Moltke Tactical Problem 4
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 09. 2024
- This series presents in shortened video form the tactical problems Field Marshal Moltke presented at the Prussian Army Staff College. Moltke coined the phrase that "No plan survives first contact with the enemy." He believed fighting effectively was exploring a series of options and these options were explored in his Tactical Problems.
In these videos we look at these problems, and their solutions, with the lens of playing wargames well.
This video is about the question, and solution for Problem 4
Pursuits are hard. If you can plan a pursuit, or plan your unit coming out of the reserve, then you can plan just about anything. Another note, keeping a terrain focus and not a tunnel vision enemy focus in a pursuit is helpful. Thanks again for these, they’re great.
Absolutely. So many in history are not done well which supports your point.
I had picked number 3 for two reasons: 1) It's what Alexander did when attacking an enemy army behind a river, and 2) This was an actual problelm presented in the Dutch military Academy when the Brits were pessing forward during Market-Garden. The Dutch officer told the Brits, "YOui would have failed the test.'
Wow! Didn't know that story.
Friedland 1807; second solution. As Gettysgurg the second day. Fighting with a city (and bridge) at your back forbid manoeuver, aspirate the troopers and can cause a definitiv rout.
Real life examples do start coming to mind as you see the patterns. Well said!
Absolutely Fascinating!!!!
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it.
Sneaking 'cross the Saale to Halle...
Excellent work here
Thanks very much! Stay tuned, more to come!
It really depends on how quickly they can cross the river and how much of an advantage I have over them in terms of numbers and morale. They are retreating after a defeat, true, but my guys are also tired from fighting and pursuing. Also, I have no cavalry to screen or scout for me, so the enemy may be bringing up reinforcements without me knowing.
If they're really worn down and can't get across the river in time, then attacking them directly might actually be a good idea. It's possible I can smash their rear-guard just quickly enough that only a *part* of the enemy main force manages to cross, leaving the other part in a very vulnerable position, where they can be defeated while in the chaos of an incomplete river crossing. Even if their entire main body manages to get away, I still get to destroy their advanced guard.
Option 3 might be a good idea, if there is more than one viable river-crossing, because that way we have the initiative and can concentrate to overcome the enemy's defensive advantage. On the other hand, if there is only one crossing, then the enemy can easily anticipate and block us, inflicting heavy casualties.
Knowing Moltke, he's probably going to invent some absolutely crazy but ingenious reason why 2 is the best option, 1 is acceptable and 3 is the worst possible option. My guess is that it's going to be something like this:
"Even if you fail to catch the enemy main body with their pants down/mid-crossing, you at least annihilate their advanced guard, making them weaker in the long run. Option 1 wastes this opportunity. Option 3 is terrible, because the enemy can save his main force AND his advanced guard while you are dithering/wandering South. Also, don't forget that you don't have cavalry to scout ahead, so the enemy might be bringing up reinforcements which will stop you dead in the South, while the erstwhile retreating enemy counterattacks you in the back. Did I mention that if the enemy sees your main body moving south, they'll just stop retreating, smash your advanced guard and cut off your retreat/supplies while you're crossing the river?"
Let's see how I did:
Ah, apparently I was under the delusion that I didn't have cavalry and that there were only two viable river crossings, the one just next to Halle and the one in the South.
originally with the options present, i considered that 3 although looking like the ideal decision at a glance (basically flank and unmoor the river defense), that southeast force could have been cut off from the blocking force in the north if the enemy rallied their main body and struck southwest. Also wasn't sure if the crossing force could take up flanking positions in urban Halle quick enough, not to mention the enemy's unknown cavalry screen in the south.
It's definitely superior to option 1 and 2 generally (assuming no other extra factors like fatigue or how well the enemy has entrenched already). Good video!
Thank you! Its great to see the thought process.
Hello there. Thanks as always.
3 means you will get your communication cut + takes time to cross.
1 is not true, they are crossing, so they disorganized / cannot retreat fast. ( Hello, Leipzig, Friedland?)
2 is the way
Let's see.
As a French, Joffre, Foch, Napoleon, Condé, Suresnnes look at me in utter shame
But Murat and Ney smile at me for being a reckless commander!
OK! Good framing of the problem.
LOL, not at all. They would hold you in high esteem for your thought process! This one is not as straightforward. My first thought was #2, and in the book the thinking behind his choice is not really explained (it is an early problem and they are less edited). I think he was aiming for increasing options. If the enemy was still west of the Saale as the assault force moves to the bridge you can turn and attack north rather than cross the river. If they are across the river you can take advantage of the bridge and eliminate the advantage of the river.
LOL. Every army needs one!
Nice
Thank you!
I think 2
Take a look!
im 2 for 2 in the ones ive done
Nice! Come play some Kriegsspiel and you can apply that skill!
Such an enjoyable format and series - it is informative, and it is also intellectually challenging. Thank you LaFondiose. c
Thanks for the kind words! I enjoy the research and making them. More to come!