Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Military Strategy and Tactics

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


When is a tactic new

This is a discussion on When is a tactic new within the Military Strategy and Tactics forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; You could make a decent argument that "flanking"- facing more than one enemy at once and "coverfire"-discouraging the enemy from ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old February 11th, 2016   #1
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5
Threads:
When is a tactic new

You could make a decent argument that "flanking"- facing more than one enemy at once and "coverfire"-discouraging the enemy from being in good to effectively counter-attack always existed. Caveman attacks another caveman and one attacks on the back or side and the other side attacks on the front- the enemy was flanked. Caveman throws rocks at another group to keep them from getting their clubs out and whacking the first group giving the first group's side time to prepare.

The fact that that such warfare bears little resemblance to automatic portable weapons the "tactic" was still there. If the next wave of technology modifies warfare- do you still say they are flanking even if the flanking shots actual kill the enemy or using cover-fire even though the cover-fire kill most of the side that cowering under cover that you are discouraging. You could say that tactic never disappears- even the magical Death Note has flanking and cover-fire aspects. When is a tactic gone and now its time for a new name? Some else posted effectively that 1916 "flanking" is same as 2016 flanking.
cloa513 is offline  
Old February 13th, 2016   #2
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloa513 View Post
You could make a decent argument that "flanking"- facing more than one enemy at once and "coverfire"-discouraging the enemy from being in good to effectively counter-attack always existed. Caveman attacks another caveman and one attacks on the back or side and the other side attacks on the front- the enemy was flanked. Caveman throws rocks at another group to keep them from getting their clubs out and whacking the first group giving the first group's side time to prepare.

The fact that that such warfare bears little resemblance to automatic portable weapons the "tactic" was still there. If the next wave of technology modifies warfare- do you still say they are flanking even if the flanking shots actual kill the enemy or using cover-fire even though the cover-fire kill most of the side that cowering under cover that you are discouraging. You could say that tactic never disappears- even the magical Death Note has flanking and cover-fire aspects. When is a tactic gone and now its time for a new name? Some else posted effectively that 1916 "flanking" is same as 2016 flanking.
there's no substance in determining whether new technology redefines a tactic. there's a reason why cannae is still taught in modern military academies

tactics evolve just as technology evolves

flanking at cannae is philosophically the same as shakas tactics. shaka developed those tactics in isolation. he didn't learn it from sandhurst, st cyr, annapolis etc.. ie good tactics evolve, be isolated from the lessons learnt in other continents, but be functionally similar.

the tech sets for cannae, were not remotely similar for shaka or 1916 or 1999 - and shaka also developed new weapons and injected changes in the combat culture. ie he made a paradigm shift

I'm not sure what "death note" has in relevance to modern tactics, or its relevance to Musashi, Sun Tzu, Homer, Thucydides, Ghengis Khan, Julius Caesar, von Manstein, Scipio, Hannibal, Stonewall Jackson, Alexander the Great, Bonoparte, Corbett, Mahan, Clauswitz, Tokugawa Ieyasu, Lê Lợi, Eulji Mundeok, Kwon Yul, Yi Sun-Sin etc etc etc.......

all of the above used a variation of flanking or aticulated the theories required to win significant battles and often against disproportionate odds - and they all used different weapons technologies in line with innovative tactical thinking to win the day.

the tech might change, but the tactic is fundamentally the same - and over millenia
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline  
Old February 13th, 2016   #3
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
there's no substance in determining whether new technology redefines a tactic. there's a reason why cannae is still taught in modern military academies

tactics evolve just as technology evolves

flanking at cannae is philosophically the same as shakas tactics. shaka developed those tactics in isolation. he didn't learn it from sandhurst, st cyr, annapolis etc.. ie good tactics evolve, be isolated from the lessons learnt in other continents, but be functionally similar.

the tech sets for cannae, were not remotely similar for shaka or 1916 or 1999 - and shaka also developed new weapons and injected changes in the combat culture. ie he made a paradigm shift

I'm not sure what "death note" has in relevance to modern tactics, or its relevance to Musashi, Sun Tzu, Homer, Thucydides, Ghengis Khan, Julius Caesar, von Manstein, Scipio, Hannibal, Stonewall Jackson, Alexander the Great, Bonoparte, Corbett, Mahan, Clauswitz, Tokugawa Ieyasu, Lê Lợi, Eulji Mundeok, Kwon Yul, Yi Sun-Sin etc etc etc.......

all of the above used a variation of flanking or aticulated the theories required to win significant battles and often against disproportionate odds - and they all used different weapons technologies in line with innovative tactical thinking to win the day.

the tech might change, but the tactic is fundamentally the same - and over millenia
I don't should give it the same name- because the technology has enough difference in effect to transform the tactic- in previous ages flanking could not done dynamically- couldn't move and attack and change the tactics. With modern assault weapons, you move between flanking some other tactic fluidly.

Can't do that with a melee weapon or finicky ranged weapons such as javellins or flintlock rifles. You try transitioning with a finicky ranged weapon and its going so far off the mark that the enemy won't feel flanked at all and it will endanger your compatriots.

Technology can have simple incremental effects or revolution. Here is another example- combining attacks or combined action. Could see that always have happened where the bigger guys in your army provide protection for the smaller guys to do the more jabbing attacks and those smaller guys provided more damage output so the bigger guys didn't get cut down quickly. In the second world war, tanks aided infantry and vice versa.

A fourth type is the charge where everyone goes flat out to attack the enemy to allow their weapons to be in range so offense is everything. Rarely done nowadays as officers tend to value their rank and file a little more and it often totally ineffective now- defense is not optional.
cloa513 is offline  
Old February 13th, 2016   #4
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,237
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloa513 View Post
I don't should give it the same name- because the technology has enough difference in effect to transform the tactic- in previous ages flanking could not done dynamically- couldn't move and attack and change the tactics. With modern assault weapons, you move between flanking some other tactic fluidly.

Can't do that with a melee weapon or finicky ranged weapons such as javellins or flintlock rifles. You try transitioning with a finicky ranged weapon and its going so far off the mark that the enemy won't feel flanked at all and it will endanger your compatriots.

Technology can have simple incremental effects or revolution. Here is another example- combining attacks or combined action. Could see that always have happened where the bigger guys in your army provide protection for the smaller guys to do the more jabbing attacks and those smaller guys provided more damage output so the bigger guys didn't get cut down quickly. In the second world war, tanks aided infantry and vice versa.

A fourth type is the charge where everyone goes flat out to attack the enemy to allow their weapons to be in range so offense is everything. Rarely done nowadays as officers tend to value their rank and file a little more and it often totally ineffective now- defense is not optional.
You had a thread closed by a moderator the other day and he warned you not to open a new thread with a similar topic or question. Upsetting or ignoring the moderators is the quickest way of being entered into the naughty boys book and then being given a holiday from here. Please take note of what they have said because as a rule they don't really take prisoners. OPSSG is one of the more polite moderators, but he is not one to annoy. Everyone's viewpoint is accepted as long as it is supported by a valid argument based upon verifiable fact. That's why we like sources. It's also why the moderators take umbrage to flights of fantasy and fantasy weapons systems etc. The one thing the moderators dislike the most is trolls, especially the God moderator. You never upset him.

We do like new people on here because they can offer different ideas and viewpoints. However this is a professionally run forum with set standards. That's why new members are encouraged to read the rules, which if you haven't, I strongly suggest that you do. My last piece of advice is to read and learn. This is a great place to learn a lot and I am always learning something new each time I visit.
________________
"There is one immutable truth we cannot prevent; war is coming, we just don’t know when or where." Brigadier Andrew Harrison DSO MBE
ngatimozart is online now  
Old February 13th, 2016   #5
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart View Post
You had a thread closed by a moderator the other day and he warned you not to open a new thread with a similar topic or question. Upsetting or ignoring the moderators is the quickest way of being entered into the naughty boys book and then being given a holiday from here. Please take note of what they have said because as a rule they don't really take prisoners. OPSSG is one of the more polite moderators, but he is not one to annoy. Everyone's viewpoint is accepted as long as it is supported by a valid argument based upon verifiable fact. That's why we like sources. It's also why the moderators take umbrage to flights of fantasy and fantasy weapons systems etc. The one thing the moderators dislike the most is trolls, especially the God moderator. You never upset him.

We do like new people on here because they can offer different ideas and viewpoints. However this is a professionally run forum with set standards. That's why new members are encouraged to read the rules, which if you haven't, I strongly suggest that you do. My last piece of advice is to read and learn. This is a great place to learn a lot and I am always learning something new each time I visit.
This thread is totally new and not directly related to the other thread. This is not the same topic. I read and learned but you can try replying directly my thread topic as given. For my position, mod response was equally equally against some replies I got- replies didn't address the topic I described rather consisted of the military is fine just the way it is- its perfect- suggesting never change anything.
But just focus on the topic I described. A cat is not a dog- even though they are both mammals. A tank is not a nuclear weapon even though they both are capable of killing people. Hence descriptors should be useful.
cloa513 is offline  
Old February 14th, 2016   #6
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
before you post again pause and read what you're typing

logically it doesn't make sense and historically what you claim is also incorrect

I'm not sure whether you are speed typing or english is not your first language as some of your commentary also doesn't make sense

you appear to be applying video game logic to the real world and hence your assumptions just don't stand the assessment and reality test.

flanking is a manouvre - and especially since 1999 the emphasis has been on manouvre warfare, be it small unit or larger.

you also seem to misunderstand the concept of small units and their utility in modern warfare. ie and thats separate to "small and big" army mentality.

you seem to have this fixation on the merits of a given tactic without appreciating the fact that the local commander will make a judgement call as opposed to an older philosophy where the rear echelon could drive tactical decisions.

you're way off beam in understanding what the application of force can mean in a given scenario when you subscribe to such "fixed" philosophies

I'd suggest that you start posting actual examples or some of the other DefProfs and people who actually have served might start losing patience and tolerance towards the thread

It might pay to tell what your actual experience is so that others can determine whether your philosophies are based on substance or manga theory
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline  
Old February 14th, 2016   #7
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
before you post again pause and read what you're typing

logically it doesn't make sense and historically what you claim is also incorrect

I'm not sure whether you are speed typing or english is not your first language as some of your commentary also doesn't make sense

you appear to be applying video game logic to the real world and hence your assumptions just don't stand the assessment and reality test.

flanking is a manouvre - and especially since 1999 the emphasis has been on manouvre warfare, be it small unit or larger.

you also seem to misunderstand the concept of small units and their utility in modern warfare. ie and thats separate to "small and big" army mentality.

you seem to have this fixation on the merits of a given tactic without appreciating the fact that the local commander will make a judgement call as opposed to an older philosophy where the rear echelon could drive tactical decisions.

you're way off beam in understanding what the application of force can mean in a given scenario when you subscribe to such "fixed" philosophies

I'd suggest that you start posting actual examples or some of the other DefProfs and people who actually have served might start losing patience and tolerance towards the thread

It might pay to tell what your actual experience is so that others can determine whether your philosophies are based on substance or manga theory
That's some criticism when your first sentences are not even sentences and you say you say it does not make sense but you can't say how. There is total lack of explanation detail in any of your replies. I am not going say something rude and condescending as is English your first language- many people write as though they are writing an SMS or some other broken form of English.

Simple question is 2016 Flanking as practiced by the US Military and probably first world powers the same as 1916 practiced by similar militaries? If it isn't, please express how it is different. It is the same then I would be very very scared because that mean they think guns are the same and they are living in the context of 1916 wars.

By the way tactics are a product of their context- technological, social, political, opposition etc. hence when the context changes the tactics should be changed too. I know the US has failed to adapt e.g. it couldn't handle Saddam's Iraqi militias. It can't handle ISIS when it acts non-conventional- its OK when it acts conventional.
cloa513 is offline  
Old February 14th, 2016   #8
Potstirrer
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: not in New England anymore...
Posts: 3,889
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloa513 View Post
That's some criticism when your first sentences are not even sentences and you say you say it does not make sense but you can't say how. There is total lack of explanation detail in any of your replies. I am not going say something rude and condescending as is English your first language- many people write as though they are writing an SMS or some other broken form of English.

Simple question is 2016 Flanking as practiced by the US Military and probably first world powers the same as 1916 practiced by similar militaries? If it isn't, please express how it is different. It is the same then I would be very very scared because that mean they think guns are the same and they are living in the context of 1916 wars.

By the way tactics are a product of their context- technological, social, political, opposition etc. hence when the context changes the tactics should be changed too. I know the US has failed to adapt e.g. it couldn't handle Saddam's Iraqi militias. It can't handle ISIS when it acts non-conventional- its OK when it acts conventional.
Please note the bolded text in particular.

While I do not usually like answering a question with another question(s), I feel it is appropriate and needful here.
  1. What is the definition of Flanking?
  2. What is the definition of Flank?
  3. Have the definitions of the two changed substantially at some point since the advent of written history?

In order to understand (or event tell) if something is new or not, one really needs to know what a thing is. So far the impression I have been getting is that of someone using a term without understanding what it is, or what/where/how it originated.
________________
Beware of Mr. Grumpy...
Todjaeger is online now  
Old February 14th, 2016   #9
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,237
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloa513 View Post
That's some criticism when your first sentences are not even sentences and you say you say it does not make sense but you can't say how. There is total lack of explanation detail in any of your replies. I am not going say something rude and condescending as is English your first language- many people write as though they are writing an SMS or some other broken form of English.

Simple question is 2016 Flanking as practiced by the US Military and probably first world powers the same as 1916 practiced by similar militaries? If it isn't, please express how it is different. It is the same then I would be very very scared because that mean they think guns are the same and they are living in the context of 1916 wars.

By the way tactics are a product of their context- technological, social, political, opposition etc. hence when the context changes the tactics should be changed too. I know the US has failed to adapt e.g. it couldn't handle Saddam's Iraqi militias. It can't handle ISIS when it acts non-conventional- its OK when it acts conventional.
The moderator that you have just disrespected has forgotten more about strategy, tactics and many other military type knowledge than you, I and about any other three others on here will ever know. He is highly respected within his own field and highly respected by many defence professionals. Methinks that your continual stay here will be somewhat short. So if you want to stay here pull your head in and start taking notice of what people have been trying to explain to you.
________________
"There is one immutable truth we cannot prevent; war is coming, we just don’t know when or where." Brigadier Andrew Harrison DSO MBE
ngatimozart is online now  
Old February 14th, 2016   #10
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloa513 View Post
That's some criticism when your first sentences are not even sentences and you say you say it does not make sense but you can't say how.
when you demonstrate some basic comprehension about the topics that you are now seeking to lecture others on - well maybe the threads will last longer

you have repeatedly failed to demonstrate an understanding of fundamental concepts and seek to lecture others..

this is the second time someone from the mod team has pulled you up on your posting behaviour and/or attitude

i'd suggest you read and absorb more before posting again

last warning
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:44 AM.