Flaws with this part of the script: "And now, let’s delve into the granular details of the Battle of Cēsis, a pivotal conflict in the obscurely intricate Estonian War of Independence, fought between the nascent Estonian army and the pro-German Baltische Landeswehr on the 23rd of June, 1919. It’s crucial to understand the underlying tactical nuances here, as the 3rd Estonian Division, under the command of General Ernst Põdder, meticulously maneuvered a composite force of infantry, cavalry, and armored trains against the ragtag Landeswehr consortium.

Our focus intensifies on the deployment specifics: Estonian forces numbering 5,500 men, possessing an armament matrix comprising 16 pieces of field artillery, juxtaposed with three armored trains and not less than two units of cavalry reconnaissance were methodically arrayed. In stark contrast, the Landeswehr, commanded by Major Alfred Fletcher, fielded similar numbers but with an artillery advantage—24 field artillery pieces to be precise. The complexities of the forces’ disposition are further compounded when considering the entrenchment coefficients of both sides and the subsequent impact on their defensive elasticity.

As we parse through the labyrinth of logistical variables, a notable mention is the meteorological data during the engagement period: average precipitation of 68mm and a visibility oscillation between 10 to 15 kilometers impeding the combatants’ optical range with intermittent fog conditions!

As the battle commenced, the Estonian 6th Regiment initiated a pincer movement designed to envelop the Landeswehr defensive installation at Cēsis. With the correlative fire support index from their Madsen machine guns and Stokes mortars illuminating the battlefield with a barrage of suppressive trajectories, the Landeswehr’s entrenchment vector was compromised, leading to a reduction in their force sustainability quotient.

It’s important to emphasize the engagement’s duration-to-casualty ratio; an analysis of the after-action reports suggests a direct combatant engagement span of approximately 36 hours leading to an attrition outcome of 300 Estonians and 150 Bermontians incapacitated, with the variable of captives situating the data at 21 personnel for the Estonians and a staggering 70 for the Landeswehr.

The tactical interplay of the armored trains cannot be overstated. Locomotive artillery mobilization contributed to a 0.07% increase in territory control per hour, a seemingly insubstantial statistic that had a disproportionate impact on the psychological warfare front.

If we project the territorial exchange rate against the tempo of operational momentum, we observe a strategic recalibration posthaste, with concurrent logistical reconsolidation exerting pivotal pressure on the embattled Landeswehr forces, leading to a progressive retreat and eventual cease-fire on June 26th.

While these intricacies might be perceived as the epitome of esoteric battlefield jargon, they encapsulate the sinews of warfare that dictated the outcome of this relatively obscure but fundamentally significant clash between Estonia and the pro-German forces of the Baltische Landeswehr in the rural vicinities of Latvia. This distinct juncture pivoted the trajectory of the Estonian War of Independence, ultimately cascading into the monumental Tartu Peace Treaty of 1920."