How do generals plan campaigns?
For example pre-WW1(1800-1900)
Do generals just draw arrows on a map and call it a day? Cause most WW1 generals are moronic as frick with no considerations to logistics and shit. Is there a book or biography about stuff like this?
1.Use network of spies? they tell you where the most fortified enemy positions are located
2.Draw the lines that awoid them
There's going to be a hirearcy in any organization, with more nuance to environment at the lower levels. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that WW1 generals were moronic, their biggest issue was not having a strong understanding of how radically the battlefield was changing and struggling to come up with ways to fight effectively in it
>I don't know why you think they're moronic,they had no insight or ability to problem solve, past "shoot more artillery"
T. Orkoid
You could make that case for the eastern front where geography allowed for flanking maneuvers and other more subtle tactics. But for the western front past 1914, there's nowhere to flank. The only avenue for any attack is into the teeth of enemy artillery and machineguns. Even when there was enough mass to actually push the enemy out of their forward trenches, friendly artillery could not move forward fast enough to blunt enemy reserves coming to retake those trenches. So at the end of the day, the generals have to attack because attacking is the only way to take or retake objectives, but there is no way to for them to hold most of the ground they gain in the face of the enemy counterattack. Also worth pointing out that it's unlikely any general on earth could have done better than Cadorna in the Isonzo. If you've looked at photos of the battlefield and topo maps with the trenches and artillery shown, you know exactly what I mean.
This, officers were still expected to lead from the front at this point in time. A shitload of regimental commanders and lower-level field officers died during the war, and a large number of UK divisional commanders were killed in combat as well. The whole Lions led by Donkeys thing is a dumb myth.
I agree that there was no oppurtunity for a breakthrough at Isonzo, but Cadorna's failure was waging that battle 11 times, and then getting counter attacked and pushed back significantly. Italian forces probably would have been better used somewhere else, possibly in the Balkan theater if that was a possibility.
How pray tell are the Italians going to get their troops to the Balkans and keep them supplied?
You can make the argument that Cadorna failed when he got rolled back in 1917, but Italy expressly entered the war to get Trieste, Pola, and other Italian-speaking regions currently under Austria-Hungary. The only military path to those places is the Isonzo valley, and the only place any Italian military operations against Austria-Hungary was feasible was the Isonzo. Everywhere else was the Alps.
>letting political objectives dictate strategy
Ishygddt
>Imagining that wars should be waged other than to achieve a political objective.
Jesus Christ you’re dumb, British officers died in droves and at a much higher rate than the men under them.
any good memoir from a ww1 general?
i'm interested in their thought process
Many wars of that time era were in a very different context than today's society.
Generals and monarchs and such were all nobility and war was a sort of sport used to gain prestige over your rivals (which often were cousins or other family members in the case of monarchs). Only the aristocracy took part in the leadership roles and targeting enemy officers was seen as barbaric.
Soldiers were nothing but pawns for the aristocracy to play with.
Delusions of grandeur, spoiled brats being treated like a prince since birth gave generals and monarchs the arrogance required for their catastrophic failures on the battlefield.
Wut, officers used to die in droves
>Delusions of grandeur, spoiled brats being treated like a prince since birth gave generals and monarchs the arrogance required for their catastrophic failures on the battlefield.
>Cause most WW1 generals are moronic as frick with no considerations to logistics and shit. Is there a book or biography about stuff like this?
read guns of august. the schlieffen plan was an incredibly complex timetable coordinating the entire german rail network, mobilization schedules, logistics, expected troop densities and frontage...
the idea it was just 'draw lines on a map lol' is moronic
>seething american still thinks the bitter fairytales about nobility he learned in high school are true
Wait until you find out King George wasn’t some evil tyrant responsible for the events leading up to the war of independence, that British monarchs hadn’t had any real power for some time and that he thought the elected Prime Minister actually responsible was a dumbass.
multitude of factors will be considered. overall goals, enemy disposition, ground. an army of analysts will use processes to identify what ground is good where for what, where the enemy is, what they are likely to do where to go etc. then they will gather up all this information from the small scale to the big scale and look at it all, painting broad scale pictures of potential ways to get about the thing. commander listens and goes hmm yes while stroking his moustache and sipping brandy, chooses or develops plans as presented. it is not necessarily as simple as drawing arrows, but that there are a billion little arrows all interacting together that a senior analyst makes into a few possible big arrows that are pitched with varying degrees of good or badness
>Cause most WW1 generals are moronic as frick with no considerations to logistics and shit.
You're an idiot. Tell us how YOU would have broken the stalemate in 1916 given available technology. I guarantee you can't come up with something better than they did.
Cosigning this. OP is a fricking moron.
generals always copy the last documented war
>Cause most WW1 generals are moronic as frick with no considerations to logistics and shit.
That's a complete meme and if you study WW1 outside of pop history you'll know that
Germany had a General Staff where generals created plans for all kinds of war scenarios.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_General_Staff
>how do generals plan wars
basically clipboard and map. tally how much stuff you and the enemy has when and where. if you're lucky you might even have stuff the enemy doesn't know exists. If you're unlucky your perception of reality is warped by external factors that can range from listening to your dreams, ancient concepts of honor or listening to "the experts" telling you won't get shot if you move slower.
is anyone gonna ask why this schlieffen plan is in Vietnamese
for the most part its pretty much guess work based off what you know about
>enemy numbers, fortification, and current/potential of their military in times of war
>how much your own forces are theoretically capable of
>how many supplies you will need
>likely weather over the course of the campaign
>local terrain