Attrition vs Maneuver Warfare to Fight Outnumbered and Win by Colonel Craig Broyles

[@mryan2010]

Thank you. Great way to contrast the difference between the two.

[@Jupiterxice]

The thing is with maneuver warfare its alot planning and practice especially with combine arms. I would say emphasize small tactical teams in tiny pockets to create chaos in the enemy lines. Using small teams or guerilla units can be an asset.

[@technovikingnik]

Maneuver is awesome but it needs a lot of planning and preemptive moves, setups, and a lot of well informed decisions. David vs Goliath is not good example because it is more like technological advance/tactic advantage on low level.

[@cascaderifles81]

Speed, preemption, fighting asymmetrically, It’s has it all I’d say. What would be a better example? Appreciate your opinion on the matter.

[@technovikingnik]

@cascaderifles81 I apologize for sounding full of self and rude, I wasnt criticizing. I was just saying that it asks for much more knowledge and effort, a lot more preparation is need for maneuverism, and its kind of state of mind to think and fight unconventionally/out of the box. Russians and hence all Eastern countries have such non inventive conduct. The society and goverment doesnt allow for thinking out of the box(freedom of thought) . Russians are waging wars in that way since ever, just brute forcing, they are imperial state, hence only emperor has right to say his opinion. Your channel is awesome and I am grateful for chance to learn.

[@cascaderifles81]

Not at all. I appreciate the feedback. Really great insight. Yes Fighting using a maneuver warfare style is hard and frankly it is scares folks. To treat fear we try to prescribe a good dose of control. Richard Simpkin calls those people “Addicts of Attrition”. The other way is “Mastering Maneuver” by being willing to “ risk it all to win it all”. Your example of Russia is spot on. Thank you for your insights. We love talking and debating this way of thinking.

[@Mihais81]

@@technovikingnik One nuance is that,at least in some eras,the Russians/Soviets valued flexibility and innovation,but is mostly at operational level.The tactical level is all preset,with repetitions,nomograms and just ''go there,do that,the boss knows best''.Another nuance is that,context depending,their way of planning things may be faster.A third may be that even the most maneuverist force may be at some point be put in a situation where attrition is inevitable.The example of Iwo Jima is spot on and it may repeat itself in the era of robots.On Iwo Jima you had fanatical Japanese that no amount of psychological pressure could compel to give up.Robotic systems of course don't give up. So,which approach,at what level,at what time and place works best I think is situational.And that's the beauty of the job.

[@technovikingnik]

@@Mihais81 You have put it much better than me. Thanks :)

[@endhimrightly3408]

3:00