What is the finest military tactic used throughout history?
My vote goes for the blitzkrieg, its just unstoppable
>blitzkrieg
>tactic
>unstoppable
>>354041
Plenty of examples in here better than the blitz
flanking
>>354045
How is it not a tactic?
Fair enough it is unstoppable but only by Russian winter
>>354056
it's necessarily multiple tactics
closer to strategy, with how all-encompassing it has to be
>>354056
>The word, meaning "lightning war", in its strategic sense describes a series of quick and decisive short battles to deliver a knockout blow to an enemy state before it could fully mobilize.
>>354063
The strategy is we need to smash through that front line and flank them from behind, the tactic for doing so is the blitzkrieg.
>>354056
there was no unified "blitzkrieg" concept, it is a label (an english one actually i think) applied to the lightning fast german victories in early war, some of which relied on armored spearheads, others on impressive close air support, yet more on the use of combined arms, and some on good old fashioned infantry work
>>354056
It only succeeded because Belgium didn't continue the Maginot Line in their own lands and forbade France for continuing the line on the French-Belgian border.
>>354041
Blitzkrieg was merely Napoleon's style adapted with tank and aerial warfare
>combined arms
>moving faster than the enemy
>divide, encircle and destroy
Literally Napoleon's tactics and strategy 150 years later
>>354054
You absolute madman.
>>354054
Nail on the head. Its as simple as that.
>>354072
That's operational dimensions. Strategy is how you win the entire war m8
>>354041
>it's unstoppable
>it got stopped
Read up on the response to German doctrine at kursk
Flank rolling and hammer & anvil.
Rolling artillery tbqh
>>354041
Maneuver warfare was far better than blitzkrieg tactics.
I really liked this on the last kingdom. Build a shield wall, let the enemy push you back then have your hidden troops run in and shield wall the rear and sides completely cutting off their escape and making them easy pickings
>>354127
This isn't a gore thread.
>>354170
You activated my muddy field trap card which destroys your rolling artillery
>>354187
I saw this in the movie Red Cliff. They had soldiers with huge iron shields. They had paths to the heart of their formation open and they let the enemy cavalry run right in. They then closed off the openings and then just randomly fucked around with their maze formation, cutting off paths and opening others up for literally no reason. They did this for several minutes before actually attacking. Twas quite silly tbqh.
>>354041
spinning, thats a good trick
The pincer.
>>354041
There was a battle where the Mongols had surrounded a European army, but left a space open. The Euros, thinking that they were about to get massacred, made a break for the gap before the Mongols could close it.
The Mongols had left that corridor open because it led into a swamp. When the Euros got bogged down in the shitty terrain, the Mongols just ravaged them.
Quickly duck sideways then take him out with a spinning back kick.
>>354041
>unstoppabkle
Got stopped plenty by Soviet deep penatration doctrine and Allied hedgehog doctrine
>>354321
German tanks are no match for advanced Soviet mud and snow.
Having air control and night visions goggles and uranium tanks
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Karbala_Gap_(2003)
>>354041
Trommelfeuer.
>>354054
Von Clausewitz ain't got nothin' on this guy.
Deception in all its shapes and forms
>>354041
Envolpment of a larger force by a smaller one
>>354054
rommel pls
>>354041
>Blitzkrieg
even hitler said its a stupid word. it was more or less a surprise attack.
And it was more luck than tactics.
>>354601
>luck
It's just basically a sucker punch and overwhelming rapid advancement. Luck really didn't have anything to do with it.
It's not a be all end all tho. It only works on the unprepared or the inferior.
>>354041
>its just unstoppable
What was the battle of Kursk?
>>354371
and kevlar and defence and open terrain dug in
>>354041
>tactic
Are you sure it isn't bordering on strategy?
Anyways I suppose the Roman maniple system or the Macedonian phalanx had a certain flair.
A flanking charge by cavalry has been an all time classic too.
>>354304
That's Mohi.
Cannae.
>>354077
Except thats wrong the maginot line did continue all the way to the sea. Germans broke thru where it was least fortified because the french didnt believe entire army could pass thru the shitty terrain in the arden forest.
>>356095
not the line of the heavy fortifications, that is what people usually mean by the maginot line - the belgians did not want the line at all, and when they somewhat foolishly declared neutrality in 1936, france finally could start to build at least some fortifications, but it was too little and too late - they were only light fortifications nowhere near the standard of the rest of the line for various reasons including bad soil
>>356095
The Maginot line was weak beyond the German-French border. Because of that a lot of English and French forces were committed to defend the Belgian-French border. As I understand it the Arden was an oversight made AFTER Belgian resistance precluded the extension of the strong fortifications northward. I doubt that if the Maginot line had been heavy all the way to the see they would kept the Arden undefended.
I vote for motti.
>>354056
The Soviets invented defense in depth to counter blitzkrieg, since blitzkrieg was all about penetrating a line of defense and then attacking it from behind the Soviet just put up another line, and another one after that. German tanks couldn't fight through them all and got surrounded and destroyed quickly whilst the infantry were wiped out by the defenders
>>355104
The funny thing is that zama was in a way the same tactics but on opposite sides. Hannibals cavalry was BTFO and he put his best infantry in the middle this time.
I think the mongol/magyar/central asianbros strategy of feigned retreat, drawing them in while shooting arrows and then picking off their thinned lines, has to be one of the most successful strategies in history.
Of course, it only works in certain terrain
Siege of Alesia, in gaul (France). Julius Caesar built a set of defenses around the city, and a mirror set of defenses to protect their back. Caesar managed to siege the city and fight the reinforcements on the other side. Roman campsite was ring shaped, and gauls weren't able to conquer the ring. At the end Alesia surrended and the renforcements fled also if they were 6 gauls VS 1 roman.
>>354056
>How is it not a tactic?
Because it was literally made up by Goebbels.
Hit and Run
it's a dick move but still
semi-circles
>>356610
>implying the best tactic isn't charging headfirst into obvious traps
Ranked fire/fire by rank has always appealed to me, but its hopelessly outdated today
>>354041
I'll limit it to stuff that actually was ahead of its time and actually worked against superior forces.
Double envelopment
Dragon's tooth Tercio
Rotating volley fire
>>354041
>My vote goes for the blitzkrieg, its just unstoppable
Seemed to stop outside Moscow and Leningrad
Name-calling.
>>357445
This
it's the easiest way to piss someone off while exhausting the least resources.
Why, an entire army could be led astray by a disgruntled emperor because his feels got hurt.
See Alexander and the deliberate killing of his own army by marching them through a desert.
All because he got called a fag.
Killing the opposing force is good
Popular guerrilla, no doubt
The ol spicy keychain.
>>354446
Though a basic aspect of blitzkrieg which we've established is a strategy more than a tactic, I'm no one to turn up my nose at nod to the element of surprise as the most vital thing in achieving victory.
>>354056
>Fair enough it is unstoppable but only by Russian winter
Wasn't even the winter, it was the distances involved. It depends on airstrikes and armored forces, which can't move very quickly over great distances (worked fine in central Europe, but moving into Russia was too slow and caused the Germans to lose their advantage).
>>354073
All those things were basically to accomplish one goal: rapid movement to avoid getting tied down by the defenders, and take important objectives (namely the enemy capital) before they have time to make a counter-attack.
H A M M E R
__A
__N
__V
__I
__L
>>357574
What he's trying to say is Blitzkreig doesn't actually exist.
It's just a name made up by some writer to sum up the Nazi war machine's movements.
Those same movements caused them to outrun their own logistics and allow themselves to be encircled too.
The whole bread and butter to the term is to send in infantry alongside armor, preferably in troop transports capable of similar speeds as a tank.
This is no different than previous armies sending wagon loads of men alongside calvary.
>>354041
Hammer and Anvil is my vote. That or encirclement have been used for millennia now for a reason
>>354127
What the fuck is she even trying to do? Deadlift?
It isn't a tactic as much as a doctrine, but I've always found Shock and awe interesting simply because it's focus on the psychological aspect simply making the enemy too afraid to fight.
>>354041
Pacifism and negotiation.
> London offered assistance to Iceland, seeking cooperation "as a belligerent and an ally", but Reykjavik declined and reaffirmed its neutrality. The German diplomatic presence in Iceland, along with the island's strategic importance, alarmed the British. After a few failed attempts at persuading the Icelandic government by diplomatic means to join the Allies and becoming a co-belligerent in the war against the Axis forces, the British invaded Iceland on 10 May 1940.
>Iceland cooperated with the British and then the Americans, but officially remained neutral throughout World War II.
>During the war, drifting mines became a serious problem for Icelanders as well as the Allied forces. The first Icelandic Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) personnel were trained in 1942 by the British Royal Navy to help deal with the problem. The British forces also supplied the Icelandic Coast Guard with weapons and ammunition, such as depth-charges against Axis U-boats.
>In 1944 British Naval Intelligence built a group of five Marconi wireless direction finding stations on the coast west of Reykjavík. The stations were part of a ring of similar groups located around the north Atlantic to locate wireless transmissions from U-boats.
>On 17 June 1944, Iceland dissolved its union with Denmark and the Danish monarchy and declared itself a republic.
>The presence of British and American troops in Iceland had a lasting impact on the country. Engineering projects, initiated by the occupying forces – especially the building of Reykjavík Airport – brought employment to many Icelanders. This was the so-called Bretavinna or “Brit labour”. Also, the Icelanders had a source of revenue by exporting fish to the United Kingdom.
Blitzkrieg was a tactic, aimed at disorganizing the enemy's front line by penetrating it and then encircling enemy troops.
It worked well at the beginning of the war because of superior German experience in troop coordination (Blitzkrieg relied heavily on planes communicating with tanks via radio).
However their big mistake was to think a tactic could work as a strategy - they focused solely on winning battles and taking down enemy troops, disregarding logistics. Having to send fuel by truck for 500km is not the best way to conduct a war.
I'd say the best tactic is not universal, it depends on the enemy. But for an example of tactical mastery, I'd say look at the roman legion, several century of military domination and the only thing able to defeat a legion reliably was another legion, during civil wars.
>>356274
This was great. But could not gauls just burn down the walls?
>>354056
It's a doctrine.
>>354187
That shield wall is ridiculous. You just need to run into it.
>>354049
Like what?
>>358752
Have you ever tried setting a big fat stake on fire in shitty French weather while a roman soldier is chucking spears and rocks at you from above?
>>358781
>I wish I was in my swamp, taking a fat fire stake.
>>354041
>Faking retreats
It almost conquered the whole world, you know.
>>354069
pretty similar to their barbarian tribes ancestor tactics seems like old habits die hard
>>354187
I'm watching this at the moment and kinda enjoying but man the costume department fucked up also:
>Saxons
>not also using the shield wall
and why the fuck are they using square shields?
>>354041
Spinning is a good trick
>>354041
Zerg Rushing, as long as you have the numbers on your side no one can do shit against you.
See the Roman Empire, their only losses were those were they couldn't Zerg Rush.
>>358780
not him but the just the basic doctrine of always allowing your opponent a way out
that means you leave a gap for an encircled enemy to rout through, so you can pick at them at your leisure. or a besieged fort being allowed to surrender in exchange for a more favorable treatment of PoWs
for a real life example see >>354304
Why is flanking so effective?
>>359831
It forces your enemy to divide his attention
>>359612
Humans are so predictable when they don't know shit about their enemy. They all fall for the same tricks.
That's why information is the best tactic.
>>354041
flanking
its literally the father of all military tactics (modern tactics like blitzkrieg omitted)
>>359840
But your attention is divided as well.
>>359700
>and why the fuck are they using square shields?
where is it supposed to be and who are they supposed to be figthing? iirc the northumbrians and those who lived farther north used square shields (basically scotts)
ITT: people don't know the difference between terms ''strategic'', ''tactic'' and ''doctrine''
>>354073
English? You serious?
>>359995
Enlighten us, senpai.
Subversion. Make your enemy fight itself.
>>360013
Not him, but my understanding is this:
Strategy = Overall management and distribution of forces and logistics on a theatre-wide scale
Doctrine = Methods of training and the specifics of armament and supply applied to a force in a theatre.
Tactics = The methods a force undertakes in a specific engagement or battle, particularly concerned with the positioning of forces on a battlefield and the orders given to them during an engagement by their officers.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
what's the most basic tactic that worked surprisingly well throughout history?
>>360331
So generals never use tactics.
>>356177
>The Soviets invented defense in depth
The Romans made use of that strategy in their late era tho. The German Siegfried line in the first WW was also an example of defense in depth.
>>360331
I'd say that 'doctrine' is more about principles, beliefs and morals. "No man left behind, minimize casualties at all cost" and "Casualties acceptable and excepted" could be opposing doctrines.
>blitzkrieg
>unstoppable
Logistically unsound
see: Barbarossa
you better be ready with some robust supply lines and limitless resources
>>360372
>you better be ready with some robust supply lines and limitless resources
It's good to be America.
>>360348
Flanking
>>360372
Didn't Rommel once say he didn't need to resupply his force he would just use the enemies resources to resupply and keep on moving forward
>>360369
That's a fair point. I suppose I'd broaden my definition of doctrine to be the overall disposition and codes/methods of conduct for a force, in addition to training and armament.
>>360360
They do when they're playing an active role as an officer on the field. Admittedly, that doesn't happen very often any more, but up until the age of modernized warfare, generals would be actively on the field, employing tactics. Of course, a good general's primary job would have almost have always been establishing a sound strategy and doctrine, while making sure he set up a system of officers with a sound grasp of tactics.
The real German tactical innovation of the Second War wasn't blitzkrieg, it was auftragstaktik, in English known as 'mission command'. It began to develop during wwi. Traditional commanders gave specific orders, ie 'London highlanders attack the vimy ridge at 3:44, moving forward in groups of 5'. Auftragstaktik instead said 'London highlanders; take the vimy ridge'. The importance of this difference cannot be overstated. Of course the Germans lost the first time because of running out of money and the second by fluffing the objectives for barbarossa, but all western armies now use mission command type tactics.
>>354187
Shield walls like that were to protect from archers while advancing.
Realistically it isn't going to stop someone up close. They can all just keep kicking it.
>>354187
what the fuck are those ugly square shields? I never seen anything like that before where they actually used?
>>360426
Assuming his enemies are stupid enough not to burn everything they can't take. Besides you can't use British ammunition in German rifles/tanks, you know.
>>360450
Auftragstaktik didn't appear in WW2. It appeared in 19th century.
Blitzkrieg also wasn't some clearly defined doctrine. It was a propaganda term.
Neither did Germans lay down the concepts of armored warfare, they just implemented them first in a major conflict.
And just to explain to people here, doctrines and tactics don't mean shit, if you don't have the troops and equipment to pull it off. Germans had it all, and areas where they were lacking were well compensated by areas in which they were highly superior. One example: radios in tanks.
Also, every doctrine can be countered.
>>359831
Surface area.
>>360521
>They can all just keep kicking it.
what is that going to acomplish
>>360698
Don't you mean circumference or perimeter?
>>360748
No, I mean that when you flank an opponent you are essentially exposing more of their formation's surface area to attack.
>>354041
>bait
Blitzkreig is a propaganda meme coined by the Allies and nothing more
Wehraboos like it to justify the early successful campaigns as being something more than lucky strikes against unprepared and unmotivated opponents.
Its like a football team that plays cupcake teams for the whole season and claims to have an unstoppable offense, when really, their opponents are just bad at the game. When they come up against a semi competent defense, their offense starts looking incoherent because there really was no mythical "blitzkreig" strategy all along.
>>360798
because France was a "bad" military and the one-month conquest of it wasn't unprecedented, right
call it what you want but it was a new feature
>>360798
That's pretty much every strategy ever then, the real winning tactic is to max out your industry and have a larger, better trained and better equipped army.
>>360798
It was the first truly modern version of combined arms.
deal with it
![latest[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/62zlmi7.jpg "latest[1].jpg")
War wagons were pretty cool
>>360808
They were. Their command structure was absolutely shit and their logistics were fucked.
They got surprised at Sedan because their generals refused to believe recce reports of a giant fucking traffic jam of Germans in the Ardennes. The armored forces they belatedly sent in to stop the German advance at Sedan was so horribly orchestrated that they averaged less than a mile an hour and ended up walking into prepared enemy positions. Morale collapsed absurdly fast, and most of the push to the Channel was unopposed. While the Germans were outnumbered on paper, the French were too slow to mobilize a counterattack to save the encircled forces in Belgium, meaning once they were crushed the Germans held the advantage.
Once Fall Gelb had ended, the French were outnumbered by the Germans and the BEF had been reduced to just a single division that hadn't been at Dunkirk. French morale was shattered before Fall Gelb even ended, and it's a miracle they fought as long as they did given how fast their position deteriorated.
shooting the guy and making him dead
>>354041
Nuclear bombardment.
Joseph "throw people at it until it goes away" Stalin
>>360550
Yes
testudo
>>354099
Not surprisingly, the Nazis who adapted this style also fell after a few years.
>>354371
Im sure murrikans need so many complicated tactics an strategies for their usual enemies.
>army of guys with ak-47, no uniform, helmet, kevlar,planes, helis, missiles or even medical assistance.
VS
>Subs, cariers, sattelites, CIA infiltration, 20 varieties of planes and helis, 10 varieties of armor, 30 varieties of missiles, etc...
>>354041
i used to think that was a great idea until i started playing civilization v, now i just want to see everyone enforcing that cowardly scheme hanged before sunset.
really fuck off, catherine
Flanking > False Retreat > everything else
False retreat a la mongolia
>>359877
Isn't this series about Alfred the great?
>>354054
truth
>>360798
This pic just made me realise
Literally every single successful military tactics are just a bunch of variations of flanking.
It's all just flanking.
>>359811
>not him but the just the basic doctrine of always allowing your opponent a way out
And that sort of common sense is supposed to be more advanced than modern combined arms tactics?
>>360331
Strategy was defined by General Carl von Clausewitz as the lore of the use of battles for the purpose of war while tactics were defined as the lore of commanding troops in battle.
Tactics are about winning battles, strategy is about winning wars.
People confuse this all the time.
