What's Next General?

[SeinfeldRules]

Originally Posted by Destroyer25

Once again, you need to understand why the British wouldn't have lookouts. PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS OK?

The logical thing to do would be to have lookouts out in the jungle. But that is in violation of the British Jungle Tactical Doctrine of the time. The British believed that passing through dense jungle was impossible. This is why they would not have lookouts. The reason the Japanese won is because they constantly appeared and attacked where the British thought it was impossible. This technique greatly demoralized the British, their defensive positions which were regarded as inpenetrable were constantly outflanked. The British lost the little faith they already had in themselves and their commanders. And as for the tanks, they can engage the enemy's frontal trenches without getting very close to the bridge. Infact the trees adjacent to the road will provide protection from mortars. As the shells will probably just hit the tree tops.

Your thinking like a logical person, but I am thinking like a British Captain of the time. The difference between the two is clearly beyond your understanding. I suggest you do some reading about the Malaya Campaign

Who the fuck plans a military operation on the hope that the enemy will be incompetent? That's how people DIE. Once again, I am happy the closest you'll ever come to being in the military is watching Band of Brothers on the TV.

And you don't seem to understand that when they say they flanked the British positions, they mean with whole units, battalion and brigade sized, not with some dinky 10 man squad. You seem to have a problem with scale, once again showing your utter lack of knowledge about company sized operations.

You want a good wargame simulating company sized action? Here try this game: Battlefront.com - Afrika Korps

Undoubtedly the best wargame to ever simulate company sized engagements in World War 2. Download the demo, it's multiplayer capable, and let's play each other. I GUARANTEE that I will whip you 6 ways to Sunday. I'll give you every advantage in the book, and I'll still beat you. I'll let you cheat and look at my forces, and I'll still beat you. I'll beat you so hard, you'll cry. Come and put your money where you mouth is Destroyer.

[Nemmerle]

Hey, chill it a bit folks.

[Huffardo]

Originally Posted by SeinfeldRules

You want a good wargame simulating company sized action? Here try this game: Battlefront.com - Afrika Korps

Undoubtedly the best wargame to ever simulate company sized engagements in World War 2.

There is a CM3?! How did I miss that one, I loved Barbarossa to Berlin.

Speaking of it, I really need to find the CD and hope it still works. I wonder if the graphics really are as bad as I remember them as?

[SeinfeldRules]

It's no Company of Heroes, but I think the graphics were pretty good for their time. If you manage to find the CD, we should play, it's hard finding people to play with.

[Destroyer25]

Originally Posted by SeinfeldRules

Who the fuck plans a military operation on the hope that the enemy will be incompetent? That's how people DIE. Once again, I am happy the closest you'll ever come to being in the military is watching Band of Brothers on the TV.

And you don't seem to understand that when they say they flanked the British positions, they mean with whole units, battalion and brigade sized, not with some dinky 10 man squad. You seem to have a problem with scale, once again showing your utter lack of knowledge about company sized operations.

You don't plan an operation on the hope that the enemy is incompetent, you plan on knoledge that they are incompatent. The Japanese knew that they were better than the enemy they were facing. And in regard to company vs brigade or division size operations. Flanking tactics work either way, and the Japanese used it constantly during the Malaya and Burma campaings.

In the latest issue of Armchair General Magazine, the Combat feature of the game takes you back as a Japanese Sargeant, commanding a small squad of Japanese infantry. Up the road is a bridge, guarded by a British machine gun position. There were two options.

1. Make a frontal assault
2. Send you infantry across the stream several hundreds meters down, and then come up behind the bridge and open fire on the MG position. At the same time a Type 96 LMG will provide supressive fire against the British machinegun gun crew and the supporting infantry.

I based my scenario on this very action, except I increased the scale. And this is a true action that did take place during the Japanese advance down the Malaya Peninsula. Flanking attacks were the Japanese's favour tactic, whether it was used with 10 guys or several Divisions. I researched for 1 hour to make this scenario, looking through my magazines and books about Japanese and British tactical doctrine of 1941-1942. So I've had enough of your bullshit.

You just cant accept the fact that I'm right and your wrong, get over it. Study British/Japanese Company Tactical Doctrines of 1941-1942 and then maybe you'll be able to solve the next scenario.

[Afterburner]

Chill folks, let's keep this civil.

And Destroyer, you do realize you are speaking to severla people who have REAL military experience or training right? If I remember correctly Huffardo was in the Finnish military, and Seinfeld is in ROTC.

And there is hardly a "correct" answer to any what-if military scenario. There are likely several methods to complete a mission, and so long as things are not playing out in real time strategies will always be incomplete. No plan survives combat untouched.

[Destroyer25]

Originally Posted by Afterburner

Chill folks, let's keep this civil.

And Destroyer, you do realize you are speaking to severla people who have REAL military experience or training right? If I remember correctly Huffardo was in the Finnish military, and Seinfeld is in ROTC.

And there is hardly a "correct" answer to any what-if military scenario. There are likely several methods to complete a mission, and so long as things are not playing out in real time strategies will always be incomplete. No plan survives combat untouched.

I never said there was only 1 solution. There are normally several that can work, but in this particular case a flank attack is the best solution. And while I am not in the military and they are, that means they only have knoledge on their own country's tactical doctrine. Being in the Finnish or ROTC army doesn't mean you know about another country's tactical doctrine. While I have studied extensively the tactical doctrines and their evolution of most of the countries in WW2.

While they stress that the enemy is never an incompetent fool, I beg to differ. Up until early 1943 all the Allies(with exception of Russia) were using horrible tactical doctrines. The British had yet to master armored warfare and never truely would, the Russians still would use Infantry as cannon fodder, the Americans were the only ones who came close to Germany's advanced tactical doctrine. However American tactical doctrined tended to varry greatly between Generals, while the Germans used the same basic methods laid out by Guderian. Ofc Patton had truely mastered warfare, and would have been better than the Germans had he not been so crazy at times. :lol:

Old Blood'n'Guts :lol:

[Afterburner]

You are building your plan upon historical information more so than tactical information. Even if we assume that the Brits were terrible, no the Japanese didn't know that the Brits in front of them were going to do anything in particular. Take the Battle of the Bulge. The Germans expected the weak and broken troops manning the American lines at the time to just flee en masse, but they didn't. They fought tenaciously and as a result managed to hold the Germans up for quite awhile, all things considered.

So the Japanese might have seen British forces reacting in such and such a way during other attacks, but they don't know that this particular group is going to react the same way. The Brits and Americans heavily stressed individual action, which meant only vague "doctrines" were every really used. It's not as though they had preset reactions to various developments.

Basically what I'm saying is you always plan assuming your enemy will be fighting at their best, because if you are right you'll have prepared for it, and you are wrong you'll steamroll over them anyways. So you never base your plan on perceived stupidity of an entire army. Now if you send out your scouts and you see they've done something stupid and left their flank open, that is when you press the attack. But you don't assume they are going to do so because that's what other units have done.

All that said, I won't actually participate in these threads as my plans would be as simple as the first one Nemm proposed as it is about the best you can do. The more complex and specific a plan is the more likely it is to fail when one thing changes. The key to victory is always tactical flexibility, which is something this sort of snap-shot decision making simply can't capture.

[Roaming East]

From my experience the only workable strategies are the ones flexible enough to be modified on the fly. Ive done FTX's where the text book solution to a tactical problem (one that stands out in my mind is a mock attack on crossroads in NC...) was impeded and made impossible from the inane. Having your VMI educated squad leader get his men simulatedly butchered because the relief map didnt feature a 3 foot deep drainage ditch that coincidentally enough can serve as a transit, observation, and MG position for your opponents is rough on the esteem.

[Destroyer25]

The plan is flexible, its a flanking attack, that simple, I didn't plan it to the detail. I just said the infantry will flank while the tanks frontally engage. How is that not flexable? Tbh there aren't many options in a situation like this. Its either some sort of flanking manouver or a head on assault. Which one would you pick? Logically thinking a flanking attack has greater chance of sucess. And after assesing the tactical situation, making a surprise flank attack is the best option. Combine that with historical evidence and its safe to say a flanking attack will have the highest chance of success.

The plan is flexible, sure it could go wrong, any plan can go wrong, but this one has the least chance of it. Sure what if there were an extra 10 guys just waiting for us. Well its not like we're going to charge head on out of the jungle. I'd have the LMGs deploy, open fire while the infantry manouver into a good position to deliver fire into the enemy trenches. From there on any decision other than retreat would end in victory.