Movies with tactics?

[Saph]

I was watching a silly movie last night (Universal Soldier Regeneration) and it occurred to me as I was watching the firefights . . . who can think of some movies out there where both the protagonists and the enemies use actual tactics?

"Tactics" includes:

Using cover.
Using concealment.
Not bunching up when fighting enemies with big area-of-effect weapons.
Ganging up on enemies instead of attacking them one at a time.
Using appropriate weapons. E.g. if an enemy is immune to bullets, you don't stand there continuing to shoot it with bullets, you hit it with an anti-tank rocket or something.
Not using melee weapons except as a last resort or unless they're actually more effective than ranged ones (such as in D&D).
Doing recon, and being willing to run away when necessary.
In short, the same sorts of things that every competent adventuring party learns how to do - well, the ones that survive, anyway. :P Any good suggestions?

[comicshorse]

" Zulu "- but then as it is a representation of the battle of Rourke's Drift that's got to be expected. But the soldiers use cover, build defenses and a fall back defence, have a floating reserve to reinforce the line where it weakens and use ranked formations for near-constant fire.

Dishonourable mention to " The Return of the King " where the defence of Osgiliath uses the worst tactics ever

[Jan Mattys]

Conan the Barbarian.

[13_CBS]

"Tactics" includes:

Using cover.
Using concealment.
Not bunching up when fighting enemies with big area-of-effect weapons.
Ganging up on enemies instead of attacking them one at a time.
Using appropriate weapons. E.g. if an enemy is immune to bullets, you don't stand there continuing to shoot it with bullets, you hit it with an anti-tank rocket or something.
Not using melee weapons except as a last resort or unless they're actually more effective than ranged ones (such as in D&D).
Doing recon, and being willing to run away when necessary.
In short, the same sorts of things that every competent adventuring party learns how to do - well, the ones that survive, anyway. :P Any good suggestions?


I don't know if it really counts as a movie, but I get the impression that the action scenes in HBO's Band of Brothers seem to be pretty realistic.

[Telonius]

Star Wars episode 3: Vader's Entrance. The mooks defending Princess Leia were actually doing about the soundest thing they could do under those circumstances: force the attackers into a bottleneck, concentrate fire, use cover to keep themselves alive as long as possible, and take down as many of the baddies as possible before they died.

[Egiam]

-Black Hawk Down is a very detailed portrait of modern warfare. The movie takes place in 1993 during Operation Gothic Serpent in Somalia, and it's one of the best war movies of all time, with a great soundtrack, cast, and sets.

[warty goblin]

I thought the South African mercenaries in Blood Diamond were uncommonly tactically proficient for movie guys, particularly movie bad guys. They actually attacked from concealment and used close air support. Plus they fired their assault rifles in short, accurate bursts instead of spraying and praying. The militia were less tactically sophisticated, but I think that was rather the point.

Black Hawk Down isn't half bad either.

[Flickerdart]

Star Wars episode 3: Vader's Entrance. The mooks defending Princess Leia were actually doing about the soundest thing they could do under those circumstances: force the attackers into a bottleneck, concentrate fire, use cover to keep themselves alive as long as possible, and take down as many of the baddies as possible before they died.
Episode IV, you mean?

[Telonius]

Episode IV, you mean?

Yeah, that one. :smallbiggrin:

[Oslecamo]

I'm very disapointed with you for not remembering this movie:

7 Samurais

Group of villagers hires some samurais to help them defend them against raiders. Among other things, the samurais teach them to:
-Abandon the isolated houses wich couldn't be defended.
-Fortify the village, but let open a couple of points in purpose to lure the raiders in those points, where the villagers would be waiting, instead of fortifying everywhere and not knowing where the raiders would strike.
-Then , isolate the raiders when they entered, ganking and killing them one by one, taking advantage of the tight village streets.
-Of course, all this time keep behind cover because the raiders had some fire guns. Don't pursue the raiders into open ground where they could use their mobility.
-Suprise raids on the raiders to steal their fire guns and burn their supplies.

[Johel]

I was watching a silly movie last night (Universal Soldier Regeneration) and it occurred to me as I was watching the firefights . . . who can think of some movies out there where both the protagonists and the enemies use actual tactics?

"Tactics" includes:

Using cover.
Using concealment.
Not bunching up when fighting enemies with big area-of-effect weapons.
Ganging up on enemies instead of attacking them one at a time.
Using appropriate weapons. E.g. if an enemy is immune to bullets, you don't stand there continuing to shoot it with bullets, you hit it with an anti-tank rocket or something.
Not using melee weapons except as a last resort or unless they're actually more effective than ranged ones (such as in D&D).
Doing recon, and being willing to run away when necessary.
In short, the same sorts of things that every competent adventuring party learns how to do - well, the ones that survive, anyway. :P Any good suggestions?

Starship troo...*SBAF !!*

Very few movies. And none I can think of.
A reason why Hollywood Tactics (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodTactics) look dumb is because they also look awesome. No seriously !!

What's the point to watch a movie where the good guys would splat the bad guys with zero casualties, using some overly cautious tactics, executing their plan with perfect precision and no need for heroism ?
For heroism to be meaningful, the situation has to be somewhat desesperate. Two options :

The good guys are good tacticians but are up against so many odds that, unless they play it really bold, they are screwed. Basically, the Bad Guy is throwing so many mooks at them that there's no hope to defeat them, even with the most clever tactics. (LotR final battle : they all know it's a bad idea. Same in The Last Samouraï)
The good guys are just idiots but they got balls of steel and a golden hearth. Also, the Hero is fighting on their side. And he got his BFS. So, yeah, lot's of awesome and if victory is on their sides, they would have earn it with blood and sweat. (King Arthur)

[Zen Monkey]

Saving Private Ryan

The opening battle is just making the best of a bad situation, but the final battle has a lot of thought put into it.

[warty goblin]

Starship troo...*SBAF !!*

Very few movies. And none I can think of.
A reason why Hollywood Tactics (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodTactics) look dumb is because they also look awesome. No seriously !!

What's the point to watch a movie where the good guys would splat the bad guys with zero casualties, using some overly cautious tactics, executing their plan with perfect precision and no need for heroism ?
For heroism to be meaningful, the situation has to be somewhat desesperate. Two options :

The good guys are good tacticians but are up against so many odds that, unless they play it really bold, they are screwed. Basically, the Bad Guy is throwing so many mooks at them that there's no hope to defeat them, even with the most clever tactics. (LotR final battle : they all know it's a bad idea. Same in The Last Samouraï)
The good guys are just idiots but they got balls of steel and a golden hearth. Also, the Hero is fighting on their side. And he got his BFS. So, yeah, lot's of awesome and if victory is on their sides, they would have earn it with blood and sweat. (King Arthur)


You could also concievably make the bad guys halfass competent. It's radical I know, but it just might work.

[Murska]

What's the point to watch a movie where the good guys would splat the bad guys with zero casualties, using some overly cautious tactics, executing their plan with perfect precision and no need for heroism ?
For heroism to be meaningful, the situation has to be somewhat desesperate. Two options :

The good guys are good tacticians but are up against so many odds that, unless they play it really bold, they are screwed. Basically, the Bad Guy is throwing so many mooks at them that there's no hope to defeat them, even with the most clever tactics. (LotR final battle : they all know it's a bad idea. Same in The Last Samouraï)
The good guys are just idiots but they got balls of steel and a golden hearth. Also, the Hero is fighting on their side. And he got his BFS. So, yeah, lot's of awesome and if victory is on their sides, they would have earn it with blood and sweat. (King Arthur)


I think an interesting option might be 3: The bad guys also use tactics.

Edit: Gah ninja. :smallannoyed:

[Egiam]

Saving Private Ryan

The opening battle is just making the best of a bad situation, but the final battle has a lot of thought put into it.

While it is a great movie, keep in mind the fact that it is historical fiction. Blackhawk Down and Band of Brothers are not.

[Prime32]

On the videogames front, there's Full Spectrum Warrior, which was actually used by the US Army to teach tactics.

[Cyrion]

The Patriot. The final battle is modeled on the Battle of Cowpens, reflected in particular on the tactics for the use of the militia- in other battles, they ALWAYS broke under fire from the British regulars, so the commander at Cowpens said, "Fine, fire two shots and run. This time we'll plan on it and use it as bait."

More dishonorable mention to LotR: Helm's Deep. There is no way that, in a world with siege weapons, you don't have some of your own in the mountain fortress that has no effective retreat.

[Oslecamo]

More dishonorable mention to LotR: Helm's Deep. There is no way that, in a world with siege weapons, you don't have some of your own in the mountain fortress that has no effective retreat.

To be fair:
-The fortress was being kept in minium budget before they decided to go hide in it. You can see it in the movie that it isn't exactly in top shape, and in the book it's mentioned the local lord was spending his own gold to stop the walls from falling. Siege weapons won't last long if not properly kept and exposed to the elements.
-The rohirim are an army focused in fast mobility, so they probably aren't that good with siege weapons, wich are slow and cubersome to carry around. The white city had a more static and defensive mentality, so they could afford to keep siege weapons in their main city.

And there was an effective retreat path from Helm's deep. Heck, Aragorn and the king do their last charge to buy the peasants time to run away trough it.

[Killer Angel]

Well, easily the films about historical facts, shows a deeper level of tactics.
From this PoV, I suggest Gettysburg.

[Gaelbert]

Well, easily the films about historical facts, shows a deeper level of tactics.
From this PoV, I suggest Gettysburg.

I think maybe Pickett's Charge was an example of a tactic not to use. Because, you know, they lost.

[raitalin]

I think maybe Pickett's Charge was an example of a tactic not to use. Because, you know, they lost.

I think the tactical lessons of Gettysburg are taught at Little Round Top.

[SmartAlec]

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, perhaps. Naval tactics, but still.

Enemy ship Acheron attacks the Surprise by firing at it from concealment with the wind in their favour, and then takes out the Surprise's rudder before coming about, and it's only by using that same concealment that the Surprise gets away.

Then, in the rematch, the Surprise's crew win through by a step-by-step plan, involving pretending to be a whaling ship, crippling the Acheron's mainmast with a close-range broadside, taking out the Acheron's rudder on the way around, and then leading a two-pronged assault - one to occupy the Acheron's crew on the main deck, and another to free and arm prisoners held in their hold.

[LurkerInPlayground]

I was watching a silly movie last night (Universal Soldier Regeneration) and it occurred to me as I was watching the firefights . . . who can think of some movies out there where both the protagonists and the enemies use actual tactics?

"Tactics" includes:

Using cover.
Using concealment.
Not bunching up when fighting enemies with big area-of-effect weapons.
Ganging up on enemies instead of attacking them one at a time.
Using appropriate weapons. E.g. if an enemy is immune to bullets, you don't stand there continuing to shoot it with bullets, you hit it with an anti-tank rocket or something.
Not using melee weapons except as a last resort or unless they're actually more effective than ranged ones (such as in D&D).
Doing recon, and being willing to run away when necessary.
In short, the same sorts of things that every competent adventuring party learns how to do - well, the ones that survive, anyway. :P Any good suggestions?
Ambushing enemies, instead of confronting them directly. Especially against superior numbers.

But of course, anything that effective would kill the protagonist(s) and end the movie before it began.

[Dr.Epic]

Dark Knight: everything the Joker did.

[Solaris]

... None that I can recall, honestly. I gotta be the only guy in the Army who hasn't watched Black Hawk Down, though. Almost every movie gets me to gripe about how poorly they execute modern military tactics. It doesn't help that I do it for a living, y'know?

[Haven]

Dark Knight: everything the Joker did.

What? It relied on stuff like no one noticing a bus driving into and then out of a smoking hole.

[kpenguin]

Dark Knight: everything the Joker did.

Could you elaborate. I don't see anything on the list as something the Joker did.

[CollinPhillips]

Heat, Punisher: War Zone, and Red Dawn come to mind. Also, check out The Hurt Locker.

[Tavar]

I'm guessing that he's implying that the Joker is an example of asymmetrical warfare, but I'm not sure I agree with that.

[Jerthanis]

The second Narnia movie used tactics at certain points... although it treated Archery Volleys as > Everything.

[Renegade Paladin]

Kingdom of Heaven ranges from the awful (leading a smaller force on a frontal cavalry charge against the superior enemy's center, as opposed to attempting to roll the flank) to the solid (the defense of Jerusalem).

[chiasaur11]

So, how would people rank "Aliens" ignoring a couple of rather nasty incidents towards the start?

Just thinking here.

[Killer Angel]

I think maybe Pickett's Charge was an example of a tactic not to use. Because, you know, they lost.

Given my Avatar, Yes, I'm informed of the fact. :smalltongue:
Still, it's well depicted the tactic of that charge, the objectives and the reasons behind that choice (by Lee), and the reasons why it wouldn't have worked (by Longstreet).
And the battle was 3 day long, so you have plenty of examples.


Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, perhaps. Naval tactics, but still.


The hunt for Red October maybe could be another example. At least, it's interesting in the part regarding "cats chasing mouses other cats, paying attention to be silent".

[Solaris]

What? It relied on stuff like no one noticing a bus driving into and then out of a smoking hole.

It might dishearten you to realize how much of American military doctrine relies upon just such a thing.

[Haven]

It might dishearten you to realize how much of American military doctrine relies upon just such a thing.

Hmm...I'm willing to be disheartened. Please elaborate?

[Force]

The second Narnia movie used tactics at certain points... although it treated Archery Volleys as > Everything.

Note that archery is quite effective in the real world. Read up on, say, Agincourt sometime. Range is king, after all, and it was demonstrated to us quite well that artillery (or in this case, SAMs) is the queen of battle.

As for their tactics... While the insertion into the castle was actually quite decent, they suffered from a major lack of mission planning. Caspian confronted his uncle... and then they had no clue what to do with him! The soldiers would have been sleeping in their barracks... and the Narnians forgot to send in at least a few soldiers to cut some throats and thus even out the numbers. Also, the choosing of the How as a military position sucked. The kids-- this can possibly be forgiven, as they are, after all, kids-- did not even attempt to apply modern technology beyond a simple flashlight.

The battle in the first movie also suffers from lack of tactics. Peter led a charge full-on against a superior force, and did not appear to use the terrain to his advantage. Utalizing a force of pikes at the base of the cliff as bait, with archers above (to use the height to their advantage) and calling in his heavy cavalry later to use to roll up the enemy's flank would have been more effective.

Finally-- and most egregiously-- they forgot the first principle of asymmetrical combat: fighting a conventional war against a vastly superior force will doom you to failure. Despite enormous differences in number and resource base, in both movies the Narnians fought as though on an equal footing with the enemy, though they weren't. As demonstrated in Iraq, every time that a vastly inferior (in numbers) force fighting an asymmetrical war has decided to fight conventionally, they have lost. The Narnians would have lost, as well, if not for Aslan both times.

[Anteros]

Note that archery is quite effective in the real world. Read up on, say, Agincourt sometime. Range is king, after all, and it was demonstrated to us quite well that artillery (or in this case, SAMs) is the queen of battle.

As for their tactics... While the insertion into the castle was actually quite decent, they suffered from a major lack of mission planning. Caspian confronted his uncle... and then they had no clue what to do with him! The soldiers would have been sleeping in their barracks... and the Narnians forgot to send in at least a few soldiers to cut some throats and thus even out the numbers. Also, the choosing of the How as a military position sucked. The kids-- this can possibly be forgiven, as they are, after all, kids-- did not even attempt to apply modern technology beyond a simple flashlight.

The battle in the first movie also suffers from lack of tactics. Peter led a charge full-on against a superior force, and did not appear to use the terrain to his advantage. Utalizing a force of pikes at the base of the cliff as bait, with archers above (to use the height to their advantage) and calling in his heavy cavalry later to use to roll up the enemy's flank would have been more effective.

Finally-- and most egregiously-- they forgot the first principle of asymmetrical combat: fighting a conventional war against a vastly superior force will doom you to failure. Despite enormous differences in number and resource base, in both movies the Narnians fought as though on an equal footing with the enemy, though they weren't. As demonstrated in Iraq, every time that a vastly inferior (in numbers) force fighting an asymmetrical war has decided to fight conventionally, they have lost. The Narnians would have lost, as well, if not for Aslan both times.

I don't think anyone ever claimed Peter was a military genius though. The whole point is that he's a child thrust into a leader's role.

[Solaris]

Hmm...I'm willing to be disheartened. Please elaborate?

Not the SF, mind you. I've never played with those cats more than once or twice, and that was all in the 'we heard/glimpsed someone in the bushes, so we sprayed them down with bullets' sort of interactions. (Training, not real bullets). But the regular army?
Stealth and subtlety are not our strong suits. Running in there with a big, heavily armored truck, ramming a hole in a wall, going in and then killing everyone inside who doesn't drop their weapon and hit the dirt fast enough before taking what we came to get pretty much sums up our strategery. You'd be amazed at what people are willing to not notice.
ACU's. Our camouflage is ACU-pattern.


Note that archery is quite effective in the real world. Read up on, say, Agincourt sometime. Range is king, after all, and it was demonstrated to us quite well that artillery (or in this case, SAMs) is the queen of battle.

You've been talking to the infantry. We're the kings of battle. Crucial to the success of the game, and you lose if we get taken.


Finally-- and most egregiously-- they forgot the first principle of asymmetrical combat: fighting a conventional war against a vastly superior force will doom you to failure. Despite enormous differences in number and resource base, in both movies the Narnians fought as though on an equal footing with the enemy, though they weren't. As demonstrated in Iraq, every time that a vastly inferior (in numbers) force fighting an asymmetrical war has decided to fight conventionally, they have lost. The Narnians would have lost, as well, if not for Aslan both times.

Yes. The kill ratio in such an asymmetrical war is something like 15-20 to 1, inferior force losing. Contrary to what movies/TV say, the good guys won't win (barring supernatural intervention, of course) if they're three taking on fifty competent soldiers. Period. If they make the mistake of getting close enough to fire shots, then the fifty guns shooting the three guns will almost always win.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Keep in mind that movies are works of fiction, not documentaries. Depending on the genre of the movie, symbolism is more or less accepted as a means of conveying a deeper meaning than the literal. So strikes against realism are not necessarily strikes against realism. They're just strikes against superficial reality in favor of the reality beneath the surface. So that's why most non-modern (i.e. after the 16th Century or so) movies often eschew "realistic" tactics.

[Jerthanis]

Note that archery is quite effective in the real world. Read up on, say, Agincourt sometime. Range is king, after all, and it was demonstrated to us quite well that artillery (or in this case, SAMs) is the queen of battle.

Yes, I know, but in the second Narnia movie there were archery volleys where every single arrow found a target, and destroyed entire cavalry regiments... It wasn't that range was king, it was that Arrows always worked and nothing else ever did.

[Force]

Yes, I know, but in the second Narnia movie there were archery volleys where every single arrow found a target, and destroyed entire cavalry regiments... It wasn't that range was king, it was that Arrows always worked and nothing else ever did.

That's more realistic than you might think. Accurate plunging fire, for those trained heavily in archery, can mean ranges of several hundred feet with accuracy within two-three feet of the intended target. Arrows are also much more effective than they are portrayed in most fiction (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnnoyingArrows, anyone?)


I don't think anyone ever claimed Peter was a military genius though. The whole point is that he's a child thrust into a leader's role.

That's true, to some degree, especially for the books. The movies, however, seem to portray the Peter as being a few years older. He was raised during World War II; I'd expect that he'd have at least some interest in tactics, so I find his choices in the battle in TLTWTW to be a bit invoking the Idiot Ball. It is noticeable in Prince Caspian that he's thinking at least somewhat tactically, as I would expect from someone who lived for several years as the King & war leader of a medieval nation.

As CarpeGuitarrem pointed out, though, one can't always take the stuff on screen literally, and the obvious point of the books-- and the movies-- was that Aslan needed to do what he did.

[Dienekes]

Note that archery is quite effective in the real world. Read up on, say, Agincourt sometime. Range is king, after all, and it was demonstrated to us quite well that artillery (or in this case, SAMs) is the queen of battle.

Yes and no. Don't get me wrong the effectiveness of archery shown in the movie is more accurate than most. But Agincourt was special, more recent evidence shows that most of the richer (more armored) knights weren't actually killed by the arrows and those armored that were killed were often at fairly close range (or because they drowned in the mud). They were successful however because the terrain was perfect for what they were trying to do. The cavalry charged in, churned up the ground, moving much slower than normal, and horses being shot acted out of control and they were forced to retreat. After that the infantry had to wade through the mud making themselves horrendously easy targets for a volley. And they still succeeded in reaching the longbow line though they were beaten back in the resulting melee (probably do to pure exhaustion and blunt force trauma of non-penetrating arrows)

In the Narnia movie I think just about every arrow is a killshot, which is only explainable as magic.

[Force]

Yes and no. Don't get me wrong the effectiveness of archery shown in the movie is more accurate than most. But Agincourt was special, more recent evidence shows that most of the richer (more armored) knights weren't actually killed by the arrows and those armored that were killed were often at fairly close range (or because they drowned in the mud). They were successful however because the terrain was perfect for what they were trying to do. The cavalry charged in, churned up the ground, moving much slower than normal, and horses being shot acted out of control and they were forced to retreat. After that the infantry had to wade through the mud making themselves horrendously easy targets for a volley. And they still succeeded in reaching the longbow line though they were beaten back in the resulting melee (probably do to pure exhaustion and blunt force trauma of non-penetrating arrows)

In the Narnia movie I think just about every arrow is a killshot, which is only explainable as magic.

I am aware that Agincourt was a special case (I referenced it primarily because it seems to be the battle brought up most often in reference to the use of bows). Crecy might be a slightly better battle to reference, though it also has special circumstances (again, bad weather and thus mud). However, no matter how you slice it, a prepared force of longbowmen in both battles was able to inflict serious casualties on the opposition.

I'd have to watch the movies again, but part of our difficulty may be that it is difficult to tell the difference between a kill-shot and a wounding shot, if we don't see it close up. In addition, the movie-makers may have chosen to show the arrows being effective and not necessarily to show the misses that undoubtedly did occur.

[warty goblin]

I am aware that Agincourt was a special case (I referenced it primarily because it seems to be the battle brought up most often in reference to the use of bows). Crecy might be a slightly better battle to reference, though it also has special circumstances (again, bad weather and thus mud). However, no matter how you slice it, a prepared force of longbowmen in both battles was able to inflict serious casualties on the opposition.

I'd have to watch the movies again, but part of our difficulty may be that it is difficult to tell the difference between a kill-shot and a wounding shot, if we don't see it close up. In addition, the movie-makers may have chosen to show the arrows being effective and not necessarily to show the misses that undoubtedly did occur.

Also for a PG movie showing people with arrows sticking through their limbs and writhing in agony is probably not gonna happen. Although bumping it to PG-13 would have improved Prince Caspian by an estimated 51.342%

[Dienekes]

I am aware that Agincourt was a special case (I referenced it primarily because it seems to be the battle brought up most often in reference to the use of bows). Crecy might be a slightly better battle to reference, though it also has special circumstances (again, bad weather and thus mud). However, no matter how you slice it, a prepared force of longbowmen in both battles was able to inflict serious casualties on the opposition.

I'd have to watch the movies again, but part of our difficulty may be that it is difficult to tell the difference between a kill-shot and a wounding shot, if we don't see it close up. In addition, the movie-makers may have chosen to show the arrows being effective and not necessarily to show the misses that undoubtedly did occur.

Very good. I was merely making a deal about it since I've heard too many people point to the battle and blatantly yell "SEE? SEE? ARROWS ARE BETTER THAN EVERYTHING!!!" This usually then devolves into a discussion of how awesome Legolas is, but this may only be around my circle of friends. Also this is a thread on tactics, so it seemed an appropriate enough place to discuss what the battle actually shows us are the benefits and limitations of arrows, armor, and cavalry all in one.

[ForzaFiori]

During the Medieval period, yea, arrows were really effective. HOWEVER, this was only true when the opposing army couldn't get to you. Usually because of a large line of infantry standing in front of said archers (pretty much like how the orc archers retreated behind the pikes during the cavalry charge in LOTR:RoTK) or due to weather (like at Agincourt, where the mud kept the knights from getting to the archers for a long time, and even then, the archers didn't die because of the MELEE fighters.) Just like pretty much every type of weapon, bows and arrows can do huge damage, IF SUPPORTED CORRECTLY. an AA battery now can take down a lot of planes, if its guarded so ground units can't take it out. a tank works great, if you have people killing the anti-tank people.

[warty goblin]

During the Medieval period, yea, arrows were really effective. HOWEVER, this was only true when the opposing army couldn't get to you. Usually because of a large line of infantry standing in front of said archers (pretty much like how the orc archers retreated behind the pikes during the cavalry charge in LOTR:RoTK) or due to weather (like at Agincourt, where the mud kept the knights from getting to the archers for a long time, and even then, the archers didn't die because of the MELEE fighters.) Just like pretty much every type of weapon, bows and arrows can do huge damage, IF SUPPORTED CORRECTLY. an AA battery now can take down a lot of planes, if its guarded so ground units can't take it out. a tank works great, if you have people killing the anti-tank people.

And even pulling your archers behind your infantry can be risky unless the terrain is good (aka there's a hill at your back) lest you accidentally start shooting your own men.

I wrote a paper on Agincourt a couple of years ago. While doing the research for it, I found a couple of articles suggesting the intriguing notion that the English archers were not behind, or even deployed with the infantry, but rather projecting out from it in wedges. This would give them unobstructed field of fire, create overlapping fields of fire between the wedges, and they would be fairly well protected from enemy infantry by the hails of arrows they were loosing.

[Force]

Like most things military, combined armed methodologies are usually the best. Archers have their advantages, but they also have their disadvantages.

[Dienekes]

Cheers to the three of you.

Also Warty, any chance you know where you read that? Sounds interesting and I'm wondering what evidence they have to support their theory.

[Thane of Fife]

Cheers to the three of you.

Also Warty, any chance you know where you read that? Sounds interesting and I'm wondering what evidence they have to support their theory.

I was under the impression that that was commonly accepted; pulling a book off my shelf, for example (Battles of the Medieval World: 1000 - 1500):

The English deployed in what had become the conventional manner, with three blocks of men-at-arms flanked by triangular formations of archers.

See here (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.aginc.net/battle/batmap.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.aginc.net/battle/battle-map.htm&usg=__2FKlM_vFPFmbhfDNyjlJDchEV3o=&h=593&w=567&sz=15&hl=en&start=14&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=delXZ7KePvWv5M:&tbnh=135&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbattle%2Bmap%2Bagincourt%26um%3D1%26h l%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26tbs%3Disch:1) for a depiction.

I believe the idea was that the archers were protected by stakes or other defenses, and that the enemy forces would be forced to move between the wedges, rather than be able to attack them directly. This would allow the archers to fire on the enemy flanks, which presented better targets. See the Battle of Poitiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poitiers_%281356%29) for another example.

[warty goblin]

Cheers to the three of you.

Also Warty, any chance you know where you read that? Sounds interesting and I'm wondering what evidence they have to support their theory.

Digging through my old paper's bibliography provides the following results.


George, Hereford B. “The Archers at Crecy”
The English Historical Review, Vol. 10, No. 40. (Oct., 1895), 733-738.
Kerr, Wilfred Brenton. “The English Soldier in the Campaign of Agincourt”
The Journal of the American Military Institute, Vol. 4, No. 1. (Spring, 1940), 8-29. JSTOR


Kerr, Wilfred Brenton. “The English Soldier in the Campaign of Agincourt”
The Journal of the American Military Institute, Vol. 4, No. 4. (Winter, 1940), 209-224.

Morris, J. E. “The Archers at Crecy”
The English Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 47. (Jul., 1897), 427-436.
I got all of these off of JSTOR if you have access to that. I'd imagine it would be fairly hard to track down paper copies particularly of the older two.

I think most of this information is from the two Kerr articles, but IIRC the older pair contain some good stuff as well. Of course it's old research, and may have been disproved by now, so YMMV.

[The_JJ]

John Keegan did a great book on several battles, among them Agincourt. He reported that the archers in the middle of the formation were indeed deployed in wedges and were able to first channel and then fire at armor piercing ranges into the flanks of the 'columns' fighting with the British infantry. Also key to the battle were the longbowman's baiting of the French cavalry into a charge on their planted stakes, the subsequent retreat of the French cavalry through their own lines, and later the British logbowman's descision to come out of their cover and swarm Frenchmen scattered by the volleys/slipping/being knocked over by paniced horses. French 'columns' were flanked, they lost manuverability at the point of contact with the British infantry, and generally got Charlie Foxtrotted.

In conclusion: ranged great at: baiting enemy forces, forcing them into certain lanes, and piercing armor at close range. However, the victory at Agincourt was not of Longbows over Plate but professional soldiers over heriditary warriors.

At least, that's Keegan's take.

[Dienekes]

Thank ya both.

Edit: make that three.

[Eddums]

For a nice contrast in views on the Battle of Agincourt, I'd reccomend Agincourt: A New History by Anne Curry. It overturns several of the assumptions concerning the battle through the use of documentary and eyewitness evidence. I'm not sure I agree with all the conclusions Curry draws, but it's a very interesting read, nonetheless.

[Killer Angel]

Back on movies, the battles in Braveheart and The last samurai, show some tactics and tricks.

Anyway, is hard to satisfy Saph's question, regardin "both the protagonists and the enemies use actual tactics".
Usually, when someone use a smart move, the opponent is... meh. Because the smart tactic shown, takes advantage of enemy's dumbness / overconfidence.

Having both enemies smart, is rarer: one example is from Braveheart (don't remember the battle's name, was the one where the english were guided by the King himself), and another, well... "Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your books". :smallcool:

[khoregate]

one thing that really annoyed me in the battle for helms deep is the command used to initiate a volley was ....FIRE /cough

IF you ever get the Chance the royal armouries in Leeds UK had a great description of the battle of Agincourt

plus its great to annoy frenchies by saying Agincourt lalala

if you want to read books with great battles and tactics then read David gemmels Drenai Saga and start at LEGEND and be amazed

[Brother Oni]

So, how would people rank "Aliens" ignoring a couple of rather nasty incidents towards the start?

Just thinking here.

There's a nice bit at the start, shortly after they make landfall where the marines are approaching the complex and they do a staggered move and cover (I forget the official name for the tactic).

Other than that, there's a bit in the extended movie where they put automated sentry guns on the main access corridors and Vasquez's rearguard action while escaping from the operations room, but conventional tactics aren't of much use against acid blood critters who come at you out of the walls (and in the case of Hudson, out of the floor).


One movie that's come up to mind regarding tactics - 13th Warrior when they fortify their town and earlier when set up an ambush in the hall.

Would Tears of the Sun count?

[BRC]

one thing that really annoyed me in the battle for helms deep is the command used to initiate a volley was ....FIRE /cough

Really, that's what annoyed you? Not the fact that, both sides lined up and the defenders let the Uruk-Hai get in neat formation, followed by a period of "You attack first" "Well you attack first" "No YOU attack first", and how when somebody finally shot an arrow and started the battle, it was on accident.
"Oh great, the old geezer couldn't hold his arrow, now we have to fight. Okay, start shooting".

Which is of course ignoring the fact the Uruk's lined up in nice neat rows for the defenders instead of approaching under shields to protect from the arrows the defenders should have been shooting the moment the Uruk's got within range. Which is ignoring the fact that Helms Deep is possibly the most siegeable fortress ever, especially when you consider that it's full of civillians who evacuated as quickly as possible, meaning they probably didn't stock up on lots of food.

[Megaduck]

I don't think anyone ever claimed Peter was a military genius though. The whole point is that he's a child thrust into a leader's role.

I don't know. I've always been impressed with how GOOD Peters tactics were at the final battle of LWW. He basically turns the field into a meat grinder for the enemy army.

As I recall,

First he hit them with his airforce.
Then pulled the enemy army into field traps.
Then started hitting them with arrows from archers that are both on a bluff to give them more range and safe from immediate attack.
Then he uses his cavalry in a feint that pulls the enemy into a bottle neck valley with archers (Again) lining the tops of cliffs.

Now, it didn't go perfectly, the army got disorganized in the retreat but I thought his tactics were good for what he was given.

[Satyr]

Das Boot. The parts where the U-96 dodges the destroyers, are rife with tactics, albeit quite secial ones.

The movie Mongol - about the life of Dschingis Khan has a few interesting battle tactics, but i dare say they are quite unusual and perhaps a bit unrealistic.

[Avilan the Grey]

Which is of course ignoring the fact the Uruk's lined up in nice neat rows for the defenders instead of approaching under shields to protect from the arrows the defenders should have been shooting the moment the Uruk's got within range. Which is ignoring the fact that Helms Deep is possibly the most siegeable fortress ever, especially when you consider that it's full of civillians who evacuated as quickly as possible, meaning they probably didn't stock up on lots of food.

To be fair, that kind of tactic has been used quite a lot. Very often during the 30 year war standard tactic was for the infantry on both sides to just stand and take a number of chest high cannon shots (that plowed through the ranks throwing body parts and intestines all over the other soldiers) before attacking.

As for Helm's deep being the most siegable fortress ever... It's all there in the book. The whole point with the place, as the Rohrim sees it, is to be under siege until the people doing the "sieging" gives up, since it's apparently has a reputation of being impossible to crack.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The kids-- this can possibly be forgiven, as they are, after all, kids-- did not even attempt to apply modern technology beyond a simple flashlight.

They only had what they happened to have on them but they're not really kids, they're the heir to the throne and four experianced legendary kings who have had their age brought down.


Note that archery is quite effective in the real world. Read up on, say, Agincourt sometime. Range is king, after all, and it was demonstrated to us quite well that artillery (or in this case, SAMs) is the queen of battle.

If you exclude guided missiles, artillery isn't that great really. In both world wars shells were fired day and night to little to zero effect on the enemy fortifications.

I remember that you used to be able to arrange Bretonnian Archers in wedges in Warhammer, but they took that rule out for 6th edition because wedge formations were too complicatedly different to everything else in the game.


one thing that really annoyed me in the battle for helms deep is the command used to initiate a volley was ....FIRE /cough

Actually Aragorn says the proper term "loose" but then the idiot standing behind him yells "fire".

[Eldariel]

If you exclude guided missiles, artillery isn't that great really. In both world wars shells were fired day and night to little to zero effect on the enemy fortifications.

Uhm, I'd like to bring to your attention e.g. Finnish Continuation War in WW2; at the final battle at Tali-Ihantala, 70% of the casualties were inflicted by artillery. Granted, it was in part thanks to Finnish military command having developed "correction circle" (korjausympyrä/muunnin) which enabled focusing around 20 batteries on a single target (pre-computer era, that was far from trivial).

Either way, artillery won that battle, and ultimately war. No, it's not sufficient for taking down heavily fortified positions alone, but it is extremely efficient against grouping enemy infantry regiments, attacking forces and of course, enemy artillery.


As another WW2 example, one of the big factors contributing to Allies being able to stop Axis advance at El Alamein was the return to first principles; finally being able to set up proper artillery support for the battle (and mines and all that). Many axis units were forced to dig in due to artillery fire and some attacks were simply stopped due to it.

Sure, artillery doesn't win wars alone but saying it's ineffective is just...well, let's just say it's not. Especially its impact in both World Wars was huge. Nowadays, of course, the guided missiles are filling much the same role, but still...

[warty goblin]

If you exclude guided missiles, artillery isn't that great really. In both world wars shells were fired day and night to little to zero effect on the enemy fortifications.

And yet it was by far the single most lethal weapon of the war. It might not have been able to break the trenches, but I'm not sure you'd have substantially better luck with guided projectiles. Airpower and armor yes, but if simply throwing explosives at a position would have worked, I'm fairly sure the 15 inch Austrian mortars would have managed it.

[hamishspence]

Wasn't there a proverb somewhere about this? Something like:

"Cavalry win skirmishes. Infantry win battles. Artillery win wars."

[snoopy13a]

I don't know if it really counts as a movie, but I get the impression that the action scenes in HBO's Band of Brothers seem to be pretty realistic.

I don't know how accurate they portrayed it in the miniseries but Winters' assualt on the guns during the D-day campaign was basically designated as textbook by the US Army afterwards.

In Gladiator, I did like how the infantry used the tortoise. As for the rest of that battle, I'm fairly ignorant of the accuracy.

[Shyftir]

Westerns actually seem to use tactics a lot. Anything from a wagon train circling to fight off Natives, to various shoot outs of the non "gunslinger duel" type.

[Knaight]

I think maybe Pickett's Charge was an example of a tactic not to use. Because, you know, they lost.

It was Lee's idea anyways, and after it failed horribly he actually apologized to the troops for the order, though a lot of them wanted to try again. By then the American Civil war was largely trench warfare anyways, and Pickett's charge shows why. There were the open battles, with the massive body counts, and the trenches, and Pickett's charge is the best example of trying an open battle tactic against a "trench" tactic(not actually a trench in this case).

[chilepepper]

King Arthur http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349683/ had tactics and thought put into the combat.

[Frozen_Feet]

Uhm, I'd like to bring to your attention e.g. Finnish Continuation War in WW2; at the final battle at Tali-Ihantala...

Back to the original topic, did anyone mention Tuntematon Sotilas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unknown_Soldier_%281955_film%29) yet? Or the movie Tali-Ihantala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tali-Ihantala_1944)? They're fairly accurate about the tactics used by both sides.

[Kzickas]

Really, that's what annoyed you? Not the fact that, both sides lined up and the defenders let the Uruk-Hai get in neat formation, followed by a period of "You attack first" "Well you attack first" "No YOU attack first", and how when somebody finally shot an arrow and started the battle, it was on accident.
"Oh great, the old geezer couldn't hold his arrow, now we have to fight. Okay, start shooting".

Which is of course ignoring the fact the Uruk's lined up in nice neat rows for the defenders instead of approaching under shields to protect from the arrows the defenders should have been shooting the moment the Uruk's got within range. Which is ignoring the fact that Helms Deep is possibly the most siegeable fortress ever, especially when you consider that it's full of civillians who evacuated as quickly as possible, meaning they probably didn't stock up on lots of food.

That does actually make some sense, the idea is that when the enemy is in range but only just a volley won't have that big an impact and the ground the enemy can then cover before you can reload means that it can be better to wait for them to get a little closer before shooting. Likewise it can be prudent for the attacker to try to make the enemy shoot at great range before closing

[Killer Angel]

That does actually make some sense, the idea is that when the enemy is in range but only just a volley won't have that big an impact and the ground the enemy can then cover before you can reload means that it can be better to wait for them to get a little closer before shooting. Likewise it can be prudent for the attacker to try to make the enemy shoot at great range before closing

Usually, yes.
In that specific case, it would have made a lot of sense.
The Uruk-Hai weren't leading a cavalry charge, they were slowly taking position relatively near the walls. While inciting themselves for the fight.
It's not good to let the enemy decide when and how carry the attack, especially if on your side, there are elven archers (minimizing reload and maximizing ranged effectiveness with bows).

[Closet_Skeleton]

In Gladiator, I did like how the infantry used the tortoise. As for the rest of that battle, I'm fairly ignorant of the accuracy.

They used fire arrows (complete nonsense as far as I know) and sent cavalry to flank through a wood, which is half correct (flanking) and half suicide (cavalry through woods).

[Avilan the Grey]

They used fire arrows (complete nonsense as far as I know) and sent cavalry to flank through a wood, which is half correct (flanking) and half suicide (cavalry through woods).

Depends on the woods. There are (were) plenty of woods in Europe that are flat and have little ground vegetation (mostly because of wild boars) and large trees easy to avoid.

Of course that particular woods does not look like one of those.

[Satyr]

No. There are vast woods in Europe without ground vegetation because they are the result of long term forestry and basically fields were trees are grown. I am pretty sure that wasn't the case in the first century A.D.

[Eldan]

Well, forests overpopulated by boars really look rather empty, true. But I doubt there was an overpopulation of them during that time.

Around here, we have too many boars, by the way. They tend to dig up gardens, raid trashcans and sometimes kill pets. The hunters are pretty busy.

[BRC]

To be fair, that kind of tactic has been used quite a lot. Very often during the 30 year war standard tactic was for the infantry on both sides to just stand and take a number of chest high cannon shots (that plowed through the ranks throwing body parts and intestines all over the other soldiers) before attacking.

As for Helm's deep being the most siegable fortress ever... It's all there in the book. The whole point with the place, as the Rohrim sees it, is to be under siege until the people doing the "sieging" gives up, since it's apparently has a reputation of being impossible to crack.

Highly Siege able, not Stormable.
If your enemy is going to try to storm you, Helms Deep is a great fortress. The canyon walls focus their attack on one front, you've got a layered defense, a strong wall, a well defended gate. Unless your enemy brings out some devastating new millitary technology like gunpowder you're probably going to be fine.

What I meant was that it's highly Seigable. Those same canyon walls mean that food and supplies can only get in in one way, and it's apparently quite far away from the main area of Rohan. Assuming you don't have a Deus Ex Machnia on the way (Which could have been stopped by a good pike wall if the enemy knew it was coming), an enemy can sit at the canyon entrance and just wait for you to starve.

[warty goblin]

Highly Siege able, not Stormable.
If your enemy is going to try to storm you, Helms Deep is a great fortress. The canyon walls focus their attack on one front, you've got a layered defense, a strong wall, a well defended gate. Unless your enemy brings out some devastating new millitary technology like gunpowder you're probably going to be fine.

What I meant was that it's highly Seigable. Those same canyon walls mean that food and supplies can only get in in one way, and it's apparently quite far away from the main area of Rohan. Assuming you don't have a Deus Ex Machnia on the way (Which could have been stopped by a good pike wall if the enemy knew it was coming), an enemy can sit at the canyon entrance and just wait for you to starve.

True, although it also puts the besieger in a vulnerable position because if an army arrives to lift the siege, they are caught straight between the hammer and anvil.

[BRC]

True, although it also puts the besieger in a vulnerable position because if an army arrives to lift the siege, they are caught straight between the hammer and anvil.
That is true, and considering that the Rohirim are largely a mobile cavalry force, that might actually be a standard tactic.

The Rohirim scatter and stay mobile in the countryside while civilians and command flee to Helms Deep, so the enemy either has to try to face down a skilled cavalry force in open, familiar terrain (And since the Rohirim can almost certainly outrun enemy armies, they can pick and choose their battles), or attempt to siege Helms Deep, which means either storming it or hoping it surrenders before the Rohirim show up.

If that was Rohan's standard defense, Saruman was smart to try to drive whatshisname, and with him the Rohirim, away. Had the Rohirim still been operating when he made his move, the Uruk-hai would have been whittled down into uselessness by cavalry hit and run tactics.

[Closet_Skeleton]

It's impossible to lay siege to a castle when there's a highly mobile cavalry force able to continously raid your supplies.


King Arthur http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349683/ had tactics and thought put into the combat.

You mean the film where people let themselves get lured onto dangerous ice for no reason? Or when the defenders of a fortification let their enemies inside to have a pitched battle?

[BRC]

It's impossible to lay siege to a castle when there's a highly mobile cavalry force able to continously raid your supplies.

Also true.

Thinking about it that way, Helms Deep is a great fortress. I made the mistake of thinking about it as a place for Last Stands, the final holdout of Rohan. But if you think about it as a place to put civilians, forcing an enemy to wage war on your terms. If all your civillians are in Helms Deep, and your cities are easily rebuildable, you don't need to defend anywhere. If the enemy is conquering, rather than doing a Salt the Fields style campaign, attacking empty cities is worthless. So you have a big open terrain that you are familiar with, no one piece of land is more important than another. The only place you DO need to worry about defending is a powerful fortress that the enemy cannot siege without holding up a big sign that says "Cavalry, CHARGE ME!".

[Johel]

It's impossible to lay siege to a castle when there's a highly mobile cavalry force able to continously raid your supplies.

Very true.


You mean the film where people let themselves get lured onto dangerous ice for no reason? Or when the defenders of a fortification let their enemies inside to have a pitched battle?

Or where a mere dozen of cavalrymen charge at thickly packed infantry.

This part was far from heroic, it was just hammering "it works because they are the legendary sarmate riders...yeah."

The film was good but not for the military genius of both sides.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Can hardly believe no one has mentioned Ronin (the DeNiro mercenary / terrorist / heist movie).

There are loads of excellent modern tactics in that - the use of cover throughout, careful planning, distraction, covering fire, and son - all in a very small scale.
I always recommended that film to modern gritty gamers. Cause I like to run my bad guys with at least that level of competence.

[BRC]

They used fire arrows (complete nonsense as far as I know) and sent cavalry to flank through a wood, which is half correct (flanking) and half suicide (cavalry through woods).
IIRC, they were having the cavalry flank through the woods yes, but the cavalry were waiting in the woods for the order to charge, meaning they took their time slowly getting into position. They weren't trying to charge through the woods at full gallop.

[Eldariel]

That does actually make some sense, the idea is that when the enemy is in range but only just a volley won't have that big an impact and the ground the enemy can then cover before you can reload means that it can be better to wait for them to get a little closer before shooting. Likewise it can be prudent for the attacker to try to make the enemy shoot at great range before closing

This is actually a rule at least in the Finnish infantry; you hold your fire until enemy crosses a landmark even if you were able to drop them from far higher ranges. When everyone holds fire until enemies get within ~50 meters, their retreat or offense will cause a vastly larger number of casualties (for the record, marksmanship was practiced mostly at the range of 150 meters).

[Hawriel]

If you exclude guided missiles, artillery isn't that great really. In both world wars shells were fired day and night to little to zero effect on the enemy fortifications.

I just dont have the time to tell you how wrong this is. So I'll leave you with one example.

Bastonge

The 101st would have words with you.

[Solaris]

If you exclude guided missiles, artillery isn't that great really.

Say again? I need you to back that up.

[Obrysii]

Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn, towards the end, with the Enterprise being crippled. Kirk relied on the fact Kahn was not well-versed in three dimensional combat in order to win.

[Lost Demiurge]

Artillery not really great? What is this i don't even-

The importance of artillery in a conventional war can NOT be overstated.

Every shot you fire into an enemy's zone, regardless of whether or not it hits, damages morale. Fire enough, and they're probably gonna break.

And if you're using rounds that cause large amounts of damage, break up fortifications and infrastructure, and have a good chance at killing anyone who's within their blast radius... Hey, bonus!

Not to mention the various methods you can use to draw the foe into attacking your artillery. And the tricks and traps you can put in their way to hurt them far worse then a few hundred shells ever could.

Sorry. Artillery is a key part of a successful combined arms strategy. That might change in the future, but for now it's still a big factor.

[BRC]

Artillery not really great? What is this i don't even-

Agleed.
Remember that Artillery can mean more than big WWI style guns blindly bombarding the enemy. Aeria Bombardmentl , missile strikes, even things like strafing runs could all be considered forms of artillery.

[Mauther]

You mean the film where people let themselves get lured onto dangerous ice for no reason? Or when the defenders of a fortification let their enemies inside to have a pitched battle?

Look up the Battle of Lake Peipus. Teutonic Knights fought Russians on a frozen river with predictable results.

I don't really want to get into the whole artillery arguement. But many battles of the napoleonic era were decided by superior artillery. The dominance of US naval artillery in Mediterranean campaigns and the Pacific are text book examples of artillery being a strategic decider. Additionally, both Gulf War I and Gulf War 2 repeated the demonstration. Even in cases where artillery failed to achieve decisive casualties, its psychological impact only added to the decisiveness by preventing the enemy from consolidating forces. In both the Pacific, Vietnam, and the Gulf Wars; US forces used artillery to keep resisting forces dispersed in order to achieve local numerical superiority.

Back to the movies, Tears of the Sun showed very good small unit tactics and combined arms. Going into SciFi movies, I have a hard time remembering a movie where there were consistently strong tactics. I think you can see the Clone Troopers using decent tactics in the later Star Wars movies (largely in the back ground), but the silliness going on around them may detract from that. Its horror, but the Brit army in Shawn of the Dead demonstrates smart tactics (line abreast, squad fire), the Brits trapped in the farmhouse in DogSoldiers had relatively good tactics after the initial cluster frak (plus you get a pass on tactical failures when your enemy is immune to bullets), and while it didn't end well for them the US soldiers in 28 Weeks Later had a pretty solid tactical doctrine (if it wasn't for those meddlesome kids). Discussion Point: 5th Element, does Korben Dallas get credit for good tactics versus the Mangalores?

[GoC]

What? It relied on stuff like no one noticing a bus driving into and then out of a smoking hole.

Some of the stuff he did was plain reality bending. Disabling an alert SWAT team without a single one being able to call for backup or fire a single shot?
The Joker is obviously a spellcaster of some sort.

[Irenaeus]

Heat...Quoted for emphasis.

[Dervag]

What I meant was that it's highly Seigable. Those same canyon walls mean that food and supplies can only get in in one way, and it's apparently quite far away from the main area of Rohan. Assuming you don't have a Deus Ex Machnia on the way (Which could have been stopped by a good pike wall if the enemy knew it was coming), an enemy can sit at the canyon entrance and just wait for you to starve.Simple. That's where the Riders of Rohan come in. As others say, you keep the infantry sitting in the fort, and the enemy bangs their head against the fort uselessly. Meanwhile, the cavalry wander around the countryside behind the enemy army, stabbing their patrols and setting fire to their food. Eventually, the enemy gets tired of eating on-fire food and occasionally getting stabbed, gives up, and goes home.

Of course, after the war, the cavalry get all the glory and the infantry get remembered as The Guys Who Sat In A Fort All Year. Therefore, Rohan becomes famous for its riders, as opposed to, say, its walkers.


Uhm, I'd like to bring to your attention e.g. Finnish Continuation War in WW2; at the final battle at Tali-Ihantala, 70% of the casualties were inflicted by artillery. Granted, it was in part thanks to Finnish military command having developed "correction circle" (korjausympyrä/muunnin) which enabled focusing around 20 batteries on a single target (pre-computer era, that was far from trivial).This was, by the way, not an unusual result. Most people's armies used broadly similar tactics around the same time to similar effects.


Sure, artillery doesn't win wars alone but saying it's ineffective is just...well, let's just say it's not. Especially its impact in both World Wars was huge. Nowadays, of course, the guided missiles are filling much the same role, but still...We need Solaris in here. [EDIT: OK, we have Solaris in here. Nevermind]

Guided missiles have sort of taken the role of artillery, but for certain purposes artillery is still better. Aircraft carrying guided missiles take time to fly out to your position, and only get a few shots before they have to go home and reload. If there's an artillery battery within 20 km or so, they can keep pounding anything that gets in your way all day, and you can call them up within a few minutes. Also, artillery shells are generally cheaper than guided missiles.


This is actually a rule at least in the Finnish infantry; you hold your fire until enemy crosses a landmark even if you were able to drop them from far higher ranges. When everyone holds fire until enemies get within ~50 meters, their retreat or offense will cause a vastly larger number of casualties (for the record, marksmanship was practiced mostly at the range of 150 meters).This is, again, fairly normal. It's difficult to train soldiers to be all that effective with individual rifles at ranges greater than 100-200 meters. And while machine guns and such can be effective at those ranges, the fire tends to spread

So if you can count on the enemy to approach a position in dense blocks, waiting until they get relatively close can be a good idea. 50m sounds a little too close to me, though...

[warty goblin]

Simple. That's where the Riders of Rohan come in. As others say, you This is, again, fairly normal. It's difficult to train soldiers to be all that effective with individual rifles at ranges greater than 100-200 meters. And while machine guns and such can be effective at those ranges, the fire tends to spread

So if you can count on the enemy to approach a position in dense blocks, waiting until they get relatively close can be a good idea. 50m sounds a little too close to me, though...

I would imagine that in Finland there'd be a lot of emphasis placed on fighting in fairly dense forest. At least in the woods I've been in (which admittedly are in Iowa) you'd be pretty lucky to see somebody much before fifty meters, let alone get a good enough ID to be willing to take a shot at them.

[Killer Angel]

Look up the Battle of Lake Peipus. Teutonic Knights fought Russians on a frozen river with predictable results.

I don't really want to get into the whole artillery arguement. But many battles of the napoleonic era were decided by superior artillery.

When we put togheter the words "ice, artillery, Napoleon", the result will be Austerlitz. :smallcool:

[Wardog]

Re: Helm's Deep.

Its been a while since I've read the books, but I think the original (non-movie) plan was to have the civilians retreat to Helm's Deep (because they would be safer there than in Edoras), and for the army to head to the border to reinforce the troops already there.

It was only when they discovered that the border had already been overrun and its defenders were retreating/routed that they decided to pull everyone back to Helm's Deep.