What is in your opinion a great war strategy employed by a country in a war. Tell us about a great strategic war plan carried out in battle and how it helped that side win the battle even if they didn't win the war. Any country, any war.

of course the Blitzkrieg
if can move your units faster than your enemy - you have a real big advantage

The war of troy and greece.
and the infamous Trojan hoarse

My personal fav. is quite simply the Soviet method, so much crap you simply cannot beat em.

It would be nice if you expanded upon them.

The war of troy and greece.
and the infamous Trojan hoarse

A stupid question for which I never found an answer...was this true?..actually happened?

they´ve never found the horse ( but they found troy )

legend has it that horse was made of wood. Being that the city of troy was made of stone and its falling appart I dont think there is any chance of finding a wood horse that is that old.

I think the best strategy to win wars is to control the water and the air more then the ground. For instance the naval blockade of Germany almost destroyed the country (WWI), and then you had the height of the wolf packs in 1942 where the British were really losing the Atlantic fast. I think the nuclear attacks on Japan could have been thwarted by a naval blockade of Japan. But which one is more ethical? Starving ppl into submission or burning them into a crisp? The US has shown time and again that air dominance is the key to winning a modern war. There is no nation of earth that comes close to American air dominance, only Russia could ever really mount a defense/offence close to that of the United States. Look at Kosovo for instance, and Iraq, much was done with aircraft. Now I understand that these forms of military tactics are not the “be all end all”, but they are vital for any military victory. Boots in the mud or by the current tinge of things, in the sand are the confirmation of that victory. A navy or air force does not hold the ground. To me what will be very interesting will be an almost it seems inevitable war with North Korea and the United States. The US will possibly win, but I know that NK will inflict so much damage that it could determine the course of military history for a while to come.

The war of troy supposable happened as the ruins of the city were found. If Homer made up the tactic of the Trojan Hoarse or not is unproven, no remains of a giant wooden hoarse have been found, nor should they as the wood would have rotted away.

With modern technology you could theoretically defeat a country without firing a shot:

1.) Television and radio messages: In recent times, the US feeds propaganda messages to the televisions of enemy citizens: "Surrender now" "We are the US military and we will save you and you family if you...". This sort of pyschological war breaks the will of the people. Countries with the right technology can actually control all media.

2.) Computer virus: With the right virus, a country could be shutdown completely: all computer systems can be scrambled and all power can be lost.

3.) Mind control: Tests show that with small amounts of EM stimulation, the brain is open to near subliminal suggestions from a nearby observer. This works on individual test subjects, but could be perfected on a massive scale.

The funny part is that if the first two occur, the chaos could be controlled by mind control. I look foward to these Orwellian weapons, they will certainly be amusing

I know that the US tried these Electronic messages in Iraq, and even in Afghanistan. They haven't proved to be extremely effective as of yet, the whole premise of these things to work is to have a population that is actually willing to conform to x nations demands. I think these technologies have a lot further to go before they become very effective.

As for Computer Virus' I couldn't agree with you more, and consider that North Korea is estimated to have a hacker team.

hehe I kind of like the strategy the Russians used against Napoleon and Hitler. My basic impression of both wars is like this
Russians "Oh no were being invaded run away"
Invaders "Fear my supperior strategy that streaches my supply lines thin"
Russians "Well looks like winters coming, you think they like guerrilla warfare?"

What is in your opinion a great war strategy employed by a country in a war. Tell us about a great strategic war plan carried out in battle and how it helped that side win the battle even if they didn't win the war. Any country, any war.

Let's drop da bomb and look at the beautiful mushroom clouds. No one can beat that.

I would say the best American victory came in the Kosovo war. Our Great leader William Clinton created a plan to defeat Miloshovec with a minnimum of casualties. In the face of all of the military pundants who said that a war could not be fought strictly from the air his plan did not use any ground troops; the enemy was defeated and there wer no battle related casualties on the American side. Casualities on the Serbian side were limited and even damage to the infastructure of serbia was limited.

Kosovo was an important military victory because it was the first war in history that was fought totally from the air, and won from the air.

"2.) Computer virus: With the right virus, a country could be shutdown completely: all computer systems can be scrambled and all power can be lost."

True, but this would have a greater effect on some nations more than others. I bet computer Virus' scare the Afghanis shitless.

The Mexican-American war must have had some interesting strategy to it. We totally kicked their asses. I don't know why we didn't take all of Mexico, instead of just half of it. Crazy bastards.

tanking all of mexico woulda created severe problems.
But taking half the less populated half was much easier
also incorporating it was easier.

Although I dont know if Us took all of mexico most of them
might have been expulted to central america after cultural
clashes ensued woulda been probably reduced to native
american status and treated accordingly

Hannibal during his Italian campaign. Tricking far superior Roman forces to play his game, luring legions that outnumbered him 2-1 on the battlefield into situations where he had the advantage by using skirmishers to lead the legions across rivers then fall on them, and other times letting his infantry become surrounded by the legions then having his calvary surround them in turn and counterattacking with the infantry. He destroyed 60,000 of a Roman army of 70,000 men in one major battle, and destroyed several legions over the course of his campaign.

And kudos to Fabius Maximus in turn for realizing that the key to defeating Hannibal was to keep his legions in tact and run Hannibal all around the lower Italian peninsula while staying between the Carthagenean army and Rome, and when it looked like they were going to engage making sure you got the good piece of ground, all the while buring the countryside, starving the Carthageneans. Proving that the legions could stay in tact kept the majority of those Italian cities from siding with Hannibal.

What about Hannibal's elephants?

Zhuge Liang's wooden oxen. Pang Tong's plot at Chi Bi. Zhang Liao's defense of He Fei castle. Zhang Liao (?)'s assault on Jingzhuo. Liu Bei's plot at Yiling. Zhuge Liang's campaign into Nanman territory.

Just a few...

What about Hannibal's elephants?

What about them? He only started across the Alps with 34 of them, and most died during the crossing. He had little success with the remaining few against the disciplined legions, nothing like he had against tribal forces on the Iberian peninsula. I think of the few that made it across the Alps, all but one or two were supposedly killed off at the battle of Trebbia by the Romans.

I thougth that there was a reasonable line between tactics and strategy. Tactis being the small field stuff you use to win, after the strategy has commited you to battle in a certain area or for a certain target.
Apparently gallipoli was nearly a good strategy, but undermined by the eejit in charge, who let the turks take over the nearby hills.

Yeah I like the Russian strategy too, but I think it goes more like this: "Oh no, the invaders are coming, let's burn down our own cities and run."

What is in your opinion a great war strategy employed by a country in a war. Tell us about a great strategic war plan carried out in battle and how it helped that side win the battle even if they didn't win the war. Any country, any war.

This was a war between India and Pakistan. I'm not aware which one it was, since 3 were fought. Anyway, India had rolled in Pakistan in tanks at night. They were hoping that by morning Pakistan would left defenseless. However, ti didn't work out that way. Many Pakistanis went to the nearly depot and armed themselves with explosives. As the tanks rolled it, the Pakistanis laid themselves under the tank and exploded. This was a very effective method because India had not anticapted this and because of this, it helped Pakistan win the war.

the Battle of Thermopylae

480 B.C. - 300 Spartans fought the Persian army of more than one MILLION men and suceeded in holding them off for days and slaughtering thousands before being stabbed in the back and out flanked. Though they all died, they held off the huge army long enough for the Athenians to reorganize.

errmm, I dont think it would have been a million men. Maybe ten thousand.
What was the spartans brilliant strategy/ tactic? was it holding a narrow place so only a few could come at them at once? Or were they just relaly really good fighters?

...most estimates that I have read put the Persian army at about 200,000 to 250,000. For what it's worth.

:m: Peace.

the Battle of Thermopylae

480 B.C. - 300 Spartans fought the Persian army of more than one MILLION men and suceeded in holding them off for days and slaughtering thousands before being stabbed in the back and out flanked. Though they all died, they held off the huge army long enough for the Athenians to reorganize.
Wasn't The Last Samurai based on this?

What was the spartans brilliant strategy/ tactic? was it holding a narrow place so only a few could come at them at once?

I heard that the war was fought in a brutal terrian so the men hid and came out to slaughter and ran away to hide again.

I heard that the amount of men was about 100,000-250,000. It was impossible to have a million man army even today located on a small, jagged piece of land like Greece, the logistical problems would be emmense. But the Greek victory was truly a act of Zeus, and fundamentally changed world history forever. Western culture wouldn't exist today.

The most consistent number I've seen is 150,000 Persians. And the 300 Spartans didn't hold them for days, it was hours. It was an Athenian army of about 10,000. They retreated in front of the advancing Persians into the pass then turned and held the better ground in the narrow confines so the Persians couldn't use their overwhelming numbers. They held the Persians at bay for 4 days, including Xerxes best troops, the Immortals. When they learned that a force was being led through another pass to cut them off, the Spartan general (his name escapes me now, something like Thermosticles [sp?]), asked the 300 Spartans to temporarily hold the pass so that the main army could get out, which they did, but I really don't think it was more than a matter of hours.

The Persian wars was decided on the naval battle afterwards, in which the Greeks masterfully destroyed the Persians, and lead to the retreat of Xeres back to Persia effectively ending the war. Now the question is what was the name of that stupid naval battle?

Wasn't it Salamis?

Now this is weird territory for me to tread upon, but Spyke, I thought the Spartans actually held the gap overnight. Something I read, or watched on THC talked about them actually bedding down for the night and leaving their perimeter guard ready to sound the alarm if the Persians attacked again. But I'm not going to be able to swear to that.

What I do remember is hearing that it was a Greek that showed the Persians what was basically a goat trail that led up and over the gap to the other side, enabling the Persians to send some troops to engage the backside of the Spartan force.

Regardless, it has to go down as one the most incredible defensive moves in the history of warfare. The Spartans were a sick and brutal people in many regards, but they no one can ever question there valor in battle. Simply amazing.

Wasn't it Salamis?

Oui, thank you. Yes the Persians I believe had 300 ships, but the Greeks had a great general, and better ships (due to Greece's reliance on the Aegean) around 100 if I am not mistaken? Athens was lalready sacked when the naval battle happened believe it or not. That was the deciding battle of the war, if the Greeks lost the Battle of Salamis then they wouldn't have been able to settle in Italy to re-start. And Greece would merely become a province of the Persian empire, and the greats like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pericles, etc. wouldn't have even been a blip on the map. We owe our society to those valiant Greeks.

my war knowlege is based on video games and tv so take this with a grain of salt but it seems simple.

Do whatever it takes to truly understand and know your enemy and everything else is easy.

was it 250,000 soldiers or total? i was amazed at the 1,000,000 number but accepted it as the entire army, including support troops which must have been incredible for 250,000 soldiers.

the spartan army held them for at least 2 days

Now this is weird territory for me to tread upon, but Spyke, I thought the Spartans actually held the gap overnight. Something I read, or watched on THC talked about them actually bedding down for the night and leaving their perimeter guard ready to sound the alarm if the Persians attacked again. But I'm not going to be able to swear to that.

They may have very well bedded down overnight after the main body of the Greek army started its retreat when they got word of the betrayal, but from what I've read, and from a recent THC documntary, the 300 Spartans under Leonidas held for a short while before being overwhelmed. Remember, it's not like they suddenly found themselves trapped and fought to the end. Leonidis learned of the betrayal far enough in advance to start the main body of the Greek army out of the pass, and left the Spartans as part of a rear guard to buy time. The 300 Spartans were actually only part of a rear guard that included a couple of thousand Thespians and Thebans, who supposedly all fought furiously, knowing they had been sacrificed. The Spartans at the end retreated to a small hill and circled, refused to surrender and fought to the last man. The Persians, rather than close with them, simply picked them off in a steady barrage of arrows.

Yeah I like the Russian strategy too, but I think it goes more like this: "Oh no, the invaders are coming, let's burn down our own cities and run."

I think they destroyed their crops too. The only thing worse than being cold is being cold and slowly starving to death with a bad case of dysentary/influenza.

"Oh no, the invaders are coming, let's burn down our own cities and run."

i don´t think they ran away , otherwise germany wouldn´t have had that great number of russian pows

they´ve never found the horse ( but they found troy )


No... "they" didn't.

Schliemann was a thief and a fool. He discovered nothing but his gold.

Homer's Troy, Virgil's Illion, never existed.

If you doubt my word, read the Illiad or the Aeneid sometime; compare the lofty walls of beauteous Illium, walls built by Posiedon and Apollo themselves, with the lowly tell that ignorant men now call "Troy".



The Mexican-American... I don't know why we didn't take all of Mexico, instead of just half of it. Crazy bastards.


The Gadsen Purchase?

That wasn't even close to "half," if I remember correctly.

If you want to know why though, it's because we felt sorry for them.

They never had a chance, Pollux. There was no "good" strategy on Blackjack's part.

the Battle of Thermopylae

That is a good one.

What was the name of the Spartan commander? Leonides, was it?

Well... I remember that the Persians even sent their "Immortals" against the Spartan phalanx. They were cut to shreds like the rest.

Pretty cool.


I myself can't really think of any great battles but I suppose the greatest general of the ancient world was probably Belisarius.
He was the guy that nearly retook the entire Western Empire from the barbarians (for Justinian).
I think that it was only after his death that it all degenerated again.

hmmm ... i just wanted to answer rappacini .... but the topics name is brilliant war strategy , so i´ll have to make it via pm :(
anyway , i have a link for those who are interested
http://webcampus3.stthomas.edu/paschons/language_http/essays/schliemann.html

The Gadsen Purchase?

That wasn't even close to "half," if I remember correctly.

The Gadsden Purchase was only about 45,000 square miles of territory, and came after the Mexican-American war. Pierce only wanted it as a possible route for the transcontinental railroad. I think Pollux was talking about the Mexican territory that is present-day New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Nevada and California.

If you want to know why though, it's because we felt sorry for them.

Nah, at the time, Manifest Destiny didn't call for acquiring new land that was already heavy populated. While a few southern Democrats wanted it to expand cotton lands, and slavery, most other Americans wanted nothing to do with it.

They never had a chance, Pollux. There was no "good" strategy on Blackjack's part.

Pershing came about 70 years too late to be involved in that war. He was simply chasing Pancho Villa around the Southwest in 1916.

Well, I have a bias toward this war, but one of my favorite stories of valor in battle comes from the War of Northern Agression, and surprisingly, it's a Yankee that I am in awe of. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, a teacher by trade, a soldier by conscience. The man exhibited sublime leadership skills in battle in the face of terrifying adversity, and exhibited grace and humility in victory. A true citizen soldier to the end. His strategy is nothing of great innovation, but the execution was superb, and clearly his role in the battle at Gettysburg is a key to the North checking the South's momentum.

Oh yeah! Blackjack was Pershing... not Zachary Taylor... :bugeye:

As for all that land... I think I remember the treaty now... but that wasn't half either... was it?

Don't know if the Mexicans ceded exactly half of Mexico, but it was definitely a large chunk of land.

http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/mex-war/mex-war-map.jpg

Find a small tribe, teach it some form of worship, provide the places & rules for worship then have your way with anything you want - it works & you dont have to risk your men's lives in a fight. THis may not seem as strategy to some but what is it if not a way to infiltrate an otherwise hostile, unknown enemy.

Actually Homer did NOT make up the "Trojan Horse"- in fact he doesn't even mention it! The "Trojan Horse" first appears in the Aeneid by Virgil, long after Homer.

Is that so? It's been so long since I read the Illiad... I'll have to check myself.

Well, I have a bias toward this war, but one of my favorite stories of valor in battle comes from the War of Northern Agression, and surprisingly, it's a Yankee that I am in awe of. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, a teacher by trade, a soldier by conscience. The man exhibited sublime leadership skills in battle in the face of terrifying adversity, and exhibited grace and humility in victory. A true citizen soldier to the end. His strategy is nothing of great innovation, but the execution was superb, and clearly his role in the battle at Gettysburg is a key to the North checking the South's momentum.

Ah, the famous charge that defeated the Confederates at Gettysburg. That truly is an inspiring story.

AmishRakeFight

i'm going to have to say eygpts performance durring the opening of the ramadan war.
Gen Shazely estimated over 10,000 casulties of the suez, he maintained only a few hundred. secondly, the immediate repulsion counter attack from Gen. Bar-lev, the use of saggers and the SAM sheild.

Shooting all the bison herds on the American Plains--no bison, no Indian resistance, or at least, much less able to resist without a food supply.

Actually, it occurred to me that if the Chinese wanted to conquer Russia, they could send troops up to their mutual border, and drag Russian troops into a border war. Then send 100,000,000 troops across the northern regions of Kazarkstan, around the south of the Urals, and sweep up north to capture the whole of Siberia, closing all the Ural passes. After that, Russia's in deep shite--no oil, gas, or much less than they've become used to.

Mongols use of massive mobile troops and their horses made them the largest empire in history.

What is in your opinion a great war strategy employed by a country in a war. Tell us about a great strategic war plan carried out in battle and how it helped that side win the battle even if they didn't win the war. Any country, any war.
The Blitz. One of the best, most effective, and simple plans.
Strike and keep striking 'till there's nothing left to strike.

Also, the mongol's "annihilate EVERYTHING in our way that doesn't surrender." Always an excellent short-range battle plan.

Best tactic?
bomb the hell out of the country. go for Civilian resources, goverment symbols and offices and millitary bases. Once youve made the country barren, roll through whats left with heavy armor and choppers. Then once reisistance is eradicated bring in the foot soliders. Then do a house to house sweep and tell them this. "Swear allegiance to the XXX (country there) or die" if they say no shoot the in the head if they say yes let them live but make sure to put a barcode on em.

I'll give you a situation in WWII and outline some key fundamental aspects of it to give you an example of the perfect modern combat tactic

When german troops were crossing the border from Belgium into France during WWII, Nazi commanders decided that they didn't want to get into a boxing match with Allied forces. A quick victory was what they wanted. The Allied commanders assesd the front such that the lower eastern part at Arlon forrest was inaccessible to Mechanized and Armoured forces, subsequently they decided not to place a large contingent of troops there.
The German forces launched an offensive on the northern part of the front, in order to draw forces away, while a large German armoured and mechanized force raced through the Arlon forrest (using highways). They broke the Allied lines and quickly turned north west from the supposed objective of Paris and encircled the allied forces in a pocket from Calias to Dunkerque. As a result majority of the Allied forces had to retreat across the channel back to England leaving France to Hitler and his military machine.

1. Surprise - Don't let anyone know what your going to do
2. Displacement - Break the enemies lines and you leave a disorganised mess to be mopped up by rear forces
3. Tempo - Increasing the decision cycle which increases the speed of the war. If you make more decisions than your enemy can keep up with then they're reaction to whatever situation is going to be very limited
4. Deception - Make the enemy believe your going to do something when your not
5. Economy of Effort - Employ the use of force needed to get the job done in the right area
6. Manuoevre Principle - Attack the enemies weak points with your strong points. For example there's a Tank Brigade out there, why send out your firepower when a a clear vulnerability of the Tank is Supplies (including fuel). Attack the supply lines and you turn a tank brigade into a bunch of rotating turrets stuck in one position
7. Moral - Attack the enemies moral and they lose the will to fight

These principles can be used in any situation during war and if used correctly can achieve a quick victory with minimal loss of friendly Assets and Men