|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2017 16:04:31 GMT
Good, you have recon and engineers. Use the recon to look, and the engineers to build and go on your merry way.
Artillery of this type can walk and chew gum. You have with those eight guns what we would call a dedicated battery. There is no real need to have any other support dedicated to this mission. If it makes you feel better have that artillery pound that village with indirect fire, then move half of it up to the direct fire role, lest your Germans get frisky while you are in the process of by passing them.
Does it seem wise to you to immobilize four hundred men to handle fifty? Not to me.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 10, 2017 16:06:00 GMT
I think you have to turn back a page Chuck, or everyone will miss a post.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2017 16:11:21 GMT
No you should not take it as an insult. It is only meant to point out the way our two DIFFERENT forces were different.
To be realistic you must play the game as a British commander of that day would play it, using British doctrine. I on the other hand must play the same situation as an American would view and handle it.
Therefore if you did not play that situation according to the established doctrine of the force you represent the game itself would have no value.
The only real test is therefore to play it as if the British and American forces were opposing each other. That would be the test of whose doctrine is better in the particular situation given.
Never fight unless you have to Ian, and never fight on the enemies terms. Your scenario involves fighting on the enemies terms. It just ain't smart.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2017 17:29:55 GMT
Let me elaborate on the poster boy comment.
My job as the enemy commander is to get into your head. I must know how you think and what you think. I have gotten a thorough appreciation of that over the last several years to the point where I know what you are going to say or do, before you either say or do it. That is the job of an opposite number. If I can play with your head, it makes you easier to beat.
I mentioned Jackson the other day, saying in not so many words that his religion was the driving force in his humorless life. All you need to know about Jackson is that he was a devout, to the point of being rabid, Presbyterian. Knowing that, and studying that religion, you have him by the short hairs, You know how he thinks and you can translate that into what he will and will not do. He believes in predestination. That of course is his right, but it is also a useful tool for anyone fighting him. It tells you how he will treat his subordinates. It tells you what degree of control he will exercise. You build a book on someone before you fight him.
Now let's take that map and scenario. I say I know you. I do. Were I that German platoon commander, my people would be deep in those European stone buildings. Those woods on either side of that village, are the places you would go for first, with dismounted infantry. You would want to first surround me, then close the ring. Being Europe there will not be much brush on the floor of those woods and the trees will be tall. I would have so much artillery previously plotted on those woods fused for tree burst that a mouse would not escape. Your tanks have to use that open field to approach. Please give my 75mm gunners a better gift. No, you can't. It's Christmas morning.
In the end I will not win, but I don't have to. All I have to do is make you bleed. You will eventually drive me out, but what will the cost be to you. Is it worth it? Tell the mothers, wives and sweethearts it was then, and it cost a couple of hundred of their loved ones killed and maimed, because you could not take a minute so that you could not have found another and better way.
Now go view the classic film, and view the carnage that was San Pietro, and review the slaughter that was Monte Casino. Absorb it. Then look at Monte la Defensa, Riva Ridge, and Mount Belvadere. See the difference, that innovative solutions make to solving tactical problems, large in those instances, small in your example.
One side note on that map. The yellow portion I could not make out, because it was in yellow, but I assume they represent crops in the fields. If you were defending that village with your platoon, would those crops be there? Would you not burn them down or flatten them in some way.
You my friend are a dedicated Laborite that thinks like a military Tory. I on the other hand am a moderate conservative that thinks like a raving liberal military lunatic
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 10, 2017 18:58:01 GMT
When I posted that scenario, I made it so that the defender [German] had the terrain on his side, that’s why I chose a single road with one bridge and flanked by woods. These were the obstacles that could be face in any campaign in northern Europe, with tree lined lanes and open fields. Take a look at this map of the US 80th Division moving through northern France, and then compare it to the google map of the same area, you will see the same type of terrain and probably villages, did the US Army simply obliterate these places? They could even be full of civilians. I wanted to see how some of the ex-pros on this board would tackle this objective, but I bet no one would touch this post with a ten foot stick after this afternoon’s debacle. I would love to lock horns with you on a wargames table, we could toss a coin to see who defends and who attacks, and I bet I give you a run for your money.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2017 20:48:33 GMT
Yes we would have blown the place away, without one bit of thought or regret in the matter if it meant doing what we had to do with as little loss of U S life and treasure as possible.
I am very familiar with France having been part of something I cannot discuss here, so the countryside is very known to me.
The defensive position portrayed in the game map is quite realistic. It offers great opportunities for a road block defense, and great handicaps that the attacker must overcome. It reminds me of the problems we were given as students in the basic and advanced officer course. The idea of those problems was to both come up with a workable solution and do it quickly.
I am sure you would give me a run for my money. I don't play games anymore, They are non realistic mental exercises that have no blow the goddamned place away option. Therefore not real.
The unrealistic part is that in a game is designed to be fair. Fair is an unknown concept on a battlefield. A game depends for outcomes on chance, the roll of the dice. In warfare the commander takes chance out of the game, by always loading the dice in his favor. In the game the restrictions of the game prevent doing the impossible. In war if you are not prepared to do or can't do the impossible you should not be playing in the first place. In a game there is no place for that one individual soldier to seize and opportunity and turn the tables. In war you count on that individual soldier to do just that. It's not checkers. It's not chess. In those games thought process alone wins the game. In war it is both thought and extreme action, and there is no place in a game for the latter, only the former, therefore it is unrealistic.
Now if you think your afternoon was a debacle, it was a debacle of your own making and misjudgments about what I was saying and the spirit it was being said. Look in the mirror and access yourself.
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Jun 11, 2017 2:30:22 GMT
I thought that taking places like this is the norm when advancing through terrain in northern Europe, its ok when you know whats there but what if any follow up units walk into that place the next day and get a surprise. I don't think it is a British tradition to expend lives for no reason, we had enough of that between 1914-18, many villages were held by fanatics, especially in western German. I have read stories of towns like this in Italy being held by small units of Fallschirmjaegers and holding up the allied advance for days. But at the end of the day its a bit of fun, just thought that if you did have orders to take the place we may have saw some professionals show their expertise. If the village was of no importance, then the Germans would have simply blown the bridge and scarpered, but I was thinking of the rapid advances which took place after the allies broke free of the bocage country and villages with stone bridges became important hubs for both sides with the allies using them to advance and the German using them to retreat. Yan, Bypassing an enemy position has much merit when you don't need to take it. One of my heroes, one of your countrymen, used this technique to great effect in WWI. T.E. Lawrence left the Turks in Medina unmolested. By doing so, he forced the Turks to expend time and effort supplying the garrison, plus kept those troops from being deployed in other areas where they would have been more useful. It was a brilliant strategy and made the defeat of the Ottoman empire in Arabia possible, with much less loss of life. As Chuck said earlier, a unit isolated will eventually die on the vine, as did the Turkish garrison manning Medina.
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Jun 11, 2017 2:46:25 GMT
Yes we would have blown the place away, without one bit of thought or regret in the matter if it meant doing what we had to do with as little loss of U S life and treasure as possible.
I am very familiar with France having been part of something I cannot discuss here, so the countryside is very known to me.
The defensive position portrayed in the game map is quite realistic. It offers great opportunities for a road block defense, and great handicaps that the attacker must overcome. It reminds me of the problems we were given as students in the basic and advanced officer course. The idea of those problems was to both come up with a workable solution and do it quickly.
I am sure you would give me a run for my money. I don't play games anymore, They are non realistic mental exercises that have no blow the goddamned place away option. Therefore not real.
The unrealistic part is that in a game is designed to be fair. Fair is an unknown concept on a battlefield. A game depends for outcomes on chance, the roll of the dice. In warfare the commander takes chance out of the game, by always loading the dice in his favor. In the game the restrictions of the game prevent doing the impossible. In war if you are not prepared to do or can't do the impossible you should not be playing in the first place. In a game there is no place for that one individual soldier to seize and opportunity and turn the tables. In war you count on that individual soldier to do just that. It's not checkers. It's not chess. In those games thought process alone wins the game. In war it is both thought and extreme action, and there is no place in a game for the latter, only the former, therefore it is unrealistic. Now if you think your afternoon was a debacle, it was a debacle of your own making and misjudgments about what I was saying and the spirit it was being said. Look in the mirror and access yourself.
When it comes to real combat, if you are fighting fair, your tactics suck.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 11, 2017 4:25:04 GMT
That's the point I am trying to get across Gunslinger.
Ian: The only importance the village had was to make you bleed trying to take it. Think beyond the game board.
Someone, the higher commander, told that task force commander to move on an axis that is in consonance with that road. He has a map. He tells you that you can expect opposition at that little one horse berg where the bridge crosses the stream. He is responsible for giving you the resources to do the job. He gives you a tank company, a company of infantry and a battery of guns. You also indicated that he gives you engineers (probably a platoon) and a recon platoon. His instructions to you are MOVE, don't stop, bypass all opposition, that village is a fire trap, don't get sucked in.
You have all the assets you need. Do a map recon to find a place to cross (possibly several). Mount your infantry on the tanks,, Put your engineers forward in your column, then wait for the recon teams to report back and verify stream crossing or bridging locations. Your crossing points won' t even be on that game map. They will be to either the right or left. Once located move like hell, while at the same time pounding that village with your guns to keep them in their holes and basements. Once bypassed continue your mission. Go deep, Disrupt the enemy rear. Kill them when they think they have something forward to protect them. Let any air support you may have cover your flanks as you move.
Bridges over small streams have no real value, if you have both the means and the will to circumvent them. You don't waste lives on something that has no value.
In playing that game you do not have any options. You must try and take the bridge and village. Therefore the game, the whole premise of it, is divorced from the reality of the battlefield.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 11, 2017 11:13:06 GMT
Good god, I cannot believe it has come to this, it was a harmless scenario posted by me to use up some spare time between watch England draw 2-2 in Scotland [soccer], beat the Argentinians in their own back yard [rugby union], win in New Zealand [again rugby union] and beat the Aussie on the their own turf [cricket]. These days you see scenario’s like this all the time in various game form, they are sometimes known as meeting engagements, where the defender has only limited time to get his positions set up before the attacker comes on to the field. I don’t think this was the type of board to post a thing like this, as it drew only negativity, which it was not supposed to do, I will not go down that path again, so the only thing I can see in the mirror is a man scratching head say “how did this happen”. I guess the training manual FM-7 should have deleted some of its chapters and replaced them with one called “blow the place to hell”, but it didn’t and you do see chapters like this;
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 11, 2017 11:15:58 GMT
Now I hope all the relevant parties just let this drop, as I have had my fingers burnt again, for nothing. Next time I post on my British army thread it will be when my British armoured divisions are up and running on my site.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 11, 2017 14:04:50 GMT
You originally asked what professionals thought and what professionals would do.
You said nothing about a meeting engagement. In fact you built the German portion of the scenario as if they were conducting a deliberate defense of a bridge crossing.
You fail to see that the British way of doing things and the American way are different. You practice dressage, and the fair play of Polo, while we ride in a Wild West Rodeo, guns blazing. Those are cultural differences between our two nations, and cultures effect how armies think. The people that man armies are drawn from the cultures they serve. Not saying one is bad and the other good, just different
You were told. If you do not accept what you were told, then nothing can be done about it.
I suggest you get some FM's in the 17 Series.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 11, 2017 14:27:41 GMT
I was told stuff that I already knew, do you think that I have met you five years ago with no military knowledge at all? I know how the American army fights, that's why in my scenario I choose the British. There was a lot I never included in my scenario which I never got the chance to explain, probably because of the reaction I got, I even drew up my own plan, which I was going to compare with yours, as you once commanded an infantry battalion, but unfortunately we never got that far. You see I always seek out your opinion on these matters as a friend and some one who I can learn off, but I am afraid that this time I picked a subject you didn't agree with. I only dig out those FMs if and when, mostly to give you and few more a nostalgic blast from the past, but this is the way I do things, as I choose subjects for a particular poster, in an effort to get them writing.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 11, 2017 15:02:54 GMT
Let me clear up some misconceptions
1) I cannot read minds. I went only with the information you provided. If you did not provide all the information for me to see the complete picture then no fault applies to me, but to you for not providing the complete informational package.
2) I am an American professional. You asked an American professional what he would do. I would do the very same thing with those British troops, or troops from the Republic of Slobovia, as I would do with American troops. I am after all an American.
3) I never commanded an Infantry battalion. I commanded a field artillery battalion, by accident and not well, but I commanded. I held nearly every other tactical job in an Infantry battalion, including operations officer, plus some logistical battalion level jobs as well.
4) If you seek to learn from me as you state, then the fact we do not agree, should be the nexus for the exercise of learning. The learning part is finding out why I do not agree.
5) Some armies rigidly adhere to what is in a Field Manual. Americans read field manuals, absorb the principles contained therein, then throw the book away in favor of intuitive thinking to solve battle problems, still keeping in mind those basic principles. That is how we are built. Why do you think Wingate was so maligned by his fellow British commanders? Wingate threw the book away and adapted to the situations that confronted him. He learned to do this though from the Zionists who were very much like Americans in overall outlook. Everything the man did in Palestine, Ethiopia, and Burma was right out of a book, a field manual, but he adapted the manual to the conditions that existed on the fighting ground, never letting the conditions of the manual dictate the ground on which he fought.
6) The blow the place to hell manual is in the Field Artillery Series, 3 if memory serves.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 11, 2017 15:15:12 GMT
Well if you would have read my post properly you would have clearly seen an effort on my part to reconcile with you, but by your last post this fell on deaf ears, which is sad really, as this has gone on too long now so either we patch this up or we are going to keep clashing every goddam day, which is not health and something at this point in time I could do without.
|
|