phalangitai... too few spears?

[Karamazovmm]

[QUOTE=Arkhis;2374388]

They need offensive support to be most effective.

The point in here is that they were used for "charging" the enemy line and to hold (the terminology used by Foot is probably the best), and to charge in any military manual, count as an offensive movement, the attack of Parmenion an d Alexandros in the gaugamela batttle is a clear example.

Tanks are technically cavalry

Yes they are.

, they certainly don't hold a battleline

yes they do, the basic strategy developed for the tanks in the 1WW was that it would disrupt the enemy formations, mainly that of the trenches. In WW2 that role clearly suffered a transformation, it's pretty easy to see the changes made by the designers, tanks as a disruptive force were outlasted by the support role that they made to infantry, it's clear that you're not familiarized with modern day tactics as in that you pin the enemy than you outmaneuver and kill him, supressing fire is the basic point in those formations, and it was firstly realised by Hitler, than the frenchs, and finally for the americans (albeit perceived in WW2 it was only fully deployed in the pacific theatre (for the lack of a heavy tank for the japanese), further development only came in with the M1A1), the russians well that's for another day.
Of course the tactics couldn't be translated as an actual phalanx, that died in the middle ages, the tanks were used as the spearhead to pin the enemy and to the infantry maneuver and kill the enemy, actually those examples that you cited operation supercharge and the battle of kursk were extremes, as they relied heavily in the firepower of those tanks, and as such the britsh and the soviet tanks were, kindly putting, armored cars compared to the germans panzer IV and tiger, gently putting, if they couldn't outsmart and outmaneuver they were dead, most of their shots didn't penetrate the heavy armor, and as such the only options was to advance and send the infantry to flank, which we could consider being the main purpose of the phalanx, advance pin down, and let someone do the killing, this behaviour could be perceived in both battles (which are considered the two major tanks battle of the war, therefore extremes), and such if this behaviour could be perceived in those examples, imagine a more common type of battle, in which a panzer division utilized infantry and tanks combined. The tactics is as follow:
1 - pin/disrupt enemy formations
2 - send rapid deployment teams to flank
3 - let the tanks advance use the offensive abilities to pin down and defensive abilities to soak fire
4 - let infantry kill
BTW, if you see the westpoint or another military academy they clearly specify the phalanx as an inspirational for modern day fighting and tank deployment

Also, Swedish pike charges were done in an era where wearing armour had become almost obsolete (certainly for infantry), making a wall of pikes far more dangerous to the enemy, since they didn't have any protection. It's a bit pointless to liken their use in the age of gunpowder with their use in classical times, due to SEVERELY different equipment (and thus, tactics).

yes tactics change over time, but let's say that that Alexandros was fighting an army based with a lot of ranged troops, and let's say that the great weakness of the phalanx was that they could be outmaneuvered and hence be destroyed, if you have a prevalent army of ranged units that actually fought too much for the hollywood likening in close range, as in hand to hand combat the phalanx could and was still used to pin down and to let the others units do the killing, they could kill more because of the lack of armor? Sure why not? they could kill less? that's not impossible..

The point that I was trying to make is, the phalanx was a great formation and that it was more adaptable than we like to see it. Hammer and Anvil? sure! it's derivations were used throughout the time, yes it was. Was there any need to adapt those tactics to the new ways of killing, yes there was. The core of the tactics was maintained? we could say that.

PS: it's just my opinion, and yes it's my professional opinion

[Apázlinemjó]

[QUOTE=Seila;2374546]

The point in here is that they were used for "charging" the enemy line and to hold (the terminology used by Foot is probably the best), and to charge in any military manual, count as an offensive movement, the attack of Parmenion an d Alexandros in the gaugamela batttle is a clear example.

"Charging"? I don't think that the Macedon-style phalanxes really charged, I mean you have a 6m long spear, it clearly makes the running quite hard and you have to try to keep the close formation too, because it's one of the most important point of the phalanx. So a forced march is more likely in my opinion.

[The General]

PS: it's just my opinion, and yes it's my professional opinion

Have you served in the military?

Suppressing fire is not the same as phalanx. Seriously. If you think tanks are meant to sit on their asses and fire suppressing fire while infantry crawls to the enemy and fires at the opponent's side/rear...

Also, I can't understand why some thing that phalanxes would not have been fielded en masse if they were defensive in nature. How does "defensive" equal "worthless", hm? Phalanxes engaged enemy to pin them down (defensive does not mean 'stationary'), but their role was not to break the enemy. That was the hammer's, that being heavy cavalry, job. They could be used offensively to "push" the enemy, however, the usage of this tactic seems to correlate with the diminishing numbers of heavy cavalry fielded in battles.

Also, someone mentioned Pydna as an example of offensive use of phalanxes; in Pydna, Romans started withdrawing as they saw that frontal charge was useless and behind them was rougher ground which would disturb the phalanx formations. Phalanxes were essentially lured into advancing too far, opening gaps in the formation for Roman legionaries to exploit.

[Karamazovmm]

Yes I did serve in the military, and I am a military "expert" in the international relations world.
BTW I never said that pinning down today was equal as yesterday, but surely you caught the spirit of what I said (or tried for that matter) the "myth" of the phalanx as an static formation is not feasible anymore, as in you have too much development in new ways of killing people ( we surely evolved in that matter) and the manouverability that was implemented in the hellenic period and diadochai. Let's go one by one

By charge I mean this:

[noun] a impetuous rush toward someone or something; "the wrestler's charge carried him past his adversary"; "the battle began with a cavalry charge"

it doesn't mean that you go with a great URAAAAAA and skewer the enemy with your almost too heavy 6m spear. It does mean that you rushed to the enemy and to present him the impenetrable wall of spears, in my opinion that is a charge, that's what Alexandros did in gaugamela

I consider this an ofensive use of what was a great holding the line formation.

In the case of:

Suppressing fire is not the same as phalanx. Seriously. If you think tanks are meant to sit on their asses and fire suppressing fire while infantry crawls to the enemy and fires at the opponent's side/rear...

Also, I can't understand why some thing that phalanxes would not have been fielded en masse if they were defensive in nature. How does "defensive" equal "worthless", hm? Phalanxes engaged enemy to pin them down (defensive does not mean 'stationary'), but their role was not to break the enemy. That was the hammer's, that being heavy cavalry, job. They could be used offensively to "push" the enemy, however, the usage of this tactic seems to correlate with the diminishing numbers of heavy cavalry fielded in battles.

You answered yourself, holding the line doesn't mean static all the way, you may need some elements to counterpush to make the line hold, to attract more firepower to one place and relief the other. A line is not static in anyway, never was. And yes I did not expect the tanks to survive if they're supposed to stay static in the battlefield, the infantry is highly maneuverable, and so it can surely outmaneuveur a tank and flank and you know the drill. So yes never meant the tanks to stay put, they are there to soak the fire, but they are there to survive as well

[The General]

Yes I did serve in the military, and I am a military "expert" in the international relations world...

I understand charge to mean a violent, fast-paced attack, as defined here:

"to attack by rushing violently against: The cavalry charged the enemy."

Such a maneuver, I'd think, is nigh-impossible if you want to maintain cohesion of your phalanx unit, and that cohesion was very, very important for phalanxes. Advance, yes, attack, aye, but charge? Don't think so.

I don't think anyone here has said that phalanxes were immobile blobs of infantry, waiting their enemies to run themselves into their pikes. They could certainly move and maneuver, to an extent, and as many have mentioned here, their primary task was to pin down the enemy. This implies an active role in the battlefield, in that they needed to keep the enemy there. If they simply approached the enemy and presented them with a pikewall, the enemy would've been free to maneuver still (and counter cavalry attacks and whatnot).

(Also, Gaugamela was quite a special battle in that Alexander was heavily outnumbered, had he used his phalanxes defensively he simply would've been flanked by swarms of enemies, he had to bring the enemy in contact with his phalanxes quickly to be able to strike at the enemy flank [/gap between Bessus and infantry] before getting outflanked/swarmed. In Diadochi Wars I would think the numbers would've been more equal.)

I must say, you have an interesting concept of modern warfare in that you put such importance on defensive abilities of MBTs and the concept of defensive lines. I suppose my training in a highly (counter/-)offensive mechanized battalion has struck the "strike, strike, STRIKE!" mentality in my backbone.

However, that would be a subject for another topic, I'm afraid, we're risking incurring Ludens's wrath if we continue talking about armoured warfare here.

[Karamazovmm]

Then mecanized warfare talks shall be done as you say. But let me ask you this (last one on this subject) Apparently you were in the army, and so were are you from? and yes this is cheating I have the notions of a need for more defensive strategies, principally in the urban warfare, such as attacks in one town well lead me to reinforce people there and to do active incursions on some other towns definitely enabling me to cut some structure from the guerrilla there, and to occupy with lower casualties, for both sides. A attack focus strategy in urban and modern warfare I think it's wrong, it let you focus on some things, but in the end you had to abandon so much ground just to make the offensive that your middle, as in middle of your territory will be filled of your enemies that could get away in your checkpoints. (sorry if its kind of hard to understand, tried to make as clear as possible (non native english)

But in the matter of gaugamela being a different battle, as in Alexandros being outnumbered, I can't agree with that, almost all of his battles he was outnumbered, maybe in not such fashion (we can't take the account of historians of the period as a truthful and having always the right view of the things, ahhh the anal school just love the guys).

and not putting that the I haven't realised that you people put that the phalanx is maneuverable it's just that I think it's more than that you asserted, the phalanx is not just a formation is a kind of warfare, you have to have the army entirely devoted to that matter, ensuring this you can guarantee that your pike based units are much more maneuverable than that 6m almost to heavy pike let us think.

ps: If Hannah Arendt wasn't dead just could mary her, love discussions.

[antisocialmunky]

Haven't been in the military but isn't the tanks = cavalry argument in modern warfare is kinda off. Its the airpower that provides the analogous shock and speed of cavalry.

AFVs are more analoguous to formation fighting heavy infantry that provide anchors in a line and a position for light troops to fall back to. They are powerful force that can engage in slugging matches while they can be taken out by bad terrain and inproper support.

Infantry in this analogy would fall into a skirmisher role providing support for a tank and provide the eyes and ears for the armor and air power as well as fighting where the armor cannot.

Under this analogy, Pydna would resemble the time the British in North Africa brilliantly tricked the German Tanks into the soft sand where they became ineffective.

Likewise, Gaugamella would have resembled something similar to the Soviets rolling through the Fulda Gap. The NATO forces would have to hold against the numerically superior Soviets long enough for Western air superiority so they could bog down and destroy the Soviet advance.

Something like that...

*flees before Ludens shows up*

[Karamazovmm]

*flees before Ludens shows up*

Bye little bird go with your friends were the sun is great, the women are cheap and the economic recession didn't kill us, go with the wind!!

altough I agree with you, on the mecanized part, it's just that historically the tanks were an evolution to the cavalry, and thus named after that, although much of their tactics retain the role of heavy infantry style, their role is to support, we don't have a lot of tank battles in fact they were rare and still are.

[The General]

Then mecanized warfare talks shall be done as you say...

I'm from Finland (-> "Winland"), and so urban warfare wasn't our number one priority (we just have too much forests, swamps and countryside here ).

Modern estimates seem to put Darius's army to 50,000-120,000 at Gaugamela (I'm leaning towards 100,000 because such a big fuss wouldn't probably have been made if the Persian army barely outnumbered Alexander's). The only other battle he was outnumbered was Issus and possibly Hydaspes (iirc!).

And none of this is really relevant; Alexander was famously aggresive in his battles. However, I really don't think that Phalanxes were able to charge, otherwise that would've been mentioned surely somewhere. It might just be, but I can't recall any mention that phalanxes would've charged at the double at their enemies or taken them by surprise, rather they advanced upon them.

It's not just that their had a 6-7 meter long pike, they had five rows of them pointing at the enemy and three to thirteen rows of men behind them. To their sides they would've had their companions as close as possible so as not to present any gaps within the formation. I just don't think it would have been feasible to have several, dozens even units of 256 men running out on the field in good enough synchrony not to disturb the formations, while possibly being peppered by arrows and javelins and certainly while under the watchful eye of their opponent.

If phalanxes were as maneuverable as you think, why is it that their biggest weakness is consired to be the inability to maintain formation on uneven ground and respond to flanking and rear attacks?

Meh, where are the experts of hellenistic warfare when you need them!?

[seienchin]

What? In Gaugamela there was a huge gap between the phalangitai and the hetairoi. But hey think a little bit critical. Off course nobody today knows what really happened at gaugamela.
Anyway lets not forget that the phalangitai were an evolution of the hoplites, who were an aggressive atacking unit, but still pinned the enemy down (Which infantry except skirmishers doesnt?)

[Ludens]

However, that would be a subject for another topic, I'm afraid, we're risking incurring Ludens's wrath if we continue talking about armoured warfare here.

Ludens is far to interested in reading to considering being wrathful.

Yes, we have moved off-topic but unless someone wants to continue about the original question about pike animations, I have no problem with discussing the battlefield role of tanks/phalangites.