The problem with these tactical problems, which I enjoy immensely, is it removes the psychological aspect and the variances found in METT-T. What is the enemy commander like? Does he want to go to Berlin? What is the risk if he does? Are his forces still organized and motivated and executing a disciplined withdrawl? Are they routed? What is the level of degradation. Anyone of these three options would be viable depending on the enemy and your own forces condition. Great series and thanks! An interesting other podcast on things like this is the War 102 Podcast which frames the doctrine and theory to base your decisions.
@@sylvan47070 you make all good points on the human dimension of actual operations. I think the purpose of these case studies was to give the trainee staff members the “first look” answer to a problem with respect to time, distance and relative strength. The commanders, with this recommendation in hand, could change plans based on the factors you cite. Good insight! Thanks for commenting.
i sorta guessed Moltke would suggest 2 because he always makes the point of keeping up pressure and contact, but I personally prefer 3 because the question does not explicitly say how badly the enemy force was beaten before the situation. Not to mention, there’s a river and urban terrain between us now. Who knows if they’ve set up a good rearguard action? my brigades could be seriously mauled. At the same time, I was really tempted to revert to the original order and send the force northwest, but I knew that was way too passive with an enemy division on the field
Fair enough, the details could allow for multiple ways to handle it. I think 3 is close to 2 in spirit in that it keeps the enemy under pressure. I like your points!
@@UmpireLaFondiose I think there's something to be said about not letting the enemy loose from your grasp - and I would certain split the difference personally if I had the chance! - but if I don't know the strength and reckon the enemy might be reinforcing, for instance, I think some sober maneuver might help. Moltke certainly knew more than me, though!
The problem with these tactical problems, which I enjoy immensely, is it removes the psychological aspect and the variances found in METT-T. What is the enemy commander like? Does he want to go to Berlin? What is the risk if he does? Are his forces still organized and motivated and executing a disciplined withdrawl? Are they routed? What is the level of degradation. Anyone of these three options would be viable depending on the enemy and your own forces condition. Great series and thanks! An interesting other podcast on things like this is the War 102 Podcast which frames the doctrine and theory to base your decisions.
@@sylvan47070 you make all good points on the human dimension of actual operations. I think the purpose of these case studies was to give the trainee staff members the “first look” answer to a problem with respect to time, distance and relative strength. The commanders, with this recommendation in hand, could change plans based on the factors you cite. Good insight! Thanks for commenting.
METT-T imagines a weak dumb enemy.
i sorta guessed Moltke would suggest 2 because he always makes the point of keeping up pressure and contact, but I personally prefer 3 because the question does not explicitly say how badly the enemy force was beaten before the situation. Not to mention, there’s a river and urban terrain between us now. Who knows if they’ve set up a good rearguard action? my brigades could be seriously mauled. At the same time, I was really tempted to revert to the original order and send the force northwest, but I knew that was way too passive with an enemy division on the field
Fair enough, the details could allow for multiple ways to handle it. I think 3 is close to 2 in spirit in that it keeps the enemy under pressure. I like your points!
I would choose option 1. It achieves a strong position through maneuvering alone and accomplishes our objective.
Have a look and see what you think of Moltke's take.
@@UmpireLaFondiose I think there's something to be said about not letting the enemy loose from your grasp - and I would certain split the difference personally if I had the chance! - but if I don't know the strength and reckon the enemy might be reinforcing, for instance, I think some sober maneuver might help. Moltke certainly knew more than me, though!
My instinct is but might be correct?
Ha ha, wrong again
Keep after it! Just going through the process of reviewing them is the key to the exercise. Thanks for commenting!
I was on a roll till this one. Clearly Moltke was wrong. 😂
@@dermotrooney9584 you’d catch him in a mistake eventually! :)
Comment to appease the algorithm!
The algorithm adjudicates with wisdom, and the best of humanity as its intention. Praise it.