Meditation & Temptation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports



Message

Nemo121 -> Meditation & Temptation (9/26/2011 4:02:03 PM)

There's really not much point given the swerving off course that's occurred.



herwin -> Deep Battle (9/26/2011 4:45:13 PM)

My exposure to this subject was initially via the Scotts, and later some discussions with Simpkin. The Scotts made the point that to understand Soviet Military Doctrine, one had to understand Marxism. Simpkin wasn't quite as doctrinaire, but he did emphasise the role of tempo in mobile battle. All this was at least a decade before Glantz, et al., and limited by the availability of primary sources at that time.

The influence of the Scotts on the game is seen in the 1-1 becomes 2-1 rule, which was the right way to go, but a bit ham-handed in its mechanism. What was actually going on was the substitution of mass for combat skill and cohesion, and the creation of specialist units at all levels, instead of combat teams. Note these factors interact non-linearly, so the combat model in the game has difficulty handling them. The mission of the shock army was to break through the depth of the German defence more rapidly that the Germans could react, reinforce, and counter-attack. Once the tank-infantry force had penetrated the defence, the tank army was released to penetrate as rapidly as possible into the depth of the German position--Triandafillov and Tukhachevsky's deep battle doctrine. Red Army force designators were based on combat power taking into account tempo, so a tank army was basically a Western/German armoured/panzer corps. In game terms, these units moved faster than their opponents could project zones of control. None of this treacle we see in the game. To block them, the Germans had to deploy mobile units or hold urban zones. To release them, the Red Army learned it needed to use mass, but the goal was always to transition to a deep battle.

During the Cold War, the Soviets continued to plan as if WWIII would be WWII, but with a difference--chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons would be deployed from the beginning and would function in the same way as shock armies in WWII, so that the deep battle would start immediately. They also had developed units with an order of magnitude more mobility than tanks--designating two echelons above their actual size--whose role was to move out even faster.



FatR -> RE: Meditation & Temptation (9/26/2011 5:44:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
I'd like to invite anyone and everyone to comment - except for FatR as usual. I don't believe he has any role to play in adult, reasoned discussion until he can apologise for his behaviour.

Your arrogance is pretty hilarious. But don't worry, it would have been quite stupid to pollute my mind with information that comes from a source I consider entirely dishonest, so I'm not going to even read your posts unless I'm paid for it.




Cribtop -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 5:48:39 PM)

As I commented in one of Nemo's previous AARs, I think it is important for much of the board to acknowledge that we are in many cases Westerners of one stripe or another who, knowingly or unknowingly, adhere to NATO doctrine. NATO doctrine in turn descends from German WWII doctrine in many cases and emphasizes the need to win the imagined war in western Europe with a "quality not quantiy" approach (in part due to necessity given the sheer size of the Red Army) and in time to avert overrun by the Soviet horde, which then leaves the West in the unenviable position of accepting defeat or resorting to nuclear weapons, with the attendant risk of civilization destroying strategic nuclear exchange.

NATO primarily envisioned victory through the application of force multipliers, the most important of which was the hope that air superiority and then air supremacy could be applied decisively. Other force multipliers included naval superiority, and, with the advent of the M1 Abrams, the belief that our tanks had a qualitative edge. As an aside, this is IMHO the main reason the first Iraq war was so one sided. It was war on a desert tabletop against a mechanized opponent using outdated Red Army equipment with little hope of contesting air superiority and poor to terrible command & control capabilities. In short, it was a dream scenario in which to employ NATO doctrine.

Consider how different NATO doctrine is from US Army WWII practice, where large numbers of inferior AFVs, backed by hordes of artillery, were used to win attritional battles against the Germans (Patton must be seen as an exception to this and in fact here we see the germ of his disagreements with Ike, Monty and the rest of the Allied High Command).

All of this is a long-winded effort to make those of us who play AE and descend from a NATO tradition to recognize that many of us seek to win without the "inelegant" slog of attritional warfare and to understand the mental limitations to creative thought in AE these limits can impose if we aren't thinking broadly. If Scenario 2 has done us any good, it is that it presents the Allied player with a situation (the large Japanese air force with trained pilots) where he has to think through when and where to accept and decline battle and to consider where he wishes to seek attritional exchanges and where he shouldn't do so.



Canoerebel -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 5:55:49 PM)

I think Cribtop passed out.  He probably hyperventilated by absorbing so many big words and not being able to get them back out of his respiration system quickly enough.

Like Cribtop, I'm going to read this interesting post.  But I will take it very carefully.  No more than two words or concepts that I don't understand at any one time.  Each time I reach two, I'll stop and refer to dictionaries, encylopedeas, etc.  I guesstimate that I'll be able to read 1.38 sentences at a time.




Nemo121 -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 5:59:22 PM)

FatR,
Minds are like parachutes. They only function when open. You are a smart guy but your belief that you can be judge, jury and executioner without any evidence is not a sign of wellness. As I said before; you aren't welcome here. Please desist.



Cribtop -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 6:10:58 PM)

Dan, Dan. You know my capacity for ten dollar words is virtually limitless. I've just learned to occasionally hit the OK button in mid-post for fear of the forum monster eating hard work. [:D]

More on the stated topic of Deep Battle, I think a lot of us equate the doctrine with Blitzkrieg. However, as Nemo and Herwin point out, there are in fact significant differences in the origin and application of the two ideas. I for one would like to learn more about how Deep Battle differs from Blitzkrieg, and how Deep Battle is applied in a naval heavy geography like the Pacific Theater. In some ways, application seems obvious (with analogies to Island Hopping, bypassing, etc), but I suspect the real answer is more nuanced.

Finally, since Dan posted, I find it interesting but not surprising that a decent number of JFBs are American Southerners. As a breed, we are raised to be familiar with lost causes and thus I suspect the challenge of Japan strikes us as similar enough to the strategic situation faced by the Confederacy to be attractive on some deep level. PS Dan is an exception to this tendency and plays Allies because of his aversion to pilot training and the Japanese economy. [;)]



GreyJoy -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 6:17:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Finally, since Dan posted, I find it interesting but not surprising that a decent number of JFBs are American Southerners. As a breed, we are raised to be familiar with lost causes and thus I suspect the challenge of Japan strikes us as similar enough to the strategic situation faced by the Confederacy to be attractive on some deep level.



That's very interesting and, to some extend, can be said also for those who live in those countries who have lost major wars in the last century.
It's not strange for ex that being an italian i tend to play only Confederates in American Civil War games or Cartaginians in Punic Wars game...



Canoerebel -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 6:25:24 PM)

And all this time I thought GreyJoy had lost the Pubic Wars, at least given his occasional tirades on the subject.

[:D]

Okay, I'm sorry!  Bad joke.  Bad, bad boy.  :)

P.S.  I really am interested in reading what Nemo and others have to say on this topic.  It makes fun (even if sometimes challenging) reading.  I learn alot from these men. 

P.P.S.  But the personal insults traded are totally unnecessary by both gents involved.



Nemo121 -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 7:17:34 PM)

Well, I had a 2,038 word post here ( according to Word ) about the development of Deep Battle....

BUT I truly don't care to put myself in a position to be insulted or lumped in with FatR. CR There IS a world of difference between making unfounded accusations and pounting out how low someone is who makes unfounded accusations. I also think it is pretty abysmal to allow people in one thread to make attacks on someone without ever calling them on it and then to impugne me for my pretty damned mild response given the bullsh*t that FatR comes out with is beyond the pale IMO.



Nemo121 -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 7:32:31 PM)

And again, really not much point.



undercovergeek -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 7:39:06 PM)


im reading, im not understanding it all but im reading - very interesting.

On a side note, or it seems to be the front note now! Nemo, for a very, very intelligent man, well learned and educated why do you let yourself get wound up about the guy? - i know some of the history, but obviously not all, i just dont understand this achilles heel to allow yourself to be tormented by this person? You have here a very well written thread that a lot of us want to read, TBH, if youd left out the FatR 'stay away' comment he probably wouldnt have bothered. Please continue.........................



soticrandy -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 7:49:11 PM)

Interesting reading so far, thank you Nemo.

Without distracting from this thread can someone PM me and point in the direction of some good books dealing with this topic?



Nemo121 -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 7:52:05 PM)

3 reasons:

1. I value personal integrity. Personal integrity is a core value so when that "person" questions mine without any evidence it is extremely annoying to me.

2. I also value civic responsibility and the belief that we all need to stand up when we see wrong being done. So it really annoys me when people stand by when they see bullying here etc. The level of discourse in these forums has fallen precisely because people have left because they got bullied and the majority of the forum stood idly by. Then those same people post that they miss those individuals' contributions. Well, people reap what they sow.

3. If I didn't ask him not to post here then he could post claiming he thought he was welcome. My understanding from moderators is that it matters whether or not it was made clear from the beginning he wasn't welcome... so I made it clear as per my advice from forum moderators. Him posting doesn't bother me. You expect a dog to bark and whine after all. CR's post does because it creates some level of moral equivalency - which I disagree with. But that's for he and I to work out via PM.

Edited for purposes of clarity.



DivePac88 -> RE: Meditation & Temptation (9/26/2011 7:54:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Your arrogance is pretty hilarious. But don't worry, it would have been quite stupid to pollute my mind with information that comes from a source I consider entirely dishonest, so I'm not going to even read your posts unless I'm paid for it.



You are a sad silly little person there FatR, if you have nothing other than garbage to add to someone-else's post. I would take your own advice, and stay out.


[image]local://upfiles/30275/9091955C5BC7423E90B96B32F8ACB167.gif[/image]



undercovergeek -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 7:57:34 PM)


well, my own personal opinion is youll be sadly missed...........

might i suggest the construction of a (god forgive me) 'steakhouse' style forum of your own to discuss these matters and attract those people who sadly left these forums but wish to discuss, read and contribute to AE type discussions away from this board?



Canoerebel -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 8:05:26 PM)

I think this is much ado about nothing, to be honest.  So far, only FatR has said anything negative about Nemo in this thread, and he is a source that is widely discounted and easily ignored by the vast majority of the forum.

I (accurately I think) pointed out that Nemo and FatR exchanged insults.

And now Nemo is going to take a sabbatical from the Forums? 

Nemo (incorrectly, I think) assumes that players are aware of all that has transpired between him and FatR (and a few others).  Many of us are not.  But, moreso, we know that Nemo is a smart man fully capable of defending himself.  None of us will stand idly by while a bully beats up on a weaker opponent, but here we often don't know the context behind various disagreements.  That makes us reluctant to step in, which we feel would only serve to add more players to a disagreement.  Besides, we know Nemo can handle his defense.

I have publicly stated previously that I found FatR's conduct reprehensible.  Nevertheless, I see no gain in starting out a very promising thread by publicly slapping him.  Nemo felt like he had to do so to clearly announce his desire for FatR to stay away, but I don't think it was the right way to go about it. 




DivePac88 -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 8:08:10 PM)

Edit. -deleted



GreyJoy -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 8:09:18 PM)

Let's stick to the original thread guys...come on.



Nemo121 -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 8:11:46 PM)

CR it was advised by moderators - as I've previously stated. Not to have done as I did would have been to go against the advice of moderators who were all very clear that asking him not to post was a crucial initial step in having them tell him not to post IF he did. Since a bear ****s in the woods I knew he'd be posting and so I followed THEIR advice. If you have anything else to say to me you can say it via email.

As to a forum elsewhere. Believe me if there was interest I would consider it. I'm not sure that there would be interest though. Plus it would just be misrepresented as some sort of elitism and then I'd be attacked for it and then people could sit idly by going "OH I don't know all the details so I'll stand idly by."



SoliInvictus202 -> RE: Meditation & Temptation (9/26/2011 8:13:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Your arrogance is pretty hilarious. But don't worry, it would have been quite stupid to pollute my mind with information that comes from a source I consider entirely dishonest, so I'm not going to even read your posts unless I'm paid for it.



You are a sad silly little person there FatR, if you have nothing other than garbage to add to someone-else's post. I would take your own advice, and stay out.


[image]local://upfiles/30275/9091955C5BC7423E90B96B32F8ACB167.gif[/image]


as none of us, except the 3 involved in all this, know what exactly happened, I consider it unnecessary to point fingers or to start "bullying", to use a word used in one of the above posts, anyone,as we might point fingers at the wrong one after all....

why get involved and make sure that this discussion continues in this forum in the future?

we can't help, as we aren't pertinent to all the facts - if we were, yes - then we could take sides, if we wanted.

personally I am convinced that everyone has to choose for himself what he types in this forum - if Nemo chooses to post that he would like to keep someone out of "his" thread - fine - but that there is a certain "let's see if he can't resist" idea behind that, is pretty obvious - having two psychiatrists in ones family makes certain things, shall we say, "more common"...

now enough from me, as I have done exactly what I thought would NOT be best - I continued the "discussion" on this subject...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

OH I don't know all the details so I'll stand idly by."


if you really expect people to "act" when they can't be sure that they "act" on behalf of someone who is "right" - then you are only half the man I thought you'd be!



OTOH - this discussion is quite interesting on a military basis - so let us, if I may, continue this discussion, and this one only...




Canoerebel -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 8:13:39 PM)

Divepac, that comment was meant purely in fun - a stab at my own lack of understanding, not as a criticism of the smart people that post in here.



Nemo121 -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 8:24:24 PM)

Since this is now totally off topic and worthless....

Solinvictus: The threads are there. What happened is public and easily available to all. Basically it boils down to FatR deciding I cheated in a game vs another player. He has no proof for this ( he's been asked for it on multiple occasions and states he has none except happenstance ). He then on TWO occasions leaked my AARed plans to my opponent ( he admits this ) and ruined the game which we had to call quits to. He acted as judge jury and executioner with no evidence and ruined a multi-month game leaking from one AAR to another. Those are facts which I think no-one would object to.

All I've asked is for an apology. I'm willing to move on IF he apologises. Instead he chooses to continue calling me a lying cheat despite having no proof. I, needless to say, am less than happy about this but whenever I say something about it it seems I'm somehow being aggressive and suchlike. As I understand it FatR's version is that since I changed a plan after a third party warned me my plan had been leaked that that proved I was cheating and so he was justified in what he did. Of course its very chicken and egg. I changed my plan because he leaked it. He believes I MUST have been cheating because I changed my plan - which wouldn't have happened if he didn't leak it.


As to expecting people to act without the facts... No, but the facts are easily available and if you ask you can be directed to them. As to the half a man thing. Well, I'll let you think about whether that was utterly appropriate.



soticrandy,

Well it really depends on what level you want to approach this from. Basically though Glantz's "Soviet Military Operational Art: In Pursuit of Deep Battle" is probably the best work available right now on the Soviet view of deep battle - and they're the ones who invented it.

One really good Western source is the USMC manual on the operational level issue concerning amphibious landings. They have a lot of focus on paralysing the enemy tactical and operational reserves and on how to transition from a local beahchead into one which acts as a good springboard for strategically decisive operations. The last time I read that was quite a few years ago though so I can't remember which FM number it was. I'm sure someone here is current and will have read it recently.



Lomri -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 8:37:46 PM)


I don't enjoy posting in a drama charged environment, but I have seen Nemo articulate on several occasions (from my lurking vantage point) that he feels the community hasn't backed him up in this conflict.

So here:
OpSec violations are just about the worst thing I can imagine someone doing on these forums. It's just death to AARs in general. No matter how righteous one feels their is no excuse for it. It doesn't just effect Nemo, it has to make anyone considering an AAR nervous that they could invest years of their life and have someone casually bring that down.

The whole "thing" might be out in the public on the forum to find, but I honestly am disgusted at the idea of it, so I don't feel like wading through old threads to rehash it. As someone who has read AARs since UV the idea of someone stepping in and blowing up a game I enjoyed reading sucks - can't imagine what it would be like to the person playing the game. Just don't think that wound would heal easily.

Ok, I'm back to lurking and avoiding drama ;)



modrow -> RE: Meditation & Temptation (9/26/2011 8:48:59 PM)

SoliInvictus202,

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoliInvictus202
why get involved and make sure that this discussion continues in this forum in the future?


Because it is stimulating and interesting to read?

quote:


we can't help, as we aren't pertinent to all the facts - if we were, yes - then we could take sides, if we wanted.


THAT is an argument against getting involved in anything. We are never pertinent to all the facts. So maybe there is a justification of what appears to be bad and what seemed good is bad in reality, we are just not pertinent to the decisive fact needed to recognize that fact. So let's just accept the bad, as we cannot be sure it really is bad.

Personally, what I have seen is that all threads started by Nemo after FatRs intervention into the game between Hortlund and Nemo came to a rapid end. I do regret that, because his threads are always interesting. I want to read them.

Hartwig




modrow -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 8:59:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Since this is now totally off topic and worthless....


maybe we should have stayed inside the club after all.

Anyway,

quote:


Solinvictus: The threads are there. What happened is public and easily available to all. Basically it boils down to FatR deciding I cheated in a game vs another player. He has no proof for this ( he's been asked for it on multiple occasions and states he has none except happenstance ).


To be more precise, FatR presented his case on page 1 of Nemo's "nemesis" thread.

Hartwig



Cribtop -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 9:02:04 PM)

I will just state for the record that CR's post poking fun at me is part of a long tradition between us. On the boards and elsewhere we often joke about the fact that we are both lawyers and both Southerners, but that I tend to use big words and he doesn't. Therefore I take no offense whatsoever as I understand he was pulling my leg in the context of that long-standing semi-inside joke between us. For late comers, note that I posted everything up to the word "Abrams" and then came back with the rest as an edit, so there were a few minutes when it appeared I had collapsed in mid-sentence. [:D]

I will also add my voice to those who are interested in hearing Nemo's ideas in this thread and on these boards. Whatever their past disagreements, FatR should abide by Nemo's request not to post to his threads.



SoliInvictus202 -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 9:04:18 PM)

edited to stop this entire discussion and help in getting all this back to the "main" topic of WAR - which is why we are all here I gather....


personally I just put on Mozart "KV 475" or Handel's "ombra mai fu" from Xerxes and a few other pieces to get my head clear of such things...



Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Meditation & Temptation (9/26/2011 9:04:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
I'd like to invite anyone and everyone to comment - except for FatR as usual. I don't believe he has any role to play in adult, reasoned discussion until he can apologise for his behaviour.

Your arrogance is pretty hilarious. But don't worry, it would have been quite stupid to pollute my mind with information that comes from a source I consider entirely dishonest, so I'm not going to even read your posts unless I'm paid for it.



For what it is worth, I think you both should be at least a little embarrassed at this type of exchange. Nemo, you intentionally teed the ball up, and FatR took the borish swing. You are both letting anger over prior events lead to current, public embarrassment. This takes the thread rapidly off topic.

This is unfortunate, because the concept of Deep Battle and how to apply (or not) its tenets to the Pacific War is a great topic for a Forum discussion. There is no single book to read, no defining work to reference. It is taking a theory that was elegantly developed for one nation, fighting one type of war, and seeing if those concepts can be effectively applied in a completely different set of circumstances. It would be hard discussion to have without Nemo.

Mike



Cap Mandrake -> RE: Deep Battle (9/26/2011 9:04:58 PM)

Posting "xxxxx not welcome here" is like using bacon grease for sunscreen in the Yellowstone backcountry.

It just is NOT going to end well.


Now..as to this question of the application of this "Deep Battle" concept to AE, I presume you are talking about the combined use of surface naval forces, carrier-based air forces and land-based air forces because the land battles are quite abstracted in AE.

Perhaps the carriers are the armor, the heavy surface forces more like motorized infantry and the land-based air a sort of long range artillery.

The scale and discontinuity (of island geography) are completely different but it is still necesary to secure a broad "breakthrough" if one is to push an offensive effort up through the Dutch East Indies for eg.

Let's say one wanted to take Luzon from Australia. One can't simply put a couple of divisions on transports and set sail without "pinning" Kendari and the bases in the Lesser Sundas. The enemy airbases are like the "shoulders" of an offensive salient. If they are held and the base of the salient is too narrow then artillery will impede resupply of the spearhead.

In the case of AE, the "salient" needs to be many hundreds of miles across.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.5625