Talk:Maneuver warfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[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)
Is positional warfare a better term to pose against maneuver warfare? Iconoclastodon (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2007 (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)

[edit] Context of article too broad

The problem with article is, I think, that the context is too broad. Maneuver warfare could be seen as an evolution in Western military thought by Hart, Boyd and others. In the view of maneuver warfare theorists, von Clausewitz "On War" focuses on destruction of the enemy's armies and maneuver warfare instead focuses on "rapid movement to keep an enemy off-balance" etc etc. Military theorist, see, in hindsight, that these ideas are not new and they use examples from historic battles to make their point. So the article should not say, for example, that the Battle of Walaja was an example of maneuver warfare but instead should say that maneuver warfare theorist point to the Battle of Walaja as an example to support their theory. In other words Maneuver warfare is a modern theory, that seeks to explain warfare today, that is supported by many examples in history. Maneuver warfare is a framework that uses Sun Tzu, Ghengis Khan, Patton, Guderian etc in a modern western context. So in my view, the "Modern adaptations" section is misnamed because Maneuver Warfare is the modern adaption. "Early History" is misnamed as well Early history should be Hart or the like, if you see my point KAM 15:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I shall go ahead and edit from the viewpoint that the above is correct. Perhaps it is maneuver warfare vs "Maneuver Warfare"? KAM 15:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] references

If someone could fix the references it would be appreciated. I have not been able to figure out how to do it. I find them very frustrating. KAM 17:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)