Manoeuvre

[Gareth Davies]

The word 'manoeuvre' appears 9 times in Part I of the 1912 edition of FSR 1909 which is what the BEF went to war with in 1914 but it is never defined. Where can I find a definition of the term please?

[David Filsell]

Internet

[Gareth Davies]

5 minutes ago, David Filsell said:

Internet

 

Any particular part of the internet? 

[Acknown]

I have no idea whether this site is authentic, but: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/military_developments_of_world_war_i.

'Maneuver is movement throughout the battle space to gain positional advantage.'

Acknown

This site: https://hbr.org/2002/04/maneuver-warfare-can-modern-military-strategy-lead-you-to-victory, states:
At the Battle of Isonzo in World War I, then-Lieutenant Rommel, commanding a small detachment of three companies of light infantry, targeted a key mountain pass used as a main supply route by the Italian opposition. The capture of this pass, the Italians’ critical vulnerability, caused the collapse of the northern part of their entire front, which consisted of thousands of well-positioned troops. To reach the pass, Rommel identified gaps in each of defensive lines, bypassed enemy strong points, and attacked Italian defenders from the rear. In just 52 hours, his force captured 150 Italian officers, 9,000 soldiers, and 81 heavy guns while incurring casualties of only six dead and 30 wounded. Rommel applied such tactics again during World War II as a field marshal in North Africa, earning himself the nickname “Desert Fox.”

Edited 8 July , 2020 by Acknown

[Gareth Davies]

Any site that uses that version of the spelling is to be instantly ignored.  And now having read it I am even less inclined to pay any attention to it.

[Acknown]

You're welcome.

Acknown

[Ron Clifton]

Hello Gareth

 

In 1792 General Sir David Dundas published Rules and Regulations for the Field Exercises and Movements of His Majesty's Forces. He reduced the number of evolutions to a basic set which became known as "The Eighteen Manoeuvres" The original ran to about 400 pages but in 1794 Serjeant Thomas Langley produced a sixty-page summary entitled The Eighteen Manoeuvres for His Majesty's Infantry. It was reprinted privately in 1988 by Bill Leeson. It sets out the commands to be given to regulate each movement, with diagrams showing how the 'before and after' positions of the troops.

 

It is unlikely that Victorian officers would have been unfamiliar with the term, so there was no need to define it specifically in 1909.

 

Ron

[Gareth Davies]

Thanks Ron. is it saying that a number of movements make up a manoeuvre? And is manoeuvre defined?

[FROGSMILE]

15 hours ago, Gareth Davies said:

 

Any particular part of the internet? 

Gareth there are a whole series of essays and historical writings relating to tactical military manoeuvre in the RUSI Journal online: 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03071849808446326?journalCode=rusi20

 

At least one refers to the WW1 period: Haig versus Rawlinson – Manoeuvre versus Attrition: The British Army on the Somme, 1916

 

Also Small Wars Journal here: https://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/95-owen.pdf?q=mag/docs-temp/95-owen.pdf

Edited 9 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[Moonraker]

Not really my subject area, but we seem to be talking about "manoeuvres" (as in large-scale exercises) and "manoeuvre" (as in drill movement). Do I infer correctly that Gareth is asking about the latter?

 

(The plural version has some resonance for me, as I used it often in the late 1990s when tapping out the text for the first edition of my Wiltshire book. My word-processor had a primitive Spellcheck facility and I had to individually look at each usage to see that I'd spelt it correctly. And late in the day I realised that I'd referred to "large-scale manoeuvres" rather too many times.)

[phil andrade]

Edited for spelling error, ended up with double post.

 

put it down to poor manoeuvre !

Edited 9 July , 2020 by phil andrade

[phil andrade]

27 minutes ago, phil andrade said:

Time to wheel out one of Churchill’s passages from his assessment of the generalship of the Great War :

Battles are won by slaughter and manoeuvre. The greater the general, the more he contributes in manoeuvre, the less he demands in slaughter.

 

Phil

 

[Gareth Davies]

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

Gareth there are a whole series of essays and historical writings relating to tactical military manoeuvre in the RUSI Journal online: 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03071849808446326?journalCode=rusi20

 

At least one refers to the WW1 period: Haig versus Rawlinson – Manoeuvre versus Attrition: The British Army on the Somme, 1916

 

Also Small Wars Journal here: https://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/95-owen.pdf?q=mag/docs-temp/95-owen.pdf

 

Thanks. I think Wilf (who I know) is pretty much on the money. 

39 minutes ago, Moonraker said:

Not really my subject area, but we seem to be talking about "manoeuvres" (as in large-scale exercises) and "manoeuvre" (as in drill movement). Do I infer correctly that Gareth is asking about the latter?

 

(The plural version has some resonance for me, as I used it often in the late 1990s when tapping out the text for the first edition of my Wiltshire book. My word-processor had a primitive Spellcheck facility and I had to individually look at each usage to see that I'd spelt it correctly. And late in the day I realised that I'd referred to "large-scale manoeuvres" rather too many times.)

 

I am using the word as it appears in the 1912 version of FSR 1909. Manoeuvre.

[Old Forge]

Hi Gareth, there's a dearth of 'glossaries' in pre-war and wartime publications. On p408 of my 'New Edition 1907' copy of Hamley's 'Operations of War' (de riguer at Staff College), there's a paragraph with the promising heading 'Power of Manoeuvre' - unfortunately, that's as good as it gets. Hamley follows the development of 'combination, mobility and firepower' through the Napoleonic, American Civil and Russo-Japanese wars. Mobility is studied at both the strategic and tactical level. The para referred to on p408 says: 'Mobility is spoken of here in its tactical sense - meaning rapidity of manoeuvres on the battlefield, to acquire the power of which frequent practice in the handling of masses of troops is essential.'

 

There may be something hidden in the detailed instructions, orders and lessons generated by the annual Army Manoeuvres. If I come across anything of interest in the future I'll post it here.

 

Richard

[Gareth Davies]

That's very interesting, thanks you. It seems that the meaning, despite not being defined, has been largely the same for over 100 years despite it being bandied about to mean somewhat different things. Is there a reference copy of Hamley (apart from yours) anywhere do you know?

[Old Forge]

I found mine in a second hand book shop in Salisbury years ago. Shrivenham, IWM, Army Museum etc will likely have copies and it may even be available for order at local libraries. It is occasionally available on line - eg currently: https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Operations-War-Hamley-B/dp/B0012FOUZI/ref=smi_www_rco2_go_smi_b1285150262?_encoding=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0&ie=UTF8

 

HTH,

 

Richard

[Moonraker]

19 minutes ago, Gareth Davies said:

I am using the word as it appears in the 1912 version of FSR 1909. Manoeuvre.

The context would be of interest. Simon Batten in Futile Exercise? (covering extensive pre-WWI manoeuvres) quotes the 1911 Encyclopaedia  Britannica's definition of "the higher training for war of troops of all arms in large bodies". Significantly (?) it was the Military Manoeuvres Act of 1897 that led to the purchase of much of Salisbury Plain once the army had "outgrown" what was available around Aldershot. From my position of military ignorance, I've always been inclined to regard frequent military movements within the Plain as exercises, with "manoeuvres" being used to denote activities lasting a week or longer extending into neighbouring counties and involving thousands of troops who weren't based locally and arrived and departed in special trains.

 

I would venture that "manoeuvre" (singular) indicates one movement by an unit and that "manoeuvres" (plural) suggest a whole series.

 

(Thank goodness that I can now rely on a superior Spellcheck. The "oeu" letters within "manoeuvres" can be challenging to render in the correct order.)

[Gareth Davies]

29 minutes ago, Old Forge said:

I found mine in a second hand book shop in Salisbury years ago. Shrivenham, IWM, Army Museum etc will likely have copies and it may even be available for order at local libraries. It is occasionally available on line - eg currently: https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Operations-War-Hamley-B/dp/B0012FOUZI/ref=smi_www_rco2_go_smi_b1285150262?_encoding=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0&ie=UTF8

 

HTH,

 

Richard

 

PCL have a copy. Thanks. And it is on Archive.org.

Edited 9 July , 2020 by Gareth Davies

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, Gareth Davies said:

 

Thanks. I think Wilf (who I know) is pretty much on the money. 

 

I am using the word as it appears in the 1912 version of FSR 1909. Manoeuvre.

I’m old enough to remember when it all became flavour of the month and even back then I thought it was just old and well recorded doctrine dressed up in a new coat reflecting more modern means of transportation and more timely communication.  The pretence that it was somehow original thought was a load of old tosh, but at the time it made the name (in the British Army that is) of the General officer who vigorously drove it.  I distinctly recall that it led to a mini version of the Wolseley/Roberts style rings, with bright young officers hanging on to the shirt tails of the senior officers in ‘Doctrine’ to gain favour and advancement.  Meanwhile, at my level, it meant amending hundreds of vufoils for my class room overhead projector so that I was able to spout the latest received wisdom.  If I sound cynical it’s because I am!

Edited 9 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[Gareth Davies]

I totally agree, that's why I am writing an article on it. 

[Ron Clifton]

PCL may also have a copy of the Training and Manoeuvre Regulations, of which there was an edition dated 1913 but probably others before that. Infantry Training 1914 also has a few references, specifically referring to the balance between fire and movement, which are principles with which the men of Crecy and Agincourt were probably familiar.

 

Ron

[Gareth Davies]

Thanks Ron.

[ianjonesncl]

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

I’m old enough to remember when it all became flavour of the month

It continued into Army Doctrine as one of the core tenants. The view foils replaced by powerpoint.

 

Manoeuvrist Approach.

This is an indirect approach to operations that involves using and threatening to use force in a combination of violent and non-violent means. It concentrates on seizing the initiative and applying strength against weakness and vulnerability, while protecting the same on our own side.

 

To amplify this description further, the opposite of the manoeuvrist approach is the attritional approach;  the warfighting philosophy which seeks to destroy the enemy physically through incremental attrition. That is not to say that some attrition will not take place in exploiting the manoeuvrist approach, but it is the intention with which they are used that defines the 2 approaches.

Source: Army Doctrine Primer Ref: AC 71954

 

[FROGSMILE]

11 minutes ago, ianjonesncl said:

It continued into Army Doctrine as one of the core tenants. The view foils replaced by powerpoint.

 

Now that’s made me chuckle.  I’m not so old that I didn’t experience death by PowerPoint, or being bored witless by the obsession with the Manoeuvrist Approach tenet and its perception by so many as some kind of panacea that would guarantee victory in all circumstances.  I ended up at HQ ARRC, right in the midst of it.

Edited 9 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[ianjonesncl]

3 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

 I ended up at HQ ARRC, right in the midst of it.

 So did I ! Deep Fires Cell conducting "the warfighting philosophy which seeks to destroy the enemy physically through incremental attrition".