I’m guessing 3 is the best, as you gain an advantage from the terrain and choke point, though I would also consider leaving a detachment to harass a possible bridge crossing near 2 After watching: nailed it
@@UmpireLaFondiose this one felt pretty clear for teaching to utilize terrain and choke points. I’d like to ask (and maybe it’s in the longer written version) more about that bridge, as depending on whether friendly forces need it, the enemy could be further delayed if it were to be blown
I would do 2. It covers the two most likely avenues of approach, and stakes out the central position should the enemy decide to divide their force and approach the Moselle in two columns. If one enemy column arrives before the other(s), there's an opportunity to attack and defeat them in detail. Otherwise, the river is a strong defensive anchor, and the 16th Division can be shifted up and down the left bank of the river to wherever the enemy attempts to cross. 3 is too out of the way, and 1 allows the enemy to simply bypass you. Edit: interesting to decide to stake out the high ground (3). Definitely the least risky option, and less potentially aggressive than 2.
Many of Moltke's solutions were less risky. He is described as preferring the precision of complex operations well times than the daring strokes. Good analysis!
I'd probably do number ONE to be most effective though it's also more risky as you could get caught east of the river. Since I'm saying that, I bet Moltke says 2 since he and I rarely agree apparently.
I’m guessing 3 is the best, as you gain an advantage from the terrain and choke point, though I would also consider leaving a detachment to harass a possible bridge crossing near 2
After watching: nailed it
What did you think of Moltke's take on it? I like this problem.
@@UmpireLaFondiose this one felt pretty clear for teaching to utilize terrain and choke points. I’d like to ask (and maybe it’s in the longer written version) more about that bridge, as depending on whether friendly forces need it, the enemy could be further delayed if it were to be blown
I would do 2. It covers the two most likely avenues of approach, and stakes out the central position should the enemy decide to divide their force and approach the Moselle in two columns. If one enemy column arrives before the other(s), there's an opportunity to attack and defeat them in detail. Otherwise, the river is a strong defensive anchor, and the 16th Division can be shifted up and down the left bank of the river to wherever the enemy attempts to cross. 3 is too out of the way, and 1 allows the enemy to simply bypass you.
Edit: interesting to decide to stake out the high ground (3). Definitely the least risky option, and less potentially aggressive than 2.
Many of Moltke's solutions were less risky. He is described as preferring the precision of complex operations well times than the daring strokes. Good analysis!
subbed as 1K; could not resist
Someone had to do it. No prizes though. Maybe 100,000th sub will win a toaster oven.
@@UmpireLaFondiose ..really? ..I will track your progress then
I'd probably do number ONE to be most effective though it's also more risky as you could get caught east of the river. Since I'm saying that, I bet Moltke says 2 since he and I rarely agree apparently.
Dang it Moltke!
You are the wack-a-mole player of Moltke problems, James!
3 because outnumbered
What did you think of the solution?