tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post8577765696213288431..comments2024-03-29T13:09:31.522+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: VorwärtsdrangUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-50624494504179799592021-01-29T00:28:21.679+01:002021-01-29T00:28:21.679+01:00... what Kofman said.
https://www.youtube.com/watc...... what Kofman said.<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf8f26mY9fsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-12465982504536498932021-01-17T15:04:54.133+01:002021-01-17T15:04:54.133+01:00I strongly doubt that the words "offensive&qu...I strongly doubt that the words "offensive" and "defensive" should have the same meanings on the theatre level today as they used to have.<br /><br />Nowadays with state of the art doctrine going on the offence should mean that the manoeuvre formations have their permitted area of action pushed forward.<br /><br />Meanwhile, they would both be expected to elude blows and to strike through manoeuvre (to exploit opportunities) regardless of the theatre-wide situation.<br /><br />Other differentiations make more sense:<br /><br />manoeuvre formation / dispersed forces / support formation<br />fresh / transiting / recuperating<br />solo / joinedS Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-77125283704455112122021-01-17T14:57:46.252+01:002021-01-17T14:57:46.252+01:00I described what Finland seems to do.
They don'...I described what Finland seems to do.<br />They don't seem to have that many purpose built military vehicles and what they have as vehicles might be busy pulling their many artillery pieces.Krthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05771203963357763259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-23797178207079385952021-01-17T09:42:16.937+01:002021-01-17T09:42:16.937+01:00With regard to your statements on flank attacks as...With regard to your statements on flank attacks as the supposedly correct reaction to the advancing spearheads, I would like to note that this was a problem because these advancing mechanized formations were followed by other units, especially the infantry divisions with a little distance.<br /><br />Such a line of units behind one another with gaps between them can easily lead to your flank being attacked by one of the follow-up units when you are trying to flank the spearhead.<br /><br />The juxtaposition of the urge to move forward as a primarily necessary property in the past and reaction as a primarily necessary property today also seems to me to be too strongly influenced by the offensive-defensive theory. Forward urge = a primacy of the offensive. Reaction = a primacy of the defensive. At the end of the day you are explaining the defensive to the superior form of combat.<br /><br />But why should the defensive be stronger today? Precisely because the rooms with a low number of troops are getting bigger and bigger, there is more and more space for movement and opportunities to deploy your own troops in a scattered manner and still concentrate before contact with the enemy. In my opinion, that should promote the offensive and not, on the contrary, the defensive.<br /><br />Acting is better than reacting, especially today because acting produces new informations, but reacting needs an correct interpretetion of the information available. The urge to move forward should therefore not be portrayed as wrong, but simply viewed from a new perspective. While this was used to turn in a certain direction, today it aims in any direction (attack in any direction).<br /><br />Strictly speaking, there is not even a complete contradiction in terms, since the other aspects of agility and alertness are the decisive features of a successful push forward.<br /><br />I am of course aware that a more defensive stance is more in line with your political agenda and basic attitude. Regardless of this, in my opinion, the attacker has more of an advantage today, because the fog of the battlefield is less than it used to be and therefore action is better than reacting. These: In terms of the offensive-defensive theory, the attacker today has an advantage. Vorwärtsdrang is useful in the offensive. Therefore it is not obsolete and not and does not contradict quick reactions, but to the opposite both belong together.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-39760836094031133842021-01-17T08:51:07.195+01:002021-01-17T08:51:07.195+01:00I cant help but feel this is optimisation of cold ...I cant help but feel this is optimisation of cold war realities. Its asking more of sub Brigade units and commanders than ever before (including the Battle of France) and doesnt account for changes in technology that may make it obselete.<br /><br />I cant see what the war would be anymore. Russia sending spearheads into Europe seems like theatre. It seems pathetic. I suppose it was during the cold war as well, Reforger and the Soviet tactical nuclear strike plan shows that. If the war wasnt continent wide, i.e. Armenia, even if domestic forces could be equipped and trained to a degree you suggest, to what end? Non continental powers have limited sovereignty.<br /><br />Off topic ramble.<br /><br />How does the assumption that OPFOR would have multiple layers of recon drones effect the doctrine? The benefit of operational momentum above all else seems based partly in the fog of war. Does that still work if the attacking force can be fixed in real time?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-9369022180935416812021-01-16T17:03:57.584+01:002021-01-16T17:03:57.584+01:00I wrote "centipede" because a battalion ...I wrote "centipede" because a battalion battlegroup has approx. 100 vehicles, which add up to about 6 km if they all march on one road and with minimal acceptable spacing.<br /><br />I consider the concept of forward observer infantry calling fires from magic land to be nonsense. <br />To use mostly long-ranged (60+ km) munitions is prohibitively expensive. Artillery needs huge quantities of munitions and shoot & scoot both requires much movement and 'burns' many firing positions. This would lead to horrible attrition in face of even only platoon-sized hostile forces. <br /><br />Dispersed forces make sense, but for some purposes you need formations acting as such, and this means at the very least company battlegroups capable of temporarily joining for larger actions. This leads to 30...40 motor vehicles convoys at least.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-77679999303687211412021-01-16T12:09:22.758+01:002021-01-16T12:09:22.758+01:00That idea of a centipede seems to be limited to al...That idea of a centipede seems to be limited to all-volunteer forces. What about such a force encountering an enemy with a huge number of state of the art infantry with a digital information network connected to their artillery? Such an organization could move differently. Is there a potential for such an infantry-centric force to win and shift the development towards a different paradigma?Krthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05771203963357763259noreply@blogger.com