Has anybody in history found a counter to the Hammer-and-Anvil?

I was mowing over my most recent Paintball tactics in my head, along with my recent tactics in EB, and I have deducted that I looooove the Hammer and Anvil tactic.

What I'm wondering is if anybody has ever discovered a real effective counter to this tried-and-true tactic? I know Alexander used this to great effect, and I dont think I ever heard of a real defeat when he used this tactic, even at a river.

anyone?

Hammer and anvil? In paintball?
Easy!
when the hammer part of the plan comes into action, bend part of your forces back to move with the hammer to then envelop the hammer.

In acient times? Counter hammer strike. As well as hit and run tactics so the hammer has nowhere to fall.

In our modern warfare without set piece battles the hammer anvil tactic is obsolete large scale because force redistribution is lighning fast.

you mean like this?


1.XXXXXXXXX-Anvil-XXXXXXXXX
EEEEEEEEEE-Enemy-EEEEEEEEE

HHHHHHHH-Hammer-HHHHHHH



2.XXXXXXXXX-Anvil-XXXXXXXXX
EEEEEEEEEE-Enemy-EEEEEEEEEEEEEE
HHHHHHHH-Hammer-HHHHHHH EEE
EEEEE-Counter-Hammer-EEEEEEEEEEE



??


and as odd as it sounds, yeah, it worked fairly well in paintball, just instead of melee, suppressing fire is used to pin down the enemy, while a quiet, small flanking action takes place. being unnoticed is vital to the flanking, as their position can be easily called out and stopped in the open. but once they crawl up the flank and get behind the enemy, as long as they get up to the very back and make sure nobody is behind them, they can easily hit the backs of the exposed enemy, pinned down.


i actually did this in a 2v2, which was interesting. you know you have a kickass plan when two 15 yr olds beat an active duty marine and a retired marine, and that only due to a genetic condition, who is still working for NCIS.

Yes, something like that, but I have my ambushing force set up before they can actually hit me from behind, so my decoy force wont have to deal with enemy from behind and in front. So my men are set somewhere to the far left/right.
It works because they arent expecting a counter to the all-mighty hammer and anvil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

you mean like this?


1.XXXXXXXXX-Anvil-XXXXXXXXX
EEEEEEEEEE-Enemy-EEEEEEEEE

HHHHHHHH-Hammer-HHHHHHH



2.XXXXXXXXX-Anvil-XXXXXXXXX
EEEEEEEEEE-Enemy-EEEEEEEEEEEEEE
HHHHHHHH-Hammer-HHHHHHH EEE
EEEEE-Counter-Hammer-EEEEEEEEEEE



??

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Yes, something like that

---

:laugh4:

which makes sense; after several google pages, I've yet to find a historical occurence where it was ever defeated.

Yeah, even the Canadians couldn't counter it. A battle-ready flying column was routed by a Cree and Assiniboine force less than 1/4 of its size.

Stupid idiots.

In modern tactics (Especially in paintball), hammer and anvil don't make much sense as both sides don't have a formation to stick to and therefore can easily move around. A more normal tactic these days is a standard envelopment and crossfire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

Yeah, even the Canadians couldn't counter it. A battle-ready flying column was routed by a Cree and Assiniboine force less than 1/4 of its size.

Stupid idiots.

---

and since when did we expect much more from the Canadian military? theres a reason they speak French...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

In modern tactics (Especially in paintball), hammer and anvil don't make much sense as both sides don't have a formation to stick to and therefore can easily move around. A more normal tactic these days is a standard envelopment and crossfire.

---

you would be surprised. from an overview standpoint, as a commander, it wouldnt seem logical with such small units. But it actually does when you're there on the ground.


another tactic i used to its extent during that day was Spotting. there was a line of trees nearby, with a clearing on the other side, basicaly invisible to the enemy. crawled right up there and called out their positions, til one of them rushed me while I had all of 5 rounds left. woulda got him too....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

2.XXXXXXXXX-Anvil-XXXXXXXXX
EEEEEEEEEE-Enemy-EEEEEEEEEEEEEE
HHHHHHHH-Hammer-HHHHHHH EEE
EEEEE-Counter-Hammer-EEEEEEEEEEE
EEEEE-Conuter-Counter-Hammer-EEEE

---

Ahh, good old MTW flanking. :laugh4: I've even seen another double-layer on that sandwish.

In general, the main weakness is the splitting up of your forces. If your hammer gets delayed long enough (in old times this could simply be by tougher terrain) or is properly counter-attacked and the anvil is slow, then your opponent can crush one of the sides before the other can properly engage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

In modern tactics (Especially in paintball), hammer and anvil don't make much sense as both sides don't have a formation to stick to and therefore can easily move around. A more normal tactic these days is a standard envelopment and crossfire.

---

That flanking is a sort of envelopment from one side. If I get the tactic properly, it's flanking with the anvil as an distraction, so when the hammer comes, the opponent lack cover from the flanking side and is easily killed before they can react properly.

Counter measures would be a rear guard and avoiding to get all pinned down (aka they can fairly easily disengage). 1-2 people is enough to disrupt the flanking and the mobile unit can then move to either assult the anvil or the hammer.

And that 2vs2 is a good example on what morale influence the tactic have. If it's 2vsX it's hard to counter against and hard to know that you aren't outnumbered (it really shines in 2vs1).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

and since when did we expect much more from the Canadian military? theres a reason they speak French...

---

Yeah, they're a bunch of losers.

Does the second day of battle of Gettysburg in the US civil war count as a hammer-and-anvil battle? Usual amateurish bumbling from our American cousins of course but there was something like a pinning attack, and something like an outflank attempt from the rebs, succesfully resisted by the legitimate govt forces.

IIRC Blucher attempted to hammer and anvil Davout in Paris after Waterloo, and had his cav savagely ripped up by a prompt countermove. One might view Austerlitz as the hammer and anvil writ large, but the russian hammer was forstalled by Davouts timely arrival and the anvil of the Pratzen heights proved brittle to Soults adamant advance.

I think there would be many examples (with both both inept and capable forces) of "hammer and anvil" attacks being thwarted and defeated.

Gettysburg wasn't so much an attempt of that as much as it was simply a full-on attack, which encompassed a flanking maneuver. remember, Hammer-and-Anvil is more about pinning than flanking from behind, not just about attacking a flank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

and since when did we expect much more from the Canadian military? theres a reason they speak French...

---

They fought along American and British forces during the second war bravely... I'd say expect plenty from them.

along. American forces fought alone in the Pacific, and just about every country helped us in Europe, at least that could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

They fought along American and British forces during the second war bravely... I'd say expect plenty from them.

---

Besides, every time the americans entered Canada under arms, they always got their butts kicked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

along. American forces fought alone in the Pacific, and just about every country helped us in Europe, at least that could.

---

Myth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

along. American forces fought alone in the Pacific, and just about every country helped us in Europe, at least that could.

---

Helped you in Europe?

When did the war start again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

In acient times? Counter hammer strike. As well as hit and run tactics so the hammer has nowhere to fall.

In our modern warfare without set piece battles the hammer anvil tactic is obsolete large scale because force redistribution is lighning fast.

---

You mean like how we never establish a fire-base and then send some forces to sneak around the flank and catch the enemy in a cross-fire....?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

along. American forces fought alone in the Pacific, and just about every country helped us in Europe, at least that could.

---

So China, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Netherlands, the Philippines, and all the other island nations that were fighting in the Pacific War weren't actually fighting? Without these countries even simply providing a place to stay for the US, there is no way that the US could have even thought about winning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Besides, every time the americans entered Canada under arms, they always got their butts kicked.

---

all...once?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

all...once?

---

Well, twice. War for Independence and 1812.

ah 1812. forgot bout that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

along. American forces fought alone in the Pacific, and just about every country helped us in Europe, at least that could.

---

Uhm, no. The US was far from the only nation who fought Japan.

China fought them for years before the war and continued into the war, the UK had sizeable forces in the area, the french and dutch were there, Australia fought with their entire military as well as resistance groups in every country occupied by Japan.

Meh, AFAIK Goofball is in the canadian army and he's got more cojones than all of you canadian army haters together!

There has always been counter for single and double envelopment tactics. A concentrated strike. If the manouvering enemy is too weak at one point while stretching his forces. a concentrated attack against the weak point might cut his forces in two and into full dissarray.

Very true, Kagemusha. I guess the Finnish army demonstated the value of the surgical strike against the Soviets in 1940.

Were the Soviet forces attempting any sort of hammer-and-anvil there? or was it just hammer-hammer-hammer?

The whole point of the hammer-and-anvil tactic is pinning any enemy in place then smashing the crap out of them. Don't get pinned. In any fight, be it individual vs individual up to a full scale war, mobility is always key. Guerrilla tactics work wonders. Use ambushes, fighting retreats, false retreats, but never let get yourselves pinned down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

Yeah, they're a bunch of losers.

---

I'm not a Canadian, but that is just...wrong.

Anyways: hammer and anvil counters, of which I think Illipa might be an example. though my knowledge is of course, rusty.