Modern Vs Medievil Warfare

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
You know, there hasn't been a modern war to really see how much of a factor tactics still are, but WW2 certainly showed how important they still were. Hitler cost the Germans the war with his stupidity. The Germans had superior everything to the Allies. They should have, and could have won easily.

It was not Hitler's fault. He is blamed for everything just because he was the most hated person of 20th century. Germans WERE NOT SUPERIOR TO ALLIES. In fact after the USA joined the war it was clear the Germany will loose, no matter what they do.

If you want to talk about the great time periods of war, you have to look back to the times of Rome, and earlier into the ancient world.

True, the most famous generals are from antics - Alexander, Hanibal, Scipio, Caesar etc...

War should be avoided as much as possible. Regardless, there is honor in defending innocents and one's home. That is what separates the barbarians from the Guardians.

Without Guardians, there are no sovereign nations, only large groups of people living within an illusion of autonomy because their countries are easily taken over, their women raped, their lands and monies stolen, and their general population subjugated.

Blind, if you have an interest in linear tactics you might enjoy reading David G. Chandler's "The Art of Warfare On Land". ISBN 0-141-39009-3.

Examples of tactics in modern warfare can be gained from several sources.
1. The movie "We Were Soldiers", which is an -extremely- accurate retelling of a certain battle in Vietnam. This movie demonstrates something about as close to linear tactics as ever occurs in modern battle.

2. Col. John Antal's TDG books, especially Infantry Combat: The Rifle Platoon, can give you an outstanding insight into modern tactics.

3. Reading Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising. This demonstrates the way modern war is fought at the Strategic and Grand Tactical levels.

4. Get a copy of General Kurlak's pamphlet "War Fighting". It's hardly even a book- you can read it in one sitting.

Examples of things that almost never happen can be obtained from watching Starship Troopers. If you want to enjoy that story you should read the book instead.


Simply "throwing men at eachother" as an institution, has not happened in a long time. Linear tactics are a lot like American or Canadian Football. The goal is to maneuver and create mis-matches and unfair fights at key points within the larger "fair fight". As artillery and firearms evolved- thanks in no small part to the innovations of my favorite historical commander, "The Lion of the North", it became extremely rare for a battle to be fought to its conclusion. The 18th century was the age of limited warfare. Armies would manuever, skirmish, lay siege, etc as the situation dictated, and the army which found itself in an untennable position would either surrender or withdraw if able.

Last but not least there is the question of individual valor. That has actually increased as the result of modern technology. Way back when, a single man didn't really have any options facing 100 men. It couldn't be done. Today, the proper tactical employment of weapons can make a small group or an individual capable of facing a much larger group, but this introduces a difficult choice. One has to ask himself, "Do I believe in myself this much. Can I really do this, and am I willing to risk the consequences of failure". This has given rise to acts of heroism like those of the snipers who volunteered to defend the 3rd crash site in Mogadishu, Somalia.

It has also occasionally lead to men taking on seemingly overwhelming odds against modern weapons. I have had the privlidge of actually meeting Col. Lewis Millet twice. On a place called "Bayonett Hill" in Korea, Millet's company found themselves cut off and surrounded, heavily outnumbered and short on ammunition. He lead his men down the hill in a bayonett charge, saving his company in a situation where many would have considered surrender the only hope.

Last but not least, I have to put a word in for my fellow Devil Dogs in Iraq. These men aren't running down the streets blasting individual enemies with inferior weapons.
When they were coming into the country they ran gauntlets of ambushes and there were acts of heroism which in wars past may very well have earned the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Now they patrol in places where they know full well they are not wanted, where there is a strong chance that they will be outnumbered against well armed enemies who have had the opportunity to set plenty of traps. Just because the insurgents can never hope to drive us out of Iraq does not mean that the average grunt is not in danger.
GIVE 'EM ONE! (Now if you read that, you dang well better say "KILL" in your next post. That's how Marines are shown recognition in training).

It was not Hitler's fault. He is blamed for everything just because he was the most hated person of 20th century. Germans WERE NOT SUPERIOR TO ALLIES. In fact after the USA joined the war it was clear the Germany will loose, no matter what they do

Not true. The war was lost at two key points, and they were the result of orders given directly from Hitler.

The Battle of Britian would have most likely been won had Hitler not focused on attacking cities (which would have taken the British out of the war, and made any American aid impossible), and the full efforts of Germany would have crushed Russia.

The later parts of the Russian campaign were all screwed up. Hitler's orders lost the battle of Moscow for the Germans.

The man didn't know his own limitations. He interfered too much with his generals.

The Germans had the best soldiers, best tanks, best planes (minus bombers, which did cost them big), and best infantry weapons by far.

Last but not least there is the question of individual valor. That has actually increased as the result of modern technology. Way back when, a single man didn't really have any options facing 100 men. It couldn't be done. Today, the proper tactical employment of weapons can make a small group or an individual capable of facing a much larger group, but this introduces a difficult choice. One has to ask himself, "Do I believe in myself this much. Can I really do this, and am I willing to risk the consequences of failure". This has given rise to acts of heroism like those of the snipers who volunteered to defend the 3rd crash site in Mogadishu, Somalia.

While there are just as many acts of heroism today than in the past, I can not accept that there are more.

Men did have to act more in groups in the ancient world, but small elite forces often times overcame massive forces. If anyone wants an example (really the best one), then look no further than Alexander the Great. The man fought an army 5 times the size of his own, with an overwhelming disadvantage at cavalry, in the open field, and managed to flank and crush them. He fought against some of the most impressive armies assembled in the ancient world. Has there been any army put together a better cavalry force then what Darius had at Guagamela (minus maybe the Mongols)? The massive number of elephants he faced at the Hydapses was among the most ever assembled.

I don't think 300 men could ever stand up to 200,000 men in today's modern warfare like at Thermopylae?

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
While there are just as many acts of heroism today than in the past, I can not accept that there are more.

Men did have to act more in groups in the ancient world, but small elite forces often times overcame massive forces. If anyone wants an example (really the best one), then look no further than Alexander the Great. The man fought an army 5 times the size of his own, with an overwhelming disadvantage at cavalry, in the open field, and managed to flank and crush them. He fought against some of the most impressive armies assembled in the ancient world. Has there been any army put together a better cavalry force then what Darius had at Guagamela (minus maybe the Mongols)? The massive number of elephants he faced at the Hydapses was among the most ever assembled.

I don't think 300 men could ever stand up to 200,000 men in today's modern warfare like at Thermopylae?

I suppose the "more" statement is very much subject to debate, and very likely unprovable. My point is that valor has found it's application in the modern age just as it did in ancient times.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT. that is all i have to say to you. to your statement about: "being a soldier now takes courage, but not standing in a line..." whoever stands in a line while your severly outnumbered, or in revolutionary times, stand in a line and watch them fire at you is just plain stupidity. and for you to come out and say that shooting someone from 400 yards away is the cowards way out, is wrong. what about in ancient or medievel times, they had longbowmen, archers, crossbowmen, when you have a volley of hundreds of arrows, you could probably hit people at least 200 yards away, maybe more. im not an expert on bows and arrows. why dont you find something better to do with your time, theres plenty of other boards you can post on.

This post has been editted out of existence in response to banshees call for civility.

I do still want to get the message across though Maverick- if you want to be treated with respect around here it's important to show that respect to others as well.

We don't have to agree but we have to be civil.

[edit on 17-1-2005 by The Vagabond]

Let's calm down, gang.
Totally not cool, all this name calling and snippiness, so let's not do it.

Thanks.

I believe I'm more or less on the same page as the author of this thread. I am a veteran of the R.C.N. during the cold war period who specialized in gunnery,demolitions and was a sharpshooter for the marine tactical response team. That was enough to give me a belly full of modern weaponry. It also disillusioned me regarding my perception of the role of the classic warrior.

Today I pursue European martial arts including sparring with broad swords and daggers. The battle axe, war hammer and pole arm are my idea of honourable weapons when diplomacy has failed. If I'm gonna try to take someone's life then I should have the stones to look them in the eye. Where else in life do you find more intimacy and immediacy than in birth, sex and death??

The bit about individual bravery not being a factor any more really had me wondering here.

In the past there was no other option but to fight, with most scraps happening at touch distance. Here you don't really have much of a choice to fight or not - if you don't, you die. A dog has this much bravery.

In todays battlefield it takes a massive amount of personal courage to push forward and engage the enemy when rounds are bouncing around you. The urge to bury yourself in the ground is immense. You want to disappear. You would do anything to get away from those bullets.

Imagine the strength of character it takes to not only shoot back, but to actively move forward into a potential storm of burning metal to engage the target, knowing full well that your chances of survival rest purely on the other person missing.

As for the lack of tactics needed for todays war fighting, you obviously have no idea of the planning required in the modern multinational, all-arms battlefield. The intimate knowledge of the phases required in any set action, combined with the need to co-ordinate any number of assets (infantry, armour, arty, air assets etc) not to mention the combat service support elements required to keep the troops fighting beggars belief. It is regularly compared to playing a three dimensional game of chess.

No war or period in time was more or less honorable or heroic than any other.

When it comes to the killing, there's just one way it's done. As quickly as you can, as fast as you can, as many as you can.

If at the end of a battle or firefight you find yourself still alive, the drain is unbelievable. During the fight, the body is dumping hundreds of chemicals into the bloodstream to enable the fight, and the moment the immediate threat is over, that thousand yard stare that folks describe, is nothing more than numb resignation.

The only thing that's changed in warfare is the square meters a soldier covers.

They bleed the same, they kill the same, and they die the same.

Same song, different verses.

Well, I would rather be shot than be hacked at by a sword, club or hammer.

Similarly, I would not fancy trying to pull an arrow out, no matter how hounourable the person was when he shot it at me.

The Geneva Convention was a step in trying to make warfare happen within a set of rules and most nations have banned landmines in an attempt to curtail the effect war has on the participants and the bystanders (although the US and China have not yet woken up). This is somewhat better than the past, where civilians of the were often treated with utmost dishonour - although the Japanese, Germans and Russians in WW2 showed how easy medieval behaviour could return to the battlefield and the innocent bystanders.

Regards