|
Post by quincannon on Jun 11, 2017 15:17:55 GMT
I see no reason to reconcile. I am not mad at anyone.
To be mad, angry, or even have one's nose out of joint when discussing a subject as volatile as tactics, would be completely unprofessional.
You asked for an opinion. You were given two, both by Americans. Both of us saw the same tactical problem in the same way. Both of us from completely different schools, bound only by common doctrine, and culture.
You have never presented your opinion, your solution. Take the opportunity to solve this problem in your own way.
When you do though keep in mind that your responsibility is to solve the problem in an atmosphere where there are no umpires, no judges to throw a flag and cry foul. The winner in battle is determined by getting the job done in the fastest, most expeditious manner, and the umpire is the total of dead and maimed you pile up in the process. They are the ones who sit in final judgment on how well you did.
Some more misconceptions:
1) A meeting engagement is when two forces on the move suddenly make contact.
2) A hasty defense is when one force on the move detects their opposite number before they themselves are detected, and has very little time in which to stop and defend the ground they are on, before contact.
3) What you have described so far in that scenario you presented is a deliberate defense, where positions are well laid out, fields of fire well established, and choke points identified, etc..
The lesson here is that you cannot come up with the proper tactical solution unless you know what you are in fact facing. You have not made a complete presentation of those facts.
There is a possibility that accurate facts may, and I say again may, change the approach one takes. For instance if it was a meeting engagement my inclination would be to bulldoze may way though that unprepared opposition with my armor before they could set up. I might even adopt the same solution if I knew it was a hasty defense, where I did not have to deal with the possibility of mines, demolitions, pre-registered artillery, and all those other things associated with a deliberate defensive position. In both those instances a quick smack in the jaw, before the other guy gets his balance is usually enough to win the day. You did not give me all of this, nor did you give it to Colt. We can only react to what we see, what you present.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 11, 2017 16:50:57 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. Colt Your post above is right on target as this was the policy adopted by the US Navy fighting the Japanese in the South Pacific during WW II. Some of the over 7,000 islands held by the Japanese that the Americans that were by passed included: Wake Island, Mili Atoll, Jaluit Atoll, Kusaie, Rota, Yap, Aguijan, Wotje, Ponape, Lamotrek, Namoluk, Woleai, Tobi, Puluwat, Nomoi. The two largest islands that were left to linger on the vine were Truck and Rabaul. MacArthur attempted to claim for this strategy but it was conceived by the Navy. I can not imagine how many Allied soldiers, Marines and sailors lives were saved by this policy. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 11, 2017 17:40:46 GMT
If I delete my posts from today and yesterday, can the other members please do likewise, then it will leave this thread clear of this distasteful episode and maybe later down the track, this will all be forgotten and we can at least get on for the sake of the site.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 11, 2017 18:09:29 GMT
It was only distasteful to you, probably because you took offense when no offense was ever intended.
It is a discussion of tactics, and the difference in tactical concepts between different armies and different cultures. Therefore it has value.
I will not delete anything from here of my own accord. You need to grow up and accept constructive criticism without injury to your own, or you national pride.
Remember you asked what I/we thought. If you did not want to know, or did not wish to accept it, why did you ask?
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 11, 2017 18:16:01 GMT
Because you took a game into a real life scenario, which it was not intended. How dare you tell me to grow up, I have been posting day in and day out on this broad from day one, even giving up my work breaks to keeping things interesting and flowing and that comment just shows that your military back ground gives you the right to say such things, which is wrong and I thought I never saw the day when you would disrespect me in such a way.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 11, 2017 18:25:38 GMT
I told you from the outset I do not game, and I do not for the reason that a game is not real life. I deal with real life only.
I am not disrespecting you. I am disagreeing with you. I have no right to disrespect. I have every right to disagree
My military background gives me unique insights into things military. Just as your own skills give you unique skills into things I do not pretend to comprehend.
So you tell me where I have disrespected you in any way. I have told you what I see. I have informed you as to how I think.
There is absolutely no disrespect intended, and telling you to grow u is not a mark of disrespect. It is a plea to change your attitude from someone who is so defensive about nearly everything it seems these days, back to a place and time when you were open and eager to learn and share opinions. That person has gone over the last year or so, so I say once again look in the mirror and access yourself. I do not know what has prompted this attitude on your part. I do care, but I will not be intimidated by it, and will continue to speak my mind. If you do not like what I write. Don't read it.
Let's take what you wrote to Colt as an example of this inconsistency. You applaud MacArthur, regardless of where he got his strategy from, for doing the very same thing on a very large scale that I suggested be done on a very small scale. Then you condemn me for suggesting it. You can't have it both ways. It is either a good tactic in both places or it is not in either case.
I told you long ago and have repeated it a multitude of times since, that you must understand the culture that an army comes from so that you might understand how that army thinks. It is not a matter, never a matter, of how many guns and tanks, and companies and battalion, or how there are internally organized, that allows you to understand these things. That is a very small, nearly insignificant, area of study if one does not understand how these inanimate things and pencil doodles on a piece of paper are designed to work on the battlefield, and how those that employ these things and doodles think. It is the very same concept of knowing everything there is to know about a paint brush or a screwdriver, and not knowing the thought process that goes into painting or driving a screw. If you don't know both your knowledge is incomplete, and largely meaningless except within very small parameters.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 11, 2017 18:51:02 GMT
If you knew it was a game then why didn't you just ignore my post, you didn't have to reply to it, even though I hoped you would, but if you don't game them just leave it to some one who does, if no one had bothered to take on my scenario, then I would have just let it drop.
I think I have changed, I cannot think of a reason why this has happened, maybe because we all started out on this board together and as equals, instead of having a pecking order on the blue board, I do seem to challenge things now, but that is just because I can and there is no DC to kick any posts in the guts, but every one here is open to being challenge, as long as it is done with respect.
So just let it drop, and leave things to settle down, I have a big week coming up and I don't need this right now.
BTW; thanks for saying that you care, I didn't expect that.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 11, 2017 19:21:04 GMT
You asked me to. And what I tried to tell you from the outset is that as a game it was unrealistic, and I tried to show you the differences in what was the game and what was real life.
I will take on your scenario at the drop of a hat, but I need to know all of what that scenario entails, and you only gave me part. Then you added which could have had, it didn't alter that scenario to where other options in solving the problem may be applicable.
My objective was and is to teach, whatever I may know, but I am unable to attempt to solve the mysteries of the universe unless I have some idea of what the parameters of that universe are.
I know why you changed, and am in a better position to know because I am on the outside looking in.
You took a bashing from DC, simply because DC was an avowed Anglophobe. That f**ker is dead, worm food, and you stand. You don't like what is happening to your country, Brexit, EU, Tory governance, immigration, the un-Briting of the Brit. It frightens you and makes you feel small and insignificant, a person who no one pays attention to. All of that perfectly understandible. You have got to realize "Them f**kers done be Messerschmits, and outside forces cannot rule your life, if you stand.
You live in a structured class oriented society, one much more so than ours, but I get the same feeling every Sunday when I go to church where most of the parishioners are Broadmoorites, the upper crust of this town, who look down their noses at the peasants. The solution is give them the finger, f**k you and the horse you rose in on ass hole, stand and go about your business.
I am a peasant, a guy from a working class background, just like you. I would not know a silver spoon if I fell over it, and am proud of the fact. I got to where I am in life by hard work and a lucky break or two along the way. My classmates at OCS were all prep school snobs, by and large, and I was the kid who barely made it out of high school. I have been determined all my life since then to take a back seat to no one, to give everything I have, all the time, never be intimidated, and live my life as I, not someone else, sees fit. I am now comfortable, but still watch where every dollar is spent. I own my own house free and clear, but it is nothing extravagant, a three bedroom two story. It fits our needs, with emphasis on "needs" not wants. I am happy in my peasantry, and my life, for in that happiness I know I am just as good as anyone else.
How could I not care. What pains and concerns you, concerns me. I am your friend.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 12, 2017 9:14:55 GMT
Thanks Chuck, I have sent you a PM, hopefully we can put this behind us and I apologize to everyone too.
BTW; going back to that scenario, I would have thought that any move to take that bridge would need to be done after that farm on the left had been neutralized, so to do this I would order my artillery to smoke the place and under the cover of smoke I would send two troops of tanks and my carrier platoon to get in close before the smoke clears, and get stuck into the defenders before they can react, hopefully that AT gun would only get off one shot before it is shot up, I would guess that this farm would be held by only a squad, so after the gun and MG position is destroyed, these soldiers would either surrender or run. Behind the carriers and tanks I would send a platoon of infantry to engage the village from the flank, in an effort to draw their fire, then I would see what would be the best way to approach that bridge.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2017 14:32:17 GMT
What provision have you made in your maneuver plans, for the presence of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines and pre-registered artillery on your likely avenues of approach or attack positions?
Why are you only planning to use smoke on the farm house? Why not HE the place so you would not have to maneuver against it?
If you insist on taking that village, why not put a platoon of tanks with some Infantry in that open area at the bottom of the map to draw attention. Then take the rest of your force up or down stream, cross and come in behind the village? Your decoy force will look like the head of an advancing column that has stopped. It will not be fired on by the German defenders. They don't want to give their positions away. Meanwhile their attention is focused upon their front, and while so, they get the rest of your tanks and Infantry up their backsides.
The art, in the art of war, is to avoid direct combat when it can be avoided. Never play your enemies game. Look for every possible advantage you can muster, before you fire a shot.
In this scenario the enemy wants you to attack that village. They wish to make you bleed, then withdraw. They will probably blow the bridge as they do, not that the bridge means that much, but only to add to your inconvenience.
By attacking directly you are playing their game, not yours. Always avoid that.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 12, 2017 15:13:41 GMT
What I should have done was made this a job for an infantry division supported by specialized armour. Various marks of the Churchill tank should be made available in the shape of the Crocodile [flame-thrower and Bridge layer, these should be preceded by flair tanks [Sherman conversions] to deal with any mines. With this force of;
Infantry Company Assault Engineer platoon Carrier platoon Mortar platoon [2 x 81mm mortars + carriers] Machine Gun platoon [2 x Vickers + carriers] Churchill Bridge layer Churchill Crocodile 2 x Flail Tanks Field Battery Royal Artillery
This would be better for this type of mission, the bridge layer gives you the option of out flanking that village and hit it from the rear. My main point is that the two Anti-Tank Guns are located pretty quick, so they can be zeroed in by artillery.
The problem with this type of scenario is the points system, if I had 2000 and my opponent had a 1000 points, then just my armour and artillery alone would come to; Sherman Flair Tank: 255 [two comes to 510] Churchill Bridge Layer: 340 Churchill Crocodile: 390 4 x gun field battery: 240 That alone comes to 1.480 points, without my Infantry and Carriers.
My German opponent would be able to afford for half of his 1000; Infantry Platoon [3 x infantry squads with LMGs & PHQ] 3 x MG42s Teams 2 x 75mm PaK 40 Anti-Tank Guns 4 x 105mm Howitzers [off table] 500 points total
So he could double his force with the 500 points left over. So it is the armour which takes up all of your points, so it is a double edge sword really.
That was a trip back in time digging out those points, it has been years since I dug out my own set of rules [I called my rules “Retreat Hell” and it covers the same period as my website, I would have loved to get them published, but no one seems to do wargames the old fashioned way with dice and manual movement, they are all in to computer games now.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2017 15:26:23 GMT
Such is life. I don't even make my morning coffee the old fashioned way anymore.
The overarching point is that if there is any way to avoid a straight frontal attack, over ground the enemy is expecting you to attack over, do it.
Another option not considered in the game, and frankly I don't know how you would, but something a commander in real situation would consider is have a flight of four fighter bombers attack that entire position, first with bombs, then with napalm. Bombs get the defenders deep in their holes, the napalm makes those holes full of ash.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 12, 2017 18:44:27 GMT
I think the people who dream up these scenarios for computer games, have based all their ideas on American war movies and level bombing an important feature like a bridge would seem out of the question, so they send in the Infantry, probably led by Lee Marvin.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2017 19:05:09 GMT
The purpose of a game is to solve a tactical problem at a micro level.
Wars are not fought on a micro level, they are fought on a macro level. Individual actions in those wars are executed at the micro level.
For instance, you read "Company Commander". MacDonald was in the fight of his life on the northern shoulder of the Bulge. He was in a very unfavorable position in those woods the way he was. Given his abilities alone he would have never been there. He would have found another way. MacDonald was caught up in the vortex that was the Twin Villages fight. For him there was no choice, he was where he was, doing what he was doing for a larger purpose. His company was destroyed as a tactical entity for that larger purpose.
If you took MacDonald's situation alone and tried to make it a game, the MacDonald player would do all sorts of things in the game MacDonald could not do in real life. That game player would not have the whole picture, because the game itself does not allow it. Therefore while the game may be entertaining, it does not portray the complete situation MacDonald faced.
Given your game you posted, that battle for the bridge. It is very easy for me to sit back and say I would do this or that. Were it me as the British player I would not go near the place, based only upon what I know. If however, the scope of that situation was broadened and I came to understand why taking that place away from the enemy was a critical event in a much larger, more extensive series of sequential or simultaneous events then I would approach the problem as one of no choice, that I must solve by trying to take it with the least cost.
If I am given no reason to expend, lives, treasure, and equipment, and my commander tells me to take it just because it is there and the game depends upon it, then I will not be a bit bashful in telling my commander - Shove it up your ass. You take it, but not with my people. I may be looking for a job but such things are that important.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 12, 2017 19:13:47 GMT
What if I changed the scenario and made it slightly different, because the allies mainly advanced down roads and these roads led through villages and over over rivers etc. So what if I changed it to a reconnaissance unit with Daimler and Humber armoured cars and these were to arrive at this village first to check the place out, then after say five or six moves the advance guard of the battalion who is leading the advance arrives along with a motorized Infantry company and light tanks. Now I would say that this would be more likely to happen, because these recce units went ahead of the main body in an effort to detect any resistance. So we could have a situation with the lead armoured car taking fire and this is the opening of the game.
If the allied commander decided to by-pass the village then fair enough, but you could have an engagement between the armoured cars and any German forward defenders, because if they didn't check these villages out then they would get anywhere, that is why recce units had a high casualty rate.
|
|