Blitzing: In Game vs. Historical Terms

[KarlXII]

Swedishfish, was the war in Vietnam really "won" by Vietnam? They managed to avoid defeat, yes, but I don't see a vietnameese flag hanging from the white house... Get my point?

North Vietnam was pushing for unification through war, with America standing in the way. Not only did they manage to create one Vietnam under Communist rule, they also managed to make the US withdraw, a victory in itself. You don't really think, had the Tet Offensive never occur, or had the US manage to push and take Hanoi, that the public opinion would stay anti-war do you? Through an offensive defense, the N. Vietnamese managed to break America's will to fight. They won.

[Flavius Clemens]

I don't remember who said it, but I once read the theory that a) most wars are lost by making the wrong choices rather than won by making the right ones b) the side taking the initiative has more options and therefore more risk of picking the wrong one so c) unless first strike guarentees an overwhelming advantage (e.g. nuclear attack) defensive strategy is better.

Feel free to pick this reasoning apart.

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't remember who said it, but I once read the theory that a) most wars are lost by making the wrong choices rather than won by making the right ones b) the side taking the initiative has more options and therefore more risk of picking the wrong one so c) unless first strike guarentees an overwhelming advantage (e.g. nuclear attack) defensive strategy is better.

Feel free to pick this reasoning apart.

Gladly.

For your reasoning to work, there must be more bad choices than good ones...

Also, why should the offensive side have more options?

First strike is ALL ABOUT overwhelming advantage btw...

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Guerilla warfare as used today and in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Russia etc. will (in my opinion) not ever result in a real gain of land, but can "win" a war, by making the enemy never fully have control and ultimately leave.

In some cases, such as Vietnam, the argument can be made the Vietnamese were offensive, but I prefer to look at their style of fight as a more defensive role.

Those countries using "Blitz" tactics are more likely to be prepared for such a tactic, or at least moreso then the defensive counterparts. Proper blitz attacks call for attacks EVERYWHERE, including political, economical, military etc. Even with this though, a defensive position is almost always able to take less military casualties, so it's risky business.

Overall I'd say it's a pretty even match. If you want a war won and you're the attacker, I wouldn't really recomend anything but a blitz attack. That being said, I think it's safe to say you're not guaranteed any sort of victory.

[ArtistofWarfare]

North Vietnam was pushing for unification through war, with America standing in the way. Not only did they manage to create one Vietnam under Communist rule, they also managed to make the US withdraw, a victory in itself. You don't really think, had the Tet Offensive never occur, or had the US manage to push and take Hanoi, that the public opinion would stay anti-war do you? Through an offensive defense, the N. Vietnamese managed to break America's will to fight. They won.

Exactly.

Winning a war is not defined in one linear way - occupying the enemy capital.

Victory conditions vary by conflict...as well as by battle. See: Pyrrhic Victory.

Correct on Vietnam- Militarily, the United States was not nor could be defeated. If you took politics and public opinion out of the equation, the NVA would have been destroyed within 90-120 days. It was on it's last legs. Further, outside of the Tet Offensive, you really cannot find a single engagement (large or small scale) where American forces were defeated. They won over 98 percent of the engagements.

The communist forces won that fight by achieving everything the United States intervened to prevent in the first place. Let's also remember that the United States was not the first military power to invade them either: The French met a similar fate prior.

If you come in my home with the intention of stealing my jewelry and money - and I wake up and get into a physical confrontation with you, resulting in myself being seriously wounded and yourself being totally unharmed - yet you run out of the house and I keep my jewelry: I won that fight. I achieved my objective (protect what is mine) and you did not achieve yours (get my jewelry and money). It doesn't matter who won the physical encounter. That was not the objective.

Objectives and goals determine the winner and loser. The attacker establishes the initial objectives and the defender's objectives will typically be orchestrated around this. Denying the attacker their goals is the definition of winning. The North Vietnamese won. To begin an in depth explanation about public opinion in the United States being the reason for withdrawal and not military losses, would simply be explaining WHY we lost. We still lost.

By the way: Good post Swedish.

p.s.- To draw a direct comparison between Kadagar's statement "well they weren't occupying Washington": The Russians don't currently occupy Tblisi nor have they. You're telling me that means the Georgians won that conflict last month? No...just...no. The Russians wanted to technically annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia. For all intents and purposes, this was accomplished. Russia achieved a military victory in a small scale conflict.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Another thought:

Research the "Hearts and Minds" campaign. Converting a populace to supporting your side of the table is a challenge the attacker almost always has to contend with. Often, it's impossible. Even more often, it's absolutely necessary to achieving military and political victory.

This is something only the attacker has to worry about. Unless the defender is an occupier themselves, they're the ones that have the hearts and minds of the populace - the attacker needs to steal this away from them.

It's another additional, challenging objective that the attacker has to contend with: Not the defender.

[Paradox]

The Battle of Okehazama: The Imagawa army initiated its march to the capital and set its sights on the land of Owari, Oda Nobunaga's homeland. When news of this reached Nobunaga, he prepared an army at dawn and launched a surprise attack during a rainstorm towards their main camp, overwhelming the vast imagawa army that greatly outnumbered them.
Had Nobunaga decided to listen to some of his retainers and remain in the castle to defend it, it would've been impossible to face Yoshimoto.

Research the "Hearts and Minds" campaign. Converting a populace to supporting your side of the table is a challenge the attacker almost always has to contend with. Often, it's impossible. Even more often, it's absolutely necessary to achieving military and political victory.

This reminds me of the siege of Alamut, where the Hashashin converted the castle's population to Ismailism without having to risk casualties, the governor realized that he practically lost the castle, so he was peacefully offered to escape.

[Brenus]

“They won over 98 percent of the engagements”: Nope they didn’t. They claimed they did… But was the Vietcong defeated? No.
The Vietcong/NVA was not engage in a win battles/win the war operation.
They choose when to attack and when to withdraw. The US and Allies got the illusion of having the upper hands because the enemies left the battle field. Wow… Then 2 weeks later (if not the day after), the same area was again in National/Communist hands.
And yes the French got the same problem.
At the end, to break the will to fight is the purpose of war… If the French would have engaged all the power at disposal (as Mendes France frightened the Vietminh negotiators) the Vietminh would have lost the war. If the US would have been able to deploy all their power, same possibilities. But in order to achieve what?

“They managed to avoid defeat, yes, but I don't see a Vietnamese flag hanging from the white house... Get my point?” When your enemy’s flag hang on your allies’ governmental buildings (the same you trained and equipped during years), yes I call it a defeat. When you are obliged to withdraw in panic your embassy, yes I call it a defeat. When you are obliged to throw in the sea helicopters and other very expensive material, yes I call it a defeat.
Or will deny the Russian defeat in Afghanistan as well?

[Caius]

Or will deny the Russian defeat in Afghanistan as well?

Didn't the Russians attacked then left?

[KarlXII]

Didn't the Russians attacked then left?

Afghanistan is known as the Soviet Vietnam for a reason.....