What's Next General?

[Huffardo]

Originally Posted by Destroyer25

Sorry I'm not a nerd, I've never uploaded a map to a forum, forgive me please, for having a life.

That's not a very polite way of asking for instructions.

Originally Posted by Destroyer25

Maybe I'll just pack up and leave,

Originally Posted by Destroyer25

they are much better at this sort of thing at Supremacy anyway

At following your will? Undoubtedly.

Originally Posted by Destroyer25

and they are nicer too.

That's probably because they haven't questioned your theories, am I correct? An audience that knows more than you must hurt when you can't admit it.


Anyway, I was trying hard to be nice.

[Destroyer25]

Originally Posted by Huffardo

That's not a very polite way of asking for instructions.





At following your will? Undoubtedly.


That's probably because they haven't questioned your theories, am I correct? An audience that knows more than you must hurt when you can't admit it.


Anyway, I was trying hard to be nice.

Don't QQ because you know nothing about tactics. Lets spam you with questions. Which key battle was the foundation for the development of modern mobile warfare?

[Roaming East]

amateurs discuss tactics. Logistics is king. and in every situation you've proposed for some moron to meatgrind his forces in, youve always produced a situation where even if you win the battle. you lose the greater war.
1- Attack a cutoff isolated ridge line with understrength units without field gun support, armor, or air support.
2- attack a numerically superior force with an understrength armored force assisted by an exhausted understrength infantry division in an effort to take control of a city you wont have the numbers to hold nor the ability to resupply and reinforce.

[Destroyer25]

Thats just a saying fail generals made. You dont need to know how to get supplies for an army that cant win a battle in the 1st place. Real Generals study tactics, Chief of Staffs and Logistics officers study logistics. Thats what staff are for, keeping the army running, the General and the Operations officer just need to know tactics. Anyway, lets hear some solutions.

[SeinfeldRules]

You know you're really proving the adage true right now. If you can't understand how absolutely VITAL supplies and logistics are to planning battles then you really have no clue how anything military works. EVERYTHING is about logistics. Towns, villages, and roads are important to Generals ONLY because of their impact on the flow of supplies to their own units and the enemy units... no one really gives a flying leap about the city of Bumfuck, Nowhere, except for the ultimate effect it will have on the flow of supplies. Battles are won with bullets and bombs. Whole divisions have retreated, not because of casualties or losses, but because their supply lines have been threatened. You don't need to kill everyone in a division to force it to retreat. Market Garden failed because Montgomery didn't understand you can't support the drive of a whole Armored Corps using one 2 lane highway. The Americans were successful in France because of their overwhelming use of artillery on both the attack and defense. There is a reason why the ARTILLERY is known as the King of Battle, and not the Infantry or the Armor. Artillery wins battles, plain and simple. And without the logistics that you seem to so easily poo-poo, that artillery would have no shells to use on their fire missions. American Generals spent most of the Vietnam war trying to figure out how to shut down the Ho Chi Minh trail, the vital SUPPLY line that enabled the Vietnamese to keep fighting long after they should have lost.

Logistics is king. Nothing is more important in war then controlling the supply lines. Let the Captains and LTCs worry about fighting the battles, it's the Generals responsibility to make sure the troops are well supplied and the enemy is not.

I also think it's hilarious how you make it seem like there's some magic solution to these scenarios, and that your solution is the only solution. Have you ever read a Company/Battalion Infantry Field Manual? Looked at how a real infantry unit conducts an attack?

Huffardo had the best answer to your first scenario, by the way. It's really obvious that he has prior military experience, and it should be no surprise that he submitted the best answer. It's clear that he has military experience influencing his planning process, while you, do not. His plan is quite simple, contrary to your remarks. Each unit has a clearly defined objective, with a clear end state. It's broken down into manageable chunks. The only difficulties in the plan may be coordinating the artillery, but a good Fire Support Officer can make it happen.

[Rich19]

Originally Posted by Destroyer25

You'll refer to the units as German/Russian # Division/Corps/Army. It just makes things easier for me to understand.

Just out of interest, are these situations ones you have made up, or real ones which happened in WW2? Because if it's the latter and you're claiming people are wrong because they didn't use the "correct" unit to do a task then you can hardly claim to be testing military knowledge. You're actually testing historical knowledge.

[Anlushac11]

I am done with this thread, I leave the noob to you guys. Enjoy.

[Destroyer25]

Originally Posted by Rich19

Just out of interest, are these situations ones you have made up, or real ones which happened in WW2? Because if it's the latter and you're claiming people are wrong because they didn't use the "correct" unit to do a task then you can hardly claim to be testing military knowledge. You're actually testing historical knowledge.

If they were real events then finding the correct solution would be fuck easy.

[Roaming East]

The key issue is that Tactical solutions are often used to gain strategic objectives. Take for example the Normandy campaign. The strategic objective was to secure the beachhead, stabilize the front so that reinforcements could be brought to bear and supply points established and to break out into the countryside so that superior allied mobility could be brought to bear before the enemy could organize effective defense.
Given this, the objective of capturing and holding towns was only as important as their use for jumping off or resupply waypoints. Those towns not essential to either of those two qualifications were completely bypassed and in turn whatever German forces were there either fell back before hand encircled and destroyed. Think Falaise Pocket.

Its therefore impossible to dictate the tactics permitted to be used by a hypothetical situation based upon their doctrine and weapons systems yet at the same time ignore the strategic influences of that army. You ask how i would use a vastly understrength American force without artillery and air support to attack an entrenched and encircled enemy, and i tell you that i wouldnt, because that is how the American military would have solved the issue, The enemy is in a fixed location with no avenue of escape, the press of the allied force is advancing through france into germany and you want me to destroy my regiment taking high ground that doesnt serve to help the war effort? and you want me to do it without the combined arms support the American tactical doctrine is based upon? madness.

[Destroyer25]

I don't see any solutions, I just see ranting. Post some or I'll just forget about the whole thing, seeing how everyone is more interested in being douchebags rather then doing what the thread was made for.