Moltke Tactical Problem 43
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- 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 43.
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!
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!
Good stuff
Thanks very much!
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
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.
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