Talk:Maneuver warfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 History and implementation 2 Concepts 3 Hizbollah maneuver warfare ? 4 Copy + Paste Policy...

[edit] History and implementation

There is some terrible stuff here.

"For the majority of history armies were limited in their speed to that of the marching soldier": "This begun to change with the domestication of the horse ...from approximately 2nd century AD." This is a ridiculous generalisation. The 2nd Century is an arbitrarily chosen date, corresponding with neither the domestication of the horse nor any of the other developments mentioned. DJ Clayworth 17:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree; the whole "History and implementation" section is poor. It implies that all pre-cavalry warfare was attrition warfare, which it certainly wasn't. Before mass firepower, the side with the advantage generally did a frontal assault, and suffered few casualties if sucessful. I'd fix this, but I need to find my (better) sources first. --A D Monroe III 21:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the section still reads as though manoeuvre warfare wasnt possible using footsoldiers. I believe it is just that as each generation of mobility breaks onto the battlefield so it confers temporary advantage. I hope you'll bear with me if i alter stuff to read that way. I am sure that when troops go to battle in jet packs they will look back on trucks as 'not' real manoeuvre warfare. Facius 00:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Still stuff here on Napoleon and Logistics and I have never seen anything said about what this means. Certainly the books I have seen strongly suggest that he moved Armies quickly, but they also suggest he did this by brute force and high expectations not some new 'logistics'. His Armies seem to have lived off the land and walked hard, this is not any kind of logistics I have seen. I propose to remove that reference unless someone says stop. His contribution in this area was enormous but I suggest not for Logistics. Facius 17:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concepts

I have eliminated the phrase "methodical battle", as it seems to me that it causes to much confusion. Attrition warfare is the more commonly used term (at least in the Marine Corps), and maneuver warfare can be just as "methodical". I think that this section can still use some more expansion and clarification.--Mbaur181 01:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

But Attrition warfare is not the opposite of maneuver warfare. Before the mid 19th Century, most armies used neither attrition warfare nor maneuver warfare. There isn't an established name for the opposite of maneuver warfare, but "methodical" is as good as I've heard. Unless someone has a better idea in the next few days, I'm going to put it back. --A D Monroe III 22:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed the word "methodical" because its use to describe attrition warfare implies that there is no methodology, no procedural basis for maneuver warfare. As for attrition warfare not being the opposite of manuever warfare, I would have to wholeheartedly disagree. Maneuver warfare seeks to defeat the enemy systemically, whereas attrition seeks to defeat him by eliminating or "attriting" his forces, physically destroying his tools to fight. However, just because they are opposite does not mean that they exclude each other. Most of this is taken from MCDP-1: Warfighting.--Mbaur181 03:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Methodical Battle is not the opposite of manoeuvre warfare. It's manoeuvre warfare carried out more slowly and carefully to ensure optimal local force ratios and avoid ambushes. So it sacrifices speed and surprise for a more favourable attrition ratio and denying surprise to the enemy but it emphasises the Schwerpunkt, the breakthrough and the quick occupation and holding by consolidation of key locations cutting of the enemy supply lines, followed by the Kesselschlacht.--MWAK 07:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hizbollah maneuver warfare ?

I think that Guerilla warfare (perhaps shoot and scoot in this case) is not maneuvre warefare any more than the original guerilla warfare in the peninsula war. Can i remove that sentence ? Facius 12:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy + Paste Policy...

I noticed that the entries for Maneuver Warfare are the same on Wikipedia and Answers.com. I'm not entirely sure what Wikipedia's policy on copying and pasting information from other websites is (or maybe it was the other way around?), but I feel it should be addressed somehow or another. --OFX 18:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia - they often take stuff from us (under GFDL). So I wouldn't worry to much about this here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)