29 April 2024, 19:57:38 *

Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to War and Tactics!    War and Tactics Forum is currently undergoing some modifications that might disable features you are used to. This is unabvoidable as we have to update the forum engine to a new structure that is incompatible with many of the features we had used so far. The good news: WaT will be more secure and stable, and most of the features we uninstalled will be a natural part of the new structure anyway. For the rest we will be looking for solutions. (APR 23, 2018)
   
  Home   Forum   Help ! Forum Rules ! Search Calendar Donations Login Register Chat  
 > Forum > The Military > The Military: Facts, Procedures, Drills, Tactics, Traditions, Q&A > 

Principles Of War? Something Common through All Times?

Pages: [1]   Go Down
« previous next »
  Print  
Share this topic on Del.icio.usShare this topic on DiggShare this topic on FacebookShare this topic on GoogleShare this topic on MySpaceShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on StumbleUponShare this topic on TechnoratiShare this topic on TwitterShare this topic on Yahoo
Author Topic: Principles Of War? Something Common through All Times?  (Read 12624 times)
Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2349




View Profile WWW
« on: 15 November 2008, 22:03:41 »
 ReplyReply
Read on another forum about the "classical" Nine Principles of War:

Mass
Maneuver
Offensive
Objective
Simplicity
Economy of Force
Unitiy of Command
Surprise
Security

and would like to hear what the board (from a wargaming anlge) has to say to them.

In my view those are a vast mix of common place "feelings" without much tactical or strategical meaning (Economy of Force for example), kind of a mix of apples and prunes. "Surprise" is something much more related to tactics than to strats (achieve tactical surprise is of cause a standard goal for all unit levels, but strategically to achieve surprise is almost impossible and rarely seen), "Simplicity" related to almost everything else in the list, and "Objective" to both Tactics and Strats withhout stating anything more thatn just that. But, e.g. where is "Timing" or  "Synchronisation" etc?

When planning a (usually tactical) operation I dont expressibely adhere to this list, i.e. dont use it as checklist, I have another, self-made and evolved over time one.

I would be very interested in board members views on this, e.g.: Do you have your own lists of principes you double check an ops plan against? How does your planning process work?

Rattler
Logged
"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
stoffel
WaT supporter
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Netherlands

Location: Eemnes The Netherlands
Posts: 1906


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: 15 November 2008, 22:49:54 »
 ReplyReply
In the dutch army we use a standard planning tool.
Basically you have a word formed by the abbreviations of  several other words.
Its a  simple but effective way to make a battleplan where you can implement all (known)facts about terrain, enemy and other important items.
By working the items one by one you are able to make a sound battleplan.
Logged
My topics are about my personal opinion, my thoughts and what I think. They do not reflect the official opinion of the ministry of defense of the Netherlands.
Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2349




View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: 17 November 2008, 19:45:07 »
 ReplyReply
Thanks for the info, stoffel!

What I was searching for, though, were ever true *principles" (a principle, in my book, is somthing you never violate) and I am not even sure they exist.

Look at the different nature of (asymetric) war now and check how many of the above mentioned apply, you will rapidly find you are doubting the principle character of this or that item.

Rattler
Logged
"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
Mad Russian
Guest
« Reply #3 on: 19 November 2008, 07:17:01 »
 ReplyReply
Quote from: Rattler on 17 November 2008, 19:45:07

What I was searching for, though, were ever true *principles" (a principle, in my book, is somthing you never violate) and I am not even sure they exist.

Rattler


In my experience there is no principle that you never violate. The key is where and when you violate the principles of warfare.

Good Hunting.

MR
Logged
bongotastic
Sergeant
*

Offline Offline

Canada

Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 56


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: 1 January 2009, 21:51:07 »
 ReplyReply
Quote from: Rattler on 17 November 2008, 19:45:07
What I was searching for, though, were ever true *principles" (a principle, in my book, is somthing you never violate) and I am not even sure they exist.



Martin Van Creveld wrote a couple books on the topic: "The changing face of war" comes to mind ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_van_Creveld ). A few interesting trends are highlighted: the underdog usually do well vs the superpower because they are more willing to radically break from the state of the art practices (think of the integration of the Longbowmen, integration of air power, most insurgencies, etc.)

Max Boot takes the thesis further by covering warfare from 1500 to today in "War made New" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Boot#Bibliography ).

If anything, these two book emphasize that war always was the same but the means and the definition of what is the battlefield changes to the point that we believe them to be constantly changing. For example: Big Bertha's salvo vs fortresses, PGM against single tagets and Al-Quaeda press reslease the day of a Canadian soldier's funeral serve the same purpose on different battlefield.

Christian
Logged
Hobbying on less than an hour per day.
Iraq, 2008 : www.opcon.org/SadrCity/
Italy, 1361 : www.opcon.org/drupal/
Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2349




View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: 2 January 2009, 21:05:47 »
 ReplyReply
Quote from: bongotastic on  1 January 2009, 21:51:07
Quote from: Rattler on 17 November 2008, 19:45:07
What I was searching for, though, were ever true *principles" (a principle, in my book, is somthing you never violate) and I am not even sure they exist.



Martin Van Creveld wrote a couple books on the topic: "The changing face of war" comes to mind ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_van_Creveld ). A few interesting trends are highlighted: the underdog usually do well vs the superpower because they are more willing to radically break from the state of the art practices (think of the integration of the Longbowmen, integration of air power, most insurgencies, etc.)

Max Boot takes the thesis further by covering warfare from 1500 to today in "War made New" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Boot#Bibliography ).

If anything, these two book emphasize that war always was the same but the means and the definition of what is the battlefield changes to the point that we believe them to be constantly changing. For example: Big Bertha's salvo vs fortresses, PGM against single tagets and Al-Quaeda press reslease the day of a Canadian soldier's funeral serve the same purpose on different battlefield.

Christian



Thanks Christian, will have a look at the books mentioned.

Rattler
Logged
"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
BlueSixGolf
Private 1st class
*

Offline Offline

Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 21




View Profile
« Reply #6 on: 13 January 2009, 09:50:59 »
 ReplyReply
I've kinda been thinking about this myself lately.  I've got a fansite/vanity project for a tank sim where I've posted an essay trying to make that list of principles relevant to tactical gaming.  It's rough and currently a work in progress.

http://www.1stusvcav.com/Tactics/Page%201.html
« Last Edit: 13 January 2009, 09:56:49 by BlueSixGolf » Logged
Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2349




View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: 13 January 2009, 10:20:08 »
 ReplyReply
Nice site, bookmarked for future reference.

Over at SWJ this is also discussed:

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=6265

Rattler
Logged
"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
the_13th_redneck
Sergeant Major
**

Offline Offline

Korea, Republic of

Location: on someone else's beach
Posts: 264




View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: 20 September 2009, 17:45:08 »
 ReplyReply
Despite the changing nature of war, I think those principles are very much valid today as it was years ago.
I think the problems that arose came from the violation of certain principles.

With the case of Iraq after the fall of Baghdad and the height of the insurgency (in my opinion)
Mass - Not enough to secure the country.
Maneuver - Very difficult in urban environments full of civilians.
Offensive - When the war turned into an insurgency, this became increasingly difficult.  The insurgents went on the offensive leading to some very bloody years for the coalition.
Objective - Was vague for a long time.
Simplicity - The strategy regarding fighting the insurgency was too complicated as a result of the rules of war.
Economy of Force - Was not an issue because there was a shortage in personnel.
Unitiy of Command
Surprise - The insurgency had the full advantages of surprise.
Security - Not enough troops.  Once the forces were beefed up with the surge, this problem was largely solved and made the progress made until now possible.

Obviously very simplified but those I believe are the reasons why these principles still apply.
Logged

http://ryogahouse.wordpress.com/
TechAdmin
Administrator

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Planet Earth - sometimes...
Posts: 1010




View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: 4 December 2010, 17:36:17 »
 ReplyReply
Got that wrong, Mr. SpammerBot, and I will this message let stand (though I deleted your other stuff together with your access and account):

The principles (still) are:

Mass
Maneuver
Offensive
Objective
Simplicity
Economy of Force
Unitiy of Command
Surprise
Security


TA
Logged


"Smile, tomorrow will be worse!"  Murphy
FACman
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

United States

Location: Ar-kansas
Posts: 819




View Profile
« Reply #10 on: 5 December 2010, 02:00:08 »
 ReplyReply
I dont understand what that spammerbot was about? It was almost like it knew what it was talking about. Was there a person behind the posts?
Logged
"You can call me by my first name...Sarge."
TechAdmin
Administrator

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Planet Earth - sometimes...
Posts: 1010




View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: 5 December 2010, 11:36:10 »
 ReplyReply
Quote from: FACman on  5 December 2010, 02:00:08
I dont understand what that spammerbot was about? It was almost like it knew what it was talking about. Was there a person behind the posts?

Yes, that is the problem nowadays: There are people who (for small money) register the bots in person to overcome the bot prevention hurdles on forums and blogs. Still, once online, they work as bots, the person only starts it to make the bot behaviour harder to detect.

Luckily there always are indicators (e.g.: Reistrar IP not the nation he claims to be from, IP known on heoneypot) that help us admins to find out the bots fairly quicly, but you have to be on top of it (while I write a new one has registerd that I would guess is a bot)...

Illegal, and a drag, but nothing to be done about it.

Now, here you can see how I establish that the new registrar is indeed a bot:

Name:    0569vl86

Hmmm.. not the typical name, no?

IP:    59.58.153.38
Hostname:    38.153.58.59.broad.pt.fj.dynamic.163data.com.cn

First sign something is wrong: IP of registrar and host differ in nation, we have Canada and something unknown.

email: z6mfs81ai13q797@gmail.com

Also not the email you expect with the name or host (but as such not dangerous yet, just an indicator something might be up up: 90% of the spam bots are on gmail)

Next: In the public profile registrar does not give a nation and has not activated his account (usually this means FAKE EMAIL)

Last, Honeypot has details: http://www.projecthoneypot.org/ip_59.58.153.38

Quote
59.58.153.38 [Spam Server]

The Project Honey Pot system has detected behavior from the IP address consistent with that of a mail server. Below we've reported some other data associated with this IP. This interrelated data helps map spammers' networks and aids in law enforcement efforts. If you know something about this IP, please leave a comment.

Lookup IP In: Domain Tools | SpamHaus | Spamcop | SenderBase | Google Groups | Google

Geographic Location    China (Beijing)

Threat Rating    4 (Read More)

First Received From    approximately 2 years, 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Last Received From    within 2 years, 7 months, 2 weeks
Number Received    2 email(s) sent from this IP

Associated Harvesters
64.62.228.65 | H    USA
75.125.47.162 | HW         USA
   
   
Example Messages Sent From 59.58.153.38

From: "Virgie Benoit" <damplykeo@jesuits-mis.org>
Subject: Because of your manhood increasing size...

From: "Christie Wheeler" <tef@qa2.so-net.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: Re: make yourself a hero



So, now he goes, will be banned and his account together with the harvesters deleted... Smiley

TA
Logged


"Smile, tomorrow will be worse!"  Murphy
FACman
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

United States

Location: Ar-kansas
Posts: 819




View Profile
« Reply #12 on: 5 December 2010, 13:46:06 »
 ReplyReply
 smallclap

too techy for me, thanks for your guardianship Matt.

 salute
Logged
"You can call me by my first name...Sarge."
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
« previous next »
 
Jump to:  

Unique Hits: 44612766 | Sitemap
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc 		Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!


Google visited last this page 4 May 2022, 12:31:22