Blitzing: In Game vs. Historical Terms

[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.....

[KrooK]

I think we should modify this theory.
Attacker has advantage only if defender do not expect attack into place choosen to attack by attack.

[KarlXII]

I think we should modify this theory.
Attacker has advantage only if defender do not expect attack into place choosen to attack by attack.

Already explained, attacks work better when they gain the advantage of surprise.

[Brenus]

"Already explained, attacks work better when they gain the advantage of surprise." Attacks work almost ONLY if advantage of surprise:
Ardenne 1940 (for the Germans).
If not: Waterloo for Napoleon.
And if for what ever reason, the attacker lost the momemtum, attackers failled (battle of the Bulges for thr Germans) then are opened to counter offensive (1st battle of the Marne -Germans-, Moskow 1941 -Germans-).
Another aspect is when things go out of control, like the Egyptians in the Sinai. Plan was perfect however for political reasons Sadate was obliged to send his tanks out of the AA missile umbrella so played in Israelis hands...

[KarlXII]

Attacks don't only work with surprise, but it does help. You already listed failed offensives that utilized surprise. For example, World War 1 is an example of succesfull offensives without surprise. Sure, they were crude, basically throwing men into a meat grinder, but offensives have worked without surprise.