Lines Of Communications

[jimbotosome]

Can anyone detail what all is involved in cutting the lines of communications and why it was such a high priority? I can guess on parts of it but I am wondering if anyone has a good tactical take on the importance of doing that and what all it means.

[angie999]

Put simply, lines of communication are the entire logistic/transport/information link between the base area and the operational units.

For instance, the US supply network in NW Europe in 1944/45 was called "COMZ", which stood for "Communications Zone".

Cutting lines of communication meant cutting lines of supply and transport, so that the operational units would begin to run out, or have their movements delayed or prevented.

Simple as that.

For a classic example of actions designed to do this, see cavalry operations in the American Civil War, where they would frequently operate the enemy's rear for extended periods to attack supply lines.

[jimbotosome]

(angie999 @ Nov 12 2005, 06:42 AM) [post=41492]

Cutting lines of communication meant cutting lines of supply and transport, so that the operational units would begin to run out, or have their movements delayed or prevented.

Simple as that.

[/b]

That would make a lot of sense as to why they would put such a priority on it (often top priority). Your example of "ComZ" was excellent. I have always wondered why they were called that. My thinking was that cutting the lines of communication primarily meant cutting telephone poles, communication wires, radio antennas etc. but I could never see that as being the #1 priority. Important yes, but #1? No.

Thanks Angie.

[pillip]

What I was taught by every professor was that the lines of communication are they most important military matter, as logistics is the foundation of war. It is not as glamorous as guns, tactics etc. However, it is the most important aspect. You can tell some one who knows what they are talking about as when they talk about a battle, or a war, they will talk about supply, logistics, and grand strategy, where as a less well informed individual will talk about which side had the superior weapons.
The cutting of the lines of communications is not a tactical action it would be an operational/ strategic one. Cutting the lines of communication was more important in the pre-telegraph age where it was harder to communicate and coordinate with ones troops.
Lines of communication are also talked about in the naval world as well.

Look at Clausewitz, Jomini, Napoleon for land based

Mahan, Corbett, Colomb, for sea based.

That’s it in a nut shell really. But I could go on for ages.

CHEERS PHIL.

[pillip]

Hi. Just to add to my earlier post I have added some diagrams (see bottom of page).


I have shown Napoleons tactics of ‘the strategy of the centre position’. This was used to stop a numerically superior force. As you can see the red forces have occupied the centre position between to the other two armies. This in a modern context would not be a good move. The technology of today would mean that the two sides could communicate instantly and arrange their simultaneous attacks, and crush the red force.
However, in the time of Napoleon communication would only be able to occur through the use of messenger. So, for the two sides to communicate a messenger would have to be sent all the way around the out side. These are known as EXTERIOR lines of communication. This method is slow. The centre force, on the other hand, has INTERIOR lines of communication. These as you can see are shorter. So communication and manoeuvre becomes easier, and faster. Also taking into account that the two blue armies may not have a strong coalition, poor relationships, and language difficulties, then keeping them apart makes them weaker numerically and tactically.

This then leads the red forces to be able to take on one force at a time, and beat them, before turning to face the other force. So lines of communication are very important.

Napoleon would not have been too bothered with some one cutting his lines of supply as his forces lived off the land, and could survive for longer when cut off. In context of the Second World War becoming cut off from a communications point of view was harder as you had wireless. On the other hand, becoming cut off from your supply lines would have been a grave situation as you need high amounts of ammo etc.


The last bits just a kind of simplified example, so dont jump on my back about it. (Please). But it’s good to get an example, hope this has helped.

p.s. ive had a couple of drams of whisky so the drawing is rubbish. plus i dont know if i have put them on correctly.

Cheers Phil.

[Kiwiwriter]

Communications in this case does not mean radio messages, although jamming is important. It refers to roads, rails, and to a lesser extent, airfields and ports. Blasting convoys and trains, wrecking roads and rail lines, can snarl traffic for many miles, and prevent reinforcements and supplies from reaching the front, and empty vehicles from going back for more.

One of the major reasons the Germans were defeated in Western Europe was the Allied aerial destruction of roads, rail lines, marshalling yards, bridges, and even the Saumur Tunnel. The biggest Tiger tank was useless without 88mm ammo, diesel fuel, and food for its crew.

[pillip]

i think i may have gone off on a tangent!!!

but just showing where the concept came from and that logistics is 'the' most important aspect of militaryaffairs.

phil.