World War II

[Legbreaker]

I thought the discussion in the "Historical Kalisz-type Scenarios" deserved it's own thread and since Kato isn't about....

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Modern tank use was theorized by the General Jean-Baptiste Eugène Estienne. This time a Frenchman, colonel at the time, father of the french aviation, of the modernization of our artillery and of the tanks. He was read and taken into account by Liddle Hart (UK), Heinz Guderian (Germany), Toukhatchevsky (Soviet Union) and probably Patton (US, who had met him in 1917). However, these theories were refused by most high commands (except Soviet Union until the Stalin's purges) including Germany (Hitler ruled over the Generals on that matter, including the Blitzkrieg into a much wider classical plan)

That's my point. Some individuals certain knew, or at least theorised (since they couldn't have put it into practise beforehand), but those higher than them were operating on incorrect principles.
No matter how many Majors, Lt Colonels, and other "lesser" ranks believed, it was the Generals, etc who dictated "how things were". A shame, and one that wasn't corrected until the war was nearly won by the Germans (in other words, around late 1940 to 1941).

There always has been, and always will be brilliant tacticians and strategists, but unfortunately because they think "outside of the box" they aren't listened to until hindsight shows them to be correct.

Flawed wargames carried out in the 20's and 30's caused the British (and numerous other nations) to implement flawed tactics, strategy and equipment. The Germans (and a few other individuals) basically took a gamble on unproven theories and got it right when it mattered. If the allies had been working from the same book as the Germans, the war may well have been over almost before it started (or possibly turned into another bloodbath as two decades before, something EVERYONE wanted to avoid).

[Targan]

Nice work. That WWII talk in the other thread was getting really dominant. If it stays in this thread at least I'll know where to avoid

[Mohoender]

I agree with both of you. Got your point Leg.

[Webstral]

It happens to today. In 2005, I read about a wargame set in the Gulf in which a maverick Marine general controlled Iranian forces against a US carrier battlegroup. He managed to coordinate a massive missile attack and sink the carrier. His tactics? Decentralized control. What did the US team learn? Hit the reset button when it all goes bad.

Webstral

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by Webstral

It happens to today. In 2005, I read about a wargame set in the Gulf in which a maverick Marine general controlled Iranian forces against a US carrier battlegroup. He managed to coordinate a massive missile attack and sink the carrier. His tactics? Decentralized control. What did the US team learn? Hit the reset button when it all goes bad.

Webstral

Was that the one where the OPFOR used artillery launched EMP devices?

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

Was that the one where the OPFOR used artillery launched EMP devices?

I don't think so, but I can't say for certain. I believe the attack was conducted by conventional missiles launched from fast attack boats emerging from a number of points along the Iranian coast. However, it would make sense to cover the attack with shore-based arty and EMP, wouldn't it?

Webstral

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Webstral

It happens to today. In 2005, I read about a wargame set in the Gulf in which a maverick Marine general controlled Iranian forces against a US carrier battlegroup. He managed to coordinate a massive missile attack and sink the carrier. His tactics? Decentralized control. What did the US team learn? Hit the reset button when it all goes bad.

Webstral

The results of this wargame, and another in the early '00s in which a Chilean diesel sub "sank" a couple of U.S. cruisers, has convinced me that the U.S.N. wouldn't dominate the T2K seas quite as much as others around here seem to believe.

But that's a matter for another thread.

Back to the original point, it seems that "fixing" wargame results is one of the worst things military commanders can do. It troubles me that it still happens today.

[Legbreaker]

An Australian diesel powered sub, all by itself managed to sneak in, sink a US carrier and sneak out again completely undetected (besides the big BOOM and the umpires declaring the carrier sunk) in a wargame in the early 90's.
I think a number of the escort vessels were also "sunk".

Makes you wonder how the US can claim to be so superior and unbeatable doesn't it?