Rubble

[Fionn]

No Pillar. It is most likely that he does NOT have forces everywhere and that you DO know he is inside your decision cycle.

[Fionn]

[ May 26, 2002, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Fionn]

To say that your reverse slope defence didn't rely on the OODA loop simply shows that you didn't know what was going on Pillar.

I'm not about to painstakingly explain it to you for you to only miss the whole point again ( as per usual). Instead I'll just say if you can't see how the first two sections of the OODA loop are exploited by a reverse slope defence then, well, there's no point in me discussing with you.

As re: mogadishu and Barbarossa. Hell, Barbarossa is one of the textbook cases of OODA loop on both the strategic and operational scale. Like I said though I amn't going to lead you by the hand to realising this.

[xerxes]

I think equating neomanueverist with an OODA approach is a total error. Boyd's actual OODA talks are almost devoid of specific tactics.

To equate WWI offensives with an "OODA" approach is just totally inaccurate.

[Fionn]

Pillar,

1. Saying someone is wrong is not rude. Saying someone is wrong is expressing an opinion or expressing objective fact. Saying someone is wrong is constructive since it gives them the chance to reconsider. Of course SOME people do seem to inhabit a strange world in which they want to be told nice things all the time and never be told anything negative. If they are told something negative then the person saying it is a "bad person". THAT isn't the real world however.

I see flaws I said as much. That is all. It is up to you to handle the commentary resulting from your post to a PUBLIC forum. The phrase "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" springs to mind.

2. OODA is important. People who say it isn't are generally the sort of people who lose because the enemy gets inside their OODA loop without them even realising it since they don't understand/consider OODAs. ALL of the very top players I know swear by OODAs.

3. You can use your brain to dance around in fancy esoteric circles as much as you like to try to confuse most people. Weaving logic webs doesn't alter the fundamental flaws in your statements though.

Let's go through some of the statements you make and point out some (but not all) of those flaws.

A. " He ignores the possibility that reverse slopes can be attrition based, with no consideration for OODA whatsoever. "

No, I don't. I do however point out that anyone who doesn't milk any position for ALL the advantages possible is a pretty poor player. If a reverse slope defence offers both attrition and OODA advantages and you only plan to take advantage of the attritional advantages then you are throwing away advantages and you are, undoubtedly, a pretty poor player.

It's like saying that in assessing the Tiger I one could assess it by looking only at its main gun performance. Of course that is correct but would such an assesment be better than one which took into account its armour and mobility? Hell no.

B. You seem to equate OODA with manoeuvrism. That's really, really flawed as Xerxes has also pointed out. IOW it isn't just my opinion. OODA considerations aren't innately manoeuvrist or attritionist.

C. " Was my opponent seriously confused? Do you think he made comments like "Adam seemed to be everywhere all at once?" He did not say anything of the sort. "

OODA isn't all about appearing to be everywhere at once. Certainly that is one way an OODA advantage can be capitalised upon. Instead OODA is about tempo, psychology, ramping advantages from one loop segment into the next so that they cumulatively impact later loops. I could let you know EXACTLY where I was and what I had and still have a decisive OODA advantage. The above quote shows a basic failure to grasp important facets of the OODA loop and its consequences/ opportunities.

My saying so publicly isn't anything personal. It is simply a statement of fact.

D. " It was the failure to recognize these relationships, and the fact that they are of much more significance than OODA loops that caused Commanders in WW1 to continously and pigheadedly try to "break through" enemy lines."

That's just nonsensical.

a) the reason WWI generals fought the types of battles they did had much more to do with communications infrastructure (underlined), the state of the respective general staffs, the training of the men, the materiel aspect of the war etc and nothing really to do with them pursuing OODA loops as a means of achieving victory.

OODA loops weren't even posited as a system until well after World War II and Korea so giving out to World War I generals because they either:

i) blindly followed OODA loops or

ii) didn't follow them.

is like giving out to Napoleon for not using massed tactical bomber strikes on the Prussian columns advancing on his right flank at Waterloo. It is really quite bizarre.

E. " you have to actually understand the context of the situation."

Are you seriously suggesting that in a game of CM you took up reverse slope defensive positions to avoid spotted artillery bombardments but didn't defend the reverse slopes?

If that's true then you are asking me to believe that the men you had sitting on the backs of the hills weren't going to defend the ground they were dug in on? That simply doesn't make any sense. If they were hiding behind the hill to avoid arty SURELY they MUST have been defending the bit of the hill they were hiding on?

F. "Barbarossa teaches a great deal more than OODA loop. The more significant factors were superior training, doctrine, and equipment. "

Whose main effects ( on the operational and strategic level) were to allow the Germans to get inside the Soviets OODA loops at those levels.

G. " Nowhere was it even remotely hinted at that Germany did not have the strategic, operational, or tactical initiative."

The OODA loop is not necessarily about initiative. Initiative and the OODA loop are neither mutually exclusive OR mutually inclusive.

H. What happens when you rely on OODA loops and "surprise" when you don' have more significant multiplyers (like training, men, material)? History is trying to tell you. It's screaming the answer.

You are ABSOLUTELY right. That answer is Hannibal's campaign in Italy. He had fewer men, less material, fewer reinforcements, lower morale among his auxiliaries and, overall, less training amongst his entire force. He utilised surprise and the ancient equivalent of the OODA loop to defeat army after army.

[ May 26, 2002, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Fionn:

That answer is Hannibal's campaign in Italy. He had fewer men, less material, fewer reinforcements, lower morale among his auxiliaries and, overall, less training amongst his entire force. He utilised surprise and the ancient equivalent of the OODA loop to defeat army after army.

Hannibal´s strategy, however, was weak insofar as it depended on his opponent. He relied on Roman pride and stupidity, which made one consul after the other react to his provocations.

Quintus Fabius, otoh, showed that it was really quite easy to beat Hannibal. Psychological warfare fails the moment your opponent simply ignores you.

[xerxes]

I only reacted to the manueveristic=OODA because I don't believe manuever is everything. Earlier in this thread I posted my typical strategy for attacking forces entrenched in a village/small city. This was before I read about the OODA concept. Looking back at my battles (at least my better ones) I think I was employing an OODA appoach without realizing. Pinning an enemy in a city has a demoralizing effect. Manuever is required but the real key is preventing the enemy from feeling like they can move. Covering a lane, then quickly redeploying creates an illusion of force. Attacking from multiple directions but fading away as they defender attempts to mobilize against the threat will gradually wear them down. It's a mixture of manuever and attrition. The key is to prevent the enemy from fully appreciating what is going on.

I'm actually more interested in a range of techniques based on OODA principles. I think it's a useful framework for CM.

-marc s

[Fionn]

Austrian,

I don't think Quintus Fabius defeated Hannibal. He AVOIDED being defeated by Hannibal which isn't quite the same thing but may lead to the same end-point of course .

Pillar,

1. NO! I am making a point in response to you making it all personal. If you dismiss that ( as you do) as "burning a strawman to death" then YOU are being dismissive, snide and arrogant IMO.

2. Well, I disagree. As I said though you're welcome to your opinion.

3. No, not strawman. Sounding like you're making solid points ( which you're good at) isn't the same as actually making solid points. You are good at the former AND therefore you can lead newbies down cul-de-sacs. Making that point was central to then examining the flaws in your argument. That you'd dismiss it instantly isn't surprising of course.

B. NOW you are right. However, that wasn't what you initially said. If you had initially said what you are saying now I'd have had no problem.

D. Adam, I do NOT see how you can complain about WW1 general's being slaves to the OODA concept when the exact opposite is true. Honestly this point is REALLY bizarre.

E. Well, since a reverse slope is just about the strongest defensive position possible moving them from it when a stronger force shows up is entirely suicidal. I've stopped Bns with companies on the reverse slope on many occasions. Running away from a reverse slope to other defensive positions when strong forces show up is HIGHLY questionable. If you were advising newbies that that was a good tactic and they listened I'd be willing to bet they'd lose a LOT of games.

F. I really think you should read about the Chir River campaign in 42. It is much written about. Honestly, read about it before commenting. Also the Poland 44 campaign would be a good one to read about... especially books written by German corps and divisional staff officers.

G. Well, that wasn't what you started off saying. I'm glad to see you've changed but I'll point out that all I was doing in my first post was saying you made mistakes. You now admit those mistakes BUT that didn't mean you passed up the opportunity to take a few cheap shots on the way. Bravo Pillar.

H. I don't condemn attrition because a few idiots couldn't make it work for them. You shouldn't condemn the OODA loop because a few idiots couldn't make it work for them.

WHEN applied properly it works. Can everyone apply it? No. Is attrition easier to apply for the average military (and by extension civilian human) mind? Yes. Does that mean attrition is more commonly used? Yes. Does that mean that when you see someone applying OODA etc and failing that the doctrine itself is flawed? NO!!!

Again you are failing to separate out the end results from the causes.

If someone crashes a car you don't say that it was obviously the car's fault. No, more often than not it is driver error.

Also I'll note that you are mixing scales here. Mixing strategic with operational and tactical and also expanding the timescale from the example I gave. Stick within the parameters delineated and then make your points please

[Fionn]

FWIW Xerxes' post is very, very perceptive.

Kudos Xerxes.

[Fionn]

" It is not about the WW1 generals being slaves to the OODA loop, but slaves to a singular idea of maneuver. "

Ww1 generals as manoeuvrists and WW2 German generals during Barbarossa not using OODA.

Your interpretation of military history is absolutely amazng. Absolutely amazing.

And with that said I'll quit the discussion. It is only going to go downhill with you first stating that OODA was manoeuvrist, then changing that to say it is neither manoeuvrist or attritionist and then stating you didn't change your stance at all. After all that the argument's only gonna go downhill and that does me no good... especially with you taking a few cheap shots at me in your first post.

Enjoy the rest of the discussion folks.

[Olle Petersson]

I can think of at least one way to frequently get within the opponent's OODA loop and at the same time totally prevent the opponent to get within mine:

Always act by random! Use dice or something to decide all movements (when, direction, speed and distance). Do the same to decide on targets and such.

That way I won't have an OODA loop for the opponent to get into, and the opponent has no possibility whatsoever to figure out my next move.

How this tactic is going to make me win any battles I don't have a clue, 'cause it seems very senseless...

Cheers

Olle

[Foobar]

LOL, Olle. That is cheating!!!!