Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories

Vanilla 1.1.8 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.

General: Military tactics discussion thread

Bottom of Page

1 to 51 of 51

  1.  
    •  
      CommentAuthorJabrosky
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     

    Since many of us are interested in fantasy, which often has battles in it, I thought I would start a thread in which we discuss military tactics and how to write better battle scenes.

    I’ll start the discussion with a few questions:

    1) Where in a formation would the general be positioned? I remember reading one source saying it was the army’s right wing, but that makes me wonder, how the heck did the guys on the left wing hear their general’s orders?

    2) How, when attacking an enemy city or fortification, would you get rid of archers on a wall, especially if the archers are shielded by parapets?

    3) Where on the battlefield would archers be positioned? I’m guessing it is the front side so that they don’t accidently hit their compatriots.

  2.  

    1) I thought it was near the front. And he’d use signals, not just words, because if you had a large army, you’d have the hearing problem anyway.

    2) I’m going to go all mediaeval and say ‘fling dead cows at them’. I think it involves shooting the archers back, or coming up behind them. Alternately, use a battering ram on the wall and go from there..

    3) they’re positioned up high and to the back, not at the front.

    •  
      CommentAuthorJabrosky
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     

    “I thought it was near the front. And he’d use signals, not just words, because if you had a large army, you’d have the hearing problem anyway.”

    That’s what I thought, too, but I did some research on ancient battle formations and found that, for the Romans at least, it was at the right wing.

    “they’re positioned up high and to the back, not at the front.”

    What if the battlefield is a level plain and there is no higher ground?

    •  
      CommentAuthorZombie Devin
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009 edited
     

    Damn it. I am about to start my French homework, when I go on II to check if the threads I follow have any new posts. Instead, there is a military tactics thread. No homework getting done tonight…
    1) Most armies were led by a group of commanding officers, who would be positioned wherever they were best able to command the men. The men on the left wing would not be taking direct orders from the commander of the right wing.

    2) You storm the walls, or set up a siege to starve them out. Either you lose a lot of troops or you wait for weeks, sometimes months, to take a position.

    3) It varied depending on conditions and what sort of archers you’re talking about. I think the standard for medieval armies was to have the archers begin in front, exchanging volleys of arrows, before retreating to the flanks or rear when the infantry advance.

    Examples of different uses of archers on the medieval battlefield:
    1. Hastings, 1066; English: Yellow, Normans: Red

    Typical of medieval armies, with archers in front trying to soften up the enemy so the infantry can break them.

    2. Agincourt, 1415; French: Blue, English: Red

    Here the archers are in defensive positions, behind the infantry and flanking the charging enemy.

    • CommentAuthorLccorp2
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     

    http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/

    Most of what you need to know for general fantasy purposes (and then some).

  6.  
    I see Devin is my comrade in arms when it comes to military tactics. Stop beating me to the punch. ;)

    In an army consisting of allies in the middle ages, the right wing was often the favored position. The biggest king/general would get the honor of the right wing, which was usually the one that broke through and destroyed the enemy army. The middle was the least favored spot, since the troops there really fought a holding action, even if the enemy center broke, they couldn't exploit it without exposing themsevles to the enemy flanks. So they got the least of the spoils and glory. The siege of Venice by the Mongols is an example. The three factions (and I only remember Austrians and Poles) argued over who got the rightmost position. In the end the Polish got it, and they swept down the mountainside into the Mongol camp, routing their army, and siezing enormous amounts of spoils from the rich tents.
    That may be where you got the idea of the general on the right. In practice, a General didn't do much after a battle started. He would have signals for archers, cavalry, and infantry to do their thing. But once all the parts of the army had engaged, there was nothing more to do but watch and hope. No wonder there was a lot of prayer and religious ceremony in a medieval battle.

    It was pretty much impossible to dislodge all the archers on the wall of a besieged fortress. Instead, standard practice was to set up wooden walls, like big, portable shields. The attacking archers would use these as cover, to keep up return fire against the defending archers and crossbowmen. The greatest use for them was to distract and suppress the defenders. Making it easier to bring a ram, siege tower, or siege ladders up to the wall.

    Sieges were by far the most common form of battle right up until firearms became standard. You would do well to do a little research on them.
  7.  

    War scenes are seldom entertaining unless you focus on the problems of an identifiable character.

  8.  
    I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, that's my primary theme when writing fight scenes.
    But the last thing we need is nonsense like the Battle of Burning Plains.
  9.  

    I mean, war scenes can only be interesting when they are dramatic—etc, characters act and change internally due to external circumstances. The actual tactics are irrelevant for the most part.

  10.  
    True, yet not true. To a point, it doesn't matter. But if you're going to involve a character for whom it does matter, like a general, it'd be better not to make a fool of yourself. I adhere to the rule of drama, never let realism interfere with the story. But I repeat, absolute nonsense is just as bad as over detail.

    Example: I've never been involved with a girl. I would not presume to write romance, because I lack the essential knowledge.
  11.  

    Then you would use the general’s conflict as a source from which to decide what happens. For example, he has to choose between sacrificing a squadron for the war, how easily does he succumb to the temptation in the heat of battle? Or at the end does he feel guilt or brush it out? etc. These change the dynamics of the whole story.

    I would say you have the knowledge, just not the experience. Different things.

  12.  

    Can someone write an article about what exactly was wrong with a really bad battle scene like the Battle of the Burning Plains? And show a battle scene well done? The contrast and compare would help me a lot.

  13.  
    I succumb to your logic, tactics have very little importance in the meat of the story. You don't need to bring the strategy up to tell the story. But I maintain that they can be a nice window dressing if used appropriately. ;)

    I also maintain that if you _are_ going to include mention or description of tactics and battle, you should do your research. In which vein, I will continue to advise anyone with questions on the subject.
  14.  

    True enough. A story is just a noble lie of sorts, but filled with truth.

  15.  

    I disagree, I think tactics have some importance to the story. Even if it’s not detailed or highlighted, the author should be aware of strategies that may lead the protagonist into the position he will be in (if the protagonist is a soldier at the battlefront). Even if the reader is unaware of it, the author should know what they’re leading their protagonist into.

  16.  

    I think the author should know what their story is about and find the best way to communicate it and make it interesting.

  17.  

    That’s what I’m saying. But it still needs to be well-researched.

  18.  
    Which is what I'm saying.
  19.  

    From my knowledge it seems that authors can often just skip through the battle scenes if they desire and if they’re really good it doesn’t seem to matter. Based on that insight I see that good battle scenes are generally filled with character development and plot twists. That also implies it is possible to drift between expression and narration so long as we show the story “highlights”.

    I often wonder how authors wrote about foreign countries and cultures before research became easy.

    •  
      CommentAuthorCorsair
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     
    They made shit up.
  21.  

    My point exactly. The kind of authority great authors have doesn’t stem from vast knowledge of the material world but the inner world of their mind. They write with authority, though they might be making shit up, and it can still sound good because they understand people.

  22.  

    Rather, I think that most readers would have been as dumb to the material world as they authour would have been, and so would have accepted what was written as fact. Meanwhile, the more knowledgeable would have shaken their heads and said, “That’s not right.”

    Today’s audience is much wider, and generally more knowledgeable about the world. They’ll know if you’ve made a mistake, and they’ll call you out on it.

    •  
      CommentAuthorCorsair
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     
    Which is why you should avoid the Real World when you're working with Fiction.
  24.  

    I can easily call Asimov a hack who doesn’t have a damn clue what he’s talking about but that would be missing the point.

  25.  

    Question- if you’re a footsoldier or something like that, do you you know the finer strategic points of the battle? Basically, they tell you where to stand in the ranks, and then you fight til you die, right?

  26.  
    Wrong, to an extent. A trained professional soldier will know the basics of tactics. He will also be proficient in any tactic that he might be asked to participate in. I have some of the army manuals, they teach you a lot more than point and shoot.
    That said, in history, armies have not always been well trained professionals. In World War 1 and 2 armies that started out well trained, ended as mass mobs. More true of WWI than II, and not true at all of the American army, which started out practically nonexistent in both cases.
    In the medieval ages, there was a small professional core of mercenaries, cavalry, and sometimes foot soldiers. Beyond that, the basic infantry were just sword fodder.
    In ancient times the Greek Hoplite was central to battle strategy, and he knew why his job was important.
    So basically your answer depends on what type of army you're writing about.
  27.  

    Oh, I see. I was wondering more about an American Civil War-era type army. For both the Union and Confederacy sides…

    TELL ME O GREAT ONE!

    :D

    •  
      CommentAuthorCorsair
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     
    Okay, here's strategy from about 1850-1918.

    DO SOMETHING STUPID, and if the enemy general does something even dumber, take all the credit.
  29.  

    And to what specifically are you referring to, Corsair?

    •  
      CommentAuthorCorsair
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     
    Simple. Military tactics did not significantly change during the nineteenth century. Even as weapons became more accurate and faster-firing, Generals kept using the same strategies that Napoleon used. Bayonet charges, for example, quickly became obsolete against 19th-century tech, but they continued to be used even as late as World War I. That resulted in such bloody massacres as Pickett's Charge, and then there was about the first three years of World War I which basically amounted to 'Waste Soldiers'.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCGilga
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     

    Waste Soldiers is right.

  32.  

    Ok, that made more sense. Thank you. I should probably research some of this stuff on my own, but it’s helpful having a bunch of people to ask if I’m feeling to lazy to walk all the way to the library. :D

    • CommentAuthorDurandalski
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009 edited
     
    I'm not great expert on the Civil War, due to the difficulty of finding detailed material from the era. But Corsair is mostly right. Tactics played little/no role in most Civil War battles. What was used was already obsolete. The rifled musket was considerably more accurate and longer ranged than the Napoleonic era musket, making the firing line formations suicidal. Picket's charge stands as a monument to the stupidity of the era. The Union forces had the high ground, cover, and an open killing zone. The Confederates marched right into the killing zone and were appropriately slaughtered, with no way to fight back.

    To the best of my knowledge, Soldiers were taught musketry, and bayonet charges. Tactically, they knew how to make the formations that were required of them. They did not know much about how their officers were supposed to use them, but then again, neither did the officers. Civil war armies qualify as 'mass armies'. That means an army who's primary strength comes from its size, and its ability to supply itself. This contrasts to a well trained 'professional army', which is strong because it is very good at what it does. Generally the closer an army gets to being a mass army, the less an individual soldier is likely to know about tactics and the larger picture. I could write pages on this subject.
  34.  

    Durandalski, I must say your knowledge of military tactics and history outstrips my own by a lot. How did you become so well informed on the subject?

  35.  
    Well, I read, and I read, and I read some more. Then I even got some university lectures on the subject and related ones from The Teaching Company. Basically the subject fascinates me, a morbid fascination I must say. I devour pretty much any non-fiction book that comes to hand. Since war is a major part of history, that's where my interest started, and how it became so well informed. I've read hundreds, if not thousands of books about war, battle, ect.
    My parents were most supportive of my interest, helping me aquire books on any subject I asked for. That stopped about the time I announced my intention to actually enlist. ;) But by then it was too late, since I'm old enough to get what I want for myself. My interest largely centers on the basic soldier. But researching that leads all the way up the chain.
    My knowledge still pales in comparison to some. The guy Lccrorp linked too has many articles, some of which talk about things I knew little about, others I could have written myself. I'm always expanding and cementing my knowledge, and I've fallen in love the library near my collage.
  36.  
    The interesting thing about the late 19th century and WWI is how slow people adopted tactics even when they nailed them. The Brusilov Offensive I see as the most ridiculous example of this; in 1916, the Russians went way ahead of the pack and implimented modern shock tactics successfully to permanently cripple the army of Austria-Hungary and take a sizeable chunk out of the Germans too. They then immediately ignored their own success and went back into idiot mode.

    !?
  37.  

    @Durandalski- thanks for the info. I’ll have to dig up more info, but that’s a good starting point.

  38.  
    I had an excellent civil war tactical game once, it doesn't work on modern computers though. Advanced Civil War Simulator I think. It perfectly captured the tactics of the era, and Napoleonic warfare as well. You could use the officer characters to give orders to the men under their command. Through this system, you could quickly and easily control several hundred soldiers. But the soldiers didn't always obey command, if they were under a lot of fire, or if the enemy mounted a bayonet charge, they might stay where they were, or even run away, instead of forming the formation you wanted. The problem is further compounded when you lose an officer. It could take several turns to regain control of the leaderless company, under a new officer.

    The tactics of the game basically consisted of forming a company into a firing line, then exchanging murderous volleys until one side began to break. Follow that up with a bayonet charge and the enemy would be routed. The AI was darned clever at it. Very rarely would you get lucky enough to move a company onto the enemy flank with enough orginization to do any damage. More often such a move opened up your own flank. But when it did work, you could wipe out half of an enemy company with enfilade fire.
    On the whole, that simple game captured Civil War small unit combat almost perfectly. It was really something to see how your orderly formations were reduced to less than half their size, scattered all over the battlefield by the end. You were lucky to have 50% of your starting troops listed as alive at the end, and sometimes many of those would be scattered, too far away to follow the orders of their officers.

    Now, if a system had been implemented in that game, that allowed you to order your men to spread out to cover, you would be able to easily destroy the enemy's neat formations. Using natural cover and spreading out more, your troops could take advantage of mass firepower, without exposing themselves to the enemy's mass firepower. That didn't work with the old muskets, which had an effective range of barely 100 yards, and no accuracy to speak of. That's how the firing line formations volleying at each other got started.
    This was what was not fully understood in the Civil War. In the instances where the troops spread themselves out under cover, they were usually able to hold out against many times their number. Yet sadly, generals and officers continued to send their men in mass formations against these semi-fortified positions.
    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2009
     

    My American History teacher last year has a friend who does Civil War reenactments, so he came in and did a presentation on the life of soldiers and the battles and so on. It was pretty interesting, but what I thought was the most interesting was an original training manual for officers on the different commands and formations. It had little diagrams and everything on how to arrange soldiers in formations and how to charge and so on. It was cool on one hand to see what they taught officers with (although if that’s all the officers got, I can’t imagine they’d be too good…), but it did drive home the point about fighting from formation.

    Isn’t that how we the Americans (I forget not everyone is from the US!) won the American Revolution, anyway? The British army had their nice red uniforms and lined up in rows, while the Americans fought more from cover, without a distinctive color of uniform that you could see fifty miles away. (also the backwoods farmers were awesome shots!)

    •  
      CommentAuthorSMARTALIENQT
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2009 edited
     

    Isn’t that how we the Americans (I forget not everyone is from the US!) won the American Revolution, anyway? The British army had their nice red uniforms and lined up in rows, while the Americans fought more from cover, without a distinctive color of uniform that you could see fifty miles away. (also the backwoods farmers were awesome shots!)

    Yes, it was. We cowardly, dishonorable Americans fought guerilla-style, ran instead of surrendering like men and all of those “founding fathers” were traitors to the crown, ungrateful to King and Country.

    I think I read somewhere that Washington preferred using small groups of people instead of the might of a cumbersome, slow army, because they were easier to maneuver.

    •  
      CommentAuthorArtimaeus
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2009
     

    Isn’t there a saying that amateurs think in terms of tactics, while professionals think in terms of logistics? Whether or not soldiers are on the battlefield when they’re needed with enough support to accomplish whatever needs accomplishing is usually more important that any tactic or strategy that they use on the battlefield.

    Guerilla forces are effective not because they do a lot of damage to the enemy, but because they don’t require nearly as much logistical support as a traditional standing army. Their purpose is prevent either side from winning a decisive victory, knowing that the longer the conflict drags on, the greater the cost will be to the enemy. Washington’s army actually beat the british is one, maybe two, actual battles. Us Americans won because the British decided that we weren’t worth the trouble to occupy.

  42.  
    Yeah, the victory in the revolutionary war was much more a result of the very idea of guerilla warfare working than it was successful battlefield tactics. In fact, best anyone can tell, the American side seems to have taken more combat casualties than the British and their allies did.

    Funding overseas wars is tough work even with efficient modern transportation, and these people had wooden boats with sails, which I guess cuts down on fuel cost, but the added labour is unbelievable, not to mention the weather-dependant and relatively slow speed of vessels of the age.
    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2009
     

    That’s true- supplies and orders from England would take, what, a month to get to the New World? Once the rebels started fighting back, it made it extremely difficult for them to keep a tight control on America.

  44.  
    The Revolutionary War was won because England didn't have the guts to see it through. It was a test of wills more than anything. The people of England weren't all that interested in a war thousands of miles away. The logistical support was tough, and the Americans eventually managed to make use of both conventional, and guerrilla tactics to inflict heavy losses to supply and manpower. That was enough to convince the weary British to concede.
    It took seven years for the rebels to put their act together though. They only survived that long because of Guerrilla tactics and sheer guts. Enough of them stuck to their mettle to keep things going. That's what supposed to define us Americans. It's a shame that people are getting so pathetic these days.

    If you've ever watched The Patriot, you know how incredibly stupid a conventional battle was in those days. Basically both sides lined up and slaughtered each other until one side ran away. In that respect, the British Regulars had an advantage even against an enemy under cover. They were disciplined enough to hold formation and keep coming, even as dozens dropped around them. In small battles, with hundreds instead of thousands, the Indian war style of fighting was superior.

    "Amateurs think in terms of tactics, while professionals think in terms of logistics". This depends on how high up you're looking. For a field officer, non-com, or soldier, tactics are important. In the heat of combat, unless you're trained to look for certain things, and act in certain ways, you freeze up. By practicing, and learning small unit tactics, you provide your soldiers and field leaders (at the very least) a mental advantage. They feel like they know what to do, and because they feel that way, they find the way. Sometimes the solution has nothing to do with the tactics they learned. But because they learned the tactics, they could see what _would_ work.
    For higher generals on the other hand, the best thing they can do is provide their troops with the best advantage possible. The more guns, vehicles, and men your front line has, the better they will be able to combine those things with tactics to defeat the enemy.
    So you really have two totally different kinds of commanders; Those in the rear who handle logistics and better not mess with tactics, and those on the field who deal in tactics, and should not have to deal with logistics.
  45.  
    It should be strategy, not logistics, since strategy involves most all of running a war.

    Unless I'm mistaken.

    However my original topic was about the misconception that the Americans, er , colonials, were always hiding behind bushes and trees. This did not happen all the time because, in the British army, the regular private did exactly what he was told. This meant that if you were not in there way, they would march past you. However the regulars were not stupid either. Where a "thin red line" not practical, they would break into small units to fight. Another factor that added to the colonial's hand was that revolutinaries were spread throughout the countryside, tying up a lot of regulars and royalists with occupation. As long as I'm on a great deal of the colonials victories came from George Washington's tactical and strategic ability.(THE HESSIANS WERE NOT DRUNK) And the last thing, people say that the militia were crack shots, but does this make any sense????? They were farmers, and the last time I checked, farmers were not necessarily woodsmen. They would have had better things to do then waste powder and lead practicing shooting. But how hard is it to miss a column of men? The regulars did aim too.
  46.  
    There were many complicated factors in the Revolutionary War, I could go on for pages about it. So I won't get started. You're on the right track. ;)

    You'd be somewhat wrong about strategy and logistics. Logistics is an element of strategy. It has to do with supplying your men, providing soldiers, equipment, and food. The rear generals should think in terms of strategy _and_ logistics. Logistics as in providing for their men, and strategy as in (partly) denying that ability to the enemy. Again, the subject is so complicated as to defy simple explanation. It's taken me years to gain the understandings I have, and I still don't claim to know much.

    :)
    • CommentAuthorCodeWizard
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2009 edited
     

    I suggest from now on whenever we have an international dispute we send women from each country to wrestle in a giant match of mud wrestling while the men watch on TV. Would that be a better tactic for peaceful fighting?

  48.  

    It would probably fall under the “strategy” umbrella more than the “tactics” umbrella, but it does sound like a more, hm, enjoyable way to settle international disputes.

    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2009
     

    On the rebels being good shots…

    Back in the day, everyone was mostly self-sufficient, particularly if you lived on a farm. So you’d have crops, of course, and smoke some meat if you butchered a pig or a cow, but a lot (at least the poorer farmers) also supplemented their diets with hunting. Bullets would’ve been expensive, though, so they basically had to be crack shots if they wanted their family to be fed well. So not all of them would’ve been great shots, but those from the country or farms probably would have been pretty good.

  50.  
    Exactly. Some townsmen who did not live in the country made rather poor militia. But the militia that held up the British army with guerrilla raids was generally not that sort.
  51.  
    I'll have to check my sources, be back later.

1 to 51 of 51

  1.