Subscribe Today

• Subscribe to Armchair General Magazine
• Subscribe online and save nearly 40%!
 

At first glance, the transition from offense to defense may seem fairly simple. However, as we learned at an early age – looks can be deceiving. This transition is challenging for several reasons. First, because forces in the offense are often dispersed and perhaps, somewhat disorganized it requires time and good command and control to initiate the transition. Second, you are not selecting the exact terrain you want to defend upon. It is very possible you will defend on ground not conducive to defending. Finally, there are the mental and emotional aspects to consider. When you transition to the defense you are in essence psychologically telling your Soldiers they are defeated. These Soldiers must pick themselves up mentally and emotionally. Additionally, Soldiers must adjust to a defensive mindset. There is a difference.
Tactics 101: 030 – Planning the Defense

TECHNIQUES
A Commander has two basic methods he may utilize in transitioning to the defense.

In the first method, the Commander takes elements from his forward units and maneuvers them ahead to find some defensible terrain. It is there the Commander will set-up his security zone. Within this security zone, forces will furnish information on the enemy and delay, deceive, and disrupt the enemy and conduct counter-reconnaissance. The preponderance of the force will then begin preparing defensive positions essentially where they halted on the attack.

In the second technique, the Commander sets-up his security zone in the terrain where the offense halted. Thus, forces are not pushed forward to establish the security zone. The Commander then has the remainder of his force fall back to defensible terrain to develop the defense.

So what are the differences between the two techniques? Let’s discuss these.

• In technique 1, the potential for losses in personnel and equipment is far greater than technique 2. This is because the forces you have designated to occupy the security zone may have to fight enemy to seize this terrain.
• Because of the above, it is likely the security zone in technique 1 will likely be much swallower than in technique 2. Again, the rationale is because your forces may have to fight for this terrain. Consequently, you do not want to push them out too far.
• The main body forces in technique 1 are more likely to be initially hit with enemy artillery. This is because they are essentially positioned in the same basic areas they halted the offense in. The enemy is likely to possess good intelligence on where those forces are.
• Technique 2 will generally afford better defensible terrain for your main body forces than technique 1. This is because the main body forces in technique 1 are positioned in areas not necessarily advantageous to the defense. In technique 2, forces will fall back as far as needed to occupy defensible ground. 

Taking all this in consideration, clearly technique 2 is the preferred method to transition to the defense. This technique provides the unit a better security zone and better terrain for the main body to defend upon. Additionally, it does not risk potential losses to the forces that may need to establish a security zone as in technique 1.

So why wouldn’t a Commander utilize technique 2 during every transition? Well, this is where the factors of METT-TC (Mission, Enemy, Terrain/Weather, Troops Available, Time, and Civilian Considerations) come into account. For example, the status of your main body forces makes it unfeasible at this time to fall back. Perhaps, the weather (rain) has made movement nearly impossible. Consequently, your main body may need to stay in place. Thus, you may be ‘forced’ to use technique 1. In this case, you must play with the hand you are dealt.

Help Armchair General by bookmarking to