Bad misinterpretations

[martin goddard]

I often see quoted  "no plan survives contact with the enemy".

I am of the opinion that this is another piece of nonsense that folk seem to accept along with "polish lancers charge German tanks".

The original quote is below.


The German field marshal, known as Moltke the Elder, believed in developing a series of options for battle instead of a single plan, saying "No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength."

I would argue that the actual/real quote makes a lot of sense.
The oft misquoted one is just rubbish (harsh but fair?).


The misquoted one makes it sound like  each army should  just turn up and see what happens.
Why plan? It is just a waste of time.

It clearly believes all those brilliant military planners were in fact wasting their time.
Alexander the great , Napoleon, Slim, Nelson just turned up and accepted that their plan goes out of the window after the battle starts.
Seal team 6 should have just bought a day ticket to Pakistan and accepted that any plan would be a total failure.



martin

[Moggy]

Yep, I agree. When you add in the limitations of communication speeds, rigid command structure and the human factor the situation on the battlefield quickly differs from the suppositions a commander may have held at the start. It is rare an opponent complies with your wishes unless you have shared your plans with him.

In WW1 the rigid command structure shown by the British and French left may troops trying to achieve the impossible whilst the looser structure within the German forces left the troops the ability to take advantage of opportunity at a very low level without fear of repercussions.

Ask Raglan if he had time to query which guns to charge? A badly worded order?, human vainglory, blind obedience or just rolled a 1 on the dice. Ask Nelson how long it took to pass orders along the line, then get men up to the sails and then the time for the ships to notice of what had been done!

I honestly believe the "no plan survives first contact" is probably a real prospect. Hence the reason why there is a plan B, C, D.


Since leaving the Army I have noticed a distinct lack of these alternates in almost every company I have worked for. Once a suggestion is made for a plan B it is often followed by being looked at like I had grown an extra head or didn't have a clue for doubting the leadership. After many years I have now got to the stage where I just let them get on with it and gloat over the sometimes humerous results. I am sure most out there have all this as well.

Every Company/Army/Organisation NEEDS to have a what if person. Otherwise the Optomists rules their own perfect little worlds when really its the pessimists that should be in charge.


Derek (synical pessimist at heart)

[John Watson]

I think the best military commanders were those that could "think on their feet" or were "fire fighters". That is not to say that they didn't have a plan to start with, but that they could amend, adapt or find something different to suit the situation. This was one of Wellington's great strengths (in my opinion) and also Rommel's achilles heel. Lack of adaptability was also one of reasons why the Japanese ultimately failed in WWII. They could not deviate from a plan, so when a frontal assault failed they tried again, just with more troops, because that was the order given by higher command. It could also account for why Operation Market Garden failed.
John

[Sean Clark]

I think it's a phrase picked up by Wargamers who at the end of turn one realise they've made a huge mistake and like to trot the quote out to make themselves feel better.

I've used on many occasions 😅

[Smiley Miley 66]

My first Wargame this year with Big Mike today certainly fits that description. By the time Mike had finished his opening moves I was on the back foot.
But good to go through many parts of the PBI rules as they are for now.
Miles

[Colonel Kilgore]

Well done Miles and Mike for first wargame of the year!

Simon

[Sean Clark]

Yes well done. I imagine it is quite nice to get back at it.

[Panzer21]

What's interesting is that the concept often makes it's way into wargames rules......

I'm not suggesting that any approach is better than the other as I'm of the opinion wargames have only a passing resemblance to a simulation of the real thing; they are however at the end of the day a game.....

I have played with rules where you can make a plan and follow it without hindrance aside from morale of your troops and even this can be controlled or influenced by your own actions.
At the other extreme, I've played games where what you can do each turn is limited by dice or cards, so each turn is a case of thinking on your feet.

The first punishes the opportunistic player over the meticulous planner; games however can be somewhat cerebral.
The second favours the player with the best luck; the planner still has an edge but this can be nullified by a run of bad luck.
The first punishes those unfamiliar with the rules, while the second can be won by a novice if circumstances fall in their favour.

What I have seen trotted out is the "no plan survives contact" cliche with the second, along with "it's just a game", while the first put forward as "an accurate simulation".

The reality is they are both games just with a different approach; what enjoyment you derive will be determined from what you and your opponent wants, if both meticulous planners or both freewheeling "I just want to throw a few dice" gamers, then the choice of rules will be influenced by this.

The middle ground is a sort of "resource management" approach where the player will have to plan, but with less predictability than the first extreme but also less random luck involved than the second.

A good plan should see you through a game with a reasonable chance of success; a great plan (where you correctly predict what your opponent will do) should have more, but a truly great plan where you MAKE your opponent do what you want them to should in theory guarantee success.

Which makes for the better GAME is a matter of personal choice.
Neil

[martin goddard]

I agree with all that Neil.
Well put across I think.

As you point out though, it is just a game and folk can play it anyway they like. A great hobby because of that.


martin

[John Watson]

Reference Neil's comments about meticulous planning versus luck in a game, wasn't it Napoleon who said something like "Don't give me a good general, give me a lucky one".
John

[Big Mike]

Yes, a most enjoyable start to the campaign season. Mile's desert scenery was good to see although he wants to add more detailing to his usual high standard
We were a bit rusty on some rules but we muddled along.
My GbJ force liked the rocky terrain and swept across the left flank. We lost one platoon early on but it came back to hold the right flank and execute and exciting but pointless "Sneak Move" near the game end.
Thanks Miles.
Mike

[Leman (Andy)]

What's a plan?

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

'At them with the bayonet' by Hugh Gough has oft been cited as evidence of blinkered thinking on his part during the Anglo-Sikh Wars. I believe it is more to do with his faith in British infantry at close quarters...
The British were not expecting the sheer force of enemy fire they had to wade through to close with the Sikh army. They were using mortars as large calibre howitzers, firing roundshot, shrapnel, common shell, canister as well as grapeshot and chain-shot on land...

'Put your faith in the Lord...but keep your powder dry' and its variant 'Praise the Lord...and pass the ammunition' are two of my favourites - they are surely clear evidence of a sound Plan B! Trust No one!

[Sean Clark]

Great Post by Neil.

I rarely have a plan other than to charge. Its why games where Martin and I are on the same side rarely last very long 

A plan that accounts for bad luck, or an opponent doing the unexpected surely has to be the best one. You need contingencies within a plan for the FUBAR/SNAFU moments.

One of my favourite games of PBI was against Big Mike. I was Russians v his Germans. I thought I had the game in the bag until the last two turns when Mike bought on his reserve tanks and shot my T34's to bits. A really close game, where I had failed to see the threat of the reinforcements Mike had in his back pocket (or was it up his sleeve?).

Regardless of the result we both had a great game. And that's what matters at the end of the day 

[Leman (Andy)]

I used to play against a bloke who always planned meticulously, having a plan B and a plan C up his sleeve. I hardly ever won against him, but it was always fascinating to hear him debrief about his plans and what he would have done if I had countered in a different way. The occasions where he commented, "Well, I didn't account for you doing that!" were very few and far between.