By: Alrenous

Alrenous — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:50:42 +0000

I’d like to see a Bruce Bueno de Mesquita-style game theory analysis here, of light vs. heavy and what exactly 2nd vs. 3rd conflict likely predicts.

Now I have to find out how accurate a war simulator Starcraft 2 is. Usually, Star2 works on second-generation warfare — though since troops don’t have morale, you can fight to the last man and achieve a decision anyway.

But there are tactics which make the opposing general back off, holding the line. There are mobile units which can harass the back, and the line-holding stuff should free up resources to buy them. In theory, this combination should be strictly superior to standard Star2 tactics.

I will have to try it.

By: Joseph Fouche

Joseph Fouche — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:46:00 +0000

The intent of most attacks on either side in the first world war was breaking through the enemy trench line at a single concentrated point, getting into his rear, and putting him to route. Haig was a cavalryman by trade and, since the break into the rear was what cavalry did, Haig was always yearning for the moment when the Hun’s line would break so he could send in the cavalry to exploit the breakthrough. He tried bringing up the cavalry during the war winning Hundred Days offensive in 1918 but found that supplying gasoline for tanks put less strain on logistics than moving up oats to feed the horses.

The tactics that won in 1918 and 1945 were not the Hutier tactics that the Germans developed in 1916-1918 but the attritional tactics developed by Marshal Petain based on the combined arms use of artillery, armor, airpower, and infantry i.e. “Fire conquers, infantry occupies”. The German tactics worked in the Russia of 1917 when Russian soldiers willingly surrendered to them in droves. It failed in 1918 because the Germans lacked the maneuver space on the Western Front than they had on the Eastern Front. It worked in 1940 when the narrow confines of Belgium allowed them to pin Allied forces against the sea in a timely manner. It failed in 1941 when many Russian soldiers simply walked out of their “encirclement” because the Wehrmacht lacked the mass to maintain an airtight cordon in the vast spaces of the East.

Even though man for man the American doughboy of WWI and GI of WWII had worse tactical training than his Hun opponent, the standard practice of stopping when you hit an obstacle to call in artillery or air strikes was far more efficient in American lives and killing Germans than German practices. American forces had a qualitative edge in coordinating ground forces with indirect fires and airpower, they played to their strength, and won their part of the war. American artillery inflicted 70% of German casualties caused by American forces. German artillery only accounted for 50% of casualties caused by the Wehrmacht. Unless you were the Soviet Union or Republic of China, shells are cheaper than manpower.

Comments on: A Tactics Primer

By: Alrenous

By: Joseph Fouche