Maneuver: Part 3
Maneuver: Part 2
Maneuver: Part 1

Maneuver warfare advocates refer to something loosely as "that other form of warfare." This method of fighting has also been characterized as "slower." What is it and what can be added to a discussion about maneuver warfare by examining it?

I speak here of attritional warfare. The sort of "pound 'em till they quit" sort of thing practiced to a fine art in World War I. It is also one of the least efficient and most costly forms of war. Attritional Warfare (AW) is ingrained into western culture as a"fair fight" and the sort of face to face (no tricks allowed) confrontation seen as the "proper" way to fight. Its actual roots go back as far as the Greek citystates and the Hoplite form of warfare. At that time, the head-on clash between phalanxes was the only approved way to fight--where one literally invited the enemy to the battle. This was, strangely enough, a method of reducing the amount of fighting and as a method of keeping war under control. Since no tricks were allowed and everyone knew the "rules" the battle would be had and one side or the other would win ending the war in an afternoon. That was the idea, anyway. Regardless of its effectiveness, this manner of fighting created the mythos that to take on an enemy in any but the head-on manner was considered degrading and even scandalous.

Further embellishment on this idea of a "fair fight" was added during the middle ages with the advent of chivalry. Anything short of a clean fight head-on was considered "cowardly."

World War I added anew dimension to AW-there was no real alternative. Flanks were nonexistent, you couldn't air land behind the enemy, and the tank was still in its infancy. Logistical preparations required months and these naturally couldn't be hidden from the enemy well. As a result, by the time your offensive was girding itself, the enemy was double his original strength.

In this war were the roots of modern maneuver warfare. The German army, unable or unwilling, to strive for a technological solution to the trenches (the tank, the British solution), generated a tactical solution-stormtroop tactics. These were based upon small units led by well trained leaders which infiltrated the enemy lines, attacking where possible, and always moving on. The combination of these techniques with armor was the genesis of World War II's Blitzkrieg.

Attritional warfare is a head on, frontal clash, between alert forces which generates a blood bath. The first side to back down from this blood bath (or is "bled white") 'loses'. The other (almost as bloody) 'wins'.

Wargames, unfortunately. tend to portray AW much better than maneuver warfare. ZOCs inhibit fluidity. Even if you could bypass the enemy force, there is usually nothing back there to hit. The game becomes two solid lines of units and ZOCs extending the width of the game board where each side pounds on die other until the net losses determine one side or the other to be the winner. While very good at generating WWI results, I prefer a more free-wheeling style of warfare. When I take my panzers out for a spin, I don't want it to be a quick dash which is only a race against time until the front solidifies again. Whereupon I'm forced to waste time punching another hole so I can have another minute exploitation. I want him reacting to my moves and NOT by pulling back 5 hexes to form another line!

So, if wargames are uniquely able to simulate AW, what is required to do maneuver warfare? High mobility is a must. Units must be able to generate new conditions in a single turn or the enemy will quietly react to something he see's coming. There must be something in the rear of the enemy to hit-so that he cannot afford to let you rove at will back there. Things like logistics systems and rear area services that will cripple his army if destroyed will make him fret over your penetration more than any "victory point city" ever will.

If the ability to drive through his hinterland in a single turn doesn't exist, then it must be compensated by some sort of time delay on his reaction. While he can see what is going on, he won't be able to do anything about it for a while-which should give your side time to take him out.

Naturally, no matter how suited to portraying MW a game is, brutally inefficient play can still create AW. The player who looks at a hole in the enemy front as a means to a "driving thrust" forward of three hexes, while all the time protecting himself from everything, would never be able to make an MW game work. The player must be able to take decent risks and plan ahead to support his drives or he will find himself in a lot trouble.

More Maneuver

Maneuver: Part 1
Maneuver: Part 2
Maneuver: Part 3
Maneuver: Part 4