Gentlemen!
The Title of this post makes a statement using two words that <i>should </i>- in any reasonable person’s mind - NEVER appear in the same sentence.
To whit - Beautiful and War.
I will explain in a second, what I mean - but, before I do, I would earnestly request that each and all of Ye that read this post, reply with Your personal view(s) regarding some/all of the Subject matter.
I’m ‘interested’/nosey!!! [:o)]
The American Civil War was possibly, nay - probably, the last ‘War of Manoeuvre’. In certain circumstances, Commanders decided for or against aggressive action, dependent on where the Enemy actually was in relation to their own Army. There are quite a few examples of large numbers of Men, marching for days on end while their Commander sought suitable ground upon which to stand and face the Enemy. Similarly, positions were taken up by Armies, which were eminently suitable to their Commanders’ wishes and Strategy, only to be abandoned, without a shot being fired, upon Scout Reports that the Enemy was elsewhere, positioning himself between the Commander and his source of Supplies/Reinforcement or other strategically important location.
When we in this Club, undertake a Battle/Campaign, we are presented with a general scenario which allows us a certain scope in manoeuvering Our Troops on the Battlefield, but compels us to achieve a particular goal. An Army can be placed at the beginning of a Battle, in a particularly strong defensive position, yet the Victory points are set up in such a way that in order for the defending Army to ‘win’ the Battle, one of two things must occur . . . .
Either:
1. The Defending Army ‘sits tight’ and the Attackers must attack vigorously, losing thousands of Men in a ‘Kill Ratio’, that enables the Defender to rack up the points to a Victory level.
OR:
2. The Defending Army comes out from behind their barricades and falls upon the Enemy, again slaughtering all around, until the Victory points are accumulated to a Victory Level.
There are of course other variations in Victory levels, designed to ‘encourage’ the Players to follow the Historical events depicted in the Scenario . . . .
My curiosity is piqued as follows:
Most Players appear to go all out for a Victory - the general exception being; - the Battle is part of a Campaign and thus, the overall result dictates to a degree, what is to be achieved during the Battle and what cost in Troops etc., is acceptable with the bigger picture overshadowing the individual Battle to some extent.
I have read on numerous occasions in the past, how the casualty levels in Our Battles far exceed the casualty rates of the Real Battles. This has been partly ascribed to the fact that we send ‘Cartoon’ Men to their Death, whereas Lee and Meade et al, sent their fellow Man to his potential doom . . . We don’t ascribe a ‘value’ to the lives of Our Brigades and know that should we lose every single trooper, we’ll start a new Battle tomorrow, with miraculously generated Thousands of Troops again at Our Command. Once one of Lee’s Men was dead . . Well . . . He was Dead and a replacement was not to be found growing on a nearby Tree!
So my question is this . . . .
Who/ how many of Ye hold back or alter Strategy mid-battle, as Your Enemy’s disposition becomes clear . . . ?
Or do Ye settle on a Strategy and carry it out in Full regardless of the evolution of the Battle - presuming of course that Your strategy is not costing you 1,000 Men per turn in casualties?
Who of Ye fight the Last War of Manoeuvre, by manouevering as much as by direct defence/assault?
My Thanks men!
Pat.
Patrick G.M.Carroll,
Lieutenant General.
Kilcullen Irregulars
II Corps
Army of Georgia Rtd.
" When My Country takes it's rightful place, amongst the Nations of the World, then and only then, let My Epitaph be written. "
|