Codex of Tactics (or Tactics that everyone need to follow)

[t209]

Fellow Playgrounders. As I have look into combat in many fiction, I saw problems with their ability to understand tactics. Many examples include
- Christopher Paolini's inability to understand choke point, barrage first then charge later and using heavy infantry on charge.
- Mookie's inability to understand barrage and hold your ground.
- Starship Trooper (I don't care it's a parody, it's still a violation).
In order to combat these problems, especially fan comic writers. I wanted to create Codex of Tactics on this post for many to follow.
I will start with 3 basic rules.
1. Heavy Infantry is to defend.
2. Archer and artillery is to fire a volley, especially NOT into melee.
3. Light Infantry and Cavalry is to either harass and to flank.
Any addendum?

[GloatingSwine]

Tactics depend entirely on the disposition and capability of the troops available, and therefore in fiction can be whatever the hell the author wants them to be.

Heavy infantry that are magically or technologically enhanced to move quickly over long distances might be shock troops for attacking strongly held positions.

Archers with preternatural aim or guided weapons might fire confidently into a melee.

Cavalry might be heavy barded cavalry that excels in linebreaking, not flanking.


Et cetera unto infinity.


Now, it would be nice if authors did research the specific tactics most closely resembling the worlds they have created and decide how the changes they have made to their universe might impact on those tactics (like Jim Butcher does with furycrafting in Codex Alera, finding sensible places to add on the magical elements of his 'verse to standard Roman Legion combat), but you can't create a single codex tactica and expect it to cover everything from roman legion to modern warfare, taking in medival, napoleonic* and all permutations of wafare in between, because the tactics available are different for different eras.



* The Thousand Names, Django Wexler, Napoleonic era fantasy, musketry and magic, go read. Why are you still here? Go!

[Grinner]

2. Archer and artillery is to fire a volley, especially NOT into melee.

But we have reserves! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WeHaveReserves)

[tensai_oni]

- Christopher Paolini
- Mookie
- Starship Trooper

That's your problem right there - crappy authors/movies. Better works tend to have a better grasp on tactics and common sense in general.

[t209]

But we have reserves! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WeHaveReserves)
Unless it's your only option or a general who doesn't give a scrap about your troops, I don't agree with it.
The basic should cover on medieval warfare, especially to Total War esque games.
edit:

That's your problem right there - crappy authors/movies. Better works tend to have a better grasp on tactics and common sense in general.
Along with films that was meant for consumers who only watch for entertainment instead of critical thought.
Exactly, I also have worries on Coffee Included, while a good story teller, lack some tactical knowledge unless she's portraying a idiot leader. This is for her and possibly many aspiring writers.

[Jayngfet]

Eh, it would probably make more sense to divide it up by era/technology level. Modern infantry tactics, for example, bear almost no similarity to infantry tactics of 150 years ago, which are in turn completely different from the tactics of 500 years before that etc. Then you have things like armour or fast air which don't even really have historical analogues.

This. Tactics from the modern day wouldn't work in the middle of the cold war. Those wouldn't work if you were dealing in WWII era tech, which fails with WWI era stuff, which fails to Napolean, which falls to Revolutionary period, and so on.

The tactics of an assault rifle capable of firing at full auto don't translate well to single shot rifles or revolvers. THOSE fail if you don't take into account a lack of widespread interchangeable parts.

An era where knights used larger swords and chain shirts against the occasional crossbow isn't even equal to an era where knights used lighter Smallswords and more protective plate armor mixed with hand cannons.

You might get some crossover here an there. The Denra Panopoly has a few similarities to a 14th century armor set, aside from mail which may be a game changer itself, so the similarities need to be put into perspective.

Making one big list isn't going to really cut it, every era and tech level needs to have it's own deal. Big comprehensive lists barely work for games like DND. Actual novels couldn't hope to get away with it without being called on it regularly.

[Tyndmyr]

It depends. Full auto fire is a supression role, for instance. Supressive fire has been around a LONG time...well predating automatic weapons.

Archers firing into melee also greatly depends on the skill of the archers and the ranges involved. Long distance barrages per Braveheart? Sure, totally a killing both sides move. Which, btw, is still rational if you are losing the melee. Kill as many as possible in the melee mess, your guys are gonna die anyway, rack up their body count.

But direct fire? If you're accurate, it's totally viable, and a loose line of archers behind the shield wall can provide excellent support.

[Calemyr]

How about we generalize this as much as possible, so that the tactics are applicable to as many eras as possible?

Or, how about a different approach: What tactics have you seen (in real life or fiction) that strike you as actually intelligent warfare?

[Olinser]

Fellow Playgrounders. As I have look into combat in many fiction, I saw problems with their ability to understand tactics. Many examples include
- Christopher Paolini's inability to understand choke point, barrage first then charge later and using heavy infantry on charge.
- Mookie's inability to understand barrage and hold your ground.
- Starship Trooper (I don't care it's a parody, it's still a violation).
In order to combat these problems, especially fan comic writers. I wanted to create Codex of Tactics on this post for many to follow.
I will start with 3 basic rules.
1. Heavy Infantry is to defend.
2. Archer and artillery is to fire a volley, especially NOT into melee.
3. Light Infantry and Cavalry is to either harass and to flank.
Any addendum?

You left off the major determinator of just about every single major campaign: Logistics and sustainability. An army that can't be sustained is a liability.

More generally, real world tactics will always be based upon four things:

1) Your own troops equipment, including, but not limited to, firepower, range, mobility, communications, and sustainability.

2) Your troops equipment in relation to your opponents. When you have a major advantage in certain areas, you press that advantage.

3) What type of fight is happening. Is this a quick clash between small forces, or a major, month-long battle between entire countries multiple armies? Are both sides trying to take a central objective, or is one side attacking and one side defending? Are both sides trying to SEIZE the objective, or is one side trying to seize it, and the other side simply trying to deny them? Is one side trying to completely conquer an enemy country city by city, or are they blitzing towards their capital Blitzkreig style? Tactics will change accordingly.

4) How valuable the objective is to both sides. Probably the best example of this would be heavy infantry vs light infantry. Ideally the light infantry want to avoid an engagement, and use their mobility to harass the heavy infantry and use attrition to whittle them down until they can beat them. But what if the light infantry is forced to defend an objective that they absolutely cannot let be taken? A slow engagement really isn't an option, and they may be forced to use sub-optimal tactics because they HAVE to defend something. Likewise, if you are attacking a town/city/area that you have to capture intact, smashing artillery day and night down on the area really isn't an option.

The tactics that the US used in Iraq are DRASTICALLY different from the tactics that would be used against a country like China - because against Iraq, the US enjoyed almost total air and naval superiority, which allowed them to be much bolder and faster than if they were against an opponent that could challenge that.

There is never going to be a 'Codex of Tactics', and trying to make one is exactly how the military disasters of WWI took place - generals were in charge that couldn't understand how modern (for that era) technology had drastically changed the battlefield - most obviously the machine gun. So they ordered full bayonet charges across open areas defended by entrenched machine guns.

The German Blitzkreig against France in WW2 is also an excellent example of how one military simply could not adapt to rapidly changing tactics. The French tried to build a massive fortified line to hold back any assault (the Maginot line). It would have worked fantastically in WW1. Unfortunately, this was 20 years later, and the Germans responded by simply using their highly mobile armor to flank through an entirely different country, and the rest is history.

Most obviously on your list, both #1 and #3 are not correct.

Presumably you are referring to the swords/armor era, in which case heavy infantry is most certainly NOT exclusively to defend. Heavy infantry is to anchor key parts of your line - usually the center or vulnerable flanks. Heavy infantry wants to be right in the face of their opponent, grinding them down. If your opponent doesn't have heavy infantry of his own, a heavy infantry charge against light or unarmored infantry will crush them underfoot.

Cavalry comes in many varieties - and while yes, light cavalry is meant to harass or flank an enemy, heavy cavalry is meant to smash through the center of the enemy's line and leave a hole for the rest of your army to exploit.

It would be much more fruitful to discuss how specific examples showcased terrible grasp of military tactics, and discuss how the author could have corrected them.

[Gnoman]

Not only that, but often the "terrible" tactics in a work are actually quite good, even though they conflict with conventional wisdom for the era.

For example, the encirclement of Aragorn's force in the Peter Jackson version of Return of the King is often derided as the most prominent "Hollywood Tactics" in the film, as that sort of encirclement is generally a very bad idea. An enemy that has no avenue of retreat and can not (or will not) surrender will be forced into a desperate last stand, causing many times the casualties that would have been expected in a more conventional battle. In this case, however, the objective was total annihilation of the Men of the West and the retrieval of a specific item believed to be in their possession (the Ring). In that case, the encirclement is the best choice, even though it costs more.

[Fjolnir]

Not only that, but often the "terrible" tactics in a work are actually quite good, even though they conflict with conventional wisdom for the era.

For example, the encirclement of Aragorn's force in the Peter Jackson version of Return of the King is often derided as the most prominent "Hollywood Tactics" in the film, as that sort of encirclement is generally a very bad idea. An enemy that has no avenue of retreat and can not (or will not) surrender will be forced into a desperate last stand, causing many times the casualties that would have been expected in a more conventional battle. In this case, however, the objective was total annihilation of the Men of the West and the retrieval of a specific item believed to be in their possession (the Ring). In that case, the encirclement is the best choice, even though it costs more.

Exactly, it also doesn't hurt that the executor of these tactics has at his command nigh-invulnerable troops that possess powers beyond the fathoming of most of the force they are encircling, as well as the ever popular overwhelming numbers put to bear on the enemy...

[comicshorse]

For example, the encirclement of Aragorn's force in the Peter Jackson version of Return of the King is often derided as the most prominent "Hollywood Tactics" in the film, as that sort of encirclement is generally a very bad idea. An enemy that has no avenue of retreat and can not (or will not) surrender will be forced into a desperate last stand, causing many times the casualties that would have been expected in a more conventional battle. In this case, however, the objective was total annihilation of the Men of the West and the retrieval of a specific item believed to be in their possession (the Ring). In that case, the encirclement is the best choice, even though it costs more.

I'd say its the best choice anyway, if you can completely encircle the enemy like they did in 'Return of the King' then you can pack them in so tight they can't manouvre to defend themselves and in fact can barely raise their arms to fight. At the Battle of Cannae and the Battle of Whatling Streets smaller forces inflicted hideous losses on the enemy by compacting them into a small area.
Now the crossing of Osgiliath in the 'Two Towers' that seemed to me to be the absolute worse way to fight that particular battle

[t209]

I'd say its the best choice anyway, if you can completely encircle the enemy like they did in 'Return of the King' then you can pack them in so tight they can't manouvre to defend themselves and in fact can barely raise their arms to fight. At the Battle of Cannae and the Battle of Whatling Streets smaller forces inflicted hideous losses on the enemy by compacting them into a small area.
Now the crossing of Osgiliath in the 'Two Towers' that seemed to me to be the absolute worse way to fight that particular battle
Then again, they're orcs. They have numbers to spare.

[Raimun]

Universal tactics?

Eh... don't die and kill instead?

Seriously, I guess that is the only tactic all armed forces ever have in common.

That and perhaps focus fire/outnumbering/flanking at key points? You know, isolate one enemy unit and attack it with two of your own at the same time. Repeat. Use combined arms tactics if you can.

As a side note I would like to say that Starship Troopers is perfectly within its rights to have the mobile infantry to use bad tactics. That's precisely the point. Humans underestimated the bugs, didn't plan the attack too much and paid the price. It was an example of bad tactics. If you remember, Klendathu was a disaster because they didn't think it through.

[Olinser]

Universal tactics?

Eh... don't die and kill instead?

Seriously, I guess that is the only tactic all armed forces ever have in common.

That and perhaps focus fire/outnumbering/flanking at key points? You know, isolate one enemy unit and attack it with two of your own at the same time. Repeat. Use combined arms tactics if you can.

As a side note I would like to say that Starship Troopers is perfectly within its rights to have the mobile infantry to use bad tactics. That's precisely the point. Humans underestimated the bugs, didn't plan the attack too much and paid the price. It was an example of bad tactics. If you remember, Klendathu was a disaster because they didn't think it through.

The travesty was that the troops in the movie used totally different tactics, equipment, and organization than in the book.

[Raimun]

The travesty was that the troops in the movie used totally different tactics, equipment, and organization than in the book.

I still like the first movie. You just have to accept that they are two very different things with the same name.

Ps. I'm not saying a movie about guys in powered armors fighting bugs would be lame. :smallcool:

[Hawriel]

Not only that, but often the "terrible" tactics in a work are actually quite good, even though they conflict with conventional wisdom for the era.

For example, the encirclement of Aragorn's force in the Peter Jackson version of Return of the King is often derided as the most prominent "Hollywood Tactics" in the film, as that sort of encirclement is generally a very bad idea. An enemy that has no avenue of retreat and can not (or will not) surrender will be forced into a desperate last stand, causing many times the casualties that would have been expected in a more conventional battle. In this case, however, the objective was total annihilation of the Men of the West and the retrieval of a specific item believed to be in their possession (the Ring). In that case, the encirclement is the best choice, even though it costs more.

As was said above orcs and trolls were far superior in raw fighting ability to man. Also the Nasgul and Souron did not care about casualties, only results.

While the Rohan armies tactics were very flawed at first glance. They advanced on a far superior enemy on open ground. The goal was to grab the attention of the enemey, namely Souron and the Nasgul. They succeeded.

The German Army in the winter of 44 had the 101st and a portion of an armored combat team surrounded in Bastogne. Giving them an out would have been utterly stupid. Because that would have been a hole that reinforcements would have been able to reach the American unit. It would also allow the 101st and a good portion of an armored combat unit, and a few batteries from an artillery battalion, to escape and join up with the main American force.

Instead their failure was to make single attacks along one portion of the perimeter. This allowed the 101st to take men from one side to help defend another. If the German army attacked all along the perimeter constantly, the 101st would have been crushed. Bastogne roads would have been secured, and the Germans southern flank, for the Ardenne offensive, would have had unrestricted logistical lines.

Germany its self was cut off and surrounded. In 45 the Allies in Europe beat the German army back to Berlin. Then the Soviets crushed them.

The goal of modern warfare, which started with the U.S. civil war, is to remove the enemies ability to make war. One element of that is crushing the enemies army. This does not happen if you give them an out.

Any way back to the topic. The OP is trying to make absolute rule for tactics. That just does not work. The tactics needed have many factors involved. The two most prominent and constant are weapons, and terrain.

The U.S. Civil War is a perfect example of tactics not changing with the capabilities of the weapons. The same with the Great War.

[comicshorse]

Then again, they're orcs. They have numbers to spare.

Ironically I was refering to the Gondorian tactics :smallsmile:

[McStabbington]

The U.S. Civil War is a perfect example of tactics not changing with the capabilities of the weapons. The same with the Great War.

Eh, not really. The tactics of the Civil War were dictated by the need to mobilize a lot of men and get them into the fight on very short notice. By necessity, that limits how much you can really teach them.

A good way of understanding this is the distinction in ancient warfare between the armed mob, the phalanx, and the legion. The armed mob is just that: an armed group of men with no larger organization or cohesion. They could be frightening at an individual level, but against an army with even minimal training and discipline, they usually get mowed over unless they achieve surprise. Incidentally, most Hollywood fights use this formation because a) they need to make the heroes look like great fighters, and you don't usually get a chance to shine individually in formation fighting, and b) most directors don't know a thing about large-scale unit discipline.

That leaves two basic forms of organized, disciplined formations: phalanx and legion. The primary difference, to hear Hollywood tell it, is that one uses spears and the other uses swords. Not so. The primary difference is that a phalanx is one big block of soldiers, whereas the legion is trained to break down into constituent centuries and maniples, fight at sub-unit level, and then re-form into a legion at a single point of attack under battlefield conditions, where they might not be able to see or hear what the other maniples/centuries are doing.

The difference is obvious: legions were substantially more expensive, and they required immense investments in terms of professional soldiers and standing armies that most societies couldn't or chose not to afford, but they were nevertheless far more flexible and capable of doing a lot more in combat, to say nothing of the fact that you could kill the leader of the legion, and his centurion subordinate would simply step into the breach with little loss in coordination or effectiveness. By contrast, phalanxes could be made battle ready in a few weeks of training, since all you had to do was hand a farmer a stick and a board and teach them a few basic commands to make sure they could keep the shield wall up. But, if the shield wall were broken or the phalanx was forced to fight on poor terrain or they lost command cohesion, they got chopped to bits.

Flash forward to the 1860's, and you see a repetition of the same problem. The way to advance in the face of the repeater rifles, gatling guns and artillery of the time was what the modern U.S. military does: split down to the sub-unit, advance on multiple axes, and use lots of counter-battery fire to keep the other guys pinned down if not killed outright. But the modern U.S. military has a standing army of professional soldiers trained to coordinate down to the platoon level and across branches, with infantry spotting for artillery and air support at need, with a disciplined officer corp and non-coms that can replace casualties on the fly. It takes months of training to develop that level of discipline, and years to perfect. The Union and Confederacy didn't have that much time.

Ergo, they by necessity were forced to go for cheaper, phalanx-style formations because they were easier to get combat ready, and they suffered the predictable effects. Yes, casualties were enormous, but there was a legitimate reason beyond "the generals didn't understand how war had changed" why those casualties continued throughout the war.

[tomandtish]

The travesty was that the troops in the movie used totally different tactics, equipment, and organization than in the book.

Best review I ever saw for that movie. "Starship Troopers. A movie based loosely on the back jacket of a novel by Robert Heinlein".


Not only that, but often the "terrible" tactics in a work are actually quite good, even though they conflict with conventional wisdom for the era.

For example, the encirclement of Aragorn's force in the Peter Jackson version of Return of the King is often derided as the most prominent "Hollywood Tactics" in the film, as that sort of encirclement is generally a very bad idea. An enemy that has no avenue of retreat and can not (or will not) surrender will be forced into a desperate last stand, causing many times the casualties that would have been expected in a more conventional battle. In this case, however, the objective was total annihilation of the Men of the West and the retrieval of a specific item believed to be in their possession (the Ring). In that case, the encirclement is the best choice, even though it costs more.

This. Remember, victory can be a subjective term. For Sauron, victory was obtaining the ring. That's all. If all his forces were wiped out but he obtained the ring, he would consider it a victory.

Similarly, destruction of the ring is victory for our heroes. Even if they all die and Aragorn's army is completely destroyed, it would be a victory if the ring was destroyed in the process (a costly one, but a victory nevertheless).

[GloatingSwine]

Flash forward to the 1860's, and you see a repetition of the same problem. The way to advance in the face of the repeater rifles, gatling guns and artillery of the time was what the modern U.S. military does: split down to the sub-unit, advance on multiple axes, and use lots of counter-battery fire to keep the other guys pinned down if not killed outright. But the modern U.S. military has a standing army of professional soldiers trained to coordinate down to the platoon level and across branches, with infantry spotting for artillery and air support at need, with a disciplined officer corp and non-coms that can replace casualties on the fly. It takes months of training to develop that level of discipline, and years to perfect. The Union and Confederacy didn't have that much time.

Ergo, they by necessity were forced to go for cheaper, phalanx-style formations because they were easier to get combat ready, and they suffered the predictable effects. Yes, casualties were enormous, but there was a legitimate reason beyond "the generals didn't understand how war had changed" why those casualties continued throughout the war.

There's a bit more to it than that. The US Civil war is an interesting example because the transition from musket to rifle happened literally as it was being fought, and that had a massive impact on the effectiveness of defensive positions, because a rifle has much more accurate range than a musket, so the defenders could make multiple effective volleys in the same space that they would previously have made one to three mostly ineffective ones (musketry used massed ranks because that was the only way to hit anything).

And the actual way to advance against the new paradigm of defensive warfare established by the ACW didn't arise until near the end of the first world war, the Tank. (Ever wonder why the first tanks had their guns in side sponsons not turrets? Because that's good for firing down into trenches.). Until then people did the best they could with massed artillery bombardment to disrupt enemy defenders and massively costly infantry assaults.

You couldn't have effectively used 1860s armed forces with modern tactics and broken a prepared defensive position, because doing that with modern tactics requires modern combined arms capabilities (infantry, artillery, armour, and air power working together).

[Gavinfoxx]

The Byzantines had the concept of suppressive fire, with their Cataphracts. They had everyone have a ranged weapon and stressed rate of fire... this is before widespread infantry/cavalry gunpowder use in the West.

[Man on Fire]

- Christopher Paolini's inability to understand choke point, barrage first then charge later and using heavy infantry on charge.
- Mookie's inability to understand barrage and hold your ground.
- Starship Trooper (I don't care it's a parody, it's still a violation)

Dennis Hopeless inability to comprehend that if your enemy has superior firepower YOU DON'T ATTACK THEM HEAD ON!

[Frozen_Feet]

The general presentations of fictional combat would be greatly improved if their writers could be arsed to read some Sunzi, Vegetius and Clausewitz. :smalltongue:

[Frozen_Feet]

All of them do include some fairly specific tactical advice pertinent to their eras. Art of War's "Fighting with fire", for example.

[McStabbington]

And the actual way to advance against the new paradigm of defensive warfare established by the ACW didn't arise until near the end of the first world war, the Tank. (Ever wonder why the first tanks had their guns in side sponsons not turrets? Because that's good for firing down into trenches.). Until then people did the best they could with massed artillery bombardment to disrupt enemy defenders and massively costly infantry assaults.

You couldn't have effectively used 1860s armed forces with modern tactics and broken a prepared defensive position, because doing that with modern tactics requires modern combined arms capabilities (infantry, artillery, armour, and air power working together).

Tanks, arty and combat air support are preferred options, certainly. But they're not the only tools in the modern infantry's box. The US had limited access to all three in the Pacific campaign during WWII, and that didn't stop them from taking island after island from the Japanese, and inflicting a fairly consistent 10:1 ratio of casualties inflicted to casualties sustained at that.

The point was not to get into a discussion about who's seen the most History Channel. It was simply to point out that training was an essential element of the story of what the generals of the Civil War could and could not do. In another universe, one where the Union had a year or two to train its army, they might have been able to do what the Marines and Army did in the Philippines and advance against entrenched opposition using small-unit tactics. We'll never know, though, because the demands of the situation necessitated that the Union put its troops on the field after no more than a few weeks of training, and you cannot do much more than put your troops in a big block and have them advance or retreat in unison with that little training.

[Aotrs Commander]

2. Archer and artillery is to fire a volley, especially NOT into melee.

In practical terms, archery IS artillery, since it really does the same job:hold the enemy in place, slow the advance, break up enemy formations and only kill the enemy if they sit there long enough (or are held in place long enough) to be repeatedly showered. (Example: Agincourt.)



Also, what Olinser said about points one and three.

[snoopy13a]

1. Heavy Infantry is to defend.


Uh, tell that to the Athenians at the Battle of Marathon.

The best advice is to look at the technological capabilities and socio-economic structure of the fictional culture and then find an analog in history. If the technology is of the Classical period and the culture is one that has a middle-class of farmers then perhaps an ancient Greek army or a Roman legion of the time of the middle Republic can work. If the technology is of the Classical period and there really isn't a middle class then an army like the late Roman Republic/early Roman Empire or, alternatively, the Persian Empire can work.

Once you've determined the technology level and culture, then you can copy tactics from the historical generals.

[Gnoman]

And the actual way to advance against the new paradigm of defensive warfare established by the ACW didn't arise until near the end of the first world war, the Tank. (Ever wonder why the first tanks had their guns in side sponsons not turrets? Because that's good for firing down into trenches.). Until then people did the best they could with massed artillery bombardment to disrupt enemy defenders and massively costly infantry assaults.

You couldn't have effectively used 1860s armed forces with modern tactics and broken a prepared defensive position, because doing that with modern tactics requires modern combined arms capabilities (infantry, artillery, armour, and air power working together).

This simply is not true. A defensive line, even a WWI trench line, can be broken with artillery-supported infantry alone, as evidenced by late war French tactics, which achieved breakthroughs with little or no armor. Focus the infantry at one point of the line, and hit the opposing trench with a hurricane bombardment (concentrating your entire artillery strength to firing one or two shells per tube at a very narrow part of the line) just as your troops go over the top. If done properly, the attacker will take the line without serious casualties.

The colossal casualties and long deadlocks in WWI were caused by generals not only failing to consider the implications of new technology such as aerial reconnaissance, artillery with ranges measured in miles, and the withering fire of bolt-action rifles and machine guns that can kill accurately at extremely long range; but also refusing to adapt their thinking to the new reality. Indeed, the war might have ended a full year or two sooner if the heads of either side had actually tried to innovate new tactics instead of pinning their hopes on wonder weapons such as tanks and poison gas (neither of which were much use in breaking the deadlock with the early war tactics.)

[t209]

I kinda wonder if I am trying to be like the father of the hated blue armored Smurfs who are either mary sues or idiots who can't do without their "Codex Astartes".
- Also the usage of "spray and pray" in automatic weapons, unless it's supressing fire, untrained men, or just infinite ammo.
- Hand grenade, use them against massed units and clear a room unless there's a innocent in there. (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Buffy the Vampire Slayer might be one of them).
- Watch out for probing assaults, in real life, video games, and media (I even forgot to use them in Shogun 2 Total War).

[Frozen_Feet]

In general, tactics lag behind technology by couple of years, sometimes a couple of decades. However, innovation in tactics is not just inventing new ways to use new toys; sometimes, it's just a matter of switching old tactics around. Tank warfare reached a break through when tanks started to be used less like artillery, and more like heavy cavalry on a charge, leading to Blitzkrieg.

[deuterio12]

Except that commanders quickly realized that unsuported tanks rushing ahead of the rest of the force could easily be stopped on its tracks by air raids or long-range anti-tank cannons.

De Gaulle himself tried to use tank rush at the start of WW II to counter the german assault, but the french had little coordination with their own airforce. So their massed tanks trying to perform counter attacks were easily intercepted by german bombers.

So not really a break trough, more the simple use of surprise. Any kind of force rushing ahead if effective if your opponent isn't expecting them and doesn't have the proper weapons to hurt them back.

[Tyndmyr]

There's a bit more to it than that. The US Civil war is an interesting example because the transition from musket to rifle happened literally as it was being fought, and that had a massive impact on the effectiveness of defensive positions, because a rifle has much more accurate range than a musket, so the defenders could make multiple effective volleys in the same space that they would previously have made one to three mostly ineffective ones (musketry used massed ranks because that was the only way to hit anything).

Nah. We used rifles in the American Revolution, quite a while earlier. In fact, it had the first battle on US soil where the side using mainly rifles won.

Rifles had long been more accurate. Muskets were just faster. Also, they were cheaper due to standardization(ie, the brown bess) in revolutionary times. Obviously, standardization in weapons was adopted for rifles as well later, but even this was not a new use of standardization in weapons by any means.

Really, logistics is the great equalizer. Everybody needs logistics. If you have top notch logistics, you can still lose, but it probably does more for your odds of victory than any other one thing. If you get everything else right, and really screw up logistics, you probably still lose.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Except that commanders quickly realized that unsuported tanks rushing ahead of the rest of the force could easily be stopped on its tracks by air raids or long-range anti-tank cannons.

De Gaulle himself tried to use tank rush at the start of WW II to counter the german assault, but the french had little coordination with their own airforce. So their massed tanks trying to perform counter attacks were easily intercepted by german bombers.

So not really a break trough, more the simple use of surprise. Any kind of force rushing ahead if effective if your opponent isn't expecting them and doesn't have the proper weapons to hurt them back.
Yeah, tanks changed drastically over the course of WWII. The American tanks and doctrine were outdated, based on early-war tactics, until the invention of the M4 Sherman. The Germans themselves got a big surprise when T-34s first rumbled onto the battlefield, outgunning the Germans with their tougher armor and bigger cannons.

General tank doctrine became inverse. Instead of the tanks being support, the infantry supported them while they rumbled in first. But blitzkrieg tactics were a surprise thing, they stopped working after the initial invasion of France.

Nah. We used rifles in the American Revolution, quite a while earlier. In fact, it had the first battle on US soil where the side using mainly rifles won.

Rifles had long been more accurate. Muskets were just faster. Also, they were cheaper due to standardization(ie, the brown bess) in revolutionary times. Obviously, standardization in weapons was adopted for rifles as well later, but even this was not a new use of standardization in weapons by any means.
Yeah. Soon after the Revolutionary War, the British decided to put research into a breech-loading rifle, but muzzle-loaders with rifling were hard to reload and got dirty quickly.

Really, logistics is the great equalizer. Everybody needs logistics. If you have top notch logistics, you can still lose, but it probably does more for your odds of victory than any other one thing. If you get everything else right, and really screw up logistics, you probably still lose.

Indeed. That's why the U.S. has been the best military in the world for the longest of time since WWII.

[GolemsVoice]

But War, my friends. War never changes.

[t209]

But War, my friends. War never changes.
But War have changed :smalltongue: (MSG:GoP reference).

[Darklord Bright]

It's rather difficult to talk in any meaningful capacity about tactics without a specific time period in mind. If we want this thread to be useful at a glance, maybe people should head their posts with a bolded sub-heading? That way we might be able to carry on multiple conversations about different sorts of tactics, but with an easy visual shortcut that tells us what everyone is talking about.

Just a suggestion, of course. I'm no good at modern tactics, but I understand medieval ones well enough most of the time.

[Metahuman1]

Want Tactics? Read the art of war and the book of five rings, put them together. That's pretty much everything you need with a little shaving off of the excess.

[Brother Oni]

Want Tactics? Read the art of war and the book of five rings, put them together. That's pretty much everything you need with a little shaving off of the excess.

As mentioned earlier, The Art of War is more strategic than tactical - knowing when to Besiege Wei to Rescue Zhao is not particularly useful when you need CQB tactics to clear a building.

A Book of Five Rings is more applicable to the tactical level, but still somewhat obsolete. The Smacking Parry isn't as relevant to modern combat as Slicing the Pie or the Mozambique Drill are.

[Metahuman1]

Hence the shaving a bit off part. But there are things in the art of war that are useful. Knowing when to fight and when not to fight, knowing how best to operate on the terrain your fighting on, knowing yourself and your opponent and both your capability's to the letter.


Book of five rings is still better at the tactical level, but don't count out the usefulness of art of war.

[Wardog]

Use your strength against their weakness.

That applies to strategy and tactics, and in all eras.



Beyond that, it may be easier to list specific examples of Holywood tactics to avoid, rather than try try to come up with a universal list of things to do.

Some that haven't already been mentioned:

Do not deliberately place your ship in your opponent's broadside. (I'm looking at you, Pirates of the Carribean 3).
Try to maintain ranks, even when in hand-to-hand combat, rather than breaking up into a thousand individual duels.
If the enemy has artillery, but little/no cavalry, don't maintain tight ranks. (I'm looking at you, SW:TPM).
Do not charge cavalry into massed pike ranks. (LotR:RotK. Really, Rohan should have known better. Although it this case it inexplicably worked).

[Tavar]

Do not charge cavalry into massed pike ranks. (LotR:RotK. Really, Rohan should have known better. Although it this case it inexplicably worked).


Pikes are good against Cavalry, but really any unshaken infantry can succeed against Cavalry(hint, horses are very vulnerable). The key being unshaken infantry: in neither of the big charges was the infantry unshaken.

[Gnoman]

Use your strength against their weakness.

That applies to strategy and tactics, and in all eras.



Beyond that, it may be easier to list specific examples of Holywood tactics to avoid, rather than try try to come up with a universal list of things to do.

Some that haven't already been mentioned:

Do not deliberately place your ship in your opponent's broadside. (I'm looking at you, Pirates of the Carribean 3).

This isn't even close to an ironclad rule. Unless you manage to cross your opponent's "T", then going broadside-to-broadside *IS* the best option, as that's the scenario where you take the least damage. Not only were combat ships of the Age Of Sail built with the heaviest timbers reinforcing the sides, but any sort of raking fire was likely to punch through long-ways, magnifying damage.


Pikes are good against Cavalry, but really any unshaken infantry can succeed against Cavalry(hint, horses are very vulnerable). The key being unshaken infantry: in neither of the big charges was the infantry unshaken.
Not at all true. Until the Napoleonic era (when artillery truly became the "Queen of Battle", heavy cavalry was THE smashing unit. The sheer power of a horse, two tons of muscle and sinew charging in at high speed, could shatter infantry even without the rider doing much. Adding in lance and sword to the equation, there's nothing that could compare with the destructive power, not to mention the sheer majesty and terror of the charge. The only ways to defeat a charge of that sort required heavy missile fire, landscaping to cause the horses to stumble or impale themselves, or polearms to break things up before the charge hit home. This is the main reason the Roman triarii (the third rank in an early-pattern Roman legion) used spears, as the gladius and shield of the other ranks were useless against cavalry.

[t209]

Do not charge cavalry into massed pike ranks. (LotR:RotK. Really, Rohan should have known better. Although it this case it inexplicably worked).
[/LIST]
To be fair, they had sunlight magic to stun the Uruk Hai Pikemen. On the Pelennor fields, Orcs are only equipped for close quarter fighting and did not think about Cavalry.

[Kitten Champion]

Does rock still beat scissors, or was that yet another lie?

[Aotrs Commander]

Tanks do not ever drive down the middle of the road, buttoned up. (Heck, tanks do not go anywhere near built up areas without infantry support. ) They also do not shoot their main guns at people. A tanky of our acquiantence once told me and my Dad that the view out of a tank is like looking down two toilet roll tubes. Tanks are not built to fight people.

Hollywood - and superhero stuff in particular - is abyssmally terrible at that.

[McStabbington]

Which is why no modern militaries have field manuals or infantry handbooks or the like. Instead all new recruits are issued a copy of The Art of War and told to get reading.

In all seriousness, tactics are an extremely broad and complex subject with massive individual variations by time, unit, location, objective, nature of conflict etc. It's not something that can be comprehensively summarised in a single book. Specifically regarding The Art of War, it's an interesting historical text but tends to talk in very broad generalisations and is functionally useless regarding the actual nitty gritty details that make or break effective tactics.


Posted from Giantitp.com App for Android

. . .And yet, it's still regarded as valuable even by officers and men today, because while there are factors that are variable over time, the need to pay attention to those variables does not. The speed of modern militaries are vastly higher than medieval militaries, which are in turn slower than the Roman military. Yet the fact that the speed of a military unit, both in combat and in transit, helps determine which side picks the most advantageous terrain has remained fairly constant regardless of era.

If I were to cite something that really torques me about Hollywood, it's the inability to figure out how various service branches interact and work with each other for mutual aid and dependence. Artillery should be assisting, and called in by, the infantry, which should in turn be supporting the armor, and it should be mechanized to keep pace and bulk up their survivability, and it should be preceded by air power. Really wish I'd stop seeing scenes of unsupported infantry fighting kaiju.

[t209]

. . .And yet, it's still regarded as valuable even by officers and men today, because while there are factors that are variable over time, the need to pay attention to those variables does not. The speed of modern militaries are vastly higher than medieval militaries, which are in turn slower than the Roman military. Yet the fact that the speed of a military unit, both in combat and in transit, helps determine which side picks the most advantageous terrain has remained fairly constant regardless of era.

If I were to cite something that really torques me about Hollywood, it's the inability to figure out how various service branches interact and work with each other for mutual aid and dependence. Artillery should be assisting, and called in by, the infantry, which should in turn be supporting the armor, and it should be mechanized to keep pace and bulk up their survivability, and it should be preceded by air power. Really wish I'd stop seeing scenes of unsupported infantry fighting kaiju.
Even if they managed to do tactics (based on many Kaiju movies), they're still screwed (possibly with less casualities).

[Olinser]

. . .And yet, it's still regarded as valuable even by officers and men today, because while there are factors that are variable over time, the need to pay attention to those variables does not. The speed of modern militaries are vastly higher than medieval militaries, which are in turn slower than the Roman military. Yet the fact that the speed of a military unit, both in combat and in transit, helps determine which side picks the most advantageous terrain has remained fairly constant regardless of era.

If I were to cite something that really torques me about Hollywood, it's the inability to figure out how various service branches interact and work with each other for mutual aid and dependence. Artillery should be assisting, and called in by, the infantry, which should in turn be supporting the armor, and it should be mechanized to keep pace and bulk up their survivability, and it should be preceded by air power. Really wish I'd stop seeing scenes of unsupported infantry fighting kaiju.

Still, it's kind of funny when the original Transformers came out and all of the critics were commenting on the Marines being awesome.

Except... they were Air Force. People just kind of assumed since they were badass they had to be Marines.

As a Marine myself, I laughed and lapped up the sweet tears of rage from my Air Force friends.

[Calemyr]

Let me phrase it another way: I am writing a story which involves war. It's not the primary focus of the plot, but it is a major motivator to it. I won't get into the details too much, but the reason I'm interested in this thread of conversation is I wanted to make sure the warfare aspect of the story isn't rife with stupidity and victory-by-author-fiat nonsense.

What kind of general philosophies and tactics just make you shudder when you see them employed in a story - be it a book, a video game, a movie, a series, or a board game?

[Killer Angel]

Eh, it would probably make more sense to divide it up by era/technology level. Modern infantry tactics, for example, bear almost no similarity to infantry tactics of 150 years ago, which are in turn completely different from the tactics of 500 years before that etc. Then you have things like armour or fast air which don't even really have historical analogues.


This. Tactics from the modern day wouldn't work in the middle of the cold war. Those wouldn't work if you were dealing in WWII era tech, which fails with WWI era stuff, which fails to Napolean, which falls to Revolutionary period, and so on.

Yes, but there are exceptions. Some things should usually be avoided, regardless the period (volley fire into a huge melee).
Plus, it's clear in the OP that some things are not related to modern warfare: I don't recall any actual "Heavy Infantry" corp.


Fellow Playgrounders. As I have look into combat in many fiction, I saw problems with their ability to understand tactics. Many examples include
- Christopher Paolini's inability to understand choke point, barrage first then charge later and using heavy infantry on charge.
- Mookie's inability to understand barrage and hold your ground.
- Starship Trooper (I don't care it's a parody, it's still a violation).
In order to combat these problems, especially fan comic writers. I wanted to create Codex of Tactics on this post for many to follow.
I will start with 3 basic rules.
1. Heavy Infantry is to defend.
2. Archer and artillery is to fire a volley, especially NOT into melee.
3. Light Infantry and Cavalry is to either harass and to flank.
Any addendum?

4. A frontal assault against a well defended position is cool, and also a bad idea.

[Man on Fire]

Hollywood - and superhero stuff in particular - is abyssmally terrible at that.

And comics are too. See also - Dennis Hopeless and his complete tactical diseaster that was Avengers Arena #10.
hec, maybe I should jut describe the situation and see if anybody will say what more tactically appriorate solution should be.

We have following hypotetical situation:
On the one side there is a person armed with mind-controlled cyborg who had so far displayed variety of weapons, including guns and flame throwers, as well as giant robot who is enough to beat you up in straight fight. Said person is planning to attack your team. You have wolverine powerset, minus metal bones, as well as high assasin experience, but are alone. Enemy is in the forest, during a winter. They don't know you're coming after them, so you have element of suprise, but need to act fast, because they will attack soon. How do you proceed?

According to he writer, the tactically appriorate solution would be to charge blindly and get beaten to near-death by giant robot. And he was even defending it.

[McStabbington]

Let me phrase it another way: I am writing a story which involves war. It's not the primary focus of the plot, but it is a major motivator to it. I won't get into the details too much, but the reason I'm interested in this thread of conversation is I wanted to make sure the warfare aspect of the story isn't rife with stupidity and victory-by-author-fiat nonsense.

What kind of general philosophies and tactics just make you shudder when you see them employed in a story - be it a book, a video game, a movie, a series, or a board game?

I've got something even better for you: watch the old movie Seven Samurai. As in, the 1954 Kurosawa film. Because everything that can be done right, he does it. He establishes, via action, that the leader of the ronin is wily and thougtful in addition to being good with a sword (in a scene that according to Roger Ebert invented the Batman Cold Open trope). And then he creates a plan by asking his subordinates "How would you attack point x?", listening to their answers, and responding to them intelligently. In some cases, he blocks their access off with water, or fences manned by guards that he trains. In some places, he gives them openings that he explicitly states he's leaving to funnel his opponents towards. And he always explains to the farmers (and by extension, the audience) what the plan is in simple language. And then he follows through in demonstrating people following (or in some cases, not following) the plan.

Above all else, though, Kurosawa follows the KISS principle: keep it simple, stupid. Most tactics and strategies aren't about some brilliant, amazing gambit that knocks your socks off. It's about taking disciplined, coordinated units of men and using what you've got to maximum effect against what they've got. They've got swordsmen on horses? Then you try use the terrain to funnel them into a killing zone, where their superior mobility is useless. All you've got is farmers who don't know the first thing about warfare? You arm them with bamboo spears and train them in the very, very basics of formation fighting, and then you keep them attached to a samurai who knows a lot more about warfare than they do. They've got three muskets? You send out your best guy on a night raid to go grab one. At each stage, all they're really doing is taking stock of what they've got, what the other guy has got, and saying "What are his options, and based on what I know of him, what do I think he'll do?"

[Wardog]

This isn't even close to an ironclad rule. Unless you manage to cross your opponent's "T", then going broadside-to-broadside *IS* the best option, as that's the scenario where you take the least damage. Not only were combat ships of the Age Of Sail built with the heaviest timbers reinforcing the sides, but any sort of raking fire was likely to punch through long-ways, magnifying damage.

That's why you want to point your broadside at the enemy, while attempting to keep out of theirs.

Which of course means that if neither ship can out-manoeuvre the other, they will end up broadside to broadside, as often did happen. That's not what I'm complaining about.

What I'm complaining about is things like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdrjkA3iWqQ) where there is no attempt at manuvouring and they deliberately put themselves in a position where - if the enemy wasn't a complete idiot - he could easily have blown them out the water (or, at least, hit them harder than they hit him). (Plus, with this particular deployment, there would probably have been a good chance of the pirates shooting each other through the Endeavour

[Gnoman]

Ah, that's a fair complaint. Been a very long time since I've seen any of those movies.

[Eulalios]

That's your problem right there - crappy authors/movies. Better works tend to have a better grasp on tactics and common sense in general.

Let's be fair - Starship Troopers was a work of *political* sci-fi, not military.

[t209]

Let's be fair - Starship Troopers was a work of *political* sci-fi, not military.
I did say "I don't care if it is a parody or poking fun at movie tactics, it's still an infringement to the tactics".
At least Ultramarine vs Tyranids lore is closest thing to accurate portrayal, other than being a blue armored mary sue who are useless without their blind obedience to a war book that was written by the same mary sue primach.

[GolemsVoice]

Funny that this should come from the person who wanted to define the best tactics for everyone to follow ever :smallwink:

[Brother Oni]

Plus, it's clear in the OP that some things are not related to modern warfare: I don't recall any actual "Heavy Infantry" corp.

During WW2, Rangers and the like were often referred to as 'Heavy Infantry' in that they had anti-armour and other gear which supplemented their role in attacking enemy strong points, compared to 'light' infantry like recon units or airbourne.
I suspect it was an artificial distinction though, much like the M26 Pershing and other American 'heavy' tanks referring to their role as 'heavy cavalry'.

These days the main distinctions are mechanised infantry and armoured infantry (troops that are just carried into combat by vehicles compared to troops that carried and supported by IFVs during combat), but this varies from country to country depending on their doctrine.

[Olinser]

During WW2, Rangers and the like were often referred to as 'Heavy Infantry' in that they had anti-armour and other gear which supplemented their role in attacking enemy strong points, compared to 'light' infantry like recon units or airbourne.
I suspect it was an artificial distinction though, much like the M26 Pershing and other American 'heavy' tanks referring to their role as 'heavy cavalry'.

These days the main distinctions are mechanised infantry and armoured infantry (troops that are just carried into combat by vehicles compared to troops that carried and supported by IFVs during combat), but this varies from country to country depending on their doctrine.

In today's army, 'Heavy Infantry' would generally refer to troops that carry heavy weapons significantly more powerful than normally infantry - medium/heavy machine guns, mortars, and explosives, generally.

In the Marine Corps, for instance, a standard rifle company consists of 3 Infantry Platoons (the 'light' or 'normal' infantry) and a Weapons Platoon (the 'heavy' infantry). A standard infantry platoon only contains rifles and light machine guns, possibly light anti-vehicle weapons, while the Weapons Platoon contains light mortars, medium machine guns, and assault rocket launchers.

Move up a level to a Battalion, and you have 3 Infantry Companies and a Weapons Company - which has heavy machine guns, fully automatic grenade launchers (Mk-19 40mm, those are fun), medium mortars, and heavy anti-tank weapons.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I'm not sure if there is heavy infantry in modern war doctrine. There are certainly things that serve a similar role, but mortars are probably light artillery. Not sure about heavy machine guns not mounted on vehicles.

[Gnoman]

Mortars are not light artillery, except the very large vehicle-mounted sort. They are organic fire support units in the infantry. Bupod and tripod mounted machine guns, recoilless rifles, rocket launchers, and ATGMs are also common heavy weapons. Towed antitank guns organically attached to an infantry unit would also not really count as artillery.

There is a huge difference between a line Army unit, which throws all this heavy firepower around liberally; and light infantry such as a Marine rifle squad or an Airborne company, where that much firepower would be a detriment to the mission due to weight or bulk.

[Wardog]

These days the main distinctions are mechanised infantry and armoured infantry (troops that are just carried into combat by vehicles compared to troops that carried and supported by IFVs during combat), but this varies from country to country depending on their doctrine.

The British Army distinguishes between:



Armoured Infantry - armoured infantry are equipped with the Warrior armoured personnel carrier, a tracked vehicle that can deploy over all terrain.
Mechanised Infantry - mechanised infantry are equipped with the Saxon armoured personnel carrier, a wheeled vehicle that can be deployed over rough terrain, but is primarily a road vehicle. Saxon is in the process of being replaced by the Bulldog tracked vehicle. Since the mid-2000s, they have been using vehicles like Mastiff PPV.
Light Infantry - light infantry are not equipped with armoured vehicles, such units may specialise in jungle and/or arctic warfare
Air Assault Infantry - air assault infantry are trained to be deployed using helicopters, parachute or aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_Infantry#Types_of_infantry
(I've seen official Army info saying essentially the same thing, but couldn't find anything better than Wikipedia at short notice).