Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 73
Thanks Tree28Thanks

Thread: What are the best tactics in war??

  1. #31
    Veteran Member bonehead's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    14,189
    Thanks
    5252

    From
    south
    Quote Originally Posted by meridian5455 View Post
    No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

    George S. Patton

    Best advice ever!
    as I recall, his pick of best tactician was Alexander the Great.

  2. #32
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    65,069
    Thanks
    30474

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaragunudgeyon View Post
    I just can't see other arabs defeating them. be a damned miracle.
    Why do you say that?

  3. #33
    Throbbing Member Missle Command Champion johnflesh's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    18,619
    Thanks
    8732

    From
    Colorado
    Learning when to fight and when not to.

  4. #34
    Veteran Member bonehead's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    14,189
    Thanks
    5252

    From
    south
    Quote Originally Posted by johnflesh View Post
    Learning when to fight and when not to.
    yes. the second of those is the most difficult to execute.
    Thanks from johnflesh

  5. #35
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,070
    Thanks
    5505

    From
    Here
    Not to have one...



    Quote Originally Posted by Detective Mike Logan View Post
    i'm obsessed with the concept of military strategy and tactics in warfare? how comes sometimes an army of 200 men can defeat an army of 1000 men. are some ethnic groups more Spartan-like and genetically disposed to fighting wars??? no one is foolish enough to believe that. the answer must like in TACTICS!!

    everyone knows the germans had the best tactics in world 1 and 2 before they we're eventually overpowered by the cold Russian winter, sheer weight of numbers and overwhelming U.S technological supremacy. also how did we defeat napoleon? how did the visgoths defeat the romans? the afghans defeated the russians. even the Vietnamese defeated the americans in the Vietnam war- how so u might ask? THE ANSWER = TACTICS.

    its the only logical explanation. just like some football managers are excellent tacticians on the pitch some commanders excel when it comes to tactics and in-the-moment innovations on the battlefield. lets have a little discussion about tactics, strategy, strategic ports, communications etc......

    and who were the best battlefield stratgegists in military history? and indeed why were they so and what numerical odds did they overcome.

  6. #36
    Throbbing Member Missle Command Champion johnflesh's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    18,619
    Thanks
    8732

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    yes. the second of those is the most difficult to execute.
    Aye. It serves opportunists well.

  7. #37
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,633
    Thanks
    264

    In general

    1) Superior numbers are better. Unless one side has a staggering technological advantage that allows their numbers to be force multiplied (fight like greater numbers).

    2) In general, surprise is one of the best ways to win a war.

    3) Dictatorships do a better job preparing for war. But the more democratic a nation is it tends to do better as the fighting goes on.

    4) Good tactics can save bad strategy but good strategy can't save bad tactics.

    5). Tactics are all well and good but almost all wars are decided on logistics. Getting there first with the most.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Zaragunudgeyon's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,277
    Thanks
    521

    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    Why do you say that?
    They don't really care.. there is no will... a great number of them probably cheer ISIS on for fucking with the west and making Islam look powerful.

    Saudi Arabia could defeat them alone if they really cared... but they do not.

  9. #39
    Established Member Redwood's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6,788
    Thanks
    4349

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by johnflesh View Post
    If you can hit the enemy, they can hit you.

    Not a tactic but surely useful.
    Not always so. In the Gulf War... Abrams tanks totally wiped out large groups of Iraqi T-72's. The T-72 can't move while shooting accurate;y at 100-2000 meters. The DU Sabot rounds the M-1 fires... will destroy a t-72 The ammo the T-72 uses can only kill the Abrams under "ideal" conditions. However... in Kuwait..there's no cover. You can't set an ambush or sneak up close.Consider also A-10 Warthogs in that war. They pretty much could attack and desroy whatever they wanted to. The Iraqi's could not do much about it.

  10. #40
    Established Member Redwood's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6,788
    Thanks
    4349

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    Losing was an awesome tactic.
    German Generals were good at Tactics.. but Hitler was a moon who thought he was a genius. he often butted in..screwed up the strategies. hitler would not allow any "strategic withdraw" so.. knowing that, the Russians would surround whole German Armies.. and there would be over 100,000 killed or captured. You can't DO that all the time and win. We had trouble in wars in horrid environments and fighting guerillas often hard to locate. Even more... at some point it's logical to say...this shit ain't worth it.The Japanese were screwed once the US had the sea and the Air. Japan had isolated island garrisons with no retreat option.

    Something I notice.. a LOT of wars really have some odd quirks. WWI? It had updated tech and outdated strategy. WWII? Japan was done once the US had the sea and skies. Japan had scattered garrisons on islands.. and plan A was ..everyone dies, They had no plan B. Germany......Hitler was a major dumbfuck who made WAY too many enemies. His out of control ego.. doomed Germany.

    The USA easily thumped Saddam's military.. but....bad choices by political guys.. led to a long.futile war against hit and run terrorist types. We were outsiders who never understood a thing about the culture.

    Isreal vs whatever? Isreal is damn efficient. They..AIM. You need to aim to hit anyone. They don't quit. It's worked well. The LAST war...with Hamas.. Hamas seemed to have a strategy based on getting their OWN people killed. Hamas barely killed ANY Israelis. Isreal.. could have killed as many people as they wanted. Being NASTY... is not a big plus if you are stupid.

    you need logistics, supplies. N Korea makes noise.. but without food and fuel.. they can't sustain any assault. You need leadership. Isreal beat superior numbers, several times. Home field advantage sure helps. The Vietnamese only had to be PERSISTANT. They beat the French..and we stepped in as "more outsiders" ... and no matter what.. they never quit. It was not worth it to the US to fight a 10 year war. The US Civil War? The South eventually..was running out of everything. Early.. the North lacked the good generals.. but figured that out. Then...the south had no economy..worthless money. They had an Army that was short on everything.

    US Revolution? Sort of like Vietnam. LONG distances and a war of attrition. England.. had other stuff..enemies, other Empire. A few setbacks and the Redcoats were ready to bail.

    The Decline+ Fall of the Roman Empire? By the end...Romans were lazy, decadent and expected mercenaries to do the fighting..and slaves to do the work. the quality of leadership? It got UGLY. For awhile Rome bribed potential enemies.. but then that failed.

    Napoleon? Pretty clever but... he failed to see his limitations. Like McArthur in Korea.. he wanted MORE.. overestimated himself.. and undersetimated the effects of a brutally cold winter. At least MANY Americans escaped the cold hell of Chosin... almost NONE of Napoleon's once great army escaped Russia,many starved..froze, got clubbed to death by local peasents. Napoleon? He abandoned them and fled.

    Murphy's law? Maybe don't invade Russia if you can't handle the winter, can't supply the army? OFTEN.....a war..or major battle.. has a lot to do with logistics..supplies. Don't get over-extended. You want to be aggressive.. but realistic. For Lee.. Gettysburg was a sink or swim. He'd been on a roll, but lost..and that ended the Rebels.

    The Nazis took an even more desperate move..the Battle of The Bulge. They had surprise at first. They wanted to punch a hole, blitz to Antwerp and take that important port. The 101 Airborne.. held Bastogne.. a company of Engineers blocked the run to Antwerp...then.. the skies cleared and Allied fighters slammed the Nazis Desperate move but it started well..then failed.
    Last edited by Redwood; 29th August 2015 at 07:35 PM.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Hamas tactics
    By Conservative15 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 8th January 2009, 08:34 PM
  2. CIA's torture tactics
    By davisjr1990 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 438
    Last Post: 27th February 2008, 05:39 AM
  3. What are the best tactics in War??
    By the intellect in forum World History
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 26th May 2007, 03:39 AM
  4. Scare Tactics
    By davisjr1990 in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 11th April 2007, 01:16 PM
  5. The Tactics of BIG Military
    By MBuchanan84 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 4th September 2006, 01:07 PM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed