You: Spread your army expecting the enemy to also spread so you can defeat them in detail Enemy: Does not spread out and attacks your spread out forces with one big force, defeating you in detail
But the objective is to reach the town. If they attack one group than the other three can take the town while the attacked group can retreat or stall for reinforcements that would come from behind enemy lines, crushing them in battle on two different fronts.
If you are in the enemy's land he has other things to worry about, like guarding resources, which you don't (except for guarding your supply lines). So if the enemy doesn't spread out, possibly you could take more prizes and achieve your objective in that way.
Enemy AI in Civilization: “your army is so weak compared to ours, prepare to be crushed” Me with my two archers and a scout: fends off a continent’s worth of soldiers with basically no casualties Enemy AI: “let’s not let war define who we are”
Same thing can be said for total war games. 5 armies attack you and the only troops you have is like 2 cavalry 5 infantry 3 ranged 1 skirmisher/light infantry. yet if you attack strategically you’ll win
The Germans used this extensively in the Second World War, specifically in the early phases of the war. It is great if you are attacking a fairly static enemy who is dispersed. Not so good if you are under attack, especially on a broad front.
Actually that (Edit: "that" here refers to a point from the original comment that polaris has since edited out as a reaction to this reply) is not really the case. Blitzkrieg was a way of creating defeat in detail situations specifically by not engaging in direct defeat in detail tactics. The obvious tactical answer to the scenario in the video is to place only a small portion of your force on the front and to keep the largest part of it behind the line as a strategic reserve. The front forces can be dug in into highly entrenched positions that, if engaged, are guaranteed both to inflict heavier casualties on the enemy than they take and to slow the advance providing enough time for the reserves to repel the advance and use the superior numbers in a counter-attack. Even better is to divide your reserve into fast-moving rapid reaction forces to slow the advance at the point of contact and a larger, heavier force for the counter-attack. The details are not so important as the concept of giving ground temporarily in order to slow the enemy down without committing serious numbers to the fight until it is to your advantage. What blitzkrieg did was to turn the prevailing military wisdom of the day on its head and have the initial overwhelming force ignore the enemy positions as much as possible. Their primary role was to create a breakthrough and stay mobile, thus depriving the defensive force of both the time it needs to bring up the reserve force and a single, static point of attack for the reserve forces to be deployed. And because the reserve force is not deployed to the front, this area becomes weak enough for a secondary attack force to advance and surround the strongpoint defences there, taking them at leisure while the defending army tries to deal with the breakthrough, which will by now have turned and be threatening the rear of the defending force and a larger encirclement. Most defending generals of the day felt their position at this point was too precarious and ordered a general withdrawal, thus leaving the isolated pockets of men to their fate. It is worth noting that the basic defensive ideas have not actually changed that much from that time - the foundation is still defence in depth - but modern day generals understand blitzkrieg and other breakthrough + encirclement strategies so much better now, compared with 1939, that they can react much more appropriately. In particular, counterattacking the flanks of the advancing force while adding even more defensive layers to the lines can slow the advance to a crawl, eliminating most of the dangers. The Allied forces essentially learned these lessons during the first half of WW2 and they have more or less been perfected since.
@@zelandakhniteblade5436 Noteworthy is that the German blitzkrieg was also quite effective thanks to incredibly well coordinated use of combined arms warfare. The Germans were very efficient at using the right tools for the specific job. For example, you wouldn't see many Tiger 1 tanks the vast majority of the time except for specifically the initial breakthrough. After that point you would primarily see Panzer 3s and the Tiger 1s would retreat for maintenance and be preparing for the next major initial phase of another breakthrough. Artillery was also used very effectively aswell as Luftwaffe bombings in order to create that initial opening. Motorized infantry would cover the rears as the punch consisting primarily of panzers pushed deeper and deeper. Later the regular ground infantry would reinforce and secure the new front, by which time the encirclement was already complete, allowing the ground infantry to take out the encircled enemies that was left behind. Problem of course during the invasion of the Soviet Union was that the Germans simply didn't have the oil nor infrastructure to supply their forces which would eventually lead to the failure of the Wehrmacht. Invading Poland or France is one thing, but the colossal size of the USSR was simply not feasible with blitzkrieg.
That's very true, French did not see that technology had shifted the war meta from a defensive one to a very offensive one. That and the Ardennes of course.
Also applies on the battle map, trying to pit 2 units or more against one, fixing and flanking, then moving on. This is by far the most common method of defeat in Total War: Arena as well, usually it cascades and you'll be left facing like 5:1 odds
DiD is engaging larger army but by making the right maneuvres you keep a numerical advantage at each engagement. Blitzkrieg is engaging a frontline with concentrated amounts of armour to have a numerical advantage in armour, punch through the line, create chaos, disrupt supply lines and other logistics and push for encirclements and quick defeats of large parts of the enemy militairy. Depending on how concentrated, fast and effective the armour is, you either need numerical superiority overall or not.
The master of this were Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg were military disasters and humiliated two Union generals out of their top positions.
Not to take away from the accomplishments of Lee & Jackson but they'd never have had such success if the Union Army was competently commanded. Had McClellan understood that he outnumbered the Confederates, the war would have been over pretty quickly.
Your presentation, visuals, and editing are pretty damn good. I also like how you incorporated Google Earth into some of your videos. This is a channel worth keeping an eye on.
@Fa Mulan total war time players have to differ, as whore hammer players just spam magic whilst we have to make the most out of every unit and fucking ability.
No, doomstack is just a loaded 20 stack. you can't really do defeat in detail anymore in modern Total War games because the game always requires troops to move under a general.
Rock-paper-scissor. Artillery (rock) can't kill enough of the horde (paper), but will wipe out the fast but small elite (scissor). Fast elite troops, in turn, will either outmaneouver hordes - if they concentrate their forces - or defeat them in detail - if they spread out to cover all objectives, but will be smashed by the artillery.
@@jintarokensei3308 So, the other way around? Artillery the scissor vs the paper of the horde vs the rock of the elite? I'm stretching the metaphor either way.
It's supposed to be Artillery (Paper) destroys Infantry formations (Rock) which in turn destroys Cavalry formations (Scissors) which are used to flank enemy lines and 'usually' attack weak and vulnerable troops like Artillery (Paper)
The entirety of warfare can summed up as a a struggle for better information than your opponent. As long as you know more about your opponent than they do about you, any fight is winnable.
Playing paradox games is like this. The only difference is in Hearts of Iron where instead of attacking the different armies you just go around them and *encircle them.*
Well, you can eventually run out of manpower or money/resources in paradox games. This video is more true of Civilization where you don't have to worry about manpower, and troop maintenance is rather trivial.
That is what I have been doing in Total War, nice to know "Defeat in detail" is something I have been using instinctively. I also like using the Hammer and Anvil tactic, pinning the enemy with troops and then attacking from behind with cavalry / tanks so that the enemy is fighting a battle on two fronts, and therefore their manpower on each front is effectively halved. Shock and Awe is another good one, pound the enemy with artillery before the battle starts, then mop up when they're shell shocked and panicking. Mobility is key, and rapid guerilla-like tactics can allow a small force to overcome and grind down the larger force, and then win with morale shock, and on a macro-scale create war weariness as large, visible key targets get taken out.
One thing to remember is that in order for this to work, you also need a) a very good recon ability so that the weak spots can be found, and b) be ensured that the enemy commander won't move his forces around - this in turn makes it really important that the numerical inferior force is way too fast for the enemy to react to. The two best examples to this are first the Finnish Winter War in 1939-40, when Finnish troops would chop up Russian convoys in smaller parts and defeat each one in detail. Since the Russians were confined to their heavy and cumbersome equipment stuck on the narrow roads, they couldn't react fast enough to support the cut off portions of their forces, and since the Finns were on skis, they pretty much ran circles around the Russians all the time. A second example would be once again Rommel, who cut through the French forces during the western campaign in 1940. He was constantly outnumbered there as well, but managed to use his very fast units to really upset the Allies. One captured French officer told him, 'you are too fast for us'.
that is true but attrition warfare and knowing how to use it to your advantage can stop any and all speedy force in it's tracks if you can force them in to a attrition fight even when out numbered it will stop all of the speed that they will have. just one fight where you bloody the smaller force badlly enough will make it harder for that force to pull off any local supremacy attacks at all.
@Vincent Celeste: True - it happened at El Alamein and on a greater scale in the Soviet Union. However, a war of attrition is very unappetizing nowadays - very few countries would simply not accept the losses asociated with that.
yea once the war of attrition kicks in it is all over for everyone cause the only way out is to call it quits and leave. sadlly there is few who are willing to do places like china or india with deep population pools can afford to do it and will have the spines to pull it off and be better off for it to. more space to spread out and eventually replace the losses there.
I think an important aspect of all this is that the effectiveness of an attacking force increases disproportionally with its size, so that for example, if an army of 10 000 were to attack an army of 5000, they would be *more than* twice as strong and thus the battle would be very one-sided, with them losing fewer men than one might expect. This is why a locally superior force doesn't get slowly ground up by multiple attacks, but is able to maintain enough strength over time. The strategy of Defeat in Detail is really just this effect of numerical superiority put to good use. I just looked it up, it is called Lanchester's square law: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws
only if those countries posses nukes and only if it escalates to strategic (not tactical) nuclear war which is a pretty big risk for both sides in such a confrontation. In all other cases of conventional war, this pretty much applies.
yes, nobody said it was easy or not risky. at marengo it nearly backfired, but the mark of a GREAT general is that he is able to break the rules of warfare repeatedly and achieve success repeatedly. there is a reason why there are rules of war at every given time period, to see through them, break them, and succeed more than once is beyond a fluke of luck. it's genius.
Napoleon won at Austeritz by GIVING the high ground to the ennemy. :) - Sire, this is the best position. How can you leave it to the ennemy? - Mon general, if I would only stop the ennemy, I would keep this position. But I want to totally destroy them. By tommorrow evening, all those armies will be in my hands!
A similiar one is of Maratha Peshwa Bajirao Ballal. Undefeated throughout his military career spanning 20 years. Believed in speed rather than numbers and would only use cavalry and outmanouver, the Brits and Mughals alike. Was almost always outnumbered. For those interested, Battle Of Palkhed is one of the most studied and flawless victories of Bajirao.
I always referred to this strategy as "Flank baiting" due to how you position troops to threaten the enemy flank, but then focus all your effort on attacking the main route instead. With the enemy still focused on the flank, they'll be caught off guard.
This is what I like to do in rts games. Scout a place where I see enemies, gather a small force that I try to get through the point and meanwhile collect a big army that I later just brute force through another place
2:15 Maneuver warfare is the most important component of concentration of force. Maneuver warfare is a fairly modern military concept. But the Mongols were probably the first to master maneuver warfare, defeating enemies in battle that were numerically superior time and time again
French revolutionnary state has already won 2 coallition ( Russia, Prussia, Austro-Hungary, Spain, Portugal, Netherland, Great-Britain, and 10 others or more ) and they were outnumbered. At this time, Napoleon was only in Italy. The domination on the netherland and rhine didn't came from no-where.
Golden some of my ancestor fought during both world war, so no, its not a joke, grow up And France is the country that won the most of war ever www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/qi/8080884/Quite-Interesting-the-QI-cabinet-of-curiosity.html m.imgur.com/8iBjrmz www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/qi/7930116/QI-Quite-Interesting-facts-about-France.html So learn history
@ali akbulut The influence of winter is slightly over exaggerated and Russians aren't immune to cold either despite common myths. Besides winter seems to be unreliable ally since it decided to side with Finns during the winter war.
@@steirqwe7956 It actually helped Hitler to advance his armies. Dirt and rivers freeze in winter. General frost is just one of the generals' excuses for their military failures.
@@stepanov_architect true. What didn't work out was Hitler underestimating the length of the operation. Thus when the frost thawed. The wehrmach (sorry for the spelling) were stuck in muddy plains.
Seeing that outnumbered enemy has spread their forces, generals of bigger army launch simultaneous attacks on all fronts. *Directed by* *ROBERT B. WEIDE*
Then retreat back, when they will chase you, if they concentrate on one portion the others can quickly surround them. If they break off then just use the defeat in detail strategy
Then retreat. You are on the offensive in this scenario, meaning you should be able to instigate a fighting retreat, sacrificing territory for time. The further you go, the longer and more stretched your enemies' supply line will be, while yours will continue to strengthen. Then once the enemy exhausts their counter attack capabilities, you go on the offensive, with a renewed strength capable of crushing them while they're tjred
@@Micro0644This is actually exactly what happened to the Dominion in Star Trek. They invaded the Federation, who pulls back and sacrificed territory for time to reconstitute their forces, and by the time they arrived in the core systems, their supplies lines are already stretched insanely thin, and their advance is halted at the siege of Vulcan and the battle of Arcadia. So once the Federation Starfleet and the Klingon Defence Force regained the initiative, they launched Operation: RETURN, concentrated their faster units, aka frigates, destroyers, and light cruisers, into one big spearhead of around 3 fleets, then pushed back and utterly collapsed the enemy's line, winning back 3 to 4 entire sectors within a week. So yeah, don't overextend, people.
this does work in eu4 i defeated a coaliton where i was outnumbered 3/1 using this stratagy by the end of it they had no navy and they only just outnumbered me in troops athough it doesnt work after focre mach is unlocked as well
Even better. They can retreat and make that 5k follow them for days. They aren't the one defending, so they can retreat as much as they want to. And when the big bois battle is over, your big bois army comes and wipes that 5k that's been chasing you for a week.
This idea works if you can't let any of your soldiers die, in reality though if 5000 are chasing 500 then the 500 have already won, a numerically superior army chasing a small force as such means there are 5000 less men to face your larger army
To finish, that 5000 is going to be defeated in detail like the other soldiers. As well, that 500 men is on the defensive now, meaning they have a tactical advantage right from the start.
Yeah this works only if your opponents don't react to the attacker moving their forces around. Why wouldn't the defender also moves his soldiers to counter this strategy? Cause this implies the by the book scenario where the defenders are braindead.
the big irony is the germans did the same thing in 1940. the sedan breach cut the allied armies in 2 with half the french army facing the maginot line doing nothing. that way they were able to route the allies at dunkirk fighting 2v1 and then turn their forces to face the rest of the french army. even though in paper their forces matched up, they always fought 2 to 1 on the ground.
The Germans did the same in 1941 during Barbarossa too. The Soviet line was staggered, so even though the Soviets had more men total the Germans outnumbered them in almost every single battle during the initial stages of the war.
No, blitzkrieg is different. Blitzkrieg involves fast moving armored divisions breaking through the line and grouping up behind enemy lines surrounding enemy army's as whole and many of them, in the Soviet Unioun for example. Surrendered resulting in little fighting. This strategy involves a front and simply having more troops then the other side at a certain point. Both effective military strategys
Mere superiority of numbers is sometimes not enough. Other factors like terrain, weather, surprise, morale, troop quality, supplies, weapon quality, leadership and fatigue usually comes into play. Sometimes mere luck becomes decisive. But with all else being equal, numbers would be the decisive factor. Perhaps the only factor that would make a difference.
Wow, weird everyone is just now finding this video, google must be playing with it's metadata again, anyways this is great content, I hope you have more videos on the way!
bro, you can imagine my shock. a week ago i was at 4,000 views with the savo video, its now past 100k. I am amazed. and yeah, im working on one now, should be out end of the month!
Guess this is the resultant overlap of my shared interests in strategy games, military armaments and technology, or factoids with utility Their metadata profiling improved
Great video! Though it is also important to emphasize that markedly superior leadership and troops are necessary to pull it off. In Waterloo Napoleon attempted the same feat, yet the Allied leadership and armies had improved to a point where it failed. After Blucher's Prussians were defeated, they evaded the small force sent to chase them off and reunited with Wellington's troops and crushing Napoleon's army. One of those things that sounds simple in theory but requires exceptional leadership and/or troops. When the leadership is not up to the task or the enemy is competent enough to foil your plans it could lead to disaster.
Same thing with the Battle of Tannenberg 1914, it worked because Germans had the intel on all Russian movement plans after an officer died with the note on him. After they confirmed the plans were true, the Germans were able to use it to their advantage rather than just using ''defeat in detail'' or ''concentration of force''. Sure, those two principles might have been present in the battle, but it was mostly due to the intel obtained, that the battle was such a success.
The thing about Waterloo is that Napoleon misread Blucher. He thought that he would fall back to cover his supply lines - but Blucher didn't cover them - he went to help Wellington. Napoleon's Marshal - followed his orders - which had been to "follow" the Prussians ... but instead of following the Prussians back towards Prussia - they followed the Prussians to Waterloo - where (The Prussians having gotten there first) the Battle was over by the time they got there. So - here - it was Wellington and Blucher that Concentrated their Forces and Napoleon who was Defeated in Detail because he had divided his army. This is one of the problems with the Napoleonic Management Model. Here the idea is that you have this genius running things and everyone else's function is to obey him. The problem with that is that it tends to make his subordinates less inclined to use their initiative. So - when Napoleon's Marshal is asked by HIS subordinates if they shouldn't "ride to the sound of the guns" (they being closer to Napoleon than Blucher) they were told that he, their Marshal - wasn't going to go against Napoleon's orders. .
This is what McClellan had a chance to do when the "Lost Order" fell into his hands. He was closer to the pieces of Lee's army than the pieces of that army were to each other. Instead, he vacillated and allowed Lee to regroup, resulting in the slaughterhouse of Antietam.
Helori Pascal Confederacy would have still collapsed. There is practically no realistic way in which the Confederates could have pulled off a decisive historic victory. Now, I'm no expert for the 19th century war strategy, but I'm pretty sure that diplomatically, the Confederate state wouldn't have survived the first four decades of its existence without breaking down. So anyway, the Confederacy was unstable and would have lost anyway.
Operation Werewolf I'm sure I'm not the "left wing" you are talking about, I'm actually quite traditionalistic, I'm not even American and despise regressivism. I was just being realistic. No, I'm not the kind of guys who cares about the strategy itself. I'm not a military expert or wannabe expert. But my claims on confederacy are unbiased. I wouldn't have anything against a confederate state today, but that seems like a stretch. It's possible the (a bit more powerful in this case) US would take the advantage of a failing agricultural economy, in the early 20th century. I know my comment was unnecesary, considering how the OP didn't really mention what would happen after the war, but still I wanted to say my opinion related to the subject.
Operation Werewolf Sorry, but the Federals had overwhelming advantages in naval, artillery, production, railways, and manpower. The only hope the Rebs had was to wear out the Norths will to fight, and they only ever got close to that because of a serous lack of competent federal leadership. The Continentals had both foreign allies acting as the life blood of rebellion and the fact the British were fighting across an ocean. Luxuries the South never had.
The Russian Fleet was insignificant to the Civil War. Twelve ships in total did nothing to close any supposed gaps in the blockade line around the Atlantic and Gulf coasts which were covered by a force already 20 times the size of the two squadrons Russia sent to the American coasts in 1863 to keep them from being ice-locked during the winter that year at a time when a possibility of an Anglo-Russian war seemed to be looming on the horizon. As for "just surviving", the South wasn't even going to be able to manage that. While the world's attention was fixed upon Virginia, the far more significant strategic victories - the ones that would actually decide the outcome of the war - were being won by the Union in the western theatre: the steady seizure of the Trans-Mississippi, control of the Cumberland River valley and hence control of the states of Kentucky and Tennessee. Control of those two states gave the Union the perfect position to stage the eventual invasion of Georgia to cut the Confederacy into pieces, while the Union's control of the Mississippi River effectively neutralised Texas, Arkansas and Missouri and allowed Union riverine military and commercial shipping to flow unimpeded all the way to the Gulf. And what made things all the worse for Confederate hopes was that the necessity to defend Richmond effectively bottled up reinforcements that were far more desperately needed to thwart the Union advances in the west. One of the main drivers for Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania was the hope of drawing Grant's army away from Vicksburg to defend Washington D.C. It was a gamble with long odds and little logistical support behind it, and it failed because George Meade proved to be a far more effective commander than the men Lee had contended against up to that fatal battle at Gettysburg. But it was Grant's victories at Vicksburg and later that year at Chattanooga that sealed the Confederacy's fate.
Great strategy for computer games maybe too ? One important detail is that Napoleon won the battles, but he lost the war in the end. The lesson from this is that *whoever wants to fight, must also be ready to lose.* Staying away from the fight is a victory, as long as the fight is not pushed upon you by time or similar forces. In the Napoleon example, the Chinese people or the Japanese did not participate, so they won by not fighting.
I do this strategy in total war lol. You can also do this on a more micro scale (if you play the game). You hide you main army in a forest/behind a hill, use a couple of cavalry units to harass the enemy bulk until you get them to chase you in different directions. You can now either herd the enemy into an ambush or march out your main army while keep harassing them with cavalry, so they cannot charge at your main force at full strength, ideally you wanna stretch them out while u pick their battalions out one by one.
I used to play strategy games. I think the historic battle strategies can be applied to the computer games too. Also, the modern *e-sports games can teach us* new strategies that nobody could have expected before.
An interesting thing to note here. Starting at 1:40 you'll also notice the total of the forces left behind. Only 500 at each spot.. Even if the enemy decided to attack first. They would only destroy 500 troops. To a max of 1500 if they attacked all 3. While your forces still eliminate 5000 troops. Your enemy would still lose more troops overall. 500-1500 troops lost to 5000 enemy troops lost in any battle is a victory any general would take. Essentially, even if you lost 3 other battles, you still win. This is an essential part of warfare. To force your enemy to use as much resources as possible (men, equipment, food, etc) against you, while you use as few resources as possible against them. Essentially it's efficiency. Eventually this can wear down even the largest enemy. Rebellions/guerrilla warfare is another excellent example of this.
Before I watch the video, I've always figured it was key to not focus so much on numbers but to analyze as any factors as possible, I.E; morale, terrain, training, weather etc....Then keep in mind Napoleonic divide and conquer philosophy... I look forward to learning more here.
Basically "divide and conquer". Divide the foe into smaller groups and then conquer each individually before they can regroup. Used by the Romans when they were conquering Italy. Stalin hoped to do the same thing WWII. He wanted to wait for the Germans and Allies to weaken each other and then conquer them individually before they could rebuild. Then Operation Barbarossa happened, allowing the Allies to effectively "defeat in detail" the Germans since the Germans now had to divide their forces between multiple fronts.
Theres is absolutely no detail in bombing cities to ashes. Take a look at the world map and point Russia and America out, yes these big places. Now look for Germany and Japan, two dots in comparison. We didn't even count other Allied countries like Britain and it's colonies in yet.
Bombing cities was a big waste of time, resources, and manpower. The problem is that cities are pretty big and bombing them will scare the civilians into supporting their war effort even harder. Germany's failure wasn't because they lacked heavy bombers, but because of poor strategy (and logistics). During the Battle of Britain, Germany almost annihilated the RAF. What happened was the leadership (likely mostly Hitler) ordered the bombers to focus on bombing cities. This gave the RAF enough time to rebuild. All attacking the cities did was anger the Brits further and allow the RAF to catch their breath. Heavy bombers can be useful for destroying vital infrastructure. Germany was already infamous for poor logistics. World War One could have turned out differently if Germany had rail lines that could extend closer to the front. Heck, the only reason the "Blitzkreig" was even a thing was because the Germans knew they could only win a short war. It's why France and Poland fell fairly quickly (it also helped that France was next door) while the Brits, Soviets, and Americans proved to be too much. Once you've survived the German attacks long enough, they start running into supply problems.
@Andre Massena Hitler issuing the go at USSR, have some merits. The buffer state they created are meant to be temporary, and sooner or later they would clash for the control of the continent. Later, it has been uncovered that USSR have plans on invading Nazi Germany in '42, if things go south with their pact.
I'm not gonna lie, this is my entire tactic in EU4. It was how i defeated 50k men when i had only 30k, and the enemy had 100k in total, i did lose, but barely, only giving two tiles away.
Something very informative that works even in most rts games Its something most commanders should know in any military and something alot of people use in rts *myself included*
at 1:23 I'd like to refer to Sun Tzu, "In war, numbers alone confer no advantage. Do not advance relying on sheer military power." Not to be petty but I was amused :3
Dante Howlstice well I'd like to share my view on this........ The overall commanders of large scale wars can only plan the very start(as in things shown in this video and other things) But when the battle actually starts, it is the various commanders and soldiers who have to adapt to the situation and attack accordingly... And also report correct information back to their superiors..... Sun Tzu is ryt, numbers alone don't really give much advantage unless the army works properly like the cogs of a machine. Their are many examples in history where overwhelmingly large forces lost to smaller forces due to various factors, many of such being in Indian history...
I mean, it won't really work in HOI4 because if you do this, the ai will push behind your units and kill them. This would work better in VIC2 EU4 or CK3 where there's no advantage to spreading your force
@@hiddentreasure2161 No it works, this is what i do everytime i'm trying to push into a country. They can push your defensive units for a while but you should be able to encircle those units before they push you too far away.
Only stupid general would ordered cavalry to charge a large concentration of infantry from the front. But Daenerys was not a good general to begin with.
@@gloriabisco6148 ...and not taking advantage from a fortified defensive position, not creating proper "killing zones" (well, the enemy was already dead, but you know...) and traps all over the battlefield besides a weak barricade, not using efficently their "air force" supporting properly their land troops, and entrusting a bunch of archers to protect a VIP inside the walls, in a close space, instead of deploy them on the walls and entrust that mission to some heavy infantry.... that episode is a complet military nonsense...
@@isihernandez9752 Well they seemed to have too many soldiers to fit inside the walls so they kept a large base outside to get a sense of the enemy since they never fought them before and then retreat into the castle once they get more information on how to fight them and using fearless unsullied to make sure the retreat doesn't turn into a slaughter. As for the Dothraki Horde, they would assume that the enemy would completely surround the castle so the flank is denied, that leaves no other choice but to do a front charge and when the horde gets surrounded the remaining ground forces would charge forward and break open the horde from being circled and hopefully the charge would kill enough to be worth it but they severely underestimated the enemy which is why the horde died so quickly and the reinforcements could not get to them in time. Once inside the walls they used the fire traps to stall the enemy as their troops got into position to defend the wall after seeing how aggressive the zombies are. As for building more traps they did not have enough time, they were working 24/7 building the fire stall trap and making the dragon glass weapons. As for the air force, they just lost a dragon that joined the enemy side. They needed to be more defensive with the dragons because they could not afford to lose a second one. Also the snow storm messed them up a lot and could not light the trap or see the enemy. As for Bran, their plan was to have him out in the open with a weak guard hoping the Night King would drop in on his dragon to kill Bran and they could take him out in the trap. Not the best idea but not the worst either, it was a gamble, keep him somewhat protected inside the walls but still visible and out in the open to entice the Night King to come in and be over confident. It was not the best military defense but they were severely limited on time and faced like 5+:1 odds against an extremely aggressive and fearless enemy that they had never fought before on a large scale. They had to spend a lot of time training and arming the women and inexperienced fighters which took away from their manpower for the carpentry and forgers. All in all they did the best they could given the time constraints they had and that it was their first time fighting this enemy.
@@elivolpyansky Nah... the retreat covered by the unsullied is the only logic and well executed mouvement on that battle, but all the other, just makes no sense. 1st- they did actually already know the enemy and what they could expect from him. Jon knew them, Daenerys knew them, and definitley, the wildlings knew them. Also do Jorah, the Hound, Dondarrion, the remaining members of the Night Watch.... 2nd- they didn't set a base out of the walls, they just deployed their troops in combat order to prepare for an open field battle, wich ain't the same thing. Thay didn't build a fortified camp to protect the troops who didn't fit inside the walls. 3rd- I'm not sure that there was no room insde the walls for all of them, but if so, I don't think that sacrificing almost all of the Dothrakis was the best way to make some room. 4th- If despite it all, they decided to start the battle with a cavalry charge, doing it like that, frontally is stupid. It would have been much more effective to deploy the unsullied on the front (with some others to protect the flanks), hidding the cavalry and making them wrap the enemy charging from their flank or their rear. 5th- as for defending the dragons, well, it's true until a certain point, but that battle was all or nothing, it makes no sense to keep your reserves if you have no chance to escape and you know your enemy doesn't take prisioners and doesn't negociate a peace or a rendition. With other enemies, the Dragons may be used just as a deterrent weapon, with no need to really engage them in combat, like some sort of nukes, but not with this enemy. At some point you have to use all that you have and most of the battle the dragons were stupidly engaged in a nonsense "dog fight" (if what you pretended was to atract the Night King to a trap) or just inactive. One dragon would have done the job of distracting the Nigh King without really engaging with him as the other supported the troops on the ground. 6th- regarding the trap, the Night King wouldn't have stopped if Bran was better protected for some heavy infantry, he was confident enough and Bran was his main target. That weak deffense will only have led to Bran's certain death if it wasn't for Arya, who wasn't included in the plan at all. 7th- regarding the traps all along the battlefield, they had people more than enough to set a lot more of them. Thousands of Dothrakis and unsullied, + the Valley knights, + the Wildlings + the civil popultion of Winterfell, + some others, is people more than enough to make obsidian weapons, and prepare the defenses at the same time. Hey, at the end of the day, it's only fiction and fantasy, no need to break our heads, but for all the series (as in the books), they had kept a nice realism and some sort of "historical reference accuracy" (despite the dragons, white walkers, etc), and it's a shame that at the end they had just forgot how to do it.
Or like the portuguese did everytime they got invaded by Spain, Burn everything around the spanish troops, let the armies starve themselves and the ocasional guerrilla strategies.
Defeat in Detail refers to field armies. Fixed fortifications or even well dug in troops could nullify it. For instance, it was not successful against Roman legions since their camps were like forts.
That is quite a statement. I wonder if it is true, or does it just mean that the design and nature of defensive fortifications would be different?? Radar and AEW assets would be key to the defense of any base today, and therefore the defense of those assets would also be key. But, these assets are not fixed, and move with the army. Look at how combined forces recently severely defeated Russian mercenaries that attacked an American base in Syria. In that, fixed fortifications were not a factor, as you assert. So, I think you are right.
Napoleon would just go around fortifications and go capture cities of fool who tried such strategy. They didn't fight battles for the sake of fighting they had goals...
Lol, this amazed me because it was writed in The Art of War "Attack their weakest point with your strongest". But i've never fully understood what it meant. Thanks!
One way I defeated my opponent in a game of Risk went like this: We both had strongholds that bordered each other. We constantly attacked one another, but the engagements were meat grinders, the war was stalemated. So, I started building my forces elsewhere and took out his lightly defended outer territories. I now had two armies attacking his stronghold from both sides, we launched a two-pronged attack, and destroyed his forces!
PS. One thing more! As I've written - this "strategy" was at best RISKY when Bonaparte took over the "Army of the South" (that would be known as the "Army Of Italy"). TODAY - with XXth century intel-gathering gathering modern technology (and the extremely brief "time of decision" factor), all ranging from "mere" scouting units to radar - radio's - drones - SATELLITES - nowadays opposing forces have practically such an almost TOTAL "OVERVIEW" of the battlefield that it isn't anymore possible to concentrate forces WITHOUT being noticed, therefore this strategy is doomed to fail. I'm not saying it is IMPOSSIBLE to somehow STRATEGICALLY surprise your enemy - but it is very difficult. You still may rely upon that "strategy" but you'd have to (...SOMEHOW!...) "FOOL INTO" it your enemy - make him believe you'll attack in point "A" while you'll attack in point "B", but it's more trouble than gain. Nowadays it is VIRTUALLY impossible to surprise an Army - especially a BIG one (meaning - an Army with an advanced militar, industrial and technological back-up).
very true then you have to rely on strikes to blind the foe first take out his recon and all things that can detect by any means nessicary then attempt to pull off what the vid shows.
Good points but I also think its a question of scale. Today with all the intel - well that would have to be smaller units that would move in and out of position in hours or minutes instead of days. Information travels faster so they have to zoom down. But at that micro scale the same concepts could still be effective.
Your example is a great showcase of the importance of military intelligence. Shenanigans like this aren't nearly as easy to conceal in a world of instant mass communications and aerial reconnaisance. Napoleon would be hard pressed to catch the Piedmontese with their pants down if they had planes to identify his army's movements and relay them between garrisons.
Yeah, good point, under the condition that on the other side you have fixed Positions of non cooperative forces and no reactive military commanders. There are many more parameters, still what you say is tactically and even in an operational point of view correct.
Part of any strategy is to know the enemy. If I know that they will place a premium on defending every little town and village, I can use that to my advantage by threatening everything at once. All I have to do is maintain even a vaguely credible threat.
@@hzrvan7303 Depending the location of the battlefield, is it mountains, forest or plain field, or is it in the middle of a siege. And sure if you are playing on the easiest mode you can beat the opponent easily. Swadian Knights are no match against Rhodoks shield wall and Sharpshooters combination in mountains or sieges.
Not rocket science of a strategy to come up with.I'm sure it was used as a base tactic for many historical engagements long before Napoleon.Great video.
The entire strategy depends on the enemy not being able to recon your movements otherwise you're still fucked. It's a hail mary not sound strategy which is why napoleon ultimately lost the war.
@@tothere8314 Not really, it is a sound strategy because at the time, communication between forces are usually limited only to messengers, they only seldomly use wire telegraphs(I think they only use that for long distance) and there's no such thing as radio. And even if they do recon your forces, he would still need to report back to his commander, the commander needs to interpret the information, he needs to order his men and he'll likely send another messenger to call for reinforcements, since the commander ordered his men to spread out, that is if they get there in time. Its a sound strategy for that era and Napoleon executed it so well that it took all of Europe just to beat him and his army.
Wouldn't concentrating your troops at a key area while the (I guess you can say) 'decoy' armies stand halted, heavily outnumbered, leave your flanks and reinforcements extremely vulnerable to enemy flanking maneuvers? I mean, if 500 men stand guard against 5,000 men, the 5,000 men stationed in those locations can wipe out or rout the standing units hence exposing the flanks of the main attack, and leaving your army outnumbered.
Obviously. If your force is numerically inferior or otherwise outmatched by the opposing force, any brilliant moves always critically rely on the enemy making serious mistakes. If the other side has their own Napoleon, the brilliant-moves factor is canceled out and what remains is one side being outmatched by the other.
yea or a decent one for command can use this to force the smaller force to fight the larger one on one location with full strength to use regardless of tactical outcome to force your opponent smaller in number then you to fight you on your own terms that alone is enough to clame a symbolic victory and a mental one to boot since you force your foe in to a conror to fight anyway.
Yes, but those decoy forces (500 men stand guard) were initially 3000, as the attacker divide also his forces. This is the intel ennemy have. Thise 500 left guard had to simulate that large force, covering the withdraw of 2.500, so that the ennemy can't figure you're concentrating. And 5.000 foes would not easily challenging 3.000 of your own. All wars are based on deception (Sun Tzu). Those 500 men had just that task. To pretend to be 3000. :)
I have seen this strategy put forth in a show called " legend of the galactic heroes " it's probably the best show ever created by mankind . Give it a try
Why never? Never say never! You can try to bait the enemy with a defending position that would let them think you could be defeated in detail, but once they try to take advantage, you counter with hidden defensive lines and fast shifts of your troops, which the enemy not expect. Half of your troops will be send to defend the main line, the rest will launch counter-attacks on the weakened frontline spots of the enemy, so that the enemey main line is in danger of getting flanked. Now you are outnumbering the flanks and it will only be a matter of time until the enemy is forced to retreat from the mainline to avoid getting wiped out!
The enemy can encircle your whole army if you concentrate it in one area just like what happened in the battle of Ulm by Napoleon or just like in ww2 by encirclement.
Defeat in detail is what happens in _every horror movie_ ever.
That's a really interesting insight
Srsly don't split the party
how many scary movies where grouping up and hitting it till it dies is a good plan? Surprisingly alot.
I've watched hundreds of episodes of scooby doo and it doesn't happen to them ever
@@asiansupport630 I.T. Says hi haha
now everyone’s gonna think they’re mastermind military strategists because they watched one video
Commander Dave Such is life as a TH-cam Scholar.
Now you probably think you're a tough guy saying this.
By now, I am sure I have earned my Master in TH-cam Studies. I am going for my DYt, or Doctor of TH-cam.
more like, i think this is a mastermind military video because i watch it
Embrace me, for I am a ruptured Corporal of Marines.
we all know napoleon just rolled a 9 while his enemies kept rolling 0
It also helps being a 6 6 6 6.
italian ai is broken man, paradox is never gonna fix it
though for some reason russians rolled 20 for devastating winter
That's because they are RUSSIANS.
which game system are you talking about?
"If the enemy sends reinforcements everywhere, he will everywhere be weak" -Sun Tzu, Art of War
@@Мартичан it was actually made into a popular joke in potato wars by technoblade
If you think deeply, this does actually make a lot of sense
@@BYRDE1917 Not even deeply bro, it's just basic overextension
*total war Rome ii noise*
“He who defends everything defends nothing.”-Frederick the great
"Let's split up, gang!" - General Fred Jones.
Underrated
lol
Like zoinks.
best comment
Field Marshal Fred Jones
You: Spread your army expecting the enemy to also spread so you can defeat them in detail
Enemy: Does not spread out and attacks your spread out forces with one big force, defeating you in detail
counter defeat in detail
@@leusmaximusx but he counter attacks your counter attack and defeats you
But the objective is to reach the town. If they attack one group than the other three can take the town while the attacked group can retreat or stall for reinforcements that would come from behind enemy lines, crushing them in battle on two different fronts.
And you are fucked up in detail..😂😂
If you are in the enemy's land he has other things to worry about, like guarding resources, which you don't (except for guarding your supply lines). So if the enemy doesn't spread out, possibly you could take more prizes and achieve your objective in that way.
Enemy AI in Civilization: “your army is so weak compared to ours, prepare to be crushed”
Me with my two archers and a scout: fends off a continent’s worth of soldiers with basically no casualties
Enemy AI: “let’s not let war define who we are”
now I want to download Civ again
Fuck those ai. When they aay those lines. I want to crush them more
you forgot the part where they call YOU the warmonger after you beat them that badly
Same thing can be said for total war games.
5 armies attack you and the only troops you have is like 2 cavalry 5 infantry 3 ranged 1 skirmisher/light infantry.
yet if you attack strategically you’ll win
“let’s not let war define who we are” LIGMA BALLS POS AI
The Germans used this extensively in the Second World War, specifically in the early phases of the war. It is great if you are attacking a fairly static enemy who is dispersed. Not so good if you are under attack, especially on a broad front.
Actually that (Edit: "that" here refers to a point from the original comment that polaris has since edited out as a reaction to this reply) is not really the case. Blitzkrieg was a way of creating defeat in detail situations specifically by not engaging in direct defeat in detail tactics. The obvious tactical answer to the scenario in the video is to place only a small portion of your force on the front and to keep the largest part of it behind the line as a strategic reserve. The front forces can be dug in into highly entrenched positions that, if engaged, are guaranteed both to inflict heavier casualties on the enemy than they take and to slow the advance providing enough time for the reserves to repel the advance and use the superior numbers in a counter-attack. Even better is to divide your reserve into fast-moving rapid reaction forces to slow the advance at the point of contact and a larger, heavier force for the counter-attack. The details are not so important as the concept of giving ground temporarily in order to slow the enemy down without committing serious numbers to the fight until it is to your advantage.
What blitzkrieg did was to turn the prevailing military wisdom of the day on its head and have the initial overwhelming force ignore the enemy positions as much as possible. Their primary role was to create a breakthrough and stay mobile, thus depriving the defensive force of both the time it needs to bring up the reserve force and a single, static point of attack for the reserve forces to be deployed. And because the reserve force is not deployed to the front, this area becomes weak enough for a secondary attack force to advance and surround the strongpoint defences there, taking them at leisure while the defending army tries to deal with the breakthrough, which will by now have turned and be threatening the rear of the defending force and a larger encirclement. Most defending generals of the day felt their position at this point was too precarious and ordered a general withdrawal, thus leaving the isolated pockets of men to their fate.
It is worth noting that the basic defensive ideas have not actually changed that much from that time - the foundation is still defence in depth - but modern day generals understand blitzkrieg and other breakthrough + encirclement strategies so much better now, compared with 1939, that they can react much more appropriately. In particular, counterattacking the flanks of the advancing force while adding even more defensive layers to the lines can slow the advance to a crawl, eliminating most of the dangers. The Allied forces essentially learned these lessons during the first half of WW2 and they have more or less been perfected since.
@@zelandakhniteblade5436 Noteworthy is that the German blitzkrieg was also quite effective thanks to incredibly well coordinated use of combined arms warfare. The Germans were very efficient at using the right tools for the specific job. For example, you wouldn't see many Tiger 1 tanks the vast majority of the time except for specifically the initial breakthrough. After that point you would primarily see Panzer 3s and the Tiger 1s would retreat for maintenance and be preparing for the next major initial phase of another breakthrough. Artillery was also used very effectively aswell as Luftwaffe bombings in order to create that initial opening. Motorized infantry would cover the rears as the punch consisting primarily of panzers pushed deeper and deeper. Later the regular ground infantry would reinforce and secure the new front, by which time the encirclement was already complete, allowing the ground infantry to take out the encircled enemies that was left behind.
Problem of course during the invasion of the Soviet Union was that the Germans simply didn't have the oil nor infrastructure to supply their forces which would eventually lead to the failure of the Wehrmacht. Invading Poland or France is one thing, but the colossal size of the USSR was simply not feasible with blitzkrieg.
That's very true, French did not see that technology had shifted the war meta from a defensive one to a very offensive one. That and the Ardennes of course.
this is the tactic used in the invasion of France where they concentrated their armor division in one place and also in 1944 in ardennes offensive
For an even better example, the Russian counterattacks against the Army Group Center in the Winter of 1941-1942
Did not work
My army froze to death
You underestimate the power of a Russian Winter
@@justinc3824 yes I truly underestimated the winter
Sacrifice to the lord of light Mr Baratheon .
*Froze
@@Gamer-is6ew thank you my lord
*Total war veteran players laughing at the background*
just create 2 full stack army, ggwp
It depends on which total war medieval 2 it can be annoying to heal damaged troops so better strategy would work better.
Also applies on the battle map, trying to pit 2 units or more against one, fixing and flanking, then moving on. This is by far the most common method of defeat in Total War: Arena as well, usually it cascades and you'll be left facing like 5:1 odds
*starts the game on easy with malicious intent*
your picture profile proves that you go to shadbase and so i can safely said that you need jesus
I will try this against Russia. Wish me luck
Good luck, they'll need it.
Ubisons
Ask Sweden and Germany for a quick tutorial
Winter will ruin this plan I guess.
Dino Warchine RUSSIAN WINTERS RUIN BIG ARMIES!
Remember to pack some winter clothes
"I remember several years ago being intrigued by Napoleon's lightning campaign..."
Immortal *CONFIRMED*
Lol.
Napoleon was a genius at this kind of thing. He heavily relied on speed and attack.
Prussia Not really, the blitz is more if a strategic maneuver whereas DiD is more tactical
What do you think, he was taken by aliens. They put a chip in him, if you don't believe me, google is your friend :)
DiD is engaging larger army but by making the right maneuvres you keep a numerical advantage at each engagement. Blitzkrieg is engaging a frontline with concentrated amounts of armour to have a numerical advantage in armour, punch through the line, create chaos, disrupt supply lines and other logistics and push for encirclements and quick defeats of large parts of the enemy militairy. Depending on how concentrated, fast and effective the armour is, you either need numerical superiority overall or not.
The master of this were Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg were military disasters and humiliated two Union generals out of their top positions.
Not to take away from the accomplishments of Lee & Jackson but they'd never have had such success if the Union Army was competently commanded. Had McClellan understood that he outnumbered the Confederates, the war would have been over pretty quickly.
*After watching*
I’ve been promoted to general!
*loses every battle*
Alright Charles Lee just lafeyet the lead
Why is your pfp Salieri?
Nish Vaze Alt Conqueror I just like Salieri but I didn't think THAT many people would notice that my pfp's Salieri
You can leade an army and not be General
It’s all politics ya know, it’s all politics
We gon need this for Area 51
Yeah, escpaically if the Aliens start rapid hatching from their space eggs
they already patched this glitch
I was just about to put the same comment
Why would anyone want to break in that prison?
Every army would need an uchiha itachi
Europe: You are outnumbered !
Napoleon: No u
Napoleon: But you are outmatched!
Russian Winter: do you want die?
@No No
@@deisk2707 Fun fact: Russian Summer killed French soldier more than Russian Winter.
Napoleon be like: In men maybe, but not in IQ
Your presentation, visuals, and editing are pretty damn good. I also like how you incorporated Google Earth into some of your videos. This is a channel worth keeping an eye on.
Thank you!
Montemayor Really good stuff, I am always looking for good stuff about tactics and battles. Gained yourself a subscriber. 👍
I agree just subbed now.
Montemayor I loved this please do more like it
I'd like to add voice too.
Also known in the Total War franchise as a "Doom Stack".
Fucking mongols and their attrition-less event troops...
@The German ouch
@The German "DESTROY THEM!"
@Fa Mulan total war time players have to differ, as whore hammer players just spam magic whilst we have to make the most out of every unit and fucking ability.
No, doomstack is just a loaded 20 stack. you can't really do defeat in detail anymore in modern Total War games because the game always requires troops to move under a general.
But then artillery arrived and blew the concentrated force into a smoothie.
The end.
Rock-paper-scissor. Artillery (rock) can't kill enough of the horde (paper), but will wipe out the fast but small elite (scissor). Fast elite troops, in turn, will either outmaneouver hordes - if they concentrate their forces - or defeat them in detail - if they spread out to cover all objectives, but will be smashed by the artillery.
@@Siathuan that doesn't make much sense. It's the small elite units that should have it easier vs artillery.
@@jintarokensei3308 So, the other way around? Artillery the scissor vs the paper of the horde vs the rock of the elite?
I'm stretching the metaphor either way.
@@Siathuan makes more sense, sure. But pack enough personal into a small enough area, and it doesn't matter.
It's supposed to be Artillery (Paper) destroys Infantry formations (Rock) which in turn destroys Cavalry formations (Scissors) which are used to flank enemy lines and 'usually' attack weak and vulnerable troops like Artillery (Paper)
The entirety of warfare can summed up as a a struggle for better information than your opponent. As long as you know more about your opponent than they do about you, any fight is winnable.
Lemme Smash - Erwin Rommel to a British officer 1941
Ekin Erdem :/
Ad Victoriam! stalin was preparing to attack him anyway but after the soviet army re-arm itself with new weapons
I don't get it, Rommel got his ass handed to him?
"No Rom, go find Bocky."
no rommel
go find belgium
Planning to revolt against the elementary staff for not letting us having pudding and ice cream for lunch be like
Playing paradox games is like this. The only difference is in Hearts of Iron where instead of attacking the different armies you just go around them and *encircle them.*
*Attrition intensifies*
FUCK ATTRITION LIMIT
THIS COMMENT IS MADE BY EVENT TROOPS GANG
Yeah you dust get a extra lil army grip on the side for maneuvers and attacks while your main force defends
Well, you can eventually run out of manpower or money/resources in paradox games. This video is more true of Civilization where you don't have to worry about manpower, and troop maintenance is rather trivial.
Basically ck2, smash the enemy levies before they mass together
That is what I have been doing in Total War, nice to know "Defeat in detail" is something I have been using instinctively. I also like using the Hammer and Anvil tactic, pinning the enemy with troops and then attacking from behind with cavalry / tanks so that the enemy is fighting a battle on two fronts, and therefore their manpower on each front is effectively halved. Shock and Awe is another good one, pound the enemy with artillery before the battle starts, then mop up when they're shell shocked and panicking. Mobility is key, and rapid guerilla-like tactics can allow a small force to overcome and grind down the larger force, and then win with morale shock, and on a macro-scale create war weariness as large, visible key targets get taken out.
One thing to remember is that in order for this to work, you also need a) a very good recon ability so that the weak spots can be found, and b) be ensured that the enemy commander won't move his forces around - this in turn makes it really important that the numerical inferior force is way too fast for the enemy to react to.
The two best examples to this are first the Finnish Winter War in 1939-40, when Finnish troops would chop up Russian convoys in smaller parts and defeat each one in detail. Since the Russians were confined to their heavy and cumbersome equipment stuck on the narrow roads, they couldn't react fast enough to support the cut off portions of their forces, and since the Finns were on skis, they pretty much ran circles around the Russians all the time.
A second example would be once again Rommel, who cut through the French forces during the western campaign in 1940. He was constantly outnumbered there as well, but managed to use his very fast units to really upset the Allies. One captured French officer told him, 'you are too fast for us'.
that is true but attrition warfare and knowing how to use it to your advantage can stop any and all speedy force in it's tracks if you can force them in to a attrition fight even when out numbered it will stop all of the speed that they will have. just one fight where you bloody the smaller force badlly enough will make it harder for that force to pull off any local supremacy attacks at all.
@Vincent Celeste: True - it happened at El Alamein and on a greater scale in the Soviet Union. However, a war of attrition is very unappetizing nowadays - very few countries would simply not accept the losses asociated with that.
yea once the war of attrition kicks in it is all over for everyone cause the only way out is to call it quits and leave.
sadlly there is few who are willing to do places like china or india with deep population pools can afford to do it and will have the spines to pull it off and be better off for it to. more space to spread out and eventually replace the losses there.
I think an important aspect of all this is that the effectiveness of an attacking force increases disproportionally with its size, so that for example, if an army of 10 000 were to attack an army of 5000, they would be *more than* twice as strong and thus the battle would be very one-sided, with them losing fewer men than one might expect. This is why a locally superior force doesn't get slowly ground up by multiple attacks, but is able to maintain enough strength over time. The strategy of Defeat in Detail is really just this effect of numerical superiority put to good use. I just looked it up, it is called Lanchester's square law: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws
only if those countries posses nukes and only if it escalates to strategic (not tactical) nuclear war which is a pretty big risk for both sides in such a confrontation. In all other cases of conventional war, this pretty much applies.
This whole strategy hinges on the enemy's inability to see you're forces though.
yes, nobody said it was easy or not risky. at marengo it nearly backfired, but the mark of a GREAT general is that he is able to break the rules of warfare repeatedly and achieve success repeatedly. there is a reason why there are rules of war at every given time period, to see through them, break them, and succeed more than once is beyond a fluke of luck. it's genius.
@@boss180888 dood stop acting smart, like cmon its dumb it makes u look stupid.
@@_Sean___ Go watch fortnite kid. You're rocking a solid 60IQ...
*Your
...
*Always have the HIGH GROUND* That's why Obi-Wan beat Anakin.
And that is why Darth Maul defeated Obi-Wan...
Oh wait.
Napoleon won at Austeritz by GIVING the high ground to the ennemy. :)
- Sire, this is the best position. How can you leave it to the ennemy?
- Mon general, if I would only stop the ennemy, I would keep this position. But I want to totally destroy them. By tommorrow evening, all those armies will be in my hands!
everyone knows that having the high ground isen't only top #1 priority in the battlefields but also in life itself
@David Roberts ALWAYS MAINTAIN A HIGH GROUND. No matter what...
@David Roberts you need to stay at high ground to avoid flood
*brain explosion*
A similiar one is of Maratha Peshwa Bajirao Ballal. Undefeated throughout his military career spanning 20 years.
Believed in speed rather than numbers and would only use cavalry and outmanouver, the Brits and Mughals alike.
Was almost always outnumbered.
For those interested, Battle Of Palkhed is one of the most studied and flawless victories of Bajirao.
Yes he was a great commander indeed
I always referred to this strategy as "Flank baiting" due to how you position troops to threaten the enemy flank, but then focus all your effort on attacking the main route instead. With the enemy still focused on the flank, they'll be caught off guard.
This is what I like to do in rts games. Scout a place where I see enemies, gather a small force that I try to get through the point and meanwhile collect a big army that I later just brute force through another place
Short and sweet
also informative
i like it
keep it up
thank you! and will do
Obstgarteninnot ikr this guy is awesome
yeah, if you're playing against bots.
all soldiers are bots.
achraf mirrane I would actually say the exact opposite it works better on humans
not if against this bot... th-cam.com/video/syM0RhUIMeQ/w-d-xo.html
@@davidebic XD
Apparently Napoleon was playing against bots then.
2:15 Maneuver warfare is the most important component of concentration of force. Maneuver warfare is a fairly modern military concept. But the Mongols were probably the first to master maneuver warfare, defeating enemies in battle that were numerically superior time and time again
French people: Napoleon, what is our strategy?
Napoleon: We don't surrender!
French people: What kind of abomination is this?
French revolutionnary state has already won 2 coallition ( Russia, Prussia, Austro-Hungary, Spain, Portugal, Netherland, Great-Britain, and 10 others or more ) and they were outnumbered. At this time, Napoleon was only in Italy.
The domination on the netherland and rhine didn't came from no-where.
ITeach You dude it's just a meme.
French were kicking ass back than. Napoleon is one of the most legendary Generals in history.
yeah the battlefield is not only in front of you, threat can come from everywhere
Golden some of my ancestor fought during both world war, so no, its not a joke, grow up
And France is the country that won the most of war ever
www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/qi/8080884/Quite-Interesting-the-QI-cabinet-of-curiosity.html
m.imgur.com/8iBjrmz
www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/qi/7930116/QI-Quite-Interesting-facts-about-France.html
So learn history
Golden oh no it was a joke :)
"What difference does it make that you have 2 tanks to my 1, when you spread them out and let me smash them in detail?" Rommel the Desert Fox
Napoleon: a general so badass it took an entire continent to defeat him
It took Russians and their frustrating cunning tactics, others weren't the force to be reckoned with at this point.
@ali akbulut The influence of winter is slightly over exaggerated and Russians aren't immune to cold either despite common myths. Besides winter seems to be unreliable ally since it decided to side with Finns during the winter war.
@@steirqwe7956 It actually helped Hitler to advance his armies. Dirt and rivers freeze in winter. General frost is just one of the generals' excuses for their military failures.
@@stepanov_architect true. What didn't work out was Hitler underestimating the length of the operation. Thus when the frost thawed. The wehrmach (sorry for the spelling) were stuck in muddy plains.
@ali akbulut Napoléon lost because he didn't predict that the Russians would burn their own villages instead of giving them up
Seeing that outnumbered enemy has spread their forces, generals of bigger army launch simultaneous attacks on all fronts.
*Directed by*
*ROBERT B. WEIDE*
Then retreat back, when they will chase you, if they concentrate on one portion the others can quickly surround them. If they break off then just use the defeat in detail strategy
Then retreat. You are on the offensive in this scenario, meaning you should be able to instigate a fighting retreat, sacrificing territory for time. The further you go, the longer and more stretched your enemies' supply line will be, while yours will continue to strengthen. Then once the enemy exhausts their counter attack capabilities, you go on the offensive, with a renewed strength capable of crushing them while they're tjred
@@Micro0644This is actually exactly what happened to the Dominion in Star Trek. They invaded the Federation, who pulls back and sacrificed territory for time to reconstitute their forces, and by the time they arrived in the core systems, their supplies lines are already stretched insanely thin, and their advance is halted at the siege of Vulcan and the battle of Arcadia. So once the Federation Starfleet and the Klingon Defence Force regained the initiative, they launched Operation: RETURN, concentrated their faster units, aka frigates, destroyers, and light cruisers, into one big spearhead of around 3 fleets, then pushed back and utterly collapsed the enemy's line, winning back 3 to 4 entire sectors within a week.
So yeah, don't overextend, people.
This would work in Eu4 if battles didn't last a couple of months.
Unpopular Opinion Guy And when you think A.I finally can't arrive in time because you find out they just ignored the are control because of a glitch
"Forced March"
Unpopular Opinion Guy truth
Unpopular Opinion Guy but you gotta attack and seize the other enemy allies then sue for piece
this does work in eu4 i defeated a coaliton where i was outnumbered 3/1 using this stratagy by the end of it they had no navy and they only just outnumbered me in troops athough it doesnt work after focre mach is unlocked as well
But if the enemy attacks your 500 men with their 5000 men not stonks
Even better. They can retreat and make that 5k follow them for days. They aren't the one defending, so they can retreat as much as they want to. And when the big bois battle is over, your big bois army comes and wipes that 5k that's been chasing you for a week.
Chasing much smaller forces and tiring your men (and possibly being lured into an ambush or a feint retreat) are the real "unstonks" in strategy.
This idea works if you can't let any of your soldiers die, in reality though if 5000 are chasing 500 then the 500 have already won, a numerically superior army chasing a small force as such means there are 5000 less men to face your larger army
To finish, that 5000 is going to be defeated in detail like the other soldiers. As well, that 500 men is on the defensive now, meaning they have a tactical advantage right from the start.
Yeah this works only if your opponents don't react to the attacker moving their forces around. Why wouldn't the defender also moves his soldiers to counter this strategy? Cause this implies the by the book scenario where the defenders are braindead.
the big irony is the germans did the same thing in 1940. the sedan breach cut the allied armies in 2 with half the french army facing the maginot line doing nothing. that way they were able to route the allies at dunkirk fighting 2v1 and then turn their forces to face the rest of the french army. even though in paper their forces matched up, they always fought 2 to 1 on the ground.
The Germans did the same in 1941 during Barbarossa too. The Soviet line was staggered, so even though the Soviets had more men total the Germans outnumbered them in almost every single battle during the initial stages of the war.
Well, there is a reason why they called it 'Blitzkrieg' (flash war).
Well, the german army was inferior to just the french one on tanks, artillery, etc. But they decided to spread...
No, blitzkrieg is different. Blitzkrieg involves fast moving armored divisions breaking through the line and grouping up behind enemy lines surrounding enemy army's as whole and many of them, in the Soviet Unioun for example. Surrendered resulting in little fighting. This strategy involves a front and simply having more troops then the other side at a certain point. Both effective military strategys
@@idk1848
To "break though the line" you need to "defeat in detail" first.
Mere superiority of numbers is sometimes not enough. Other factors like terrain, weather, surprise, morale, troop quality, supplies, weapon quality, leadership and fatigue usually comes into play. Sometimes mere luck becomes decisive.
But with all else being equal, numbers would be the decisive factor. Perhaps the only factor that would make a difference.
Wow, weird everyone is just now finding this video, google must be playing with it's metadata again, anyways this is great content, I hope you have more videos on the way!
bro, you can imagine my shock. a week ago i was at 4,000 views with the savo video, its now past 100k. I am amazed. and yeah, im working on one now, should be out end of the month!
you mean anyway not anyways.
This sounds right I only just saw this in my feed now and it's definitely the kind of thing I am interested in.
Guess this is the resultant overlap of my shared interests in strategy games, military armaments and technology, or factoids with utility
Their metadata profiling improved
Welcome guys it's 2019 now xd
Great video! Though it is also important to emphasize that markedly superior leadership and troops are necessary to pull it off. In Waterloo Napoleon attempted the same feat, yet the Allied leadership and armies had improved to a point where it failed. After Blucher's Prussians were defeated, they evaded the small force sent to chase them off and reunited with Wellington's troops and crushing Napoleon's army.
One of those things that sounds simple in theory but requires exceptional leadership and/or troops. When the leadership is not up to the task or the enemy is competent enough to foil your plans it could lead to disaster.
oh for sure, maneuverability better be on of your armies strong point because you cant pull this off with poor coordination. and you are welcome!
Same thing with the Battle of Tannenberg 1914, it worked because Germans had the intel on all Russian movement plans after an officer died with the note on him. After they confirmed the plans were true, the Germans were able to use it to their advantage rather than just using ''defeat in detail'' or ''concentration of force''. Sure, those two principles might have been present in the battle, but it was mostly due to the intel obtained, that the battle was such a success.
Interesting!
He said it in the video tho smh.
The thing about Waterloo is that Napoleon misread Blucher. He thought that he would fall back to cover his supply lines - but Blucher didn't cover them - he went to help Wellington. Napoleon's Marshal - followed his orders - which had been to "follow" the Prussians ... but instead of following the Prussians back towards Prussia - they followed the Prussians to Waterloo - where (The Prussians having gotten there first) the Battle was over by the time they got there.
So - here - it was Wellington and Blucher that Concentrated their Forces and Napoleon who was Defeated in Detail because he had divided his army.
This is one of the problems with the Napoleonic Management Model. Here the idea is that you have this genius running things and everyone else's function is to obey him. The problem with that is that it tends to make his subordinates less inclined to use their initiative. So - when Napoleon's Marshal is asked by HIS subordinates if they shouldn't "ride to the sound of the guns" (they being closer to Napoleon than Blucher) they were told that he, their Marshal - wasn't going to go against Napoleon's orders.
.
This is what McClellan had a chance to do when the "Lost Order" fell into his hands. He was closer to the pieces of Lee's army than the pieces of that army were to each other. Instead, he vacillated and allowed Lee to regroup, resulting in the slaughterhouse of Antietam.
Helori Pascal Confederacy would have still collapsed. There is practically no realistic way in which the Confederates could have pulled off a decisive historic victory. Now, I'm no expert for the 19th century war strategy, but I'm pretty sure that diplomatically, the Confederate state wouldn't have survived the first four decades of its existence without breaking down.
So anyway, the Confederacy was unstable and would have lost anyway.
ONE VISION ONE PURPOSE What I wanted to say was that, regardless of the outcome of the battle, the war was practically lost.
Operation Werewolf I'm sure I'm not the "left wing" you are talking about, I'm actually quite traditionalistic, I'm not even American and despise regressivism.
I was just being realistic. No, I'm not the kind of guys who cares about the strategy itself. I'm not a military expert or wannabe expert. But my claims on confederacy are unbiased. I wouldn't have anything against a confederate state today, but that seems like a stretch. It's possible the (a bit more powerful in this case) US would take the advantage of a failing agricultural economy, in the early 20th century.
I know my comment was unnecesary, considering how the OP didn't really mention what would happen after the war, but still I wanted to say my opinion related to the subject.
Operation Werewolf Sorry, but the Federals had overwhelming advantages in naval, artillery, production, railways, and manpower. The only hope the Rebs had was to wear out the Norths will to fight, and they only ever got close to that because of a serous lack of competent federal leadership. The Continentals had both foreign allies acting as the life blood of rebellion and the fact the British were fighting across an ocean. Luxuries the South never had.
The Russian Fleet was insignificant to the Civil War. Twelve ships in total did nothing to close any supposed gaps in the blockade line around the Atlantic and Gulf coasts which were covered by a force already 20 times the size of the two squadrons Russia sent to the American coasts in 1863 to keep them from being ice-locked during the winter that year at a time when a possibility of an Anglo-Russian war seemed to be looming on the horizon.
As for "just surviving", the South wasn't even going to be able to manage that. While the world's attention was fixed upon Virginia, the far more significant strategic victories - the ones that would actually decide the outcome of the war - were being won by the Union in the western theatre: the steady seizure of the Trans-Mississippi, control of the Cumberland River valley and hence control of the states of Kentucky and Tennessee. Control of those two states gave the Union the perfect position to stage the eventual invasion of Georgia to cut the Confederacy into pieces, while the Union's control of the Mississippi River effectively neutralised Texas, Arkansas and Missouri and allowed Union riverine military and commercial shipping to flow unimpeded all the way to the Gulf. And what made things all the worse for Confederate hopes was that the necessity to defend Richmond effectively bottled up reinforcements that were far more desperately needed to thwart the Union advances in the west. One of the main drivers for Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania was the hope of drawing Grant's army away from Vicksburg to defend Washington D.C. It was a gamble with long odds and little logistical support behind it, and it failed because George Meade proved to be a far more effective commander than the men Lee had contended against up to that fatal battle at Gettysburg. But it was Grant's victories at Vicksburg and later that year at Chattanooga that sealed the Confederacy's fate.
"you must always have superior numbers when you're the attacking force only then can you be sure of victory"
laughs in hannibal
Where are the scouts? Scouting parties and sentries help you win wars and mitigate the fog of war.
Isthatatf2reference?.jpg
Fog of war........nothing more terrifying when you don't know the enemy had a artillery piece on the other side and started bombing you to dust.
@@darkunor6687 which? Sorry I'm in my 30s. Either too stupid or old or young.
Ru- Di-Rulia
A file name can't contain any of the following characters:
\ / : * ? " < > |
Probably relates better to AoE 2 than TF2.
Don't worry FBI, just history class, nothing related to Area 51! Heh.. Hehe.
bro you just posted cringe
you're gonna lose subscriber
@@screamsinrussian5773 but wait i only have 2 subs and i fokin poor
Thought police, comrade. Off to the miniluv with you.
@@matthewwong1552 Ahh yes I see you are a man of culture too.
@@matthewwong1552 😂😂
Great strategy for computer games maybe too ?
One important detail is that Napoleon won the battles, but he lost the war in the end.
The lesson from this is that *whoever wants to fight, must also be ready to lose.*
Staying away from the fight is a victory, as long as the fight is not pushed upon you by time or similar forces. In the Napoleon example, the Chinese people or the Japanese did not participate, so they won by not fighting.
Yes Total War lol
I do this strategy in total war lol. You can also do this on a more micro scale (if you play the game). You hide you main army in a forest/behind a hill, use a couple of cavalry units to harass the enemy bulk until you get them to chase you in different directions. You can now either herd the enemy into an ambush or march out your main army while keep harassing them with cavalry, so they cannot charge at your main force at full strength, ideally you wanna stretch them out while u pick their battalions out one by one.
Started playing and watch Total War, suddenly all of these videos are being recommended to me.
I used to play strategy games. I think the historic battle strategies can be applied to the computer games too. Also, the modern *e-sports games can teach us* new strategies that nobody could have expected before.
epSos.de "The only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed"- Lelouch Vi Britannia
A rare type of channel
An interesting thing to note here. Starting at 1:40 you'll also notice the total of the forces left behind. Only 500 at each spot.. Even if the enemy decided to attack first. They would only destroy 500 troops. To a max of 1500 if they attacked all 3. While your forces still eliminate 5000 troops. Your enemy would still lose more troops overall. 500-1500 troops lost to 5000 enemy troops lost in any battle is a victory any general would take. Essentially, even if you lost 3 other battles, you still win. This is an essential part of warfare. To force your enemy to use as much resources as possible (men, equipment, food, etc) against you, while you use as few resources as possible against them. Essentially it's efficiency. Eventually this can wear down even the largest enemy. Rebellions/guerrilla warfare is another excellent example of this.
Defeat in detail is countered by a large reserve force. Armies have been doing this for centuries as well.
Or just retreating the small stack while your other stacks converge in the flanks of the army encircling it
I like the way you edit your videos. Easy to understand mapping. Keep up the good work (gave you a sub)
Thank you Comrade Gabe.
Short, brief yet full of information. Nicely done.
You are outnumbered in a near 2 to 1 Fashion.
Napoleon: Well yes but actually no.
Before I watch the video, I've always figured it was key to not focus so much on numbers but to analyze as any factors as possible, I.E; morale, terrain, training, weather etc....Then keep in mind Napoleonic divide and conquer philosophy... I look forward to learning more here.
Basically "divide and conquer". Divide the foe into smaller groups and then conquer each individually before they can regroup. Used by the Romans when they were conquering Italy. Stalin hoped to do the same thing WWII. He wanted to wait for the Germans and Allies to weaken each other and then conquer them individually before they could rebuild. Then Operation Barbarossa happened, allowing the Allies to effectively "defeat in detail" the Germans since the Germans now had to divide their forces between multiple fronts.
foxymetroid It's also how Germany beat France, early in the war.
foxymetroid Divide and conquer is commonly derived from Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, not Italy.
Theres is absolutely no detail in bombing cities to ashes. Take a look at the world map and point Russia and America out, yes these big places. Now look for Germany and Japan, two dots in comparison.
We didn't even count other Allied countries like Britain and it's colonies in yet.
97alexk go read Martin van Creveld's books before posting a comment like this...
Bombing cities was a big waste of time, resources, and manpower. The problem is that cities are pretty big and bombing them will scare the civilians into supporting their war effort even harder. Germany's failure wasn't because they lacked heavy bombers, but because of poor strategy (and logistics). During the Battle of Britain, Germany almost annihilated the RAF. What happened was the leadership (likely mostly Hitler) ordered the bombers to focus on bombing cities. This gave the RAF enough time to rebuild. All attacking the cities did was anger the Brits further and allow the RAF to catch their breath.
Heavy bombers can be useful for destroying vital infrastructure. Germany was already infamous for poor logistics. World War One could have turned out differently if Germany had rail lines that could extend closer to the front. Heck, the only reason the "Blitzkreig" was even a thing was because the Germans knew they could only win a short war. It's why France and Poland fell fairly quickly (it also helped that France was next door) while the Brits, Soviets, and Americans proved to be too much. Once you've survived the German attacks long enough, they start running into supply problems.
Kids, you got to leave your parent's basement first before you become a great commander like Stonewall Jackson.
Iran: *frantically taking notes*
I think I've found one of my new favorite channels, your content is great.
haha thank you. im glad you liked it
Hitler: Yes we tried this at stalingrad didn’t go well
Winter: HAHAHA
@@sayonara5204 Summer and logistics lol xD xD
Thats what chuu get when you rely at thin paper lines of balkans.
It didn't go well because he was stubborn
@Andre Massena Hitler issuing the go at USSR, have some merits. The buffer state they created are meant to be temporary, and sooner or later they would clash for the control of the continent. Later, it has been uncovered that USSR have plans on invading Nazi Germany in '42, if things go south with their pact.
I'm not gonna lie, this is my entire tactic in EU4.
It was how i defeated 50k men when i had only 30k, and the enemy had 100k in total, i did lose, but barely, only giving two tiles away.
Something very informative that works even in most rts games
Its something most commanders should know in any military and something alot of people use in rts *myself included*
1 question
if we naruto run during the raid, does the chance of winning increase?
no, it increase you chance to look like an idiot right up until death
@shin you look like an idiot right now by taking my comment far too seriously
Bottom Text Your chances of victory are multiplied by tenfold.
Muhammad Emir Rabbani r/ihavereddit
@@user-gc8jj1tf9q theres literally no way that was a woosh and yeah r/ihavereddit cause no one else does that
6th Army : Hmm, this is good info, I'm going to try this out in Ostfront.
USSR : *Operation Uranus*
moral of that campaign is, Germans weren't able to concentrate enough for a decisive push; whereas the Soviets were.
Montemayor: you need a larger army to defeat your enemy.
Spartans: are you sure about that.
and they got defeated... lol
"Defeat in detail." Learning something new everyday. Thanks for sharing (author of Renee: St. Mary's Virus).
at 1:23 I'd like to refer to Sun Tzu, "In war, numbers alone confer no advantage. Do not advance relying on sheer military power." Not to be petty but I was amused :3
Dante Howlstice well I'd like to share my view on this........ The overall commanders of large scale wars can only plan the very start(as in things shown in this video and other things)
But when the battle actually starts, it is the various commanders and soldiers who have to adapt to the situation and attack accordingly... And also report correct information back to their superiors..... Sun Tzu is ryt, numbers alone don't really give much advantage unless the army works properly like the cogs of a machine. Their are many examples in history where overwhelmingly large forces lost to smaller forces due to various factors, many of such being in Indian history...
@@MistDemon9 Mughals vs Marathas etc,.
In the words of Julius Caesar:
"Divide and conquer"
wouldn’t it be unite and *destroy*
I think it should be written " A strategy to defeat larger armies" Keep up the great work. Thank you
This video could be titled "how to push in hearts of iron 4 with small nations"
I mean, it won't really work in HOI4 because if you do this, the ai will push behind your units and kill them. This would work better in VIC2 EU4 or CK3 where there's no advantage to spreading your force
@@hiddentreasure2161 If you apply this literally nope, but at the end the point is being sure that you win the "race"
@@hiddentreasure2161 No it works, this is what i do everytime i'm trying to push into a country. They can push your defensive units for a while but you should be able to encircle those units before they push you too far away.
If you do that in Hoi4 the ennemy would just rush your 500 stack then encircle your doom stack
Wacthing this after Game of Thrones Season 8 episode 3 horrible battle tactics makes me happy
bronn's actor looks like stonewall jackson
Only stupid general would ordered cavalry to charge a large concentration of infantry from the front. But Daenerys was not a good general to begin with.
@@gloriabisco6148 ...and not taking advantage from a fortified defensive position, not creating proper "killing zones" (well, the enemy was already dead, but you know...) and traps all over the battlefield besides a weak barricade, not using efficently their "air force" supporting properly their land troops, and entrusting a bunch of archers to protect a VIP inside the walls, in a close space, instead of deploy them on the walls and entrust that mission to some heavy infantry.... that episode is a complet military nonsense...
@@isihernandez9752 Well they seemed to have too many soldiers to fit inside the walls so they kept a large base outside to get a sense of the enemy since they never fought them before and then retreat into the castle once they get more information on how to fight them and using fearless unsullied to make sure the retreat doesn't turn into a slaughter.
As for the Dothraki Horde, they would assume that the enemy would completely surround the castle so the flank is denied, that leaves no other choice but to do a front charge and when the horde gets surrounded the remaining ground forces would charge forward and break open the horde from being circled and hopefully the charge would kill enough to be worth it but they severely underestimated the enemy which is why the horde died so quickly and the reinforcements could not get to them in time.
Once inside the walls they used the fire traps to stall the enemy as their troops got into position to defend the wall after seeing how aggressive the zombies are. As for building more traps they did not have enough time, they were working 24/7 building the fire stall trap and making the dragon glass weapons.
As for the air force, they just lost a dragon that joined the enemy side. They needed to be more defensive with the dragons because they could not afford to lose a second one. Also the snow storm messed them up a lot and could not light the trap or see the enemy.
As for Bran, their plan was to have him out in the open with a weak guard hoping the Night King would drop in on his dragon to kill Bran and they could take him out in the trap. Not the best idea but not the worst either, it was a gamble, keep him somewhat protected inside the walls but still visible and out in the open to entice the Night King to come in and be over confident.
It was not the best military defense but they were severely limited on time and faced like 5+:1 odds against an extremely aggressive and fearless enemy that they had never fought before on a large scale. They had to spend a lot of time training and arming the women and inexperienced fighters which took away from their manpower for the carpentry and forgers.
All in all they did the best they could given the time constraints they had and that it was their first time fighting this enemy.
@@elivolpyansky Nah... the retreat covered by the unsullied is the only logic and well executed mouvement on that battle, but all the other, just makes no sense.
1st- they did actually already know the enemy and what they could expect from him. Jon knew them, Daenerys knew them, and definitley, the wildlings knew them. Also do Jorah, the Hound, Dondarrion, the remaining members of the Night Watch....
2nd- they didn't set a base out of the walls, they just deployed their troops in combat order to prepare for an open field battle, wich ain't the same thing. Thay didn't build a fortified camp to protect the troops who didn't fit inside the walls.
3rd- I'm not sure that there was no room insde the walls for all of them, but if so, I don't think that sacrificing almost all of the Dothrakis was the best way to make some room.
4th- If despite it all, they decided to start the battle with a cavalry charge, doing it like that, frontally is stupid. It would have been much more effective to deploy the unsullied on the front (with some others to protect the flanks), hidding the cavalry and making them wrap the enemy charging from their flank or their rear.
5th- as for defending the dragons, well, it's true until a certain point, but that battle was all or nothing, it makes no sense to keep your reserves if you have no chance to escape and you know your enemy doesn't take prisioners and doesn't negociate a peace or a rendition. With other enemies, the Dragons may be used just as a deterrent weapon, with no need to really engage them in combat, like some sort of nukes, but not with this enemy. At some point you have to use all that you have and most of the battle the dragons were stupidly engaged in a nonsense "dog fight" (if what you pretended was to atract the Night King to a trap) or just inactive. One dragon would have done the job of distracting the Nigh King without really engaging with him as the other supported the troops on the ground.
6th- regarding the trap, the Night King wouldn't have stopped if Bran was better protected for some heavy infantry, he was confident enough and Bran was his main target. That weak deffense will only have led to Bran's certain death if it wasn't for Arya, who wasn't included in the plan at all.
7th- regarding the traps all along the battlefield, they had people more than enough to set a lot more of them. Thousands of Dothrakis and unsullied, + the Valley knights, + the Wildlings + the civil popultion of Winterfell, + some others, is people more than enough to make obsidian weapons, and prepare the defenses at the same time.
Hey, at the end of the day, it's only fiction and fantasy, no need to break our heads, but for all the series (as in the books), they had kept a nice realism and some sort of "historical reference accuracy" (despite the dragons, white walkers, etc), and it's a shame that at the end they had just forgot how to do it.
The defender is often at a disadvantage numerically. However, proper fortifications and defenses can even the odds.
Or like the portuguese did everytime they got invaded by Spain, Burn everything around the spanish troops, let the armies starve themselves and the ocasional guerrilla strategies.
Defeat in Detail refers to field armies. Fixed fortifications or even well dug in troops could nullify it. For instance, it was not successful against Roman legions since their camps were like forts.
That is quite a statement. I wonder if it is true, or does it just mean that the design and nature of defensive fortifications would be different??
Radar and AEW assets would be key to the defense of any base today, and therefore the defense of those assets would also be key. But, these assets are not fixed, and move with the army.
Look at how combined forces recently severely defeated Russian mercenaries that attacked an American base in Syria. In that, fixed fortifications were not a factor, as you assert. So, I think you are right.
Napoleon would just go around fortifications and go capture cities of fool who tried such strategy. They didn't fight battles for the sake of fighting they had goals...
silesian tho,.......
Lol, this amazed me because it was writed in The Art of War "Attack their weakest point with your strongest". But i've never fully understood what it meant. Thanks!
I thought the title was 'Defeat in Detail: A Strategy to Get Defeated'
TH-cam - recommends this video
Me - why would i want to watch this?
Also me -hmm this could come in handy one day.
One way I defeated my opponent in a game of Risk went like this: We both had strongholds that bordered each other. We constantly attacked one another, but the engagements were meat grinders, the war was stalemated. So, I started building my forces elsewhere and took out his lightly defended outer territories. I now had two armies attacking his stronghold from both sides, we launched a two-pronged attack, and destroyed his forces!
bah god.. we have the next Napoleon! I hope you write a book on this battle. We shall revere it for many years!
bros boutta be the next big military strategist
Napoleon's Corps System was vital in defeating the enemy in detail.
Napoleon's Corps system revolutionized the operations of future field armies.
At 2:35 I think that is a painting of prince Eugene, napoleon’s stepson
That is Napoleon because of his notable hair and face
Your videos are great. Please make some new ones!
Thanks! im currently working on one now. maybe end of the month it'll be out
Awesome, thats great news! I subbed earlier just in case so I would be notified. Keep up the great work.
PS. One thing more! As I've written - this "strategy" was at best RISKY when Bonaparte took over the "Army of the South" (that would be known as the "Army Of Italy"). TODAY - with XXth century intel-gathering gathering modern technology (and the extremely brief "time of decision" factor), all ranging from "mere" scouting units to radar - radio's - drones - SATELLITES - nowadays opposing forces have practically such an almost TOTAL "OVERVIEW" of the battlefield that it isn't anymore possible to concentrate forces WITHOUT being noticed, therefore this strategy is doomed to fail. I'm not saying it is IMPOSSIBLE to somehow STRATEGICALLY surprise your enemy - but it is very difficult. You still may rely upon that "strategy" but you'd have to (...SOMEHOW!...) "FOOL INTO" it your enemy - make him believe you'll attack in point "A" while you'll attack in point "B", but it's more trouble than gain. Nowadays it is VIRTUALLY impossible to surprise an Army - especially a BIG one (meaning - an Army with an advanced militar, industrial and technological back-up).
very true then you have to rely on strikes to blind the foe first take out his recon and all things that can detect by any means nessicary then attempt to pull off what the vid shows.
tell that to the americans fighting the insurgents, mulitple multiple stories of exactly what you think doesn't happen, happening on a daily basis
Good points but I also think its a question of scale. Today with all the intel - well that would have to be smaller units that would move in and out of position in hours or minutes instead of days. Information travels faster so they have to zoom down. But at that micro scale the same concepts could still be effective.
Im supposed to be studying for an Exam in 5 hours...
Q: How to defeat larger armies ?
A: UNITY IS STRENGTH !
for the alliance
Will be useful for my EU4 or HOI4 campaigns
Faris Zurub Maybe for eu4 but not for hoi4 because the ai is fucking retarded
I bursted out laughing
yeah for hoi4 just have frontline units to hold and then a piercing unit
The real strat in HOI4 is just mass all your divisions and order them all to attack. Never fails
in imperator rome it always works good too. in EU4 mostly not, the AI can see ur troops and will avoid combat
A wise man once said, "Let's split up gang!"
One of the best channels on youtube ... went dormant too soon
Your example is a great showcase of the importance of military intelligence. Shenanigans like this aren't nearly as easy to conceal in a world of instant mass communications and aerial reconnaisance. Napoleon would be hard pressed to catch the Piedmontese with their pants down if they had planes to identify his army's movements and relay them between garrisons.
Yeah, good point, under the condition that on the other side you have fixed Positions of non cooperative forces and no reactive military commanders. There are many more parameters, still what you say is tactically and even in an operational point of view correct.
Of course, but that explains why mobilty is so important in war strategy (big mistake of stupid French politicians in 1930's)
Part of any strategy is to know the enemy. If I know that they will place a premium on defending every little town and village, I can use that to my advantage by threatening everything at once. All I have to do is maintain even a vaguely credible threat.
This can be simplified
“All warfare is based on deception”
Makarov
"Armies have a morale meter." -Sun Tzu, the Art of War
I'm pretty sure that quote came first from Sun Tzu, Makarov just used it in his intro.
THANK YOU for making this video less than 5mins
Literally me, when playing warband.
The AI are so easy to be separated.
or just hire 100 swadian knights
@@hzrvan7303 Depending the location of the battlefield, is it mountains, forest or plain field, or is it in the middle of a siege. And sure if you are playing on the easiest mode you can beat the opponent easily.
Swadian Knights are no match against Rhodoks shield wall and Sharpshooters combination in mountains or sieges.
@@hzrvan7303 *Laughs in Sieges*
Not rocket science of a strategy to come up with.I'm sure it was used as a base tactic for many historical engagements long before Napoleon.Great video.
The idea is simple the execution is not.
Evidently.
The entire strategy depends on the enemy not being able to recon your movements otherwise you're still fucked. It's a hail mary not sound strategy which is why napoleon ultimately lost the war.
In execution it relies on superior mobility and denying the enemy the ability to gather intelligence.
@@tothere8314 Not really, it is a sound strategy because at the time, communication between forces are usually limited only to messengers, they only seldomly use wire telegraphs(I think they only use that for long distance) and there's no such thing as radio. And even if they do recon your forces, he would still need to report back to his commander, the commander needs to interpret the information, he needs to order his men and he'll likely send another messenger to call for reinforcements, since the commander ordered his men to spread out, that is if they get there in time.
Its a sound strategy for that era and Napoleon executed it so well that it took all of Europe just to beat him and his army.
Wouldn't concentrating your troops at a key area while the (I guess you can say) 'decoy' armies stand halted, heavily outnumbered, leave your flanks and reinforcements extremely vulnerable to enemy flanking maneuvers?
I mean, if 500 men stand guard against 5,000 men, the 5,000 men stationed in those locations can wipe out or rout the standing units hence exposing the flanks of the main attack, and leaving your army outnumbered.
Obviously. If your force is numerically inferior or otherwise outmatched by the opposing force, any brilliant moves always critically rely on the enemy making serious mistakes. If the other side has their own Napoleon, the brilliant-moves factor is canceled out and what remains is one side being outmatched by the other.
yea or a decent one for command can use this to force the smaller force to fight the larger one on one location with full strength to use regardless of tactical outcome to force your opponent smaller in number then you to fight you on your own terms that alone is enough to clame a symbolic victory and a mental one to boot since you force your foe in to a conror to fight anyway.
Yes, but those decoy forces (500 men stand guard) were initially 3000, as the attacker divide also his forces. This is the intel ennemy have. Thise 500 left guard had to simulate that large force, covering the withdraw of 2.500, so that the ennemy can't figure you're concentrating. And 5.000 foes would not easily challenging 3.000 of your own.
All wars are based on deception (Sun Tzu). Those 500 men had just that task. To pretend to be 3000. :)
Cipi Ripi
True. Hence why, I guess, it is important that a commander should take the initiative of attacking first while the enemy remains deceived.
Right. That's why men like Napoleon are so rare. Defeat in detail is not for everyone. :)
I kind of already knew this but it was nice to have someone lay it out and explain it more.
This is probably one of my favorite ways of fighting. It can really help even the odds of what appears to be an unwinnable war.
When you got encircled because of this strategy:
Так, ачё, всмысле?..
I have seen this strategy put forth in a show called " legend of the galactic heroes " it's probably the best show ever created by mankind . Give it a try
Me after watching a short video about military tactics and strategies: "You know, I'm something of an accomplished military strategist myself."
He who defends everywhere defends nowhere
Therefore offense can be the best defense
Ok so never divide my forces when I have superior numbers ..got it
Then enemy divides themselve and raid the entire area
Why never? Never say never! You can try to bait the enemy with a defending position that would let them think you could be defeated in detail, but once they try to take advantage, you counter with hidden defensive lines and fast shifts of your troops, which the enemy not expect. Half of your troops will be send to defend the main line, the rest will launch counter-attacks on the weakened frontline spots of the enemy, so that the enemey main line is in danger of getting flanked. Now you are outnumbering the flanks and it will only be a matter of time until the enemy is forced to retreat from the mainline to avoid getting wiped out!
@@Siafk TLDR, Ambush
The enemy can encircle your whole army if you concentrate it in one area just like what happened in the battle of Ulm by Napoleon or just like in ww2 by encirclement.
Me after watching the video: You know I'm something of a strategist myself
very interesting concepts. thank you for the animations.