Re: Why does the hammer-and-anvil tactic work? (military tactics)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribble
who is that guy?
Lieutenant General Lewis Burwell "Chesty" Puller, the most decorated Marine in American history. The picture refers to the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, December 5-10, 1950, during which he famously noted, "We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."
__________________
"Courage is the complement of fear. A fearless man cannot be courageous. He is also a fool." -- Robert Heinlein
A message board specializing in game design and play-by-post. Get and give feedback on homebrew creations, peruse the NPC Compendium, have a private forum for your campaign, and much, much more, all without horrendous lag every couple of days!
Re: Why does the hammer-and-anvil tactic work? (military tactics)
Posted by Firkraag
Quote:
On another note, does anyone know of a proven historical battle where the surrounded army won? I can't think of any... Other than sieges, that is, but that doesn't count (maybe Acre, can't remember clearly now, too early in the morning to check).
The final battle of the Zulu wars of which Rourke's drift was a part, the Battle of Ulundi. The british army deliberately formed a hollow square so they could apply the maximum firepower to the Zulu forces as they attacked all sides of the square. As the square included gatling guns and cannister shot firing artillery the result was predicably bloody with the british losing 15 men and the Zulu's 1,500.
Dien Bien Phu ( 1954)was meant to give the surrounded army victory as the French believed they'd squash the Vietnamese with superior firepower and were severely suprised when the Vietnamese turned up with artillery of their own
Quote:
he zulu's had mostly muskets (front loading type rifles), the British had the marvelous, and vastly superior Martini-Henry rifle.
Minor point but the Zulu's had modern rifles as there was no ban on selling them such weapons there usefulness was limited however by the lack of training they had in using them
Re: Why does the hammer-and-anvil tactic work? (military tactics)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firkraag
On another note, does anyone know of a proven historical battle where the surrounded army won? I can't think of any... Other than sieges, that is, but that doesn't count (maybe Acre, can't remember clearly now, too early in the morning to check).
The aforementioned Chosin Reservoir. The U.S. X Corps was surrounded by multiple Chinese divisions and, while they did not achieve their strategic objective, the Allied forces were able to break out and avoid destruction.
__________________
"Courage is the complement of fear. A fearless man cannot be courageous. He is also a fool." -- Robert Heinlein
A message board specializing in game design and play-by-post. Get and give feedback on homebrew creations, peruse the NPC Compendium, have a private forum for your campaign, and much, much more, all without horrendous lag every couple of days!
Re: Why does the hammer-and-anvil tactic work? (military tactics)
I'm still confused...
1) Charging a committed unit of, say, infantry, often means that the target unit is densely packed, which I thought minimized the effect of cavalry charges.
2) Even if charged, what prevented the charged infantry unit from simply turning around and hacking the cavalry into pieces (assuming that the infantry unit was capable of doing such a thing under normal conditions)? Are the infantrymen's attention too focused on the fighting in front of them that they completely miss what's going on behind them?
3) I understand why crossfire would be devastating to a group of people being attacked by firearms, but why is that such an advantage in melee combat? If the surrounded infantry simply all face outwards, then isn't just a melee grindfest?
Re: Why does the hammer-and-anvil tactic work? (military tactics)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13_CBS
I'm still confused...
1) Charging a committed unit of, say, infantry, often means that the target unit is densely packed, which I thought minimized the effect of cavalry charges.
2) Even if charged, what prevented the charged infantry unit from simply turning around and hacking the cavalry into pieces (assuming that the infantry unit was capable of doing such a thing under normal conditions)? Are the infantrymen's attention too focused on the fighting in front of them that they completely miss what's going on behind them?
3) I understand why crossfire would be devastating to a group of people being attacked by firearms, but why is that such an advantage in melee combat? If the surrounded infantry simply all face outwards, then isn't just a melee grindfest?
Depends upon the infantry formation. In a line engagement, you don't have the sort of depth of formation to do what you're talking about. Even if you do have a reserve rank that turns to deny the flank, if either line is backed up, they'll back into each other, which creates all kinds of havoc.
Furthermore, the hammer formation doesn't have to hit you directly from the rear; in fact, it rarely does. More often, it will strike the side of the enemy line, creating local numerical superiority. In this way, a hammer unit much smaller than the enemy it is attacking can roll an entire line.
__________________
"Courage is the complement of fear. A fearless man cannot be courageous. He is also a fool." -- Robert Heinlein
A message board specializing in game design and play-by-post. Get and give feedback on homebrew creations, peruse the NPC Compendium, have a private forum for your campaign, and much, much more, all without horrendous lag every couple of days!
Re: Why does the hammer-and-anvil tactic work? (military tactics)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renegade Paladin
Even if you do have a reserve rank that turns to deny the flank, if either line is backed up, they'll back into each other, which creates all kinds of havoc.
Re: Why does the hammer-and-anvil tactic work? (military tactics)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13_CBS
I'm still confused...
1) Charging a committed unit of, say, infantry, often means that the target unit is densely packed, which I thought minimized the effect of cavalry charges.
2) Even if charged, what prevented the charged infantry unit from simply turning around and hacking the cavalry into pieces (assuming that the infantry unit was capable of doing such a thing under normal conditions)? Are the infantrymen's attention too focused on the fighting in front of them that they completely miss what's going on behind them?
3) I understand why crossfire would be devastating to a group of people being attacked by firearms, but why is that such an advantage in melee combat? If the surrounded infantry simply all face outwards, then isn't just a melee grindfest?
DISCLAIMER: I have no expertise and have done no research in any of this.
1) It depends on the type of cavalry charge I guess, I suspect heavy cavalry (Think European Knights with fixed lances) would actually be more dangerous against tightly packed infantry.
2) Because in order to do that, they would need to put their full attention towards the cavarly, and the "Anvil" would then hack them to pieces.
3) For many reasons. First of all, in a standard one-front fight, a wounded infantryman can step back and have his place in the line replaced by the guy in behind him. When you're trapped between the Hammer and the Anvil, your fighting on two fronts, so your reserve of replacement troops gets depleated twice as fast. Also, you can't stretch your line out as much, meaning it's easier for the enemy to flank you once again. Also, don't ignore the Morale aspect. I know we like to imagine that all wars are fought by hard-jawed professionals who love being surrounded, they were mainly fought by people who loved getting out of battles alive, something that seems alot more likely when you have a clear avenue of escape directly away from the enemy.
Re: Why does the hammer-and-anvil tactic work? (military tactics)
13_CBS, those issues are all related to formation combat. Put bluntly, formations are designed to fight best in a single direction, generally (with some exceptions).
1. Dense packing is an advantage until enough people fall over to start a proper domino effect.
2. If the formation is deep enough that it can form up to the rear, too, then this tactic doesn't work nearly as well. (Note, however, that deep formations were often used to rotate fresh troops to the front, and fighting to multiple directions minimizes that advantage.) A formation deep enough to fight in multiple directions is essentially equivalent to having the flank guarded. In most cases, since being surrounded is its own disadvantage (cannot maneuver), if you have enough troops to cover your rear you're better off using them to keep anybody from getting there in the first place.
3. Remember: pushing is important in formation melee, and works best in depth.
__________________
"'Intelligence' is really prolific in the world. So is stupidity. So often they occur in the same people." - Phaedra Pyrian's LiveJournal
Re: Why does the hammer-and-anvil tactic work? (military tactics)
In Vietnam:
The Battle of Ia Drang Valley
IIRC, the US Troops were pretty much surrounded and outnumbered but the use of the newer air-mobile doctrine kept the US for the most part supplied and reinforced. It's been a while since I studied it though.
Re: Why does the hammer-and-anvil tactic work? (military tactics)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13_CBS
And why does that happen?
For the obvious reasons. There are all kinds of conditions that can force a formation to step back. I could start quoting from the Midrealm tactical field manual, but I'm kind of sworn to secrecy on some of the specifics. Suffice it to say that there are several ways one formation can force another to take a step back when engaged in close melee, and if a formation backs into something that it didn't know was there (and you rarely have time to look behind when there's a guy in front of you trying to put a sword in your gullet), it creates confusion in the ranks, which is never good, and especially bad when actively engaged in combat.
__________________
"Courage is the complement of fear. A fearless man cannot be courageous. He is also a fool." -- Robert Heinlein
A message board specializing in game design and play-by-post. Get and give feedback on homebrew creations, peruse the NPC Compendium, have a private forum for your campaign, and much, much more, all without horrendous lag every couple of days!
Re: Why does the hammer-and-anvil tactic work? (military tactics)
To add onto that:
Discipline is king on the battlefield.
Human nature would be to look behind to see what you've run into, but as has been said, this will get you killed. It's human nature to fear the unknown and on the battlefield where many things are trying their best to kill you, this fear is magnified many times. Typically the human degenerates into a mob style mentality, thus if one part breaks, the rest will follow suit leading to a route. Thus strong discipline in the ranks is important to keep your unit's head where it should be focused *on the stabby, bashy bits in front of them* and trust their commanders to worry about covering their flank/rear. When the command has failed to do that, the battle was lost anyway.
Re: Why does the hammer-and-anvil tactic work? (military tactics)
Quote:
Originally Posted by comicshorse
Minor point but the Zulu's had modern rifles as there was no ban on selling them such weapons there usefulness was limited however by the lack of training they had in using them
Except I never said they didn't have any modern rifles, just that in this particular engagement they didn't have many. (I said mostly muskets; which is indeed accurate).
Re: Why does the hammer-and-anvil tactic work? (military tactics)
Combat is also loud and the participants are wearing helmets. You're expecting the junior officers to identify a flanking manuever, issue orders that can be heard and understood over the sounds of battle, and have the soldiers in the rear execute the orders and change formation to meet the flanking force. It is very easy for confusion to set in.
Re: Why does the hammer-and-anvil tactic work? (military tactics)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whammydill
In Vietnam:
The Battle of Ia Drang Valley
IIRC, the US Troops were pretty much surrounded and outnumbered but the use of the newer air-mobile doctrine kept the US for the most part supplied and reinforced. It's been a while since I studied it though.
Rule 4: Close air support covereth over a multitude of sins.
__________________
POW! Haha!
Tion'ad haar harane vaabi gar mirdi ni cuyi?!
Avatar by Mr. Saturn.
Re: Why does the hammer-and-anvil tactic work? (military tactics)
heh i've tried that before but in age of mythology it's a little harder with cavalry...
has anyone here played civilization 4? i lost a tank to a squad of musketmen and later i lost a squad of people with submachine guns to another group of musketmen. grr.
__________________
Lifeguard avatar by me!
don't request an avatar, I need some more practice
my penguins deserted me
Spoiler
Quote:
*Hands deathguard certification*
Its like a lifeguard, but you watch over a river of lava and occasionally go in to kill someone.
Re: Why does the hammer-and-anvil tactic work? (military tactics)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandil
has anyone here played civilization 4? i lost a tank to a squad of musketmen and later i lost a squad of people with submachine guns to another group of musketmen. grr.
In Civ 1, I've had a battleship lose to a phalanx once. Basically, the spearmen must swim out to the ocean and fight the sailors hand to hand
Phalanxes beating tanks isn't that uncommon in that game either.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: Why does the hammer-and-anvil tactic work? (military tactics)
Suffice it to say that there are several ways one formation can force another to take a step back when engaged in close melee, and if a formation backs into something that it didn't know was there (and you rarely have time to look behind when there's a guy in front of you trying to put a sword in your gullet), it creates confusion in the ranks, which is never good, and especially bad when actively engaged in combat.
