Best Military Strategy of its Time

[yesdachi]

A few Mongolian ones come to mind.

1 they kept multiple horses (2-4) and switched when one got tired enabling them to move quickly over vast amounts of land.

2 attacking at dusk and using stuffed dummies to sit on their extra horses to disguise their true numbers.

3 the feint (more of a tactic?)

I also like the Native American practice of baiting and then ambushing the “white man” in dead end canyons. Of course the white man supplying smallpox infested blankets to them was pretty effective, although not nearly as dramatic as a thousand Indians lined up around canyon walls.

The Roman use of the Pilum (sp? Throwing spear thing) was a nifty too (maybe a tactic also?).

Im getting confused between strategy and tactic.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Mongols used fake dummies?? Awsome!

[RabidGibbon]

I agree that the Germans in WW2 really hit on something with the idea that an attack could be mounted not on an enemy posistion, but on its communications. In all the great Blitzkrieg attacks of the second world war the key was to break through and press on quickly.

This confused the hell out of the static, dependant on orders from above armies of the time, as HQ's picked up and fell back rather than give orders and soldiers were left in the dark and quickly surrendered when fired upon from a few sides at once - or assumed the rest of the front had gone to pot.

Hmmm, so having said that I suppose the best stratergy is the breakthrough and rapid exploitation. On Defence, multiple defensive lines and powerful mobile reserve? Although if your sat on a great big empire, theirs something to be said for fall back "scorched ground" tactics, Although perhaps not with a modern logistically supplied army.

To close its impossible for my limited mind to decide; after all Stratergy should be suited to circumstance.

[PanzerJaeger]

Can you described the new tactic developed by the German to re-emplace the Blitzkrieg? Name, if possible. Even in Kursk, the German tried to cut the Red Army from the rears, and to apply the same good tactic. No innovation, no new concept just a bigger scale. In defensive, they used the kessle, in offensive the blitzkrieg (without the means, air superiority).
The only people who defeated the Red Army when this one was ready came from your country, with the use of the line Mennerheim, light infantry, lot of sub-machinegun (Suomi) and skilled people using properly the terrain.
Prove me wrong and provide something else than an opinion, I will be happy to consider your facts and analyses.

If the Blitz was so old and outdated, why did both America and Russia adopt it and use it until the end of the war? America still uses it in a different name.

But ok, we'll just say that the Blitz was worthless after 41. What about the Kampfgruppe? The allies never reached that level of organizational freedom. I would say that strategy - tactic - whatever, was almost as important for the post war world as the Blitz. Ironically, that form of warfare was used by the Israelis to great effect against the Arabs.

Read up on Manstein's use of this form of warfare, its amazing what he was able to do with units from all different commands to form a functional fighting force... or just look at Market Garden.

[Papewaio]

Combined arms.

Those who can combine the most pointy sticks at the point of conflict wins.

====

Sharper sticks.

Those who have the latest sharpest sticks and know how to use them effectively.

====

That said the strength of the blitz was not the armour on the ground. It was the power in the air. The mechanized infantry and armour allowed the occupation of the ground to keep up with the air power.