Some common noob mistakes

[DoubleTap68]

The most contemporary example of a rush strategy would be the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Was that truly a rush? There huge buildup and a devestating air campaing. When I think of a rush, I think less of maneuver warfare and more of throwing more live bodies at the enemy's main line of defense than that line can effectively handle. Is my definition of a rush incorrect?

[ikalugin]

The most contemporary example of a rush strategy would be the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Was that truly a rush? There huge buildup and a devestating air campaing. When I think of a rush, I think less of maneuver warfare and more of throwing more live bodies at the enemy's main line of defense than that line can effectively handle. Is my definition of a rush incorrect?

It was a multiple penetration and splitting on enemy force into independent cauldrons. In a way it is simmilar to the 1944 Bagration operation.
Hence it is by no means a rush or human wave tactic.

[Jirik]

DeuZerre. Well, that's exactly what the Americans, British, and Canadians did in France, 1944. Virtually every island conquered in the Pacific during WWII was done with a mass inf attack over the beaches. Sorry if I didn't mention other instances but those are what came to mind.

Well, since we started on the Pacific campaign - I would not say that "rushing" was actually the tactic that USMC used to gain control of islands. It is true that beach landings have this sort of "feel" to them, but it is mostly because of the space limitations of (usually) narrow areas that are even usable for amphibious landings. But each landing, as everyone correctly pointed out, was preceded by meticulous planning, engineering, naval, and air preparations (mostly in scope of days or even hours before the H-hour). Landing troops were often provided with armor support, full logistics, continued close air and naval artillery support. And, mind you, no island battle was won with succesful landing. Nor were the most casualties inflicted or suffered during landings. After taking the main military objectives (airfields, and (potential) naval bases) the battle usually deteriorated into fighting in extremely difficult terrain and conditions which pretty much precluded any use of said "rushing". On contrary - I would say, that attacking troops were proceeding carefully and slowly, taking one enemy strongpoint at a time. No flanking, no maneuver, very often no heavy arms support due to terrain. Of course, this mostly applies to small islands and atolls - the Phillipines, for example, were quite another matter....

I have to say that actual rushes took place during the Pacfici campaign, but pretty much exclusively by Japanese, but that is another story altogether.

[DelroyMonjo]

Jirik, I respectfully suggest that for the USMC grunt or Lt. who ran across the beaches in the Pacific...it was a RUSH!
Iwo Jima, for example wasn't suddenly met with ferocious resistance upon the initial landing and the thoughts that nearly a year of bombing and the 3 day ship barrage on the island had reduced the 20,000 Japanese defenders to an ineffective and disorganized rabble. WRONG! The bloodbath happened after many of the Marines had landed. It took 5 weeks for the 70,000 Marines and Navy forces to secure 3 airfields on an 8 sq mile island just BECAUSE the bombings and bombardment had done very little to the dug in Japanese postions and tunnels.

I think it's a matter of one's perspective of the situation at hand.

[DoubleTap68]

Jirik, I respectfully suggest that for the USMC grunt or Lt. who ran across the beaches in the Pacific...it was a RUSH!
Iwo Jima, for example wasn't suddenly met with ferocious resistance upon the initial landing and the thoughts that nearly a year of bombing and the 3 day ship barrage on the island had reduced the 20,000 Japanese defenders to an ineffective and disorganized rabble. WRONG! The bloodbath happened after many of the Marines had landed. It took 5 weeks for the 70,000 Marines and Navy forces to secure 3 airfields on an 8 sq mile island just BECAUSE the bombings and bombardment had done very little to the dug in Japanese postions and tunnels.

I think it's a matter of one's perspective of the situation at hand.

Delroy, could you explain to a noob (me!) your definiton of a rush? Forgive me, but your description of the "situation at hand" on Iwo Jima seems, to my W:EE rookie mind, to be the exact opposite of a rush.

The Japanese chose to let the Marines land and not reveal their hidden positions, but I can only imagine how much stronger those postions would've been without the preceeding bobmardment by sea and air. However, Iwo Jima was one of the prime examples of a phenomenon I mentioned in an earlier post, and is a perfect example of how ineffective pre-landing bombardments often were in terms of enemy casualties. The disruption of communications and supplies must've been significant, though.

Monte Casino in Italy is another prime example. After US bombers reduced the monastary to rubble, some estimated that German Resistance was even more effective in that they had more places to hide, and the rubble made the mountain harder to take. In both instances, though (Iwo Jima and Monte Casino,) there's no way to really judge how much more effective the resisitance WOULD have been without the prepatory bombardment.

Sorry.... I think I'm of topic.

[DelroyMonjo]

Jirik. Go read the Spam/Blobbing/Rush thread for some idea of what people consider a 'Rush' in terms of this game.
Then, go back and read some of the previous posts in this thread about sieges and bombardments. How many times have you seen art'y prep before a mass attack in this game? This game does not even allow for the possibility of fortified positions prior to the start. Do you see any buildings or trenches in any of the starting zones on the maps? Can we erect fortified m.g or art'y positions or even dig fighting holes during this game? NO.
Furthermore, think about why you would even bring up the Monte Cassino battles in WWII when we are talking about rushing, in the game sense.

BTW, for those who may not know or even care, a recon group of the Polish 12th Podolian Uhlans Regiment found the monastery defences abandoned and raised a Polish flag over its ruins as the Germans had moved back to the 'Winter Line', thus signalling an end to a 4 month battle for the observation point overlooking the Liri Valley in Italy.

[leroy11]

Delroy, could you explain to a noob (me!) your definiton of a rush? Forgive me, but your description of the "situation at hand" on Iwo Jima seems, to my W:EE rookie mind, to be the exact opposite of a rush.

.

A rush? Like 100 skots with and without inf in them. If you think 10 t55 or 10 weasals is rush think again.

[DoubleTap68]

Furthermore, think about why you would even bring up the Monte Cassino battles in WWII when we are talking about rushing, in the game sense.

I'm talking about Monte Casino to further illustrate the point (which, incidentally, you also made) that pre-assault bombardment does not always work as well as believed. Iwo Jima and Monte Casino are two prime examples.

[ikalugin]

Furthermore, think about why you would even bring up the Monte Cassino battles in WWII when we are talking about rushing, in the game sense.

I'm talking about Monte Casino to further illustrate the point (which, incidentally, you also made) that pre-assault bombardment does not always work as well as believed. Iwo Jima and Monte Casino are two prime examples.

Stalingrad?

[DelroyMonjo]

My apologies, DoubleTap. After looking at your post again, I see that my reading comprehension should be improved.

Edit: We were making simultaneous posts and I just noticed Ikalugen mention Stalingrad. I'm not sure Stalingrad would fall under the discussion of bombardment or rushes, unintended siege warfare maybe. I'm thinking more along the line of strategically and tactically, "Biting off more than you can chew."