![Kriegsspiel Umpire LaFondiose](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 121
- 67 545
Kriegsspiel Umpire LaFondiose
Приєднався 1 лип 2023
This channel is dedicated to umpired wargaming, both playing it and creating it. I play and umpire wargames. I got started with Avalon Hill many years ago, and dabbled in online wargames a few years ago. I prefer online umpired wargames because they mimic the friction of war that is so often talked about.
This channel is a collection of my observations about playing and umpiring wargames.
This channel is a collection of my observations about playing and umpiring wargames.
Moltke Tactical Problem 45
This series presents in shortened video form the tactical problems Field Marshal Moltke presented at the Prussian Army Staff College. Moltke coined the phrase that "No plan survives first contact with the enemy main body." He believed fighting effectively was exploring a series of options and these options were explored in his Tactical Problems.
In these videos we look at these problems, and their solutions, with the lens of playing wargames well.
This video is about the question, and solution for Problem 45.
In these videos we look at these problems, and their solutions, with the lens of playing wargames well.
This video is about the question, and solution for Problem 45.
Переглядів: 296
Відео
Moltke Tactical Problem 44
Переглядів 2,6 тис.14 днів тому
This series presents in shortened video form the tactical problems Field Marshal Moltke presented at the Prussian Army Staff College. Moltke coined the phrase that "No plan survives first contact with the enemy main body." He believed fighting effectively was exploring a series of options and these options were explored in his Tactical Problems. In these videos we look at these problems, and th...
Moltke Tactical Problem 43
Переглядів 99921 день тому
This series presents in shortened video form the tactical problems Field Marshal Moltke presented at the Prussian Army Staff College. Moltke coined the phrase that "No plan survives first contact with the enemy main body." He believed fighting effectively was exploring a series of options and these options were explored in his Tactical Problems. In these videos we look at these problems, and th...
Moltke Tactical Problem 42
Переглядів 352Місяць тому
This series presents in shortened video form the tactical problems Field Marshal Moltke presented at the Prussian Army Staff College. Moltke coined the phrase that "No plan survives first contact with the enemy main body." He believed fighting effectively was exploring a series of options and these options were explored in his Tactical Problems. In these videos we look at these problems, and th...
Moltke Tactical Problem 41
Переглядів 823Місяць тому
This series presents in shortened video form the tactical problems Field Marshal Moltke presented at the Prussian Army Staff College. Moltke coined the phrase that "No plan survives first contact with the enemy main body." He believed fighting effectively was exploring a series of options and these options were explored in his Tactical Problems. In these videos we look at these problems, and th...
Moltke Tactical Problem 40
Переглядів 947Місяць тому
This series presents in shortened video form the tactical problems Field Marshal Moltke presented at the Prussian Army Staff College. Moltke coined the phrase that "No plan survives first contact with the enemy main body." He believed fighting effectively was exploring a series of options and these options were explored in his Tactical Problems. In these videos we look at these problems, and th...
Moltke Tactical Problem 39
Переглядів 1,5 тис.Місяць тому
This series presents in shortened video form the tactical problems Field Marshal Moltke presented at the Prussian Army Staff College. Moltke coined the phrase that "No plan survives first contact with the enemy main body." He believed fighting effectively was exploring a series of options and these options were explored in his Tactical Problems. In these videos we look at these problems, and th...
Moltke Tactical Problem 37
Переглядів 1 тис.2 місяці тому
This series presents in shortened video form the tactical problems Field Marshal Moltke presented at the Prussian Army Staff College. Moltke coined the phrase that "No plan survives first contact with the enemy main body." He believed fighting effectively was exploring a series of options and these options were explored in his Tactical Problems. In these videos we look at these problems, and th...
Moltke Tactical Problem 36
Переглядів 3112 місяці тому
This series presents in shortened video form the tactical problems Field Marshal Moltke presented at the Prussian Army Staff College. Moltke coined the phrase that "No plan survives first contact with the enemy main body." He believed fighting effectively was exploring a series of options and these options were explored in his Tactical Problems. In these videos we look at these problems, and th...
AAR Reipzig Tactical Problem
Переглядів 3892 місяці тому
This After Action Review describes the fast action in a tactical problem given to 12 new players to Kriegsspiel. Using 1859 Prussian units, the Red team had to figure out how to push an artillery reinforced, but smaller Blue team out of the hills. Check out how timing and concentration becomes key tools for the victor of the scenario. A great start for some new Kreigsspiel commanders!
Moltke Tactical Problem 35
Переглядів 5373 місяці тому
This series presents in shortened video form the tactical problems Field Marshal Moltke presented at the Prussian Army Staff College. Moltke coined the phrase that "No plan survives first contact with the enemy main body." He believed fighting effectively was exploring a series of options and these options were explored in his Tactical Problems. In these videos we look at these problems, and th...
AAR The Battle of Montebello, 1859
Переглядів 2723 місяці тому
This is the third scenario in The Century of Kriegsspiel Series. These scenarios obscure the history for the players, so the decisions they make are not derived from reading the script of the historical outcomes. The units use traditional Kriegsspiel frontages and the rules are adapted for a technically assisted version of the original Kriegsspiel. This scenario was on a 1859 battle in the Seco...
Moltke Tactical Problem 34
Переглядів 9333 місяці тому
This series presents in shortened video form the tactical problems Field Marshal Moltke presented at the Prussian Army Staff College. Moltke coined the phrase that "No plan survives first contact with the enemy main body." He believed fighting effectively was exploring a series of options and these options were explored in his Tactical Problems. In these videos we look at these problems, and th...
Moltke Tactical Problem 33
Переглядів 9213 місяці тому
This series presents in shortened video form the tactical problems Field Marshal Moltke presented at the Prussian Army Staff College. Moltke coined the phrase that "No plan survives first contact with the enemy main body." He believed fighting effectively was exploring a series of options and these options were explored in his Tactical Problems. In these videos we look at these problems, and th...
Moltke Tactical Problem 32
Переглядів 8634 місяці тому
This series presents in shortened video form the tactical problems Field Marshal Moltke presented at the Prussian Army Staff College. Moltke coined the phrase that "No plan survives first contact with the enemy main body." He believed fighting effectively was exploring a series of options and these options were explored in his Tactical Problems. In these videos we look at these problems, and th...
AAR Frankfurt Tactical Problem Scenario
Переглядів 1924 місяці тому
AAR Frankfurt Tactical Problem Scenario
Smashing the much smaller enemy division is juicy and tempting, but it's ultimately a distraction from the mission, so that's a hard pass. They'd just retreat like crazy and divert you from doing your job of screening for the siege. The enemy's numerical superiority isn't all that huge, so just sitting tight and seeing how the situation develops isn't a bad idea, especially since your job isn't to destroy the enemy, but to delay him. Going for the good defensive position is also a viable option, if it doesn't restrict your future options too much. I doubt 3000ish men can do much about the siege. I suppose Moltke would like to remind us that the mission always comes first, so he'd advise us to sit tight and wait to see what the enemy is up to.
It depends on the force ratios. Is my army big enough to defeat the enemy armies in detail without taking particularly nasty casualties? Does the enemy lack artillery that they can park on the hills to make the Northwestern road a kill-zone? If the answer to both of these questions is "yes" then I leave a small garrison at Glatz to hold off the enemy southwestern group for a bit, while the bulk of my forces squishes the enemy force around Branau, before marching back along the road and smashing the enemy force coming from the South-West as they emerge from the heights. Remember, they're slow, because they are marching through trackless hills, right? Finally, relieve the Glatz garrison and celebrate our victory. In any case, letting the enemy concentrate is a bad idea, but forcing your troops to whiz around and fight multiple exhausting battles within a short space of time is also a bad idea, especially if the enemy also happens to take the high ground and pepper you with artillery as you march, and *especially* if they might be stronger than you expect, giving them the ability to cut of your supplies/line of retreat. Sitting around Glatz is the safe-ish option, because you will have plenty of time to support Silberberg if the enemy goes towards it, while Glatz itself is easily accessible to the enemy via roads, and is therefore the most likely target for the enemy to attack. Let's see how I did. Heh. Moltke's works in mysterious ways. It really isn't like him to be this defensive.
It really depends on how quickly they can cross the river and how much of an advantage I have over them in terms of numbers and morale. They are retreating after a defeat, true, but my guys are also tired from fighting and pursuing. Also, I have no cavalry to screen or scout for me, so the enemy may be bringing up reinforcements without me knowing. If they're really worn down and can't get across the river in time, then attacking them directly might actually be a good idea. It's possible I can smash their rear-guard just quickly enough that only a *part* of the enemy main force manages to cross, leaving the other part in a very vulnerable position, where they can be defeated while in the chaos of an incomplete river crossing. Even if their entire main body manages to get away, I still get to destroy their advanced guard. Option 3 might be a good idea, if there is more than one viable river-crossing, because that way we have the initiative and can concentrate to overcome the enemy's defensive advantage. On the other hand, if there is only one crossing, then the enemy can easily anticipate and block us, inflicting heavy casualties. Knowing Moltke, he's probably going to invent some absolutely crazy but ingenious reason why 2 is the best option, 1 is acceptable and 3 is the worst possible option. My guess is that it's going to be something like this: "Even if you fail to catch the enemy main body with their pants down/mid-crossing, you at least annihilate their advanced guard, making them weaker in the long run. Option 1 wastes this opportunity. Option 3 is terrible, because the enemy can save his main force AND his advanced guard while you are dithering/wandering South. Also, don't forget that you don't have cavalry to scout ahead, so the enemy might be bringing up reinforcements which will stop you dead in the South, while the erstwhile retreating enemy counterattacks you in the back. Did I mention that if the enemy sees your main body moving south, they'll just stop retreating, smash your advanced guard and cut off your retreat/supplies while you're crossing the river?" Let's see how I did: Ah, apparently I was under the delusion that I didn't have cavalry and that there were only two viable river crossings, the one just next to Halle and the one in the South.
The problem seems kinda weird. I don't see what the differences between the options are supposed to be, at least not from the text itself. The map gives me some pointers though. My gut instinct is to take the option to attack the enemy forward element as quickly as possible before the main enemy force can concentrate, and then just dig in in Frankfurt and trust the inherent advantage of the defense, together with the advantage of dense urban terrain will allow me to weather the enemy onslaught. I kind of think that using the southern approach isn't a good idea, due to the rough terrain, which will slow my troops down, but other than that, it's a toss-up between options 1 and 2. Also yes, the map does seem to show that the high-road really does lead into elevated terrain, while the southern approach seems to go through less-than-passable woodlands. However, since there is no explicit information with regard to the speed of the different options, I tend to gravitate towards option 1, because it means I can take the high ground away from the enemy, especially since I have cavalry and he has only infantry and artillery, meaning I can get there first. Ergo, send the cavalry division North to occupy the heights and hold them until the infantry marches along the main road to face the enemy. Depending on whether we have the time, we can send a division of infantry to relieve the by bow beleaguered cavalry, set up our artillery on the heights, bombard the enemy, send in the infantry to break them and finally send the cavalry to mop them up as they retreat. But since we probably don't have time, we probably have to whack the enemy ASAP before we can set up an ideal infantry-artillery position. Let's see how I did:
I chose 2. Usually he's concerned about lines of communication and protecting the route to Belfort is part of the scenario info. Option 2 would enable 2 divisions and the avantgarde to concentrate closer to Belfort and meet the enemy on the ridgeline ahead of Traubach with most of the corps. The 30th and cavalry coming up behind provide a manoeuvre element and reserve. Going for Option 3 seems to abandon Belfort for the safest solution
@FlyxPat I was with you. Read my comment string and you will understand.
Moltke often advocates for the most conservative solution. What did you think of his proposal?
@@UmpireLaFondiose - mostly that it seems to abandon Belfort. A Royal Navy commander of this period can get cashiered for being overly cautious in the face of the enemy. We also don't know the size of the attacking force, It might only be a division. I think the first priority is intel on the opposing force, which means raids and delaying actions by the forward elements to get prisoners and force the attackers to deploy and show their hand. If it's a division, concentrate forward. If it's a corps, concentrate on the ridge line near Traubach. If it's more than a corps, fall back.
I'd do option 2. Gotta give time for my army to gather so I wouldn't do 1. 3 is still an option if necessary but 2 holds the good terrain and keeps an eye on the ultimate goal of clearing a path west.
Dang it Moltke!
@The1JHorton I was with you. Read my comment string and you will understand.
This one is less intuitive. A good candidate to play out!
Option 1: bad. One would be not fast enough to concentrate there, leaving oneself vounrable to defeat in detail. Option 3 is also bad but for another reason. Here one concentrate just fine but support for belfort is not possible anymore. Also the wagons are now easy pickings. Option 2 seems best. 2 divisions should be able to hold until the cav and 3rd arrive. Also the units are close enough to prevent the red force to turn around and attack the wagons or belfort.
And Molke sees it differently. I will read the text version to understand his position. Just from the video I see no reason for the red force to continue east if belfort is the target
Okay found the reasons: 1) the wagons have an escort (I should have remembered that from a previous Problem). 2) The wagons are only 5km away from belfort and will have reached it befor any sizable force can catch them. Interesstingly those topics are not even mentioned in the solution
This more fun than Wordle! Got this one right by Moltke!!!
Awesome video!❤
I would have gone for option 2 because then you can take the Autobahn...
Are problems 9 and 10 in a different playlist?
Okay so if you're the enemy why wouldn't you pick the forces off one at a time?
It seems to me that 1 is the better approach, it offers better speed thus enabling you to defeat the enemy in detail
This is an excellent idea for a playlist
Got this one right!
Tasdorf eat Worldorf!!!
Somehow I missed this one when it came out. I'll do number 2. Number 1 is too aggressive when you don't know the enemy strength yet. 3 seems like you're not complying with your mission as you're falling back too hard and giving up good ground too easily. Of course I'm wrong because Moltke and I never agree.
See? We never agree. I guess we agree in principle but not in practice. I assumed number 2 was safe enough.
This thing about finding the central position sounds like the "hold your center line" from kung fu, but with lots of people instead just your own body.
@@agbottan interesting analogy!
Sneaking 'cross the Saale to Halle...
Seems straightforward. Takes the initiative away from red and leaves you options
@@stephenandersen4625 Moltke saying his writings to keep it straightforward.
So the enemy have held the river crossings for most of a day and we've only seen about a division of their army. Sounds like a screening force for a defensive deployment. If they were attacking they should have had more forces across by now
There are benefits and drawbacks to each option, realistically I'd probably want Cavalry to further define the locations of the enemy and make further decisions from there but **Within the context of the problem** the first option is likely the best as the other two more easily allow two OPFOR groups to join together
@@artemisfowl7191 what did you think of the solution once you heard it?
@@UmpireLaFondiose It made sense to me I guess; it seems obvious that none of the enemy forces can be allowed to remain free to combine themselves with another
So. My opinion would be as follows: 1. The cavalry should rush to valdieu, and then entrench in the town and vicinity. Recon in force should be ordered, but forbid any large scale attack. Valdieu appears to be within a foresty area, and thus, they should act as skirmishers in the lead up. 2. The second division should take positions at Menoncourt, ready for when enemy division strike. 3. Here i am assuming that: i) the divisions in question are 'square divisions' (read: two brigades formed by two 3-battalion regiments), ii) a prussian style division, were companies and battalions had a certain latitude to operate independently. The 1st division should detach a battalion from each regiment. Regiments from brigade 1A should take positions at Chalonvillars and the ones from 1B at Valdoye. These battalions *should* make their presence known to belfort's garrison. This is done for two reasons: a) it makes the enemy think that the first division is poised to lay siege at belfort and thus dissuade them from sallying forth to valdieu and getting their backs exposed; b) in the case of the the 1B battalions, it gives the 2nd division an additional reserve and deffensive depth. c) In the case the garrison sallies to attack either position (this assumes they got good intel or called the bluff), they can reinforce the other position with ease in order to avoid a two-to-one or three-to-one advantage. Now, this is assuming that valdoye and chalonvillars are less than a day's march of each other and that valdoye is also within a day's march of menoncourt. If the distance is larger, shift said battalions further east so they can support the other formations more effectively. 4. The bulk of the 1st division should go to gros magny. 5. The 3rd division should take positions at gyro magni. 6. Once these two divisions and what is essentially a reinforced brigade are in position, advance to meet the enemy at St Germain. If possible, these divisions should fan out and attack in a 'zulu' style pattern. By these i mean that the 2nd division fans to the east and tries to find a flank and the 3rd division strikes headlong, possibly finding the western flank of the enemy. Once these two divisions are engaged, the weaned off 1st divisions should strike at the center of the formation, which is quite possibly pretty thinned out and brittle. 7a. Once the enemy division's been beaten, the 2nd divisions and the 1st division should turn and help the cavalry brigade. 7b If the second division's been battered by the attack, send them two valdieu and rotate the cavalry brigade. 8. All the forces not sent to valdieu shall lay siege.
thoughts? @Kriegsspiel Umpire LaFondiose
Yes, I think you have the measure of the problem. The enemy forces to the east cannot be ignored, and a push in that direction ensures they are engaged. Interestingly, in this problem the friendly forces are French, not Prussian, but the Order of Battle for the friendlies is a Prussian two brigade structure. In problems and Kriegsspiels Moltke and the staff did not attempt to make it an OOB accuracy exercise. They focused on principles and kept the forces standard Prussian in composition.
I got it right!!!
@@Ralphieboy Nice work!
My thoughts were as follows: 3 has some merit as it allows you to deal with that division nice and easy, but unless you’re troops are super fast then you’re not going to make it in time to stop the reinforcements and supplies arriving. 2 seems to me to be quite a bad idea. You’re open to an attack in the rear by a sortie, and you can’t stop the Thann force if it decides to come to the aid of the Belfort force. Especially if this happens your ideal line of retreat is cut off leaving you the retreat option only of going into what I believe to be enemy territory. 1 allows the lovely central position from which you can cut off communications between the forces, which means they will likely not coordinate well and you can defeat in detail. Worse comes to worst you’ll be fighting all three forces at once, but operating on interior lines you should be able to do a tactical defeat in detail. And if you lose you still have a decent line of retreat.
So 1 definitely seems to be the best option.
What did you think of Moltke’s solution?
I’ll be honest I have no clue on this one, more complex than most, so instead of guessing I’m just gonna sit back and listen
@@bramstedt8997 That’s ok, it’s interesting when you hear his logic.
find the central position, so "THEY COULD BE COMING FROM ALL SIDES"
As the famous quote goes, it simplifies the problem!
This sounds like a Chesty Puller ism
@@artemisfowl7191 I was thinking more of Captain America from Generation Kill
I'd do 3 to try to knock out the Thann force separately and quickly before the other reinforcements before Altkirch arrive. I think 1 or 2 would end up with me fighting both the Thann force and the Altkirch reinforcements at the same time.
Dang it Moltke!
LOL, You and Moltke have a special relationship!
@@UmpireLaFondiose You've got to turn these into games like you were thinking so I can prove Moltke wrong.
Of course!
Pausing as requested: I am once again going to modifiy the answers provided. We are a full corps, we need to use those numbers to our advantage, but we are currently spread out a bit much. Utilizing a modified "Option 1": concentrate the infantry near the terrain advantage of Menoncourt along what looks to be an eacape route for Belfort. The cavalry division will deploy to our right with orders to attempt to capture or destroy the reinforcements, and in failing that, prevent them from reinforcing. I would take 2 regiments from 1st division and deploy them in Chalonvillars and Valdoye so as to antagonize Belfort that we have that blocked off, also they will scout for any sallies from Belfort or any odd far-flanking reinforcements from the north. Once obtaining this position you can use the bulk of your forces to deal with the enemy in the field first before concentrating for a siege should one occur as your positioning, and hopeful destruction of reinforcements will persuade the enemy to abandon the position without a fight as you gave them a route to leave due south. Best outcome, you take the fort without a siege and defeat a whole enemy division in the field. Worst case there is an entire enemy corps past that known division, the cavalry fail and Belfort is reinforced and you are forced to reposition to prevent a pincer.
Edit: So General Moltke and I agree on strategy, but not tactics. 😂 I once again prove to be more agressive I guess.😅
In the Moltke explanation of the solution he uses Valdoye as a linking point between forces with two regiments to hold it, so your solution is nicely constructed.
@@UmpireLaFondiose thank you!
Pausing as requested: I think a modified "Option 2" to Thann is the better position. Your division, blocking that passage places you near enough to your brother unit that should an engagement or disaster happen you can call them up the next day or fall back to them in Mullhausen. The modification would be to detach 75% of your cavalry to escort the caravans in segments. The segments should be timed out that your cavalary guides them 3/4 of the way there, and then goes back for another caravan. 1st caravan will have orders to relay to the fort city of this plan and request they cover the last 25%. This usage of option 2 will leave you nearly blind, yes, but it threatens French entry into the region, protects the caravans that supply a fortification, and protects your deploying fraternal division. Option 1 throws you far too of of the way to be much help or to get help. 3 would stretch you too thin along that caravan line to be effective should the french attack. Modified 2 is the better option.
Edit: I misheard that about the time it would take the reinforcements, so i would have them escorted by my division that first day and then the fort city the next while my cavalry returned to me. All-in-all another agreement I have with General Moltke. 😂
Moving to Thann generally is the right impulse according to Moltke. He emphasizes the shorter distance. I find your thinking well constructed. Thanks for the writeup!
wow.. actually got this one right lol
Well done!
This one is tricky as all 3 options have something to them. Let's start with the super aggressive option 3: the advantage is that i probably can defeat a division with minimal losses. The disadvantage is that the supply will reach the fort and even the division at thann might retreat to the fort. The option to block the road is feasible and blocks the supply but you have to pass by the fort and the line of communication is gone. The best option is to gather north of the fort. From there you can raid the road and block any advances from thann.
Well thought through! Nicely done!
I'd probably do Number 3. 1 is good but I don't want to march too hard and I'd rather remain centrally located to have the flexibility to face a threat from any direction.
Dang it Moltke! Why do you always disagree?!
Your record on these is astonishing! LOL
You mixed up the "colours" Usually blue are own troops and red are OP-Force.
Except when the British adopted Kriegsspiel in the 1890's and instinctively adopted the red colors!
@@UmpireLaFondiose Yes, I know that from TOAW.
Amazing Video. Tahnk you for sharing it with us.
@@gustavoassis1698 my pleasure!
Hey man, thank you for bringing these hidden gems to light. they are short and make for great food for thought coming from one of the greatest Prussian Military minds. Thank you
My pleasure! More to come!
Good stuff
Thanks very much!
This is like a Moltke Milk!
I don't understand what that is, but if its a good thing I'm for it!
@@UmpireLaFondiose Malted Milk
I think 3. For flexibility and being close to your force. Plus the 28th can threaten French supply lines by day 2 or 3 if the French do move too far south After watching: I failed to consider the need to protect Mulhausen itself
Neither had i. It was never mentioned while being told the options so i never even gave Mulhausen a thought.
These problems are simplified so easy to miss a detail.
Okay another attempt: #1 is out. It protects the fort but not the road. #2 viable but not great. The division would be isolated and any raiders behind the point (we know there are some from the sabotage) are free to operate. #3 is best in my opinion due to the flexibility one has there. Pushing out cav should allow one to foil any raids and one is close enough to the fort to support it
These were my same thoughts too. After thinking it over, I think I can understand Moltke’s reasoning. Raiders can destroy a railroad, but they can’t destroy the road. The only way for the enemy to stop supplies and reinforcements from reaching the fort is to block the road entirely with a sizable force. They can do this at any point along the road, and it would disrupt reinforcement and supply. Option #1 doesn’t protect the road at all. Option #3 allows the enemy to attack multiple points on the road-you’d have to spread out to counter this, and the enemy outnumbers you. This is assuming that the enemy could simply seize a portion of the road with a few thousand men and then entrench themselves. Option #2 doesn’t allow the enemy to even approach the road with any sizable force without first confronting your own division. And if you keep eyes on the enemy, even if they move toward the fort, the fort is expecting reinforcements and supply along the road you’re protecting.
@brianensign7638 well I can see why Molke went for that solution but in this situation with the information we have I disagree with him. The infantry of the enemy will not be able to reach the road in time. Especially not in the "exposed" area. The saboteurs are the biggest problem we have to deal with. We can't do that in the north. Also we offer the enemy to defeat us in detail as the other unit is not combat ready for 24h. There might be something he assumes or was common knowledge and we just don't know.
What did you think of his solution?
You got it. Good analysis! Thanks for posting it!
I think the raiding parties were put into the scenario to explain why the reinforcements needed screen and help versus railroading troops and supplies to Belfort. But if the raiding parties are strong, your logic makes sense! Thanks for thinking it through and posting!
Although sub-commanders attacking at the wrong time due to impatience/ego/itchy feet is entirely historically accurate.
Consistently, yes.
If the main enemy body is across at Markwerberg, wouldn’t you bring your force across like solution 1 says and fall upon its flank? Ofc striking north and threatening its like or communication and retreat is sound, but wouldn’t you want to engage the enemy and pin it to the river ?
Part of the problem is you are unsure of the enemy strength. There is the potential this is a screen and the enemy main effort is in the west, though recon shows no evidence of it. That is the reason for the use of the in the western axis.
@@UmpireLaFondiose makes sense, thank you for the reply
I'm really enjoying these. if you do more, or something similar, can you be more detailed with the options? For example. Option 2 was presented as pull the entire force back to between Vogelsdrof and Tasdorf, which would be a terrible idea. The solution given contained some vital differences, making it a good idea. Or is that just straight up how Moltke presented it to begin with? Anyhow, these are great.
@@cmachinist glad to hear you are enjoying them! The originals were not presented as options, but open ended questions. And your feedback is good, thanks
Going with option 1. Referring to the teaching point from the last video of keeping the line of communication. The land between the lakes (love that you used the German “See” for lake) must be held for the 1st to maintain contact. If they’re flanked or surrounded while moving west, you could send a detachment to meet a westward breakout After watching: Given the terrain allows closer support of the 1st without compromising the route of retreat, I can see option 2 achieves more than option 1 by also allowing you to better support the 1st
@@bramstedt8997 good analysis! You make good points on the line of communications.
I would utilize the advantage of the high ground and leave a detachment in the rough terrain SE of the hills to slow the enemy approach and keep contact to know the enemy’s direction of movement After watching: looks like I came to the right solution, Moltke added more in his explanation though
Good! Pattern recognition at work. Well done.
If the 1st division is headed west anyway, it seems the enemy won't catch them in a meaningful way. So I'd stay west of the Botz See (option 1) to claim the strong ground.
I guess it wasn't clear that 1st division was already engaged and couldn't get out with out more direct support. By the way things looked on the map, it seemed like they were half a day away from the enemy and could flee with little engagement.
Also, Moltke and I will never agree it seems.
I don’t think your analysis is too far off. Check it out. The “sound of combat near Buckow” indicates the 1st rear guard at least is engaged.
@@UmpireLaFondiose Ah, I missed that.
I wonder if this is one where things change with radio communications. With radio you might be able to more effectively co-ordinate 1st Div's withdrawal and also establish what their situation is as you dig in at Botz See. Without radio communications I guess you have to go forwards to take control of the situation.
@@zhoufang996 even with communication improvements you would need to disengage 1st from enemy contact which still needs application of combat power. Interesting point you make, though!
I'm partial to #2. If 1st's position is untenable, we are fresh forces in the face of the enemy and 1st can withdraw towards the Botzsee and conduct a series of leap-frogging rearguard actions. Your objective with any defensive action is to achieve a balance between men, space and time. Do you let the enemy advance rapidly and deep into your lands to save men? Do you force your men into a series of tight consecutive actions expending men and time to arrange to keep your opponent from seizing a certain position? Do you accept the enemy's advance as a fait accomplit and thus send men with the intent to buy yourself more and more time to achieve a coherent defense in a further rearward area? In this case, we have to pick our fights to defend Berlin; thus, we must waste men and time. 1st is alright caught in a battle. Our choice to arrive there will save some of their men and doom some of ours, but we will buy time for them to set up another defensive line in the rear. Thus the enemy will be able to advance very little over time even if they inflict heavy losses upon us.
@@citizenofvenus good analysis!
Okay, let's start with #3. That is a terrible idea. Line of communication vounrable, 2v1 odds, no terrain features to support me and it is the furthest away. #2 is better helping the 1st to retreat in good order. #1 sounds best to me because I have a strong defensive position, the line to Berlin is protected and 1st can retreat west without me blocking roads. My Cavalry can move forward and assist 1st while Infantry and artillery can dig in.
And I am wrong
Have a look!
@@langbart8218 lol, it’s all a learning process.
this is an interesting problem! the premise is quite different to most of the other ones (guessing the enemy VS making your own moves), very cool
@@FlameQwert glad you liked it!