Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
If you read the discussion between Guderian and Von Kliest about the crossing of the Meuse River, the allocation of the Main Effort is made without any references to units at all. They are actually worried about avoiding to have to do two river crossings, instead of one, and where the boundaries of the French 2nd and 9th Armies are.
Main effort always intrigues me as Western armies adopted "Intent, Scheme of Maneuver, Main Effort and Endstate" as essential pieces of the Concept of Operations but never really attempted to qualify these things.

The best understanding I have of how to apply the main effort is an action/effect so as to amplify one's intent. In the absence of any direction on the field of battle, a commander simply considers his commander's intent for "what to do" and his main effort for "how to do it".

"The battalion's main effort will be the seizure of Hill 123, which will allow us to dominate the enemies lines of communication. B Company will be on the main effort."

Units can be mentioned, not "as" the main effort but "on" it. If something happens, the main effort can be shifted ("main effort is now on interdicting Hwy 7") or the who is on it can be ("B Coy hit an obstacle belt, A Coy made it through - A Coy is now on the main effort") - the key here indicating that all actions and fires with in the unit should be in support of A Coy now vice B Coy.

Anyone else understand it differently?