Defence is not king!

[Cholmondely Percival IV]

Ronaldo. (O fenomeno). Were it not for an unfortunate indiscretion he woud have played his last season with us, at least he wanted to. We got Ronaldinho later and that was a fucking nightmare. He did SFA then buggered off after essentially robbing the club's downtown outlet of name branded merch, claiming he was owed wages.

Brazil is the only South American nation to have been an ally in both world wars. Argentina participated in neither.

I knew it was one of the two Ronnies. Junior just stuck in my mind because he scored the winner against England (before being sent off).

As for WWI representation from Latin America, however nominal, I now see that Argentina was indeed among the absentees - or abstainers - making it one of the few significant countries to have contributed less than the Centro-Caspian Dictatorship.

[Cholmondely Percival IV]

Brazil's '82 world cup squad the greatest team not to actually win a world cup ( sadly robbed).

Almost Ludendorffian levels of revisionism here, I feel. While great to watch, the team was fairly beaten by Italy.

If any team in that tournament was robbed, it was France, thanks to a certain H Schumacher and a referee who somehow failed to see an act of GBH bordering on attempted murder.

[Captain Blood]

Gentlemen, just a brief reminder of the forum's rules (extract below )

The occasional mention in passing - fine. Threads which turn into extended discussions about football - not fine.
There are more than enough places in the online world to discuss football. Nuff said.

Lead Adventure Forum Rules (updated January 2020)

The three most important rules (A, B and C) are:

A. Only post relevant content

This is a forum for the hobby of miniatures wargaming and clearly related topics (such as modelling, painting, rules, terrain, scenarios, and new hobby products). That’s it.

It’s not the place for venturing your opinions on other matters, sharing personal issues, shooting the breeze, or discussing today’s news, current affairs, politics, religion, music, sport or showbusiness.

Off-topic content is liable to be removed by the moderator team.

[carlos marighela]

There are rules and then there are interpretations. Every gamer knows that and I for one would be out of a job if there were no interpretations to laws, rules and contracts.

Good forums allow for a degree of badinage, a certain slide from the topic at hand and just as importantly treat topics as organic conversations. Question asked, question answered.  Well hmoured remark made, well humoured remark responded to. This is a good forum and you see this sort of thing in play almost daily. The lightness of touch to the moderation being the key. Good referees know when to make a call or to allow play to continue.

Quite a different thing to start a topic about poltics, sport or personal issues, although once upon a time we had a football thread on this very forum and discussion of personal issues, occasionally related to business practices or absence from the hobby is quite a frequent occurrence on LAF.

Sadly, we have also had instances where forum members have made racist remarks from the casual to the quite consciously deliberate. At times the response has been less than stellar from both members and moderators where the 'this is LAF we're all jolly good chaps here to talk about toy soldiers' schtick'has seemed a bit off key.

A simple, could you keep things on topic is usually sufficient when things do slide for extended periods. Lightness of touch.

Of course I'll probably never be happy until I find a forum where I can combine my love of toy soldiers with football, repertory theatre and panto.

[2010sunburst]

Of course I'll probably never be happy until I find a forum where I can combine my love of toy soldiers with football, repertory theatre and panto.
[/quote]

Oh no you won’t……

[Captain Blood]

There are rules and then there are interpretations. Every gamer knows that and I for one would be out of a job if there were no interpretations to laws, rules and contracts.

Good forums allow for a degree of badinage, a certain slide from the topic at hand and just as importantly treat topics as organic conversations. Question asked, question answered.  Well hmoured remark made, well humoured remark responded to. This is a good forum and you see this sort of thing in play almost daily. The lightness of touch to the moderation being the key. Good referees know when to make a call or to allow play to continue.

Quite a different thing to start a topic about poltics, sport or personal issues, although once upon a time we had a football thread on this very forum and discussion of personal issues, occasionally related to business practices or absence from the hobby is quite a frequent occurrence on LAF.

Sadly, we have also had instances where forum members have made racist remarks from the casual to the quite consciously deliberate. At times the response has been less than stellar from both members and moderators where the 'this is LAF we're all jolly good chaps here to talk about toy soldiers' schtick'has seemed a bit off key.

A simple, could you keep things on topic is usually sufficient when things do slide for extended periods. Lightness of touch.

Of course I'll probably never be happy until I find a forum where I can combine my love of toy soldiers with football, repertory theatre and panto.

A dozen consecutive posts about football is a conversation about football.

So, back to the topic.

[ChrisBBB]

As the OP:

I have zero interest in football, but I did find the football conversation amusing. As the hooligans responsible made serious contributions first, I find the digression forgiveable.   

For those interested in pursuing the serious discussion, there were good comments here too:
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=579309

[Belligerentparrot]

The other debatable claim was this (I paraphrase): 'the foolish WW1 generals had not learned the lesson of the previous 50 years that, because modern weapons had become so lethal, the defence was king'.

I pointed out that (a) the attacker gets to shoot too and (b) the lesson from virtually every war of the previous half-century was that the attacker wins.

It's a very interesting discussion point, thanks for raising it! I always took the "defence is king" claim to be about battles rather than wars (who wins the latter depends on all sorts of bigger-picture stuff to my uneducated mind).

I also never understood the claim to be about who won. Isn't it a claim about the available weaponry at the time? I.e. as someone pointed out upthread, at the time a few units of machinegunners could, set up suitably well, keep a much larger force at bay. On the other side of the coin, certain "attacking" units were rapidly becoming obsolete at least in their traditional roles, e.g. cavalry. Nothing had yet reliably replaced them, though the effective solutions (armour and air power) and not-so-effective solutions (gas) were on the way. It's not about who wins, it's about the reality of the situation you had to face if you were likely to win.

For example, continuing to think victory lay in the decisive use of cavalry would be an example of failing to recognise that defence was king. Also (and here I might be misremembering my Middlebrook) believing that the massive concentration of artillery is sufficient, so no need for rush tactics etc., would be another example of failing to recognise just how much defence was king. (And also an example of foolishness, insofar as one doesn't bother testing the theory before putting it into practice on a grand scale).

If that's how we hear the claim, as about the context not about who is likely to win, it doesn't seem so debatable, does it? At least given various assumptions about the forces involved, which I suppose are always debatable  (E.g. the Maori modern pa system was remarkably effective in mid 1850s against the forces they faced, even though the Maori were at significant technological and other disadvantages - not sure it'd have been as effective if Britain had committed more of its elite units).

A different example I'm less sure about: it doesn't seem too far fetched (or does it?) to say in the 1944/45 island-hopping campaign defence, on land at least, was king, even though the Japanese had no realistic possibility of winning any of those battles? Those weren't battles of manoeuvre, they were largely shaped by how, in that specific context, developments in defensive tactics negated much of the US offensive advantages.

Long story short: is the claim really meant to be about what wins battles, or is it meant to be about developments in technology that have altered what it would be for an attacker to win - developments it would indeed be foolish to overlook?

[Cholmondely Percival IV]

As I was responsible for introducing football into the conversation I’ll just point out that it was initially as a metaphor before becoming the focus of badinage between Carlos and myself.

FWIW, sport and football in particular, does seem to me to have inescapable parallels with warfare, particularly in the context of a discussion about the relative strengths of attack and defence and I have little doubt that most people who read the exchange appreciated that.

Ultimately, however, one has to abide by the referee’s decision, so I will keep my thoughts on such tactics as ‘parking the bus’ to myself.

[carlos marighela]

Indeed, sport provides so many apt metaphors and terms. 

It's one of the problems with panto, there's only so many times that 'Oh no he's not!' or 'he's behind you' are germane to any discussion of warfare.

 

[Cholmondely Percival IV]

“He’s behind you!” is surely one of the most dreaded reports a general can hear, though on occasion it has been met with remarkable equanimity. At some point in the 1813 campaign in Germany, for example, Bluecher was informed by a frantic aide that Marshal Ney was about to appear in his rear. His response was worthy of the bawdiest pantomime: “That’s the place from which to give him the best reply!”.

At least this is the anecdote as I recall it. Unfortunately a serious study on the subject remains to be written.

[ChrisBBB]

It's a very interesting discussion point, thanks for raising it! I always took the "defence is king" claim to be about battles rather than wars (who wins the latter depends on all sorts of bigger-picture stuff to my uneducated mind).

I also never understood the claim to be about who won. Isn't it a claim about the available weaponry at the time?

<snip>

Long story short: is the claim really meant to be about what wins battles, or is it meant to be about developments in technology that have altered what it would be for an attacker to win - developments it would indeed be foolish to overlook?

I no longer have the document in question so I may be misrepresenting it. However, I was objecting to it because it either explicitly or implicitly meant that attacking was futile, so the foolish generals shouldn't have bothered. To say "defence was very powerful" would be one thing; to state that "defence was king" (I'm sure those were the exact words), when recent history pre-WWI showed the king routinely being toppled - both in wars overall and in most individual battles - is another.

As I was responsible for introducing football into the conversation I’ll just point out that it was initially as a metaphor before becoming the focus of badinage between Carlos and myself.

FWIW, sport and football in particular, does seem to me to have inescapable parallels with warfare, particularly in the context of a discussion about the relative strengths of attack and defence and I have little doubt that most people who read the exchange appreciated that.

Ultimately, however, one has to abide by the referee’s decision, so I will keep my thoughts on such tactics as ‘parking the bus’ to myself.

And I enjoyed and appreciated the metaphor, thanks, CPIV. (Though I think rugby union, with its much greater variety of attacking options and its genuine physical contest, is generally a better one.)

[Belligerentparrot]

Thanks for the reply, Chris.

If only everyone did think attacking was futile, we'd have world peace! 

And I very much agree with you that the pre-WWI history doesn't obviously teach many lessons here that WWI commanders might have foolishly overlooked. There were hints here and there (ACW rapid firing weapons; Maori pa trench systems etc) I suppose, but not an obvious set of very clear lessons.

(Apologies if the next bit is also off topic as this is the Big Battalions board, but if the WWI generals foolishly overlooked anything, I'd hazard it'd be the situation in front of them - again might be misremembering my Middlebrook, but I seem to remember he makes a case that somewhat effective tactics were being developed for attacking the German trench system at the time of the Somme, but Haig's planning team didn't utilise them).

[vtsaogames]

... I seem to remember he makes a case that somewhat effective tactics were being developed for attacking the German trench system at the time of the Somme, but Haig's planning team didn't utilise them).

If so, perhaps the staff assumed that the newly-raised mass army would not be able to execute complicated drills under fire. And they assumed that the week-long barrage would anihilate the german front line. Right.

[Cholmondely Percival IV]

And I enjoyed and appreciated the metaphor, thanks, CPIV. (Though I think rugby union, with its much greater variety of attacking options and its genuine physical contest, is generally a better one.)

I’m gratified to hear that as I had no intention of utterly detailing the discussion, let alone trivialising it, as it may have appeared to some.

You make a good point about rugby being more tactical in nature than football and thus perhaps offering the better analogy to battle tactics. (One could make a similar point about American football, with its ‘plays’, each being based on a single tactic.) To my mind, however, neither of these sports, perhaps because of their less fluid nature, presents the often wild swings in fortune and sheer drama that football routinely does, and is otherwise only found in battle accounts. Advocates of those sports may, of course, feel differently, but evidently this is not the place for that discussion. I will therefore  let the matter rest here before I’m sent to the sin bin.