The Manuever Warfare Handbook By William S. Lind

[slapout9]

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

That is because MW is what most normal folk do anyway. MW was not new, or even original or even a "concept." It was the USMC and others waking up to the minimum standard that had existed for 300 years.

The first sentence in the book is "Maneuver Warfare is not New" it then goes to explain how the first example was a cave man sneaking up behind another cave man and whacking him instead of going club-to-club. I have never read or heard anybody say it was new.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by slapout9

The first sentence in the book is "Maneuver Warfare is not New" it then goes to explain how the first example was a cave man sneaking up behind another cave man and whacking him instead of going club-to-club. I have never read or heard anybody say it was new.

I know. Look at all the historical examples lifted from history. By NEW I meant new as "insight". It was a fraud. It aimed to mislead folks into believing a set of things that were not true, and - IMO, most folks knew they were not true.
All the things grouped together as part of MW, were normal practice, given any degree of context.

Why not call it "Competent Warfare." - If they had, would those opposing it, be in favour of "Incompetent Warfare?"

[slapout9]

Originally Posted by Cavguy

His advice was very U.S. Grant - use maneuver where appropriate but beat them through attrition and let the other guy attempt to "maneuver" out of his problem.

That would be the ultimate Maneuver

[Kiwigrunt]

Originally Posted by slapout9

That would be the ultimate Maneuver

Or static manoeuvre.

[Chris jM]

Originally Posted by Ken White

There's a time and place for metrics, ...Tactically speaking, the 'artist' knows when to be mechanical and when that is not advisable; he take shortcuts -- and good ones. Wars bring that out...

I'm in agreement with the entirety of your post, effectively.

In the meantime, we can be happy that the system produces a large pool of competent folks from which talent can be gathered when needed and that there are some senior commanders who tolerate if not encourage talent.I don't think we're in total agreement on that but we're probably close enough for government work.

And that, too. Close enough for alliance work, I would add as well - there will always be a certain amount of unnecessary friction since you republican upstarts divorced yourselves from the Queen's english and started to use the same words with different meanings! It's so much easier when you can use the same lexicon in complete acceptance - such as say 'fag' and 'jandal' and 'thong' without being classified as an immoral scoundrel out of hand

I say that because I believe the odd or rare good intuitive guy who sticks around will generally demonstrate more ability...

Again, I won't dispute that. Intuition can go both ways though - MacArthur did well in the Inchon landings, but his refusal to follow doctrine and the organisational norms didn't help him after that. I will also suggest that it is in itself an art in balancing the need for rules and precedent in sustaining and maintaining a large organisation while identifying and elevating the talented few within that group. It's easier to err to the former position until the gods of necessity dictate otherwise.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by Chris jM

...It's so much easier when you can use the same lexicon in complete acceptance - such as say 'fag' and 'jandal' and 'thong' without being classified as an immoral scoundrel out of hand

Hmm. True. Not sure how you knew I wore a thong, though...

Intuition can go both ways though - MacArthur did well in the Inchon landings, but his refusal to follow doctrine and the organisational norms didn't help him after that. I will also suggest that it is in itself an art in balancing the need for rules and precedent in sustaining and maintaining a large organisation while identifying and elevating the talented few within that group. It's easier to err to the former position until the gods of necessity dictate otherwise.

True on all counts. That's why I earlier said "I wouldn't change much in the current system but I would institutionalize the acceptance of mavericks and talent to a greater extent than is now the norm. Note I say 'greater extent' rather than totally -- totally would result in unmilitary chaos..." Yes, it would. Picture an Army full of MacArthurs.

[slapout9]

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I know. Look at all the historical examples lifted from history. By NEW I meant new as "insight". It was a fraud. It aimed to mislead folks into believing a set of things that were not true, and - IMO, most folks knew they were not true.
All the things grouped together as part of MW, were normal practice, given any degree of context.

Why not call it "Competent Warfare." - If they had, would those opposing it, be in favour of "Incompetent Warfare?"

Wilf,fraud requires criminal intent and I see no evidence of that. I think it is better described by what Colonel Walters said it is "Fuzzy" but not Fraud. And the Fuzziness occurred by trying to apply Boyd's Air Combat Maneuvering theory to ground or amphibious operations. Boyd developed his theory in single fighter combat in a single environment, just the Air. I guess it is pretty good in that environment and in the situation of fighter to fighter combat, but it does follow that the Boyd theory(a central part of MW theory according to the book) can be applied to Marine operations where you can face threats from the Air, The Land, The Sea and even from Under the Sea.

As the MW people tried to twist a Fuzzy concept based on Boydian logic it started to come apart. If they would have stayed with Maneuver and clarified that concept and made it clearly concrete they would have been better off. Now if they apply the concept of Maneuver as it is applied and defined in SBW they will have something..... indeed they will really start winning.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by slapout9

Wilf,fraud requires criminal intent and I see no evidence of that.

Let me be clear. I am not suggesting anything criminal, but I strongly believe there was a collective intent to force MW on the USMC, using a body of evidence that would not withstand close scrutiny.
I know Fraud is perhaps a strong word, but I am referring to "Intellectual Fraud," but it was done for very good reasons, in the eyes of those doing it.

As the MW people tried to twist a Fuzzy concept based on Boydian logic it started to come apart. If they would have stayed with Maneuver and clarified that concept and made it clearly concrete they would have been better off.

I think you may well be right, and as Franz Osinga told me, not one has ever really critiqued Boyd's entire body of work. Indeed Franz is about the only guy who has seen all of it.

[Polarbear1605]

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Let me be clear. I am not suggesting anything criminal, but I strongly believe there was a collective intent to force MW on the USMC, using a body of evidence that would not withstand close scrutiny.

No one FORCED MW onto the Marines. Yes it started at the grass roots level with the help of Lind. Yes, initially the senior leadership was against it but they had no viable argument against it. As Marine Captains, we could see the school book solutions were obviously flawed. We went into MW willingly and with enthusiasm. We did exactly what is going on in this thread...we discusssed and debated. We looked for examples. As Boyd taught, we pulled things apart, examined them and put the parts back together in our own little "snowmobile".
Ok! Slap and WiFO you two just won a audio copy of Boyd's Discourse on Winning and Losing that includes "Patterns" and other Boyd briefs joined together in a 12 hour presentation given at Marine CSC 1989. I need you addresses via an email ... it is going to be a couple weeks because they are being converted from tape to CD. Not that anyone was ever going to figuer it out but I also just came clean as to exactly what I have.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by Polarbear1605

No one FORCED MW onto the Marines.

Maybe not forced, but people wanted the Marines to adopt it, and they set out to make it happen.

Ok! Slap and WiFO you two just won a audio copy of Boyd's Discourse on Winning and Losing that includes "Patterns" and other Boyd briefs joined together in a 12 hour presentation given at Marine CSC 1989.

PM sent. - Way cool, and I owe you one.

[slapout9]

Originally Posted by Polarbear1605

Ok! Slap and WiFO you two just won a audio copy of Boyd's Discourse on Winning and Losing that includes "Patterns" and other Boyd briefs joined together in a 12 hour presentation given at Marine CSC 1989.

WoW!!!!! PM has been sent. See I don't study Warfare I investigate it, like a cold case. So anytime I can get the original evidence I start drooling because there is almost always some little tid bit that was overlooked or deemed unimportant, when in fact it is almost always the Key to solving the case.


As for the "snowmobile" that is where I think you guys should have kept going on tlaking and thinking because your were getting so close to a really precise and repeatable and teachable definition of Maneuver Warfare. Which you should call Marine Warfare.....has more MoJo to It. Instead of Boyd's snowbile you need think.....Air Boat

Individual Marine Air Boat Stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI8yf...eature=related

[slapout9]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq8Fn55axd4&feature=fvw

[slapout9]

Lecture on Surfaces and Gaps.

Lecture on Commander's Intent

[Infanteer]

I'll give the book credit - it sure got us (the collective profession) talking about stuff. Judging from the attention that has been paid to doctrine in academic circles over the last 2 decades, I'd rate the Maneuver Warfare Handbook as a piece worthy of looking at to frame the debate for the simple reason that although it may not have actually contained good answers, talking about it led us to them.

[Polarbear1605]

Originally Posted by Infanteer

I'll give the book credit - it sure got us (the collective profession) talking about stuff. Judging from the attention that has been paid to doctrine in academic circles over the last 2 decades, I'd rate the Maneuver Warfare Handbook as a piece worthy of looking at to frame the debate for the simple reason that although it may not have actually contained good answers, talking about it led us to them.

Hear! Hear!

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by Infanteer

I'll give the book credit - it sure got us (the collective profession) talking about stuff. Judging from the attention that has been paid to doctrine in academic circles over the last 2 decades, I'd rate the Maneuver Warfare Handbook as a piece worthy of looking at to frame the debate for the simple reason that although it may not have actually contained good answers, talking about it led us to them.

I possess a copy because I consider it one of the most influential pieces of US military thought/literature written since 1945.

....but I think its mostly wrong.

[Polarbear1605]

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

....but I think its mostly wrong.

lol...well ya! I would add a qualifier to the above quote "by today's standards". Well the good news is you sent me digging through my book shelves looking for my copy ... and I do have to read it again...been a long while. In its defense, it was all we had at the time. In addition, the book was written to convince us knuckle draging Marines (especially general officers) there was a better way. Maneuver Warfare can be way too conceptional to a "2-up-1-back" Marine. I remember Boyd "advising" one of our AWS tactical conference room exercises (1981). Each conference group would develop a operation plan and then we would war game it. As we started our planning Boyd basically stop the exercise because the entire class was focused on the maps. His comments were the maps come later focus on the enemy and that at the time about blew out our minds....lol.

[slapout9]

Originally Posted by Polarbear1605

Well the good news is you sent me digging through my book shelves looking for my copy ... and I do have to read it again...been a long while. In its defense, it was all we had at the time. In addition, the book was written to convince us knuckle draging Marines (especially general officers) there was a better way.

Good, that was why I started this thread. We have discussed MW here many times but this time I approached it as the Police working a "Cold Case" so I sought the original evidence. That has changed my views on several things so far. And it is Wyly perhaps more so than Lind. But coming from the Army that was suffering from "Vietnam Psychosis" the writers did a great service to their country by starting people to think about the "Art Of War" again.

Preliminary conclusion so far is:
Maneuver is CONCEALED movement to the Objective. That is what has never been clearly defined, that should be the guiding principle. It applies to Stealth Bombers,using a terrain feature to hide your troop movement, to being a guerrilla and simply taking off your uniform so you can maneuver through the population and bypass the surface of the Uniformed opposing Military. If you are not concealing your movement you are not Maneuvering IMO.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by slapout9

Preliminary conclusion so far is:
Maneuver is CONCEALED movement to the Objective. That is what has never been clearly defined, that should be the guiding principle... If you are not concealing your movement you are not Maneuvering IMO.

Exactly. There's a huge difference between 'fire and movement' and 'fire and maneuver' -- have to be able to do both but of the two the former is all too common while latter is vastly preferable.

[Polarbear1605]

Originally Posted by slapout9

Maneuver is CONCEALED movement to the Objective. That is what has never been clearly defined, that should be the guiding principle. It applies to Stealth Bombers,using a terrain feature to hide your troop movement, to being a guerrilla and simply taking off your uniform so you can maneuver through the population and bypass the surface of the Uniformed opposing Military. If you are not concealing your movement you are not Maneuvering IMO.

True…but remember you maneuver to gain an advantage or, better yet, you maneuver to place the enemy on the horns of a dilemma. Towards the end of the Falklands war, LtCol Nick Vaux, was the commander the Royal Maries 42 Commando Battalion. In order to close in on Port Stanley, LtCol Vaux was given an object to take a hill that the Argentine forces had plenty of time to fortify. The position was well dug in and complete with wire and mines. The LtCol infiltrated his battalion behind the Argentine position during the night and attacked it from the rear. The night attack presented one set of advantages; the attack from the rear represented yet another advantage because it cut off the Argentine retreat route. Many of the Argentine soldiers panicked and tried to get off the hill by running through their own mine fields. Running through mine fields at night …yep, results as expected. The Argentineans that didn’t run put their hands in the air. The Argentineans that fought were quickly dispatched.
Another example, 6th Marine Regiment is the 2ndMar Div Breaching Force for Desert Storm . The 6th Marines attacked with three battalions up each with a responsibility to create two lanes in two mine field belts separate by about a click and a half. Each mine field belt was protected by a line of company fortified positions. The first mine belt was lightly defended. The second line had its full compliment. Once the breaches were completed, or a gap was created, one battalion executed a “rollup” by suppressing positions with artillery and looping behind them and attacking from the rear. Imagine a line of enemy company positions. You’re the Iraqi company commander in one of those positions. As the arty that was falling on your trenches shifts to your fellow company commander’s position; you come out of your hole, the company on one flank is in the process of surrendering, the position on the other side is getting hammer by arty, and you look to the rear to see a Marine mech company closing in on your position from the rear. Another hands in the air monument. In a few hours that battalion rolled up the better part of an Iraqi division. I mention LtCol Vaux because he was an instructor at AWS the same time as Col Wyly.