What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[Thought experiment] - Offer an answer to this tactical scenario.

Which unit do you give support to?

  • The unit making effective headway

    Votes: 1 25.0%
  • The unit making slow headway

    Votes: 3 75.0%
  • The unit getting destroyed

    Votes: 1 25.0%

  • Total voters
    4

definitelyameatbag

Well-known member
I encountered this scenario on the TVTropes page for Opposing Combat Philosophies, and I wanted to see how people here would answer it.

Let's say you are a commander over four military units which are part of an offensive, three on the front and the fourth in reserve. The first unit is making effective headway in its attack, the second is making slow headway, the third is getting bogged down and decimated. The question is simple: to which unit do you send your reserve to support?
 
Well, in general it depends on the objectives, but if under the expectation of attrition warfare, as would be between XX century great powers, it makes sense to target the enemy's logistics and/or industry. In that case, immediate tactical victories would be of low value, and reinforcing the most effective unit could maximise the disruption of the enemy at the strategic level.

@Kinetic request for more informed comment about actual doctrines.
 
It depends on a number of factors such as the distance between units, positioning, and prioritization of targets.

If all things are equal, throwing the reserve in to the unit under heaviest attack is a waste of resources and threatens to deplete your total strength and future combat ability.

Support of the unit doing best is only useful if there is a preservation of momentum involved, or if holding a vital position.

The strongest of the three options provided, again if all things are equal, is to reduce losses and ensure the taking of objectives with the slow unit.

The difference between the slow force and the unit taking heavy losses is that extra forces will almost certainly result in a victory, while assisting the bogged-down unit is likely to mean slightly lower losses with almost certain failure.

Further, supporting the force making slow headway means quickly taking control of two arenas, which then means that enemy reinforcements are unlikely to arrive and stop the general advance, plus it then allows the three units to hit the remaining enemy force on a flank. This will provide the unit in highest danger either support to take the third objective, or it will provide distraction so that unit can disengage with fewer losses than an uncovered retreat action.

Essentially, you can have one assured and probably a second successful tactical victory, or you can have two assured successful and possibly a third tactical victory. If a unit is in such a difficult situation that they are taking severe losses it is probably better to take as many certain victories as possible before assisting them, rather than struggle with two units and possibly still being unable to eke out a win. Though again it depends on many factors not present in the scenario.
 
I'm kind of interested to what extent Viktor Suvorov's claims about doctrine were actual, or at least this part in particular, because it seems like it could have been an intentionally simplified scenario for more for rhetorical purposes on his rather than an actual serious question.
 
I'm kind of interested to what extent Viktor Suvorov's claims about doctrine were actual, or at least this part in particular, because it seems like it could have been an intentionally simplified scenario for more for rhetorical purposes on his rather than an actual serious question.
It is a test of whether or not someone can choose the least-bad option, even if it means abandoning a large part of your command.

The first option, that of a unit that needs no assistance, is a red herring. Unless that position has a greater significance, and there is no indication that this is the case, there is no reason to reinforce.

The other two options are more critical, but it is more for the consideration than for the actual selection. A commander that will immediately throw his reserve into a meat grinder out of desperation to see that unit preserved may be too sentimental and not able to consider the larger picture. If he instead is too quick to throw that unit away entirely it means that he has very little concern for the people under him, which could make him a liability where he become likely to chase after Pyrrhic victories, as well as contribute to long-term low morale for the soldiers.

Still, without the context the decision remains supporting the middle unit to ensure a second victory and free up the reserve to then move to support the worst-off unit if there is time and opportunity to do so. Any losses that they suffer pins down their opponents as well, which means that the losses are not entirely in vain.

Which is why the question is asked. To determine ability and worthiness to command by looking at the bigger picture, even if that picture is very opaque. Considering the political and military position of the time, Suvarov would likely be highlighting the difference in command styles between the USSR and NATO.
 
Well, yeah, but I'm only obliquely aware of actual Soviet deep operation doctrine, and basically not at all with the sources (and I'm not taking TV Tropes as more than a vague hint), so while I could easily imagine the implied choice being more expected under Soviet military doctrine and wouldn't be surprised by it, I don't know to what extent it was actually reflected in reality. In other words: how accurate is Suvorov in the first place?
 
I encountered this scenario on the TVTropes page for Opposing Combat Philosophies, and I wanted to see how people here would answer it.

Let's say you are a commander over four military units which are part of an offensive, three on the front and the fourth in reserve. The first unit is making effective headway in its attack, the second is making slow headway, the third is getting bogged down and decimated. The question is simple: to which unit do you send your reserve to support?
Reinforce success, not a failure
- Soviet doctrine

When your attack is progressing all too well, most likely it's a trap.
- Rules of combat.
 
I'm kind of interested to what extent Viktor Suvorov's claims about doctrine were actual, or at least this part in particular, because it seems like it could have been an intentionally simplified scenario for more for rhetorical purposes on his rather than an actual serious question.
Forget everything you read of Viktor Suvorov, he's so full of shit it's ridiculous.

As to the matter in question, the key to understanding lies in the teachings of Generalissimo Alexander V. Suvorov, which can be boiled down to a mix of quotes.

In war the money matter, the lives matter even more, but the time is what matters most of them all. One minute decides the outcome of battle, one hour means the ultimate success of a campaign, one day determines the fate of the Empire! I fight by minutes and not days!

These words were said in late XVIII century, by a person that walked a long way from Private(!!!) to Generalissimo without losing a single battle in his entire career, and a hardcore pacifist at that.

As it was said by Gen. McArthur, the reasons behind any combat failure could be boiled down to just two words: too late.

The lives of soldiers are in fact a particular type of resource in disposal of a commander. All resources are supposed to be spent wisely, the more effectively the better.

All these resources could be and oftentimes are spent to 'buy' the precious commodity 'time', which is as limited as it is crucial for ultimate military success.

By reinforcing success you invest resources into a tactical endeavor which is supposed to bring future profits that cover the expense many times over. By reinforcing a failure you are minimizing your loses(!) from a failed investment at the very best. In most cases, though, it's just a waste of soldiers lives and spitting on the sacrifice of those already dead.
 
By reinforcing success you invest resources into a tactical endeavor which is supposed to bring future profits that cover the expense many times over. By reinforcing a failure you are minimizing your loses(!) from a failed investment at the very best. In most cases, though, it's just a waste of soldiers lives and spitting on the sacrifice of those already dead.
That is true, but it usually requires a lot of flexibility regarding tactical planning. Letting a part of an attack fail and salvaging the situation by exploiting the success of a different part, that's already a different plan of attack. That requires a very good commander.
 
@Wakko, first and foremost it requires a healthy military mindset so as to avoid the dubious pleasure of paving the road to hell with your good intentions.

Simplest example of the said paving taking place in practice. The West's fascination with precision guided weaponry is in no small part driven by the want to reduce collateral damage and minimize the loss of life among non-combatants.

Right? Right.

Ever heard of the so-called Precision Paradox?

The Battle of Mosul—just like its antecedent, the Battle of Ramadi, and the subsequent Battle of Marawi in the Philippines—is another data point disproving the illusion of precision warfare. In essence, the battle illuminated a misconception of modern warfare with the precision paradox—the proposition that the employment of precision weaponry can make war antiseptic and devoid of collateral damage or civilian casualties. The Battle of Mosul, a nine-month slog, blending U.S. and coalition precision weapons with Iraqi frontal attacks against an ensconced and determined enemy, precisely leveled the city one building at a time. The result: upwards of 900,000 displaced people, billions of dollars needed for reconstruction, and the city largely in ruins.

In Mosul, the allure of precision strike was overcome by the traps of urban warfare and the Islamic State group's tenacity. Precision weaponry did not spare the people of Mosul, nor did it spare the city's infrastructure. Yet the battle was decisive. It fractured the back of the Islamic State group's army and caused it to recoil from further sustained battles of attrition, most notably in Tal Afar, Hawijah and the land corridor that parallels the Euphrates River to Syria. U.S. and coalition firepower brought an end to the Islamic State group's land grab in Iraq, albeit at a high cost.

Perhaps the time has come to accept as fact the precision fallacy, and instead of perpetuating the myth of precision strike, come to grips with the reality of war—war is violent, bound in chance, fraught with friction and, ultimately, a human endeavor. As long as we fail to do so, the allure to precision strike will continue to advance fallacies of modern war, much like that of the vampire fallacy.
Source:

Meanwhile, the proper way to minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage according to the teachings of A. Suvorov is to defeat the enemy quickly and decisively as soon as possible, thus stop the bloodshed as soon as possible. The Coalition allowed ISIS to have six months to fortify Mosul, which led to 9 months long slugfest, by the end of which the city kinda lost its 3rd dimension and a whole bunch of people got their breathing privileges summarily revoked.
 
This is uncertain because I do not know the situation. If I knew more about the situation, then I can make a better a better decision.

However, assuming that the enemy is trying to cut my own logistical lines and that the third unit is trying to stop a breakthrough, I would send units to the third unit to stop that breakthrough.

My second choice would be the unit that is making slow headway.
 
Perhaps the time has come to accept as fact the precision fallacy, and instead of perpetuating the myth of precision strike, come to grips with the reality of war—war is violent, bound in chance, fraught with friction and, ultimately, a human endeavor. As long as we fail to do so, the allure to precision strike will continue to advance fallacies of modern war, much like that of the vampire fallacy.
Precision fires are good. Mass precision fires are better, and 100% Suvorov-approved :)
 
Precision fires are good. Mass precision fires are better, and 100% Suvorov-approved :)
Precision-targeted amassed fires, as lack of precision could be compensated for with destructive might of warhead and quantity of rockets in a volley :)

 
Precision-targeted amassed fires, as lack of precision could be compensated for with destructive might of warhead and quantity of rockets in a volley :)


Always nice to see some hail (as long as it's not coming down on my car :) )
 
Quality shit right here which can change in a bunch of ways depending on the context. Would losing one unit lead to the enemy going full maneuver warfare on your ass and the destruction of critical infrastructure? Would giving reinforcements to the most successful unit lead to earlier capitulation or the creation of a pocket etc?
 
with just the facts listed my first impulse is thus
reinforce
The unit making effective headway
then the use both forces to reinforce
The unit making slow headway
then the use all forces to reinforce what remains of
The unit getting destroyed
 
Last edited:
with just the facts listed my first impulse is thus
reinforce
The unit making effective headway
then the use both forces to reinforce
The unit making slow headway
then the use all forces to reinforce what remains of
The unit getting destroyed
Only if you have the Infinite Stamina cheat code.

The first unit does not need the assistance. While your reinforcements hustle to catch up with the inevitable result of them arriving too late to be of assistance, you have one unit being destroyed, and the other being fatigued.

So you rush your two units. They are now much closer to exhaustion, and your unit making slow headway is tired and has likely taken, or will shortly take, their objective. Three tired units, the reinforcements accomplish nothing, and meanwhile your other unit is almost certainly destroyed.

And this is presuming that for some reason your forces will not be taking advantage of your successes and leaving holding forces to prevent the enemy from counterattacking and negating your advantages. Very rarely is a conflict like a video game where you wipe out the units or send them running and then forget that they are still very much a threat.

You may lose that one unit anyway, that is just how things go. At least part of the point to this exercise is recognizing the need for the reinforcements to engage effectively, realize objectives, and manage limited resources like time and physical energy.
 
Only if you have the Infinite Stamina cheat code.

The first unit does not need the assistance. While your reinforcements hustle to catch up with the inevitable result of them arriving too late to be of assistance, you have one unit being destroyed, and the other being fatigued.

So you rush your two units. They are now much closer to exhaustion, and your unit making slow headway is tired and has likely taken, or will shortly take, their objective. Three tired units, the reinforcements accomplish nothing, and meanwhile your other unit is almost certainly destroyed.

And this is presuming that for some reason your forces will not be taking advantage of your successes and leaving holding forces to prevent the enemy from counterattacking and negating your advantages. Very rarely is a conflict like a video game where you wipe out the units or send them running and then forget that they are still very much a threat.

You may lose that one unit anyway, that is just how things go. At least part of the point to this exercise is recognizing the need for the reinforcements to engage effectively, realize objectives, and manage limited resources like time and physical energy.
Your logic seems sound, in my defense I point you to here
"with just the facts listed my first impulse is thus "
I'm no tactical genius
 
Back
Top Bottom