What's easier attacking or defending?
>>78805387
Defending.
Why do you think it's called "home field advantage" and not "unfamiliar land advantage"?.
Defending. However when attacking you have the advantage of retreat. If defending and you start taking heavy losses you're gonna have to fight to the death
attacking your mom's vagina with my dick is pretty easy.
defending my wallet from her thieving hands is not so easy.
>>78805963
Retreat to defend from a different, more defendable and harder to attack position?
>>78805387
>sortieing
>not turtling
Attacking can only be successful when the defenders fail to properly defend themselves.
>>78806771
Lets say you're in a castle and surrounded.
>>78805387
Offensive defense
>>78805387
Attacking. It's harder to both have momentum and impress your will upon the movements and actions of the attacker when you defend.
Defense is a last resort imo
I've you've ever played any game of any kind you'll know that the answer is 'attacking'.
>>78807016
Well, why would you defend in a castle in 2016? Without any support from the outside it means certain destruction. You can still retreat to the upper levels if shit hits the fan tho.
>>78805387
Depends on the weapons being used.
In DoWDC, I loved fighting the Pc 3v1 and seeing how long I could hold out, or even break out. Orks fought to a standstill with me pushed back to the high ground. Ended the game after 2 weeks, they couldn't break my defense but I had no way to strike out. Every time ended in being overrun. Almost took half the map before I was pushed back
Attacking is always easier.
When you attack you dictate the flow of battle. The battle is fought on your terms. If you don't want to fight, then you don't. On defense, you have no such advantage.
This is also extremely obvious if you just take a cursory look at the history book. No one has ever conquered anything by defending the shit out of something and waiting for idiots to fall into their trap. And even if you manage to find an instance where this is true, it is a vastly outnumbered by the instances where a conqueror was the aggressor and crushed people in a swift and decisive attack.
Anyone who argues in the favor of defense is nothing more than a coward.
>>78807684
well generally the enemy will attack if they are sure they are going to win.
>>78807684
Attack
>look for possible weak points
>look for enemy mistakes
>look for good terrain
>look for needed weather
>organize fucktons of troops
>leave some of them back if you fuck up
>more
Defense
>dig a trench, if you cant that means that the enemy will probably be unable or struggle to attack anyway.
>throw troops wherever your enemy has choosen to attack.
Defending is easier, but the attackers typically choose when and where the attack happens.
Because of this the attackers can choose weak spots in the defense's line that would give the attackers an advantage.
>>78806951
>200 B.C. not in the Testudo
>Do you even Legion bro?
>>78809228
>testudo meme
It's always easier to defend in a combat sense.
But if you're attacking it means you are confident and have to advantage in a broader sense.
>current year
>not pillaging the defenders lands so he has to attack you on your terms
>>78809596
>current year
>being a barbarian subhuman
>>78807016
Ever heard of siege tunnels nigga? I mean, as a uk guy you should know that.
Defensive manuevers can result in anywhere from a 1 to 3 force multiplication. So unless you are advantaged 3 to 1 or greater defending will be easier.
>>78809118
For instance, consider two countries with equal armies 1 million strong.
The defenders would have to spread their troops out along the border because if they leave a spot undefended, the attackers could just walk in.
On the other hand, the attacks can concentrate a good portion of their troops on the point of attack.
Also, since WWII artillery, bombers, etc. can make devastating blows to a stationary defensive position before the main attack even starts
>>78807559
That you Hitler?
When equal, defending.
When inferior, defending.
When superior, attacking.
Shit gets tricky when you account modern adventages and disadventages, thousands of factors ranging from terrain, supply to composition and technology, but in general history, defending.
>>78810207
This is retarded, nobody would defent the whole front equally if the enemy only has troops in the single point.
What stopps the defenders from encircling the attacker armies and crushing them?
>>78809228
Pyrhus-Checkmate
>>78810487
I didn't say "all" though.
The attackers just need enough troops at the point of attack to give them an advantage.
The rest of the troops would be spread across the border.
And even though the attackers would have less troops away from the point of attack, it wouldn't be enough to give the defenders an advantage if they were to counter attack.
Say the attackers concentrate 100k at the point of attack, along the rest of the border the defenders would have a power factor of 10 : 9, which is not enough to attack with.
>>78806454
>underage trying to be funny
>>78810207
Monte Casino worked pretty good for the Fallschirmjäger....
Attacking.
You get to pick the when and where, usually.
>>78805387
>Not running down upstart peasants in glorious husaria charge.
>>78811035
Too bad we arrived.
attacking, I literally fight gangwars and being the attack gives you multiple advantages like choosing the terrain, time, location, position of armies etc. Waiting to get attacked in some defensive position is idiocy
In terms of local tactics, defending. You get to stay put and are prepared, other guy has to walk into the lethal shit you've prepared.
In terms of an entire theater, attacking. You want to make the enemy react to what you're doing, so that you can change it faster than they can react and it's no longer the correct response.
This is why attacking is often done by seizing and important area and going "come at me bro". It's also why defending is often done by counter-attacking and cutting off attacking forces.
>>78810920
It doesnt stop the defenders from redirecting soldiers form other parts of the front to the obvious enemy push.
If they know that they basically have the same amount of forces with attackers then nothing would endanger the rest of the front and they are free to move forces away from the safe parts
>>78805387
Defending is generally easier and can be accomplished with fewer men (depending if the position is good and preppared), though the attackers have the advantage of deciding wether or not to push the attack
>>78805523
No wonder your country loses every war nowadays.
>>78805387
>>78805387
"Attacking" only works if you can concentrate numbers against a superior force in mobile warfare, or you have superior forces in static warfare.
"Defending" doesnt work in the modern age, since artillery and air power render static positions useless.
>>78805387
Too many factors to decide, but defending implies a level of entrenchment and familiarity with the local area and landscape, so that.
A clever commander can change all of that though.
>>78811649
Jesus christ modern forces don't defend by fortifying a static position. They defend by waiting until the enemy has advanced into friendly territory, and then doing the same thing they do on offense.
Defense is basically counter-attacking with better preparation and shorter supply lines. Defense is waaaaay easier.
>>78811368
That's where the element of surprise come in.
If the defenders don't know where the attack is going to be, they can't focus their defenses. Since the attackers know where the attack will be, they can focus their attack.
The defense can make logical guesses and focus their defense at areas that make sense, but that still creates the possibility of weak points that the attackers can exploit. Not to mention the difference a couple of hours of artillery can make to a defensive position.
>>78811615
>A surprise attack is easier than a surprise defence
>suprise defense
top kek
>>78805387
Defending
The best offense is defense they say.
>>78811869
Wrong.
Youre using incorrect terminology then.
>>78805387
It depends if they know you're coming. The element of surprise is what gives a manlet with a hammer the ability to KO a 6'4 kickboxer and its what causes an unsuspecting village to be sacked by only a few dozen men. Otherwise defending has the advantage.
>>78812024
If that isn't defense, then what would you call the strategies that NATO prepared to defend Western Europe from Soviet invasion during the Cold War?
>>78805387
depends where you are.
The "Germans" defended againstthe Roman because of the black forest and rivers.
Poland got steam rolled because it was a flat pasture corridor between 2 powers.
Islands were easier to set up controlled borders on ( hence the lucrative and dangerous smuggling trade that developed), planes alter that.
>>78811989
Isn't that just an ambush?
>>78805387
Defending - you most likely get to choose the grounds you fight on
Attacking - it's your designs that the enemy has to react to
All that being said wars weren't won through battles but rather through seiges
>>78805387
>Attack or defence
A surprise attack is easier than a surprise defence
=> thus Attack easier than defence
It depends. Who has more missiles, the attackers or defenders?
>>78805387
I'd say attacking. You have initiative and defenders have to respond to your actions.
Surprise attack > Defence > Attack
>>78812222
The biggest reason why Poland got steam rolled was that you and France prevented Poland from mobilizing its armed forces because you were trying to appease Hitler.
The Germans got 50 miles into Poland before they encountered any resistance.
Medieval times : Defend
Present days : Attack
Now you just press a button and wait for the missiles to fuck shit up
André Maginot vs Heinz Guderian, who won?
Ho Chi Minh vs William Westmoreland, who won?
It's all down to the factors of each side. Arguing one is objectively better than the other is retarded.
>>78805387
Depends on which time period you're in. If you're pre WW1, attacking was mostly a good idea provided they weren't using serious defenses. WW1 obviously defending. WW2 obviously attacking.
>>78805523
Are you talking about fucking American football? Fuck off you stupid burger.
Defending gives you greater intelligence of the battlefield you'll be fighting on, and the advantage of being able to preemptively rally your defenses before an attack can commence. It also allows for fortifications to be put in place and other unfamiliar conditions that can be used to surprise the attackers.
>>78812815
Citation: The Changing Nature of War
Also see: Frederick the Great of Prussia, Napoleon Bonaparte, any book on WW1, and any book on WW2.
>>78812274
A surprise attack is a ambush
A surprise defence is when Italy invades Greece and somehow lost to everyone surprise
>>78805387
It's a proven historical fact that defending is advantageous. The most effective tactics in military history almost all revolved around putting your forces in a strong defensive position on the battlefield even during offensive measures.
Offense is necessary in almost any conflict but defense is certainly preferred.
>>78812731
Frog's got it right
I think it's interesting how many people think about warfare only in an historical context.
Attacking provides the aggressor with greater tactical and strategic flexibility. Being proactive is always preferable to being reactive.
Defenders can't win wars.
>>78812925
Didn't work in Normandy.
>>78805387
Today it's about the same if both sides are good armed. In previous times defense was way easier.
But today there are NO fortifications anymore. Everything can be literally leveled with these dreadful inventions and nothing can prevent it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5NeWG1Goxg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQpxNA-uku4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZQRsUQVSHE
>>78812521
>50 miles propaganda
Dude, we were taken by surprise and yet even civilians in Gdańsk and Bydgoszcz took up arms against them from the very start.
The funny thing is that we actually stopped the german attacks and the first major battle was the battle of Mokra (Check out Bzura, Wizna and Westerplatte, along with defence of Poczta Polska too) Stop spewing shit on my country if you dont know anything, you murican turd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mokra
>>78805387
Defend of course
>>78805387
defending
england just built a wall across the entrire country to keep us scots out
>>78813171
A FUCKING LEAF
See:
>>78812815
>>78813032
>A proven historical fact.
Your education system is almost as bad as fucking burgerland.
>>78812765
what?
Guderian won by default, since Maginot's creation didn't make it to where the battle actually was, on account of being fixed
Ho Chi Minh won by default, on account of Westmoreland being ordered to pack up and go home
there is no relativity there, you are retarded.
>>78810418
Shhh. Noo. Nope.
Chaos marines was diffrent. Only a week, but finally fell after they sent all demons on me. Normally held it back, but lucky fucks took out my Orbital relay. Launched a final strike on their home bases with assault marines, and took out 1.5 of the 3 enemy based
>>78813338
Mokra is well within the Polish border, idiot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokra,_Silesian_Voivodeship
>>78813239
Good job anon. Someone's been reading Napoleon or Frederick the Great.
Still, it doesn't apply to all time periods.
>>78810004
>>78813338
Fuck the past, today you have the strongest army in EU because american jews destroyed other countries from inside.
>>78805387
If we are speaking In purely pre-modern warfare then defending Is easier, assuming the defenders are in a decently defensible place. Attacking almost always results In greater casualties as well as much more supplies used. Sieges for the most part are bad ideas and should only be done when there Is no other option.
All if this shit went out the window with the invention of airplanes and bombs though.
>>78813795
50 miles is 80 kilometres you fucking dumb fuck.
Check out fights in Bydgoszcz, Westerplatte and defence of Poczta Polska in Gdańsk.
>>78813818
To be real with you commited sepukku without honorable thing going on by inviting turks, and saying something about other countries presented on the upper side of the pic will waste my time.
>>78813283
Offense didn't work in Russia. You can cite individual examples of failed offenses and defenses all day, it means nothing without context.
>>78813432
>A FUCKING LEAF
Not an argument.
Above all else you need to consider the context, but defense still generally comes out on top even in modern war UNLESS there is a massive unbalance between the capabilities of two force, in which case the stronger force wins in almost any scenario
For examples of successful defense in modern war just look at the Korean War, or the Iran-Iraq War, you can even see it in the Syrian Civil War. All these wars had fairly balanced forces on each side and the defenders won (or seem to have won) all of them.
>>78805387
>What's harder attacking or defending ?
Ask the guys at Omaha or any other people who tried to take fortified positions.
>>78805387
If it's anything like playing paint ball or laser tag as a kid defending is easier in most situations.
Unless you're Patton or that group who started OP Restrepo.
>>78814073
> you commited sepukku
It were jews.
>>78814073
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bydgoszcz
again, well into the Polish border
Also don't come at me with lousy Euro-units.
>>78805387
Artillery
>>78805387
Strategically - Defending
>Defenders get to decide where battles will be fought and how to mount a resistance. Attackers are stuck in foreign land with what they've brought with them.
Tactically - attacking
>Attackers get to force the fight into one that is amenable to them. They have all the energy and aggression
>>78814546
>Polish girl pictured as the fat one.
Really nigga
>>78812024
>i tried to sound like a badass armchair general and got caught
Defense has and will always be a natural advantage in war.
>>78814560
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bydgoszcz
Oh god fucking damn it, you are so stupid. Check the borders from 1939, it was the border city with germans.
swallowing
>>78814826
But she is really polish, the flags were NOT changed. Besides, she is not obese, just wide af and a bit chubby.
>>78815170
A shame. She has grube dupsko, and she should work on those thighs and ass. And yeah, she has a nice face.
>>78811332
it's also why managing to force your enemy's hand into pursuing an attack you KNOW to be hopeless is the nastiest trick a general can ever pull
"Vincibility lies in the attack. Invincibility lies in the defense." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War
but what the fuck does he know
>>78805387
It depends on the time period and objective.
Previously it would pretty much be defense all the way.
In modern times, attackers have a firepower advantage and we don't really have defenses to keep up with the insane weapons we have.
But that's assuming the goal is to obliterate a defined and defending enemy, if the enemy is too spread out to isolate then they can sit around with some form of minimal Resistance for basically ever.
>>78805387
Ambush attack is easiest. You might call it a Blitzkreig in modern lingo.
Defense of the high ground is next easiest.
>>78807684
>No one has ever conquered anything by defending the shit out of something and waiting for idiots to fall into their trap.
France occupied Germany at the end of WW1
>>78814941
>Rushing headfirst into tanks with horses
>calls others stupid
top kek
>>78815930
I know you're baiting but that never happened and is a common misconception
>>78805387
With few exceptions, defending is easier. Home field advantage and all that.
You could make case by case exceptions on some things like a siege of an individual township or castle-- but in general the side defending its home is at the advantage.
>A generally higher fervency for defending their home land, their wives, their children
>More intimate knowledge of the land, places to lie in wait and ambush, unmarked roads and trails, traps
>Generally sympathy and support from the people you are defending at home. Easier to find men and material.
>Easier to replace losses
The list goes on. There's a historical reason why, in general, you need a larger force to assault than you do to defend. Fortification is a bitch.
>>78815316
There is nothing bad in moderately big ass, she can easily give birth to healthy triplets.
>>78815930
That's your argument you stupid murican? You literally got roasted when you fucked up geography and political borders of 1939. You are baiting now since you are pissed, and you are just dumb fuck. You should be ashamed and should proxy to some fucking egypt or some shit, to not ashame the flag you have beside your post. So long, motherfucker
>>78806454
18+
>>78816101
Pear shaped asses are great, but this one is fat.. i mean just look at those thighs..
>>78816101
Why is America speaking Spanish?
Is that from the future?
>TFW when your British fighting in North Africa and your "counter attack" gets hit with 88s used for anti armour for the first time.
>>78816437
Spanish is their second official state language.
>>78816575
No it isn't, it's just the 2nd most common language.
>>78817045
This it must be. I mean if 20% speak it, you can't ignore it.
>>78805387
Depends on the situation and the level of command really
As a soldier/small unit is easier to defend
On Grand Strategy level is harder to defend because the defence plan is getting really complicated and "static"
What basically happens is the Defendant sacrifices the advantage of Initiative for the advantage of choosing the battleground.
While the advantage of choosing the battleground and using fortifications is pretty obvious lets have a look at the initiative
The Defendant is pretty much laying a pretty obvious strategy in plain sight while the Agressors strategy is unknown to the Defendant until the attack starts
This means that as a Defendant you have to take into account every possible strategy before it happens and this really limits your options
That tends to make defencive strategies less versatile and therefore more fragile
I would say that it really depends to the situation, the troops capabilities and the commanders, although the Aggressors job looks easier to me if you have properly trained troops
>>78817333
> then it must be
Defending
see: usa in the pacfic and Vietnam
Sure the US took islands from the japs but without taking heavy losses due to their fortifications
>>78819221
>Muh KDA
The objective was to take the islands and they did
Ergo the defence failed and the aggressor won
>>78811649
Part of the reason people like trump. He's supposedly more for national defense than destabilizing the world. And he wants to put down Isis instead of treating them like useful idiots without understanding that the fuckers are literally attempting to take over the world
Remember the Alamo, motherfuckers.
Attack. Chess teaches us this. Specifically the relationship between material, tempo and quality.
Material is the size of your attacking force, tempo is the speed which you can gather an attack and quality is the strategic positioning of your forces.
Kasparov would routinely sacrifice material to gain tempo and quality. This gave his games attacking impetus and made him world champion. He was unrelenting in moving his pieces into attacking positions and harrying the opponents King.
Why do the cucks always say the same thing on the news " We have to get it right everytime (defense), they just have to get it right once ( offense)." Insert ___ government defense organization of the USA.
>>78805387
7 types of ground faggot
It's pretty situational, but I'd say offense edges out defense (especially in modern times)
WW2 relied on proper attack techniques
Iraq and Afghanistan were more successful when rooting out jihadis rather than waiting for them
the greatest military minds have debated this question for all of history, we really don't know
Attacking ALWAYS has the advantage. Defending leads to turtling. Then you can be surrounded and starved to death.
Attacking gives you the surprise advantage.
Every attack exposes new flaws in the defense and wears it down. It's only a matter of time better before a weakness is exposed. That's why I hate defending in games because I know it's only a matter of time before shit goes sideways.
The only thing defending has is higher ground and defense preparations. But those are always worn down and are really just stalling. See the mongol invasions of china's fortresses.
>>78810207
Good point on the strategic level burger. Cue feints trying to draw away defenses from the actual intended breach point and the attacker watching out for being cut off from friendlies while on the attack.
>>78809228
Thats not testudo.
It was mostly done while attacking/advancing. You wouldn't need it as much defending since your skirmishers could just kill enemy skirmishers as they advance with a small wall of shields like in your pic to throw the balance off in your favor.
>>78815535
Tl;dr
>>78810010
Modern combat rule of thumb is always attack 3 to 1. One m249 and one m16 Should be able to defend against a 8 to 12 enemy comfortably (litterally one trench) so is also depends on what is available and the force multipliers availabe.
>>78819969
kasparov was also shrekt by some dumb box that was literally min-maxing its defense based on expected materiel value
defense wins unless 3:1 local superiority
there is no room to go operational-level on a chessboard, it's all tactics
Counter attacking.
>>78805387
It depends on the nature of the engagement. Tactically and strategically, offense is almost always superior, due to being able to dictate the terms of a battle in your favor, rather than being reactionary. The only real advantages of defense are in fortified positions that take advantage of terrain both natural or man-made to impede direct assault; Or in situations where a commander has strategically baited a force into an offense under false pretense(Such as an ambush, for example, or to draw a force into over-extension that degrades their ability to properly deploy and/or support their force.)
I think most would agree, though, if one is able to perform offense within acceptable potential losses, they would. Strategy is much easier when you take the initiative, rather than react.
Historically it really depended on the land and the whether, all things being equal it's the attacker's advantage, dictating the terms of engagement, but the problem is you have to GET somewhere before you attack it and getting there can be the death of you.
>>78812313
>battles
>what is Thermopylae
>>78807151
You actually think attacking is easier than defending in Total War? On the defensive you get to choose the best landscape, set up ambushes and simply wait for the enemy to come to you.
>>78822476
Good lad, but don't forget the Battle of Marathon where the Greeks went on the attack and won against a numerically superior force.
It comes down to terrain, troop quality and availability.
>>78805387
Obviously defending, or people would just be attacking each other all the time and succeeding. A good offense is much more more difficult and expensive to mount than a defense.
>>78805387
Go read The Art of War by Sun Tzu.
>>78805387
Attacking.
You get three dice.
>>78820455
>Calling anyone a cuck
Bitch, please.
>>78822740
Nail on the head.
Greeks knew that the same soldiers they sent to die were plowing the fields in the spring and harvesting in fall so without proper training and mindset they'd soon lose the country. Slaves make terrible soldiers as moral and training take a shit. Plus the persians were stupid for terrain.
>>78823995
Greeks also realised that the Persian cavalry were not there so they seized the opportunity to get a battle without having to face the Persian horses
>>78805963
Tactical retreat you fool
>>78805387
Depends on who has air superiority/surpemacy.
>>78825553
>Tactical retreat
Its called "Advancing towards an alternative direction" pham
