Talk:Maneuver warfare

message: I have eliminated the phrase "methodical battle", as it seems to me that it causes to much confusion.  Attrition warfare is the more commonly used term (at least in the Marine Corps), and maneuver warfare can be just as "methodical".  I think that this section can still use some more expansion and clarification.--Mbaur181 01:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But Attrition warfare is not the opposite of maneuver warfare.  Before the mid 19th Century, most armies used neither attrition warfare nor maneuver warfare.  There isn't an established name for the opposite of maneuver warfare, but "methodical" is as good as I've heard.  Unless someone has a better idea in the next few days, I'm going to put it back.  --A D Monroe III 22:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I removed the word "methodical" because its use to describe attrition warfare implies that there is no methodology, no procedural basis for maneuver warfare.  As for attrition warfare not being the opposite of manuever warfare, I would have to wholeheartedly disagree.  Maneuver warfare seeks to defeat the enemy systemically, whereas attrition seeks to defeat him by eliminating or "attriting" his forces, physically destroying his tools to fight.  However, just because they are opposite does not mean that they exclude each other.  Most of this is taken from MCDP-1: Warfighting.--Mbaur181 03:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Methodical Battle is not the opposite of manoeuvre warfare. It's manoeuvre warfare carried out more slowly and carefully to ensure optimal local force ratios and avoid ambushes. So it sacrifices speed and surprise for a more favourable attrition ratio and denying surprise to the enemy but it emphasises the Schwerpunkt, the breakthrough and the quick occupation and holding by consolidation of key locations cutting of the enemy supply lines, followed by the Kesselschlacht.--MWAK 07:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Is positional warfare a better term to pose against maneuver warfare? Iconoclastodon (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concepts

message: I think that Guerilla warfare (perhaps shoot and scoot in this case) is not maneuvre warefare any more than the original guerilla warfare in the peninsula war. Can i remove that sentence ? Facius 12:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read General Sir Rupert Smith The Utility of Force. Guerrilla warfare and proper counter guerrilla warfare fall into what Smith calls “warfare amongst the people” as opposed to “industrial warfare.” Boyd addressed guerrilla warfare in his Discourse on Winning and Losing. Guerrilla and counter guerrilla warfare still seek to interrupt decision cycles and very much involve surprise, deception, dispersion and concentration, and are in keeping with maneuver warfare. Note: you can have maneuver in information warfare too. Fffflats (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hizbollah maneuver warfare ? 

message: I noticed that the entries for Maneuver Warfare are the same on Wikipedia and Answers.com. I'm not entirely sure what Wikipedia's policy on copying and pasting information from other websites is (or maybe it was the other way around?), but I feel it should be addressed somehow or another. --OFX 18:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia - they often take stuff from us (under GFDL). So I wouldn't worry to much about this here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy + Paste Policy... 

message: The problem with article is, I think, that the context is too broad. Maneuver warfare could be seen as an evolution in Western military thought by Hart, Boyd and others.  In the view of maneuver warfare theorists, von Clausewitz "On War" focuses on destruction of the enemy's armies and maneuver warfare instead focuses on "rapid movement to keep an enemy off-balance" etc etc. Military theorist, see, in hindsight, that these ideas  are not new and they use examples from historic battles to make their point. So the article should not say, for example, that the Battle of Walaja was an example of maneuver warfare but instead should say that maneuver warfare theorist point to the Battle of Walaja as an example to support their theory. In other words Maneuver warfare is a modern theory, that seeks to explain warfare today, that is supported by many examples in history. Maneuver warfare is a framework that uses Sun Tzu, Ghengis Khan, Patton, Guderian etc in a modern western context. So in my view, the  "Modern adaptations" section is misnamed because Maneuver Warfare is the modern adaption.  "Early History" is misnamed as well Early history should be Hart or the like, if you see my point KAM 15:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I shall go ahead and edit from the viewpoint that the above is correct. Perhaps it is maneuver warfare vs "Maneuver Warfare"? KAM 15:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context of article too broad 

message: If someone could fix the references it would be appreciated. I have not been able to figure out how to do it. I find them very frustrating. KAM 17:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: I find the concept of 'manoeuvre warfare' rather puzzling and I don't agree that there is a spectrum of methods with attrition at on end and manoeuvre at the other, particularly when 'attrition' methods cease to be attrition when their intent is to enable manoeuvre; behaviour is behaviour. I rather favour a sociological definition where 'manoeuvre warfare' is passed off as the theory that animates the military force's operations so that in peace, the reality of the situation (that the force will be used for indiscriminate slaughter) is obscured. It also offers a false alibi for the delegation of responsibility forward without an equal delegation of power, similar to the reduction of management to a caretaker function in the civilian economy.
Keith-264 (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Concept

message: I've tagged this article for a number of reasons: 
* Not enough in-line citations;
* Not enough total references;
* Tone is a little too essay than encyclopaedic.
The first two should be pretty self-explanatory, but the third is there because, between the first two and the language used, the article comes off more as an essay than an article. I intend to work on it with some of the other military articles that I am currently working on, but any other work on it would be greatly appreciated.
As an aside, there is also a redirect set up from Bewegungskrieg to this article as a straight translation of the German word, but there is no mention in this article of the term as the historical alternative to Blitzkrieg (as described in the Blitzkrieg article). The German wiki only has a stub that describes the term generally, so the Blitzkrieg article may be a better source for Inter-war period and World War II contributions to manoeuvre warfare theory. – Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article tagged for multiple issues 

message: "For the majority of history armies were limited in their speed to that of the marching soldier"
"In prehistoric times this began to change with the domestication of the horse"
I'm dreadfully curious to know exactly how a prehistoric revolution proceeded historic warfare. If I'm not mistaken, the DMC-12 wasn't released until 1981. As far as highschool essays go, this page is most interesting.
--174.238.192.186 (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Examples 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Maneuver warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927225132/http://www.westwrite.com/action.lasso?-database=WWProducts&-layout=CGI&-response=articles_detail.htm&-recordID=32865&-token=%5bFMP-currenttoken%5d&-search to http://www.westwrite.com/action.lasso?-database=WWProducts&-layout=CGI&-response=articles_detail.htm&-recordID=32865&-token=%5bFMP-currenttoken%5d&-search
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The main battle tank concept is post war. Even in the Korean War and for some time after you have light, medium and heavy tanks. I think the point really is that WW 2 tanks were much faster and more powerful than the tanks in WW 1. I'll replace..
Clausewitz was barely known until after the Franco Prussian wars. Moltke the elder was the person who popularized Clausewitz in Germany (see this Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSF_UtEWnCg ).
And Clausewitz was hardly a maneuver warfare type. Typical frankly for folks like B.H. Liddell Hart and John Boyd to blame Clausewitz, rightly or wrongly, for the slaughter of WW 1. Dwmyers (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  peeking in here while working on the B. H. Liddell Hart article, and 

message: This is also a thing, but not in the article as yet.  Springnuts (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: if you have sources I'm glad to pour through them and add relevant stuff. I'm quite bad at finding military sources lol. — Ixtal ( T / C )  ⁂  Join WP:FINANCE!  10:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maneuver defense