Tactical brilliance...

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Question: which battle, in your opinion, displayed true tactical brilliance?

I'm gonna sound like a total douche (more than usual) by saying this, but if there had been a true display of tactical genius there wouldn't have been a battle.

[sub]Sorry...[/sub]

I will attempt to out-douche you and say that being able to win without fighting a battle is more strategic brilliance than tactical.

Tactical, by definition, is maneuvers performed as a result of contact with the enemy. Deciding where and when to engage is strategy (or rather, operations in modern doctrine) (as opposed to the how in tactics).

[sub][sub][sub]So nurr... =P[/sub][/sub][/sub]

Well played good sir. But surely then this makes tactics a poor second cousin to strategy, only to be employed when strategy has failed or been overcome?

[small]And yes, I know 'no battle plan survives the initial contact' and all that but I'm going for maximum douche points here![/small]

OT and serious for a moment, it's hard to think of moments of tactical genius when my main focus of military knowledge is 1914-1918, reknowned for being almost devoid of military flexibility, whether strategic or tactical. I suppose I'll place my money next to the battle of Messines, more specifically the engineers and sappers who had the balls to undermine the German trenches.

So tactical brilliance can't occur in the middle of a battle then?

See above ^^

 

[SckizoBoy]

Well played good sir. But surely then this makes tactics a poor second cousin to strategy, only to be employed when strategy has failed or been overcome?

[small]And yes, I know 'no battle plan survives the initial contact' and all that but I'm going for maximum douche points here![/small]

OT and serious for a moment, it's hard to think of moments of tactical genius when my main focus of military knowledge is 1914-1918, reknowned for being almost devoid of military flexibility, whether strategic or tactical. I suppose I'll place my money next to the battle of Messines, more specifically the engineers and sappers who had the balls to undermine the German trenches.

Indeed, tactics are a poor second cousin to strategy. See Franco-Prussian war: the French outnumbered the Prussians strategically, but were always outnumbered tactically. In either case, though, contingencies save your bacon, and they're much easier to account for on a strategic level, rather than tactical.

Still, if you want to go for WWI, then surely, Tannenberg!

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Indeed, tactics are a poor second cousin to strategy. See Franco-Prussian war: the French outnumbered the Prussians strategically, but were always outnumbered tactically. In either case, though, contingencies save your bacon, and they're much easier to account for on a strategic level, rather than tactical.

Still, if you want to go for WWI, then surely, Tannenberg!

Ok, fair do's. I don't reckon I can trump Tannenberg.

[small]Dammit...[/small]

 

[SckizoBoy]

Ok, fair do's. I don't reckon I can trump Tannenberg.

[small]Dammit...[/small]

Never mind, always next time. /doucheness

Still, it's ironic that the real victor of Tannenberg was a guy called 'von François' of all things. *derp*

 

[Cerberus_2.0]

Mandatory [http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Creed].

Personally, I'm a fan of Themistocles. Through deception, he got the huge Persian navy to go into the Straits of Salamis, where they'd get in their own way, making them easy pickings. He also came up with an interpretation of a Delphic prediction that ended up working out for the best, which took serious brains.

I'm also partial to Rommel, though I've not studied any of his battles; I just like the guy himself.

Dammit how could that link have gotten there so fast. It must've taken a tactical geni...

CREEEEEEEEED!!!!

 

[C3rtainD3ath]

The German Shlieffen Plan of WWI would have been a masterstroke, until von Moltke changed it. kinda off topic, i know, since it didnt really work, but ive always admired it for what it could have been...

Do naval tactics count? Cause Nelson kicked ass. Trafalgar FTW!

In terms of ground warfare, I admire Rommel's abilities but realize his weakness was in logistical support. Montgomery was very flexible and despite not being given credit for it, he was responsible for taking German armor away from the American breakthrough at Normandy.

Genghis Khan was a military genius too...

Rats of Tobruk FTW. But seriously. Outnumbered and stuck in a town, with the tactical genius of Rommel against you, the Aussies did pretty well, for like a year.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Ok, fair do's. I don't reckon I can trump Tannenberg.

[small]Dammit...[/small]

Never mind, always next time. /doucheness

Still, it's ironic that the real victor of Tannenberg was a guy called 'von François' of all things. *derp*

Ah yes, François, that famous and proud German family name!

 

[sms_117b]

From Romance of the Three Kingdoms (In the book Zhuge Liang in history Ma Zhong [I think]) found arrows unable to penetrate the Nanman heavy bamboo armor, outnumbered 3-1 he split his forces, Wei Yan took 5000 men and engaged and retreated for a week giving the enemy confidence, the other 5000 dug up a vally and laid down gun powder, placed a landslide set up at either end, Wei Yan retreated straight through the valley, Nanman forces followed, SWei Yan passed through the valley, Nanman forces were trapped by rock slides, archers came upon the valley walls and shot flaming arrows down, igniting the gun powder and killing everyone, minimum casulties for Shu, many casulaties for Nanman, the entire squad was wiped out.

 

[Zorak the Mantis]

My top three battles for tactical prowess;

Battle of Morgarten in 1315
Battle of Hastings in 1066
Battle of Gettysburg in 1863

 

[SckizoBoy]

Ah yes, François, that famous and proud German family name!

Sure wiki isn't the most reliable, but just read a positively LOL-worthy bit:

When war broke out in August 1914, François' corps faced the right wing of a two-pronged Russian invasion of East Prussia, led by Paul von Rennenkampf's Russian First Army. On August 17, the overall German theater commander, General Maximilian von Prittwitz, nervously eying the advance of the Russian left wing far to the south, ordered von François to retreat while under heavy attack from Rennenkampf.

François, reluctant to surrender any of his beloved Prussia, and naturally pugnacious, also felt breaking off while engaged would be deadly, and so he ignored Prittwitz' order, responding with the famous reply "General von François will withdraw when he has defeated the Russians!" He counterattacked Rennenkampf's massive army, bringing on the Battle of Stalluponen, and won a surprising victory while inflicting 5,000 casualties and taking 3,000 prisoners.

One funny bit being the quote and the other being 'his beloved Prussia(!)'. And I knew it, he was a Huguenot descendant... like l'Estocq, Galland and quite a few others.

 

[ToxicPiranah]

Lieutenant John Chard - Battle of Rorke's Drift, springs to mind after the defeat at Isandlwana and being vastly outnumbered I'd say he showed Tactical brilliance

 

[Je Suis Ubermonkey]

Question: which battle, in your opinion, displayed true tactical brilliance?

I'm gonna sound like a total douche (more than usual) by saying this, but if there had been a true display of tactical genius there wouldn't have been a battle.

[sub]Sorry...[/sub]

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
-Sun Tzu

It's technically more strategic brilliance, as has been said, but when Sun Tzu agrees you know you've won.

OT: I actually don't know much about historical battles, so I'm going to have to pass.

 

[Spade Lead]

personally in honer of the past 4th of July I'm going to say the battle of bunker hill While the result was a victory for the British, they suffered heavy losses: over 800 wounded and 226 killed, including a notably large number of officers. The battle is seen as an example of a Pyrrhic victory. Meanwhile, colonial forces were able to retreat and regroup in good order having suffered few casualties. Furthermore, the battle demonstrated that relatively inexperienced colonial forces were willing and able to stand up to regular army troops in a pitched battle.

I am going to go ahead and say that Pyrrhic Victories require that you NOT be a tactical genius... You know, because you nearly lost and all...

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Question: which battle, in your opinion, displayed true tactical brilliance?

I'm gonna sound like a total douche (more than usual) by saying this, but if there had been a true display of tactical genius there wouldn't have been a battle.

[sub]Sorry...[/sub]

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
-Sun Tzu

It's technically more strategic brilliance, as has been said, but when Sun Tzu agrees you know you've won.

OT: I actually don't know much about historical battles, so I'm going to have to pass.

It took longer than I thought for someone on this site to get that reference!

Spoiler: Your reward

Ah yes, François, that famous and proud German family name!

Sure wiki isn't the most reliable, but just read a positively LOL-worthy bit:

When war broke out in August 1914, François' corps faced the right wing of a two-pronged Russian invasion of East Prussia, led by Paul von Rennenkampf's Russian First Army. On August 17, the overall German theater commander, General Maximilian von Prittwitz, nervously eying the advance of the Russian left wing far to the south, ordered von François to retreat while under heavy attack from Rennenkampf.

François, reluctant to surrender any of his beloved Prussia, and naturally pugnacious, also felt breaking off while engaged would be deadly, and so he ignored Prittwitz' order, responding with the famous reply "General von François will withdraw when he has defeated the Russians!" He counterattacked Rennenkampf's massive army, bringing on the Battle of Stalluponen, and won a surprising victory while inflicting 5,000 casualties and taking 3,000 prisoners.

One funny bit being the quote and the other being 'his beloved Prussia(!)'. And I knew it, he was a Huguenot descendant... like l'Estocq, Galland and quite a few others.

And so we have the German general François and the Russian general Rennenkampf. There's no way they were bullied at school.

 

[Nerdstar]

personally in honer of the past 4th of July I'm going to say the battle of bunker hill While the result was a victory for the British, they suffered heavy losses: over 800 wounded and 226 killed, including a notably large number of officers. The battle is seen as an example of a Pyrrhic victory. Meanwhile, colonial forces were able to retreat and regroup in good order having suffered few casualties. Furthermore, the battle demonstrated that relatively inexperienced colonial forces were willing and able to stand up to regular army troops in a pitched battle.

I am going to go ahead and say that Pyrrhic Victories require that you NOT be a tactical genius... You know, because you nearly lost and all...

you seem to misunderstand i didn't mean it was a stroke of tactical brilliance for the British but for the americans (who decimated 1/3 of the opposing force including many officers all while beating them back multiple times and arguably doing more damage by losing then actually wining bunker hill

baicly the turned a bad situition around and made it work in there favor

 

[Toaster Hunter]

Napoleon Bonaparte. Just look at Austerlitz, completely crushing the Russian army by actually giving up the high ground, contrary to every piece of doctrine ever said about warfare.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Napoleon Bonaparte. Just look at Austerlitz, completely crushing the Russian army by actually giving up the high ground, contrary to every piece of doctrine ever said about warfare.

I'm half tempted to issue a dickishness warning (for myself, that is).

Platzen Heights was where most of the allies were. The tactical masterstroke was luring them off of it, charging Soult up the hill in twenty minutes and mullering everyone left. Then, Napoleon had the high ground and proceeded to beat shit... *much despotic laughter ensues*

 

[Spade Lead]

you seem to misunderstand i didn't mean it was a stroke of tactical brilliance for the British but for the americans (who decimated 1/3 of the opposing force including many officers all while beating them back multiple times and arguably doing more damage by losing then actually wining bunker hill

baicly the turned a bad situition around and made it work in there favor

You are right. I am so used to the America bashing on this site that I just automatically assumed that you were talking about the victory for the British... Yeah, Pyrrhic victories are usually victories for the other side is what I meant, and since that is also what you were saying, we have no choice but to shake hands and say, Yeah, you were right.

 

[Nerdstar]

you seem to misunderstand i didn't mean it was a stroke of tactical brilliance for the British but for the americans (who decimated 1/3 of the opposing force including many officers all while beating them back multiple times and arguably doing more damage by losing then actually wining bunker hill

baicly the turned a bad situition around and made it work in there favor

You are right. I am so used to the America bashing on this site that I just automatically assumed that you were talking about the victory for the British... Yeah, Pyrrhic victories are usually victories for the other side is what I meant, and since that is also what you were saying, we have no choice but to shake hands and say, Yeah, you were right.

quite allright, we americans do get alot of flack from some of the non american escapists(some of it warranted and others not so much), and my initial post was a bit unclear as to which side i said displayed the tactical brilliance but in the end it all got sorted out. no harm no foul

 

[Thaluikhain]

So not to be bias

Battle of Agincourt, 1415

English beat the Frech even though they were outnumbered 6 - 1, in no small part to Henry V using the Longbow to full advantage.

Well, there is some debate over whether the English best the French at Agincourt, or whether the French would have lost even if the opposing army hadn't actually turned up.

Though, if it was planned, it was a very good decision to fight in a position where the enemy would obligingly wipe themselves out in a massive cokc-up.

Even assuming the archers played a decisive part (that is, more than sticking pointed stakes in the ground to keep the French cavalry off), people argue that they were useful due to being light and unarmoured and maneoverable in the mud, as opposed to heavily armoured French knights on foot.

Lieutenant John Chard - Battle of Rorke's Drift, springs to mind after the defeat at Isandlwana and being vastly outnumbered I'd say he showed Tactical brilliance

I'm not so sure. Yes, they were vastly outnumbered, but they had a massive technological advantage. IMHO, the British would have won at Isandlwana, if it wasn't for their commanding officer not taking the enemy seriously. Standing orders were to fortify the camp against attack, but he couldn't be bothered, for example.

Rorke's Drift is mostly remembered as a heroic victory for the British in an attempt to overshadow the massive cock-up at Isandlwana. The then PM (Disraeli?) wanted to take severe action against the military leaders responsible, but they'd cleverly already got to Queen Victoria and convinced her of how glorious a victory Rorke's Drift was, so she over-ruled him.