Trantor wrote:Well, the french military was pretty surprised.
Which proves nothing. The French military during the Second World War was not exactly up to par.
Trantor wrote:And it wasn´t "just" going around, they used a combination of new tactics and new gadgets like shaped charges. The germans invented them in 1935, and they busted the maginot-bunkers like eggshell.
I would submit that Blitzkrieg was not "new." It was simply an adaptation of tactics and principles of warfare, which had been around for thousands of years, to new and revolutionary equipment.
Arioch wrote:Similarly, Nelson abandoned the traditional battle line at Trafalgar and had his ships just charge the enemy line head-on,
No, he used the "crossing the T"-manouver. And because of the sheer size of the enemy-fleet he sailed in two lines, with Collingwood leading the second divison.
It was a variation of a traditional standard-manouver, and contributing to his success was that wind and initiative were on his side, and that Villeneuve on the other side was confused aditionally by some of Nelsons ship sailing out of line, e.g. "Africa" and "Temeraire".
Arioch wrote:And once he did this, the individual British ships were totally out of his control; he was relying totally on the abilities of his captains and their crews.
Well, closing-in in these times always resulted in an uncontrolled brawl.
CptWinters wrote:I would submit that Blitzkrieg was not "new." It was simply an adaptation of tactics and principles of warfare, which had been around for thousands of years, to new and revolutionary equipment.
And that´s called tactics.
BTW: If they were so ordinary, why didn´t anybody see this coming back then?
The point of my rant above (which really had nothing to do with what GeoModder actually meant) was that I get the feeling that the majority of the general public think that exceptional tactics is all about novel tricks. Something like the captain says "Execute tactical pattern Riker-Omega!" and the enemy says, "Wow, he short-warped behind me! Nobody's ever thought of that before! What a genius!" It's kind of like the misperception that hacking a computer consists of typing on a keyboard really fast. It's the military version of technobabble, and the popular media (including some otherwise really good SF books) reinforces the misperception.
Going around the Maginot Line through Belgium in 1940 was not blitzkrieg (the Germans did it in 1914 before tanks had been invented), and it was not a novel trick (the Germans did it in 1914!). Attacking where and when your enemy is not prepared is not a novel trick; it's one of the fundamentals of warfare (see: Sun Tzu). And as TheUnforsaken alludes to, the Germans did it again in 1944 to the Americans, demonstrating that you don't have to be French to be tactically surprised (though it helps).
Blitzkrieg is a doctrine of using mobile combined arms. To take advantage of the hitting power of tanks and aircraft, you also must have mobile artillery and mechanized infantry to follow up and outflank and cut off a slower enemy. It is not a tactical trick. It was also not new in 1940... Guderian's book explaining it (Achtung - Panzer!) was published in 1937, and the Germans had demonstrated it in action quite clearly in Poland in 1939. The French were overrun not because they were surprised by a novel tactic, but because they were totally unprepared to fight a modern war, and overmatched in essentially every category (except numbers).
Arioch wrote:Similarly, Nelson abandoned the traditional battle line at Trafalgar and had his ships just charge the enemy line head-on,
No, he used the "crossing the T"-manouver. And because of the sheer size of the enemy-fleet he sailed in two lines, with Collingwood leading the second divison.
It was a variation of a traditional standard-manouver, and contributing to his success was that wind and initiative were on his side, and that Villeneuve on the other side was confused aditionally by some of Nelsons ship sailing out of line, e.g. "Africa" and "Temeraire".
Erm, crossing ones T is overtaking the enemy fleet and giving them all you got through your broadsides while the enemy can only respond with front-positioned/directed guns.
Essentially, Nelson sailed his fleet (in two prongs of course) into the French/Spanish broadside, but by doing so he cut off quite a number of enemy vessels from the action (it's difficult to sail back).
GeoModder wrote:Erm, crossing ones T is overtaking the enemy fleet
..and then intercepting their path..
GeoModder wrote:and giving them all you got through your broadsides while the enemy can only respond with front-positioned/directed guns.
Yes, that´s what the Japanese demonstrated in Tsushima in near perfection.
GeoModder wrote:Essentially, Nelson sailed his fleet (in two prongs of course) into the French/Spanish broadside, but by doing so he cut off quite a number of enemy vessels from the action (it's difficult to sail back).
Yes, and his two lines formed a wedge, and wind came from astern. This reversed the situation for the French.
Arioch wrote:...
Going around the Maginot Line through Belgium in 1940 was not blitzkrieg ...
Blitzkrieg is a doctrine of using mobile combined arms.
Now you´re confusing me... we used mobile combined arms back then in the Ardennes, but somehow it´s not Blitzkrieg?
Ok, a doctrine or strategy is not tactics, but both depend on each other. You can´t use new strategies with old tactics.
Arioch wrote:It was also not new in 1940... Guderian's book explaining it (Achtung - Panzer!) was published in 1937
Oh, come on. Three Years - How long do you need to respond to a new situation? You have to school your officers, develop and purchase new weapons, train your staff on them and we´re talking about the 30ies, not the internet-age.
We developed some pretty advanced weapons back then (still in peacetime), and took advantage of them.
In the long run of course the allies catched up in technology, and their sheer numbers and their advantage of having a huge and powerful save haven in the US determined the outcome.
And this is where i see a huge problem for our beloved space-elves, too. Either the historians give them some good technology or they´re doomed in the long run.
Blitzkreig is more the small war (i.e. specific tactics of combat). It was essentially using the increased mobility of mechanized forces and the recent increase in offensive power tanks provided to quickly assault and then outmaneuver the enemy.
Ignoring the magnot line was just smart and is an independent concept from blitzkrieg. That maneuver was more of a large war sort of thing (less concerned with actual combat and more with picking smart fights, keeping you troops supplied, fighting your enemy's weakness and forcing them to attack your strength. etc)
I could make the counterpoint. How STUPID do you have to be as a commander to see an enemy entrenching only 75% of their border with you with huge guns and emplacements to prevent your assault and then assault there when all you need to do to avoid it is roll through Belgium.
And as the Germans saw in Russia, he who lives by maneuver warfare may die by maneuver warfare. Using combined arms does not make you a good tactician; knowing the fundamentals of combat, and being able to adapt and apply them to constantly changing circumstances, does.
GeoModder wrote:
Mmm. If I were the Umiak commander (and utilizing the typical Umiak naval doctrine in respect to losses) I would have ordered the heavies and medium vessels with energy weapons to flip over and start decelerating "in block" the moment they charged through the Loroi line. It would keep them longer in range of the the Loroi, which should still be in the minority in number of vessels. It should also keep the Loroi on their toes because they can't point their bows too long to the receding Umiak force of fear of coming in range of the Umiak heavy weapons, so the pursuing vessels would need to turn back to the Bellarmine location the sooner.
Momentum definitely is tricky stuff in combat.
hmm missed this earlier.
The issue is that you only have so much acceleration to spend. If you spend it decelerating within firing range you've increased the accuracy of guns pointed at you by a lot. The only counter point will be for those fairly small gunboats that need to get in to like 30 to 50gM because they're effectively 100% hit chances at that range regardless of what they do acceleration wise, they're just in too close for lightspeed lag to help much. This same effect occurs in the super super heavy class ships that once they get into weapons range effectively can't dodge anything (although they should still dodge some to prevent specific parts of the ship [weapons systems, places in the armour that have already been hit etc] from getting targetted). For medium to large size ships with medium to long range Umiak weapons they're still at a long enough range at the effective distance to want to put a significant fraction of their acceleration into dodging.
This furthermore enforces the Umiak tactics that result in jousting as their biggest and smallest ships are not as well suited to matched velocity combat as jousting combat as they're basically sitting ducks in combat range.
osmium wrote:I could make the counterpoint. How STUPID do you have to be as a commander to see an enemy entrenching only 75% of their border with you with huge guns and emplacements to prevent your assault and then assault there when all you need to do to avoid it is roll through Belgium.
They considered it a good idea. It´s what WW1, which was pretty "static", taught them - but they failed to see technological improvements and their impact on doctrine and tactics.
but it wasn't even that, if they just covered say 30% of their full border (like all of their border with Germany, and Belgium plus some). They would have forced the germans to move through a lot mountains. Even IF you're thinking technology hasn't changed it was positively MORONIC to think that leaving the Belgium border unprotected was a good gambit. The money spent on the magnot line was a waste of money unless said line actually forced a german advance to do something different. I don't count rolling unopposed through belgium as something different btw.
-O
osmium wrote:but it wasn't even that, if they just covered say 30% of their full border (like all of their border with Germany, and Belgium plus some). They would have forced the germans to move through a lot mountains.
Which mountains? Svitzerland?
Well, they "covered" all the border. It still didn´t make any sense.
osmium wrote:The money spent on the magnot line was a waste of money
That´s for sure.
But now they have nukes. (In both forms... )
Trantor wrote:It´s what WW1, which was pretty "static", taught them - but they failed to see technological improvements and their impact on doctrine and tactics.
That's not strictly true. During the first stages of the war (~1914) it was very much a fluid conflict of maneuver. Only when the German advance became stalled did the massive trench warfare begin.
Trantor wrote:Well, they "covered" all the border.
Yes, and in Belgium they covered it with terrible troops and even worse officers.
CptWinters wrote:That's not strictly true. During the first stages of the war (~1914) it was very much a fluid conflict of maneuver. Only when the German advance became stalled did the massive trench warfare begin.
Yes, and that´s what they concluded from Verdun - Fortification. Big mistake.
CptWinters wrote:Yes, and in Belgium they covered it with terrible troops and even worse officers.
German Troops found massive amounts of left-behind rifles etc, and they sold them to other countries with the advertising slogan "Brand new french rifles, only dropped once!"
man, i should check in more often, very good points all around.
now my two sense.
the discussion about the how prepared the french were ( and general basic tactics) , depends on the state of mind at the time of the conflict. Many of the allied countries at the time did want war, but started to prepare until the last minute. it is also import to know that many of the armies of the time ( France and Britain included) were designing, building and deploying weapons and tatics meant to fight the trench-like warfare of the WWI. This included the idea of building fortifications alone the french boarder ( as Trantor map shows) didn't cover or was n;t properly defended the Belgium-France broader on the political pretense ( and in hindsight was just dump thinking) that IF Germany invaded Belgium, it would break an old defense treaty with Britain and would bring in the Tommies boy's into the war. What none of the high commands realized ( or not wanted to if you read various texts) were the developments of mobile war fighting and mechanized vehicles had made this thinking unworkable in any real combat situation.
now as everyone here understands, that didn't happen, the Germany went around the defenses, punched through the allies tanks and in less than 2 months, France fell. But what many who may not have studied, may not realize is that the allies had the numbers in order to counter the Germany advance ( if they were able to moblized using the same tactics as the Germans). The Germans equipments was mostly light tanks with few medium tanks and even less heavy tanks, which were in many regards not suitable for combat. Yet, they had the radio communication to effectively coordinate their attack and keep the momentum of the attack going, while still being able to adapt to the situation.
now using this history and ideas, I saw a doc on youtube by the BBC about the gulf war and near the end, their was an interesting point made. By re-running the Gulf war 1 over in a computer and, Given the same equipment of both the equipment for the coalition forces and Iraqi army, if the training for the iraqi army units increased to about the same levels as west forces. the results were that the coalition would win, but the ground war would have lasted longer, the coalition would have taken more losses and the war might have been even less a clear victory (and in same of the sims that were run the war might have been, at a lower precentage mind you, a draw).
now apply the same thinking to the current battle that 51st loroi fleet are in, the Umiak and loroi are about the same tech level but fight very differently ( umiak in cheaper, more robust ships, using mass numbers ships and missiles; The Loroi using faster ships with longer range weapons and a hit and run approach). both sides are in a stalemate and holding back their forces for the big hit. As the insider article about the war states, the war has been going badly for the loroi with no end in sight. the only clear advantage is fighting near home systems and their far-seeing ability ( which has not worked now, IE the other lost fleets, and is a game changer). Now this move is simply the basic tatics mentioned in this trend, hitting the enemy ( the loroi in this case,) where they don't suspect ( and are no long able to sense). Now if this turn is a umiak new trick, then is opens up the basic stragem of flanking a more superior enemy (IE in speed and LR weapons).
I am a wander, going from place to place without a home I am a NOMAD
NOMAD wrote:As the insider article about the war states, the war has been going badly for the loroi with no end in sight. the only clear advantage is fighting near home systems and their far-seeing ability ( which has not worked now, IE the other lost fleets, and is a game changer).
Farseeing didn´t work only on the humans, umiak are still detectable.
Trantor wrote:Farseeing didn´t work only on the humans, umiak are still detectable.
Except that the Farseer onboard the Tempest (and the Farseers in the other 2 fleets) didn't get a good lock on the Umiak here. They know (IIRC) that there are Umiak there, but they aren't able to nail down numbers or locations. Hence the loss of two raiding fleets and the damage that has been done to the Tempest's.