Mass Combat: Militray Tactics Old and New!

[Tonguez]

Leopold mentioned the Zulu tactic of the Bull's Horns. I think Sun Tzu would say that isn't a very good idea. In fact, Mr Tzu says you sould never put your enemy in a position where he can clearly see that he has no escape. When a man finds himself in a "back to the wall" or "fight to the death" situation, he will fight more ferociously than if he has an escape route. You will lose more men and resources killing a hemmed-in foe than you would defeating an enemy that thinks it can run away from you.

So, Sun Tzu says, you should always leave an escape route for your enemy, or more accurately, you should leave the APPEARANCE of an escape route. That way, the enemy will be more likely to break ranks and flee, becoming panicked and disordered in the process. Of course, you should also have the escape route covered with long range artillery, snipers or some other force to cut the enemy down as they run.

Sun Tzu never had to face the stupidity of the British Colonial forces. The advantage that Shaka Zulu had was that the Officers of the British Imperial Army thought themselves to be the best in the world and thought they were Civilised gentlemen fighting backward and ingnorant savages. As such they always thought they had a way out (becuase the savages could not hope to beat them) and by the time they realised their folly it was too late.
The same thing happened in EVERY battle between the Britsh Imperial Army and Indigenous warriors the only advantage Britain had was a continuous supply of fulltime soldiers, much better fire power and germ warfare (influenza epidemics killed more natives then any british bullet.)

 

[Shadowdancer]

Re: DnD tactics = Geurillas in the Trenches

WWI introduced the notion of trenches (which were invented by Maori of New Zealand (my people) in order to account for enemy artillery and gunfire

Introduced the notion to who? Trenches were used in warfare in North America during the American Revolution, if not before, and used extensively during the American Civil War. Their use was brought to North America by the Europeans, so their use was obviously known in Europe before then.

One of Gen. Lee's favorite tactics during the Civil War incorporated trenches. It was called the Hammer and the Anvil. Lee would arrange most of his force in a fixed position, using trenches, facing the enemy forces. He would usually try to pick the high ground if he could. This became the Anvil.

Once the enemy would attack this position, he would send Stonewall Jackson around one flank or another to attack from the side and rear. This force, the Hammer, would smash into the enemy and drive it toward the Anvil. The only route of escape would be in the direction of the opposite flank.

This tactic became less effective after Jackson was killed, as his replacements were not as good at finding a way to flank the enemy.

 

[LostSoul]

Quick rules question:

How long would it take for an average soldier to dig a foxhole?

 

[Shadowdancer]

Leopold mentioned the Zulu tactic of the Bull's Horns. I think Sun Tzu would say that isn't a very good idea. In fact, Mr Tzu says you sould never put your enemy in a position where he can clearly see that he has no escape. When a man finds himself in a "back to the wall" or "fight to the death" situation, he will fight more ferociously than if he has an escape route. You will lose more men and resources killing a hemmed-in foe than you would defeating an enemy that thinks it can run away from you.

So, Sun Tzu says, you should always leave an escape route for your enemy, or more accurately, you should leave the APPEARANCE of an escape route. That way, the enemy will be more likely to break ranks and flee, becoming panicked and disordered in the process. Of course, you should also have the escape route covered with long range artillery, snipers or some other force to cut the enemy down as they run.

Most modern mechanized warfare tactics call for a complete envelopment of the enemy. That's what the Germans developed for their Blitzkrieg in WWII, and was later used against them by the Russians on the Eastern Front, by Montgomery in Africa and by Patton in France. (During Barbarosa, the Germans discovered exactly what Sun Tzu had been talking about -- the surrounded Russians fought tenaciously and to the death. Very few would surrender).

The Russians basically used a larger-scale version of the Bull's Horns to envelope the Germans at Stalingrad and reverse the course of the war.

The tactic of envelopment has been further refined and is still used today -- the Isralis against the Arabs in the Sinai and the Coalition forces against Saddam Hussein in Kuwait-Iraq, for example. The idea is to surround the enemy with armor and mechanized infantry, and force the enemy to surrender. If they don't surrender immediately, you hold positions and hit them from the air and with artillery until they do surrender.

 

[LostSoul]

Sun Tzu never had to face the stupidity of the British Colonial forces.

Here's a link to some Anglo-Zulu war stuff.

http://www.battlefields.co.za/history/anglo-zulu_war/

I'd make more comments but I know I'm an anglophile and I don't trust my own views.

 

[trix]

Even without magic, none of the reason for formation fighting exist in D&D. In fact, you can't even line up like a Greek phalanx or a Roman legion, one man per three feet, shields overlapping.

Consider that D&D 3E doesnt really count as a specification for mass combat. Having said that, i'm sure that one could have a feat to do the above. Used in conjunction with others with the same feat brings increasingly larger bonuses to defense.

Ie: 5 people using the skill in conjunction gives +5 or +10 to each person.

 

[SableWyvern]

Quick rules question:

How long would it take for an average soldier to dig a foxhole?

I should be able to give you some fairly precise timings (depending on ground/size etc...), but its been a while since I've needed to know that.

Speaking for Australian doctrine, here are a few guidelines.

Shellscrape: this is the first thing you dig - just big enough to lie down in, maybe 6" deep. Depending on the ground, 20 minutes to an hour should have a decent one of these completed.

Stage 1 Rifle Pit: Shellscrapes are dug in pairs, spaced about 6' appart. A stage 1 pit digs a waist high fighting bay forward of or behind the shellscrapes. The two soldiers working in tandem should be able to do this in about 90 mins, working in pairs in pretty good ground. In rocky ground, it could be a lot longer, without drill-breakers etc...

Stage 2 Rifle Pit: Dig out the fighting bay to chest high. Add a firing rest along the front. Another 2 to 2 and a half hours.

Stage 3 Rifle Pit: Dig the shellscrapes down to a few inches above the floor of the fighting bay. Brace all walls with CGI (corrugated iron). About half way down, put a wooden or CGI ceiling over your dug out shellscrapes, then two layers of sandbags, then fill in. You now have two sleeping bays with good overhead protection extending out of your fighting bay, after another 6 to 10 hours work (still assuming good ground). Edit: forgot, you need to sandbag the top edges of the fighting bay as well.

Stage 4: Add overhead cover to the fighting bay, dig out some shelves, a sump down the bottom, start adding crawl trenches to the next pit, stick up some posters....

Edit: during the the entire process, you also need to stop your spoil from mounding up, as well as keeping it camouflaged from overhead recconnaisance. You also need to keep topsoil aside for this purpose (ie, camouflaging the spoil).

 

[Leopold]

Just a few points.



Another point comes from Sun Tzu.

Leopold mentioned the Zulu tactic of the Bull's Horns. I think Sun Tzu would say that isn't a very good idea. In fact, Mr Tzu says you sould never put your enemy in a position where he can clearly see that he has no escape. When a man finds himself in a "back to the wall" or "fight to the death" situation, he will fight more ferociously than if he has an escape route. .

The point of the Zulu tactics was to use light fast infantry to outflank and pince off the troops so there WAS no escape. Shaka was a firm believe in killing all the enemy and leaving no pieces of them standing. It worked brillantly due to the fact that the enemy was draw into battle from the front while the troops along the flank moved far and wide around them and encircled them. I know Sun Tzu is a master of never destroying your enemies force at once, or killing off the citizens of the capital city, etc. But Shaka really had no care for those people nor his enemy. His highly trained, highly mobile, highly equipped troops decimated the battle field with their ferocity and speed.

So if the point of conquest is to kill ALL your enemy this would be one way to do it. I can see the zulu warriors (probably barbarians) enraged and hasted by the shamans charging in with short spears.

 

[Green Knight]

Norma Schwarzkopf deivised a plan to lure the iraqi forces along the border of Saudi arabia using massive propoganda, rogue training and deceptive tactics. He threw a small contigent of armored vehicles into the west side while sweeping along with a massive force along the rear of the country sending in small (hundred or so) contigents into the country. The tactics were to out manuever and come from the south instead of the west as the iragis had thought we would do from having training missions that were basically troops storming the beaches simultaed to a amphibious invasion. By cutting off the supply chain and moving inward the Allied forces cut off the iraquis and surrounded them casuing massive surrendering and very lil allied casulties.

My brother served under Stormin' Norman in the Gulf.

But anyway, Schwarzkopf didn't develop that plan. I remember watching him on a History/Discovery Channel special about the history of warfare and he was talking about how I think it was the Romans who first used that tactic, against the Carthaginians. "Closing the Box" is what he called it. So he didn't come up with it. He just used a several thousand year old plan on the Iraqis and it still worked beautifully.

Even without magic, none of the reason for formation fighting exist in D&D. In fact, you can't even line up like a Greek phalanx or a Roman legion, one man per three feet, shields overlapping.

I take it, then, that you haven't bought the Lords of Darkness supplement for Forgotten Realms? Because in it it's got the Phalanx Fighting feat. Phalanx Fighters are NASTY! A while back I wrote up the stats for 1st-level Hobgoblin Fighters with that feat. They were sick.

 

[Green Knight]

In fact, let me reprint them, here, as I pretty much remember what I gave them.

HOBGOBLIN
Medium-Size Humanoid (Goblinoid)
Hit Dice: 1d10+2 (7 hp)
Initiative: +3 (Dex)
Speed: 20 ft (breastplate); base 30 ft.
AC: 21 (+3 Dex, +5 breastplate, +2 large shield, +1 Phalanx Fighting)
Attacks: Short sword +3 melee; or javelin +3 ranged
Damage: Short sword 1d6+2; or javelin 1d6+2
Face/Reach: 5 ft. by 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Qualities: Darkvision
Saves: Fort +4, Ref +3, Will +1
Abilities: Str 14, Dex 17, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8
Skills: Climb +4, Jump +4, Listen +2, Spot +2
Feats: Weapon Finesse (Short Sword), Phalanx Fighting
Climate/Terrain: Temperate and warm lands and underground.
Organization: (Haven't haven't bothered with this, yet)
Challenge Rating: 1
Treasure: Standard
Alignment: Usually lawful evil.
Advancement: By character class.

I figure at 2nd level they get the Dodge feat, 3rd they get Mobility, and 4th they get Spring Attack. That'll allow them to move in, stab the barbarians, then back up denying the barbarians the chance to use any multiple attacks they may have. Not to mention the fact that Dodge and Mobility will allow them to avoid any Attacks of Opportunity incurred upon them by moving into attack enemy troops with reach weapons. Not that they need it. Their AC is already 21, and when within 5 feet of someone else with the Phalanx Fighting feat, it's 23, so they're hard enough to hit as it is (And for those keeping score, Phalanx Fighters also get a +1 Reflex save when within 5 feet of another Phalanx Fighter).

BTW: Should they reach 6th level, I figure Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization with the short sword would be the way to go. 6th level is about as high as rank and file should be, IMO, so these guys at that level would be utterly disgusting.