Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
1-Surfaces and Gaps seems pretty easy to me. Weapons will usually be surfaces and gaps will be the ranges of theirs vs. yours. It works in the defense the same way as the offense.
But that is a simplistic and mostly wrong model for proto-modern war. Weapons fire across frontages, and weapons are mobile. Weapons can also mass fire in time and space - artillery. The proto-modern defence aims to have surveillance, fires and reserves (+50%). The analogy of surfaces and gaps, simply does not apply. It would not have applied at Cambrai, Hamel, Port Arthur, Iwo Jima, or even Kursk and El Alamein.
The surfaces and gaps model is a set up to make MW work and it only uses examples where it can be applied. Crossing the Meuse, Operation Micheal etc.
The ME would be the unit and location from which you expect the attack to occur, and be prepared to change that based upon the situation.
Direction of enemy threat?
-ME is part of MW based upon the book, it's just different based upon your war fighting philosophy.
I don't have a "war fighting philosophy." I adhere to what works. We have a huge body of work to adhere to, we just seem to want to ignore it, because its simple and not-sexy.
IMO the definition of the "objective should be confined to a location from which you can best accomplish your mission". And be prepared to change that constantly based upon how the enemy acts and reacts.
So objectives are terrain? That makes sense, if given as part of the mission.
"Seize intact the Bridge at XYZ, by 21:00 and hold until relieved."
"Capture and hold Hill 1234 by 21:00."
But what I think Lind and Wyly were driving at were the guiding principles that underlie all Tactics and I think they did a pretty good job overall.
Yet no mention of the Core Functions which could by some said to be the guiding principles of tactical doctrine. Moreover Core Functions are completely absent form MW as far as I can tell.

The problem I have with MW is it's lack of precision, rigour, and history. If someone tells me (and they have) that the USMC as grossly lacking in tactical training, and MW was a forcing mechanism, the OK. BUT taken out of that context, MW sets you off down a false trail, where a lot is wrong.
As someone pointed out, would be still talking about MW if it had been called "Competent Warfare."