> DracSpy@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 99-02-11 12:55:48 EST, you write:
Just a few very quick points (Remember the book is about 6 years old
now).
1. The US Army says they are proponents of Maneuver Warfare but the actual
mechanics are really thinly veiled attrition based warfare.
(Personally I think one should read USMC FMFM-1 Warfighting. They've got
a better grasp.)
2. Artillery or fire support. Well it's really not much support at all. The
redlegs have developed their own thing which does little to support joe schmoe
the tanker or infantryman. (Note that Airforce CAS is no better. They control
their own CAS that's why the USMC has the best system) FS requests has become
such a mysterious art form that only arty guys can do it. The problem is the
artillery is much more interested in fighting their own battle (the deep
interdiction thing ala the artillery raids and MLRS raids of Desert Storm,
than they are with finding time to provide fire support for infantry platoons
and companies. This has been a complaint in combat arms for a little while
now. Every branch is always trying to prove how they have the biggest dick
(ask John the engineer <grin>), and this is the artillery branches way of
doing it.
3. A lot of future doctrinal policy is validated through simulations but Army
simulations are flawed due to the utter lack of modeling for lack of a better
term "morale". Sort of what I was going into before. He devotes a couple
chapters to this.
4. Many wrong or incomplete lessons were drawn from Desert Storm in an attempt
to validate the DOD and the US Army's current warfighting doctrine. Despite
the overwhelming success a lot of stuff was screwed up. (One of the biggest
being the primacy of air power in all situations....)
Anyway it's been several years since I read it but those are a few issues.
> Los wrote:
> now. Every branch is always trying to prove how they have the biggest
In a message dated 99-02-11 14:30:07 EST, you write:
<< 1. The US Army says they are proponents of Maneuver Warfare but the actual
mechanics are really thinly veiled attrition based warfare.
(Personally I think one should read USMC FMFM-1 Warfighting. They've
got a better grasp.)
****
I think that I have read that, I have read most of the FMs that you can get
with out enlisting, for anyone that uses armour I would sigest reading all of
the FM-17-xx manuals, very interesting.
****
2. Artillery or fire support. Well it's really not much support at all. The
redlegs have developed their own thing which does little to support joe schmoe
the tanker or infantryman. (Note that Airforce CAS is no better. They control
their own CAS that's why the USMC has the best system) FS requests has become
such a mysterious art form that only arty guys can do it. The problem is the
artillery is much more interested in fighting their own battle (the deep
interdiction thing ala the artillery raids and MLRS raids of Desert Storm,
than they are with finding time to provide fire support for infantry platoons
and companies. This has been a complaint in combat arms for a little while
now. Every branch is always trying to prove how they have the biggest dick
(ask John the engineer <grin>), and this is the artillery branches way of
doing it.
****
That can be a probem for the ground pounders and tread heads.
****
3. A lot of future doctrinal policy is validated through simulations but Army
simulations are flawed due to the utter lack of modeling for lack of a better
term "morale". Sort of what I was going into before. He devotes a couple
chapters to this.
****
Maybe the use hipnotic sigesting to give there units super high misshion
modivashion.
****
4. Many wrong or incomplete lessons were drawn from Desert Storm in an attempt
to validate the DOD and the US Army's current warfighting doctrine. Despite
the overwhelming success a lot of stuff was screwed up. (One of the biggest
being the primacy of air power in all situations....)
****
Desert Storm was a walk in the park with a L7A3 and someone with a 1" knive
trying to mug you, not all that dificult, I know that ~400 people were killed
in action, but cositering what they did that is not very many people, I don't
think that any would cound have done better.
*****
Anyway it's been several years since I read it but those are a few issues.
Los >> One of the things that I addressed with the Arty and Air support is
having them at the company level, each company has 4 Attack helos and 2 Med
MRLS launchers, that should make getting supporting arty much easer.
-Stephen
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Los wrote:
I was just kidding and I draw no infernece between outstanding Engineer
support and the artillery sitiuation.
> Los wrote:
> I was just kidding and I draw no infernece between outstanding
I know.:) I was just illustrating how silly the arty pukes are. Unbelievable
how each branch can get so obsessed with doing it ALL on their own. Air Force
wants to do it all, Navy wants to do it all, Artillery wants to do it all...
[quoted original message omitted]
> Michael Brown wrote:
> Should that be" Every branch is always trying to prove how they can be
That would be a difficult and very closely fought contest since there's enough
A**hole colonels to go around...
In a message dated 99-02-11 21:47:37 EST, you write:
<< PS Read FM 17-95 Cavalry for info into maneuver warfare >>
I think that FM 17-97 is also a very good "book" to read, along with FT
17-15.
Check out FM 100-63 for ready made Opfors for DS2 and SG2.
-Stephen
> DracSpy@aol.com wrote:
> Check out FM 100-63 for ready made Opfors for DS2 and SG2.
*Whistle*
This is the 'inspiration' behind some of the better-quality Islamic Fed
forces. Well, that and the Iraqi Order of Battle published in Command Post
Magazine. And someone's Stargrunt OOB posted somewhere.:) I
liberated a 100-63 from an armoury in Maryland, one of the best and most
useful acquisitions I've made... I'm still looking for the other ones
in the series, the ones dealing with lower-tech infantry-based forces
and with low-intensity forces.
Try CAC & FT LVN Pam 350-1 (Heavy Opposing Force organization guide) and
350-2
(Light Opposing Force organization guide) 24 Sept 1993
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Michael Brown wrote:
> Try CAC & FT LVN Pam 350-1 (Heavy Opposing Force organization guide)
and 350-2
> (Light Opposing Force organization guide) 24 Sept 1993
Most (all?) of the US Army FMs are available from them online.
<http://155.217.58.58/> is the URL. Some are Restricted status, but the
rest (loads of them) are online. (all in HTML, I think some of them in PDF
format as well.)
This is probably old news to some, but a very useful URL anyway.
So is <http://www.specialoperations.com/> - they link to the FMs as
well, if you loose that silly numerical URL above. Lots of other links and
info as well.
In a message dated 99-02-12 00:15:05 EST, you write:
<< This is the 'inspiration' behind some of the better-quality Islamic
Fed forces. Well, that and the Iraqi Order of Battle published in Command Post
Magazine. And someone's Stargrunt OOB posted somewhere.:) I
liberated a 100-63 from an armoury in Maryland, one of the best and
most useful acquisitions I've made... I'm still looking for the other ones
in the series, the ones dealing with lower-tech infantry-based forces
and with low-intensity forces.
John M. Atkinson >>
FM 100-63 is the Inf one, FM100-61 is the Tank one, if you want more FMs
(for
FREE!) goto ADTDL page at http://www.adtdl.army.mil/atdls.html, one of
the best sites out there! If anyone knows were the threat work sheet is I
would like to know were it is (or get a copy of it) the one that has the
tables that says if you are using green troops for a complex task you add 3
(or something else, I don't remember what it is) to your score and if that is
more than 44 the mission sould only be ordered by the brigade commander. I
think that is is one of the Platoon Leader's Handbooks, but I can't find it
any more.
-Stephen
> Michael Brown wrote:
and 350-2
> (Light Opposing Force organization guide) 24 Sept 1993
How do I get these? Hrm... I am physically located half an hour from Quantico,
if that helps any.
They are available from Ft Leavenworth, or try on line. CAC+ Combined
Arms Command.
Threat Directorate FT Leavenworth, KS 66027
DSN 552-4472/4857
Distribution Unlimited
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
My friend is in the "Military Book Club" (Please note, this is NOT a
plug...)
And we saw a book titled "Maneuver Warfare". We thought: Great! A book on
tactics! and we ordered it. We got the book, and came away thinking we
had wasted our money. We had thought it was about tactics in war... I am still
not sure what the book was trying to say, and I don't think I want to
know....
Anyway, it didn't seem to help my wargaming, except as a "hill" for the mini's
to
take...
> On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 DracSpy@aol.com wrote:
> Desert Storm was a walk in the park with a L7A3 and someone with a 1"
knive
> trying to mug you, not all that dificult, I know that ~400 people were
and, iirc, most were killed by friendly fire.
> One of the things that I addressed with the Arty and Air support is
this makes a good deal of sense - the marines, as has been mentioned,
have very effective fire support because it is available to them as just
another tactical option, rather than as a complicated ritual. whether this
could be done with the use of computers instead is another question. if you
can point your designator at something, then there should be a button on your
tactical computer (probably marked "SMITE" or some such) the pressing of which
will send a message to the artillery fire control computer and get the rounds
on their way. obviously, there'll be supervision of fire requests, etc, but as
it stands there are far too many humans in the loop here!
Tom
Try using old phone books shaped and glued for hills, does anyone know were to
get exstruded foam?
-Stephen
In a message dated 99-02-12 14:53:58 EST, you write:
<< > Desert Storm was a walk in the park with a L7A3 and someone with a
1"
knive
> trying to mug you, not all that dificult, I know that ~400 people
and, iirc, most were killed by friendly fire.
That's one thing that we really screwed up, my point was that the "military"
that we were fighting were poorly trained and equiped.
> One of the things that I addressed with the Arty and Air support is
this makes a good deal of sense - the marines, as has been mentioned,
have very effective fire support because it is available to them as just
another tactical option, rather than as a complicated ritual. whether this
could be done with the use of computers instead is another question. if you
can point your designator at something, then there should be a button on your
tactical computer (probably marked "SMITE" or some such) the pressing of which
will send a message to the artillery fire control computer and get the rounds
on their way. obviously, there'll be supervision of fire requests, etc, but as
it stands there are far too many humans in the loop here!
Tom
> [quoted text omitted]
The idea is also used in the Amry's Cav troop, alto they just have two morters
to support them, the idea of a SMITE button is very good.
-Stephen
Do it your self stores (HomeDepot, etc) sold as insulation.
> Donald Hosford wrote:
Author's name? Maneuver warfare isn't tactics, per se. It's more focused on
the operational level.
> "John M. Atkinson" wrote:
> Donald Hosford wrote:
I don't have the book at the moment. I will have to get back to you on that
name. I do remember the cover was a light blue, with black writing...
In a message dated 99-02-12 21:42:50 EST, you write:
<< Do it your self stores (HomeDepot, etc) sold as insulation.
Michael Brown >> I tried OSH and a local hard ware store, they only have the
stuff with the alumanum (at least that is what I think it is) one one side,
when I tried to remove it is tore the foam, do you know of a way to get it off
with out destroying the foam?
-Stephen
> Try using old phone books shaped and glued for hills, does anyone know
Home Depot, Lowe's etc sells closed cell styrene for insulation. Don't use
spray paint as the propellant eats the styrofoam. It also has a tendency to
get damaged corners.
You should also be able to find styrofoam sheets in thicker sizes (up to a
couple of inches) from industrial suppliers in a good-sized city. In
Norfolk, C. E. Thurston carries it. Look in the yellow pages under industrial
supply, and if the place you call doesn't carry it, don't forget to ask "who
would?"
> Try using old phone books shaped and glued for hills, does anyone know
Which is an effect I *like* to have for, say, impact-marked buildings,
or for making terrain features (how many hills do you know are perfectly round
and smooth and all that stuff?:)
Mk
> Laserlight wrote:
> Home Depot, Lowe's etc sells closed cell styrene for insulation.
Don't
> use spray paint as the propellant eats the styrofoam.
Paint it with diluted PVA ("Elmer's") glue first. It takes some extra time,
but it allows spray painting and seems to provide some protection from general
wear'n'tear as well.
Regards,
Where are you? Another option is building material suppliers.
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
In a message dated 99-02-13 11:25:30 EST, you write:
<< Where are you? Another option is building material suppliers.
Michael Brown >> I'm south of Santa Cruz, Home Depot is 72km away, but I can
get over there.
-Stephen
In a message dated 99-02-13 10:48:51 EST, you write:
<< > Home Depot, Lowe's etc sells closed cell styrene for insulation. Don't
> use spray paint as the propellant eats the styrofoam.
Paint it with diluted PVA ("Elmer's") glue first. It takes some extra time,
but it allows spray painting and seems to provide some protection from general
wear'n'tear as well.
Regards,
In a message dated 99-02-13 10:04:02 EST, you write:
<< You should also be able to find styrofoam sheets in thicker sizes (up to a
couple of inches) from industrial suppliers in a good-sized city. In
Norfolk, C. E. Thurston carries it. Look in the yellow pages under industrial
supply, and if the place you call doesn't carry it, don't forget to ask "who
would?" >> I'll do that.
-Stephen
In a message dated 99-02-12 01:31:33 EST, you write:
<< Try CAC & FT LVN Pam 350-1 (Heavy Opposing Force organization guide)
and
350-2
(Light Opposing Force organization guide) 24 Sept 1993
Don't have a URL, I have hard copy. The Combined Arms Center might have a link
off of the Command and General Staff College site (I don't know the
URL).
Hope this helps
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
In a message dated 99-02-14 22:13:33 EST, you write:
<< Don't have a URL, I have hard copy. The Combined Arms Center might have a
link off of the Command and General Staff College site (I don't know the
URL).
Hope this helps
Michael Brown >> I'll have to check it out, thanks
-Stephen
I found the PAM's here but unfortunately only some are available for viewing
http://www-tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/pamndx.htm
Paul Frigo
> Michael Brown wrote:
In a message dated 99-02-12 01:31:33 EST, you write:
<< Try CAC & FT LVN Pam 350-1 (Heavy Opposing Force organization guide)
and
350-2
(Light Opposing Force organization guide) 24 Sept 1993
Michael Brown >> What does CAC mean?
-Stephen
Combined Arms Center FT LVN = Fort Leavenworth
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
In a message dated 99-02-15 20:49:46 EST, you write:
<< Combined Arms Center FT LVN = Fort Leavenworth
Michael Brown >> Ah, thanks.
-Stephen
> Donald Hosford wrote:
> > Author's name? Maneuver warfare isn't tactics, per se. It's more
Now I have it in hand!
Maneuver Warfare -- An Anthology
Edited by Richard D. Hooker, JR.
ISBN 0-89141-499-1
It contains 21 articals on the subject by different peaple. The articals are
divided into three sections: The Theory of Maneuver Warfare,
Institutionalizing Maneuver Warfare, and The Historical Basis of Maneuver
Warfare.
Hope this helps.
> Donald Hosford wrote:
> Maneuver Warfare -- An Anthology
I think I may have seen this one. IIRC, it focuses on the
organizational and high-level doctrinal aspects of maneuver warfare,
rather than applications for the batallion or brigade commander.
> "John M. Atkinson" wrote:
> I think I may have seen this one. IIRC, it focuses on the
It sounds to me that the concept "Maneuver Warfare" has a more commonly known
title: "Strategy".
> Donald Hosford wrote:
Operational art, which is different from strategy.
Tactics is how you fight your battles. This is what most wargamers obsess
about. This is a concern of colonels and lower.
Strategy sets political/military goals and directs how to achieve them.
This is a concern of a nation's top leadership.
Operational art is how you use your battles to achieve the ends set by
strategic plans. Maneuver warfare does this by emphasising decisive maneuver
over firepower. Attrition warfare emphasises firepower over maneuver. An
example of operational art can be seen in the biographies of German generals
during WWII on the Eastern Front. Anywhere they were, they winning on a
tactical level. There was always a failure 'somewhere' else, usually blamed on
Italians or Romanians or reservists,
where possible. That's operational art--even though you loose a lot of
your tactical fights, you can still win campaigns. While the Russians were
loosing a lot of troops in front of the German armored
kampfgruppes, they would be making a breakthrough against second-rate
troops somewhere else. That's why I consider that every time I go onto a
Dirtside II or Full Thrust table, it's a failure somewhere at a higher level.
Why? Because it's even. Good use of operational art would only
set up battles where the odds are heavily in my favor--I don't have
masses of Siberian peasants to waste pinning down the enemy. Operational art
is the concern of Corps and Divisional commanders (sometimes brigade
commanders, if the size of the force is small enough).
> [ADTDL page URL]
This URL is easier to use if you're downloading a lot of files like I am:
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll?type=fm&school=ANY