of the fight.

Check out "Maneuver Warfare Handbook" for a very quick summary of maneuver concepts. "The Art of Maneuver" by Leonhard has more breadth to it if you're interested.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 02-14-2001).]

[The_Capt]

Combined Arms,

You are correct but there has been heated debate as to which doctrine is or should be dominate. As well as which doctrine has been historically used. I am not going to force two commanders to "play a certain way". I instead plan to start with to opposing views and then watch the fireworks.

Once the commanders are chosen and detailed hashed out, each side will need about five strappin CM volunteers to play sub-commanders. You won't own units but points. For example, if you are a sub-unit commander you will start on the board with 1000 pts. You will purchase units according to your pre-determined arm (combined, armoured and I am going to have to add Recce) then you will recieve orders from the commander and move on an Operational map. As the game unfolds and you start smacking the enemy (battles to be determined by QB) you will have to be resupplied (by points) by the commander. The commander will only have a set pool from which to draw from and distribute. To spice things up, deep penetrations will reduce that pool, modeling logistic units getting pounded. In addition I am looking at command and control getting scambled as an enemy gets deeper into friendly territory.

The catch is that a penetrating unit will only be resupplied if it isn't cut off. If it is cut off it can't get points or reinforcements) and I will begin to reduce it ammo loadout. It will run out of gas eventually and die. This way we keep a balance between rapid movement and a need to maintain a logistics chain.

I have a lot more but I am going to wait to talk it out with volunteer commanders so that we can all agree on the rules.

As to a web site, I have absolutely no idea as to how to build on but I will keep the forum updated on the results.

Now I still need someone who favours Attrition strategy.

[windstarz]

I am beginning to think this Fionn Kelly guy is a myth. I mean his record is like 2000 wins and 3 losses and I think Patton came from the grave and had Manstein's help to win those 3.

Plus I read some of his AAR's and he is just plain lucky.

Madmatt was juiced up one night on the Chat and said he beat Kelly like a bass drum. I think that was just the juice talking. I think Kelly is like the leprechans. He is imaginary........................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................... ..just kidding......

[Tris]

Out of curiosity, Henri, is there an existing wargame system that you advocate for studying attrition & maneuver principles?

When confused, go to the masters. In this case, Kevin Zucker's excellent boardgame treatise The Struggle of Nations should clear away many of the clouds which seem to befuddle so many around here regarding the distinction between attrition and maneuver.

It has been a curious debate.

[The_Capt]

Still looking for an Attritionist volunteer. Going once!

[Guest Pillar]

Any word yet for an Attrition commander Capt?

[Guest Pillar]

/Taunt Mode ON

All these attritionists are big on talk but short on action.

Where are the hordes of attritionists willing to show us how to breach enemy lines through attrition?

- The Maneuver Team.

[The_Capt]

We have the one the only:

Destroyer of egos;

Profane blasphemer of forums

He who was cast into the darkness

He who has lethal happy feet

FIOOOOOOONNN KELLLLLY!!!!

130 wins no loses, all Manoeuvre, he evens sleeps moving!

Fionn Kelly defunct and banned bad boy of CM has volunteered to lead the forces of "decision" and defend the mentality of Manoeuvre or as you Yanks say "Manuhver".

Fionn has gather a collection of hand pick evil disciples to do his unholy bidding in a bloody Operational Battle royal which will redefine "JOI DE GUERRE"!!!!!

Now calling all followers of Attrition or anyone else who will stand against the Heathen Lurker...He Who's name shall not be mentioned?

We need a great man..no a great killer who's desire to shed the blood of his own men is only tempered by the thirst for that of the enemy. Where is our Attrition Hero?!!

[Spook]

as you Yanks say "Manuhver".

Nah, I say "manure" now. Isn't that the essence of maneuver in some people's view here?

(Geez, Capt, you're letting me outmaneuver you in wordplay here.....not what I would expect at all. Tch tch tch.)

Well, I regret to disappoint you, and to leave your request hanging, but I don't really ascribe strongly to the "attrition" camp. Physiologically, I've got a handful of attrition as it is. And it sounds like the maneuver slots are filled.

[Guest Pillar]

How about ScoutPL?