Over the course of Ukraine’s recent counteroffensive, there was much discussion over whether it would break out of positional warfare and restore a war of maneuver. Position, like attrition, is often held to be the opposite end of the spectrum from maneuver. As with the
This kind of reminds me of a tactic in some RTS games called basewalking. Basewalking is a way to get around a limitation in older RTS games that prevented you from building your buildings beyond a radius of your other buildings. Naturally, this would eventually allow you to build defenses all the way to your opponent's base.
As armies get bigger and logistics more complex, I think peer warfare more and more begins to resemble basewalking, troops being there to defend their sources of supply and prevent the enemy from making a fast break towards enemy lines. We could then see the whole war as a single siege between two walled countries, using troops, artillery, and standoff munitions as mobile walls that control by fire rather than obstruction, thanks to modern detection and signals intellgence. Political, economic, and social media maneuvering seeks to demoralize or starve out the opponent, while the battlefield turns into a hodgepodge of back-and-forth skirmishing, each side probing for defenses in the other's "wall".
In many ways I'd extend that to literally every war after - though besieged more by threats, long-range fires, political imperatives, and economic concerns than trenchlines.
I have always thought of it as the use of fire and maneuver, not necessarily in tandem but in coordination- fire paving the way for maneuver and maneuver putting fire in positions where it will be effective.
A lot of these terms were conceived for one level of war then got applied more generally. "Fire & maneuver" is a pretty intuitive concept at low tactical levels where fire support enables movement, but it breaks down when talking about corps and armies moving in open country.
Same story as maneuver vs. attrition: kind of makes sense when applied to set-piece battles, especially before the 20th century, but doesn't really describe larger operations that well.
This kind of reminds me of a tactic in some RTS games called basewalking. Basewalking is a way to get around a limitation in older RTS games that prevented you from building your buildings beyond a radius of your other buildings. Naturally, this would eventually allow you to build defenses all the way to your opponent's base.
As armies get bigger and logistics more complex, I think peer warfare more and more begins to resemble basewalking, troops being there to defend their sources of supply and prevent the enemy from making a fast break towards enemy lines. We could then see the whole war as a single siege between two walled countries, using troops, artillery, and standoff munitions as mobile walls that control by fire rather than obstruction, thanks to modern detection and signals intellgence. Political, economic, and social media maneuvering seeks to demoralize or starve out the opponent, while the battlefield turns into a hodgepodge of back-and-forth skirmishing, each side probing for defenses in the other's "wall".
"Siege of Nations Theory" has a ring to it.
"Mutually besieged" was how I always liked to describe the trenches of the Western Front.
In many ways I'd extend that to literally every war after - though besieged more by threats, long-range fires, political imperatives, and economic concerns than trenchlines.
Bravo! Not to gainsay your conclusion, mais d'après Boileau:
"Ce que l'on conçoit bien s’énonce clairement,
Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément."
I have always thought of it as the use of fire and maneuver, not necessarily in tandem but in coordination- fire paving the way for maneuver and maneuver putting fire in positions where it will be effective.
A lot of these terms were conceived for one level of war then got applied more generally. "Fire & maneuver" is a pretty intuitive concept at low tactical levels where fire support enables movement, but it breaks down when talking about corps and armies moving in open country.
Same story as maneuver vs. attrition: kind of makes sense when applied to set-piece battles, especially before the 20th century, but doesn't really describe larger operations that well.
Personally I do find it useful to fly my helicopter up and down from tactical, operational, and strategic to see the linkages in the machinery.
Great post