Some readers must think that it is unnecessary to make such a detailed distinction between tactics and strategy, two things that are so close, because it has no direct effect on the war itself. However, only full-fledged nerds will study the direct effect of theoretical distinction on combat.
Regardless of the theory, the messy and ambiguous concepts must first be clarified. Only when we have a common understanding of names and concepts, can we study the problem clearly and smoothly, and stand on the same starting point with the readers. Tactics and strategy are intertwined in space and time, and they belong to two activities of different nature. If their concepts are not accurately determined, it is impossible to thoroughly understand their internal laws and their relationships.
If someone thinks it is meaningless to study these, unless he does not conduct theoretical research, he will definitely be confused by those concepts that are ambiguous, lack any reliable basis, and cannot draw any conclusions, and are sometimes plain and sometimes absurd. The concept of nonsense and sometimes empty is confusing.
About war theory
At the beginning, military art was only understood as the preparation of the army
Initially, people simply understood military art or military science as the sum of knowledge and skills related to material things. The content of this kind of knowledge and skills is nothing more than the structure of weapons, how to make and use them, the construction of fortresses and field fortifications, the organization of the army, and the mechanical regulations of operations. All they do is to prepare a weapon that can be used in war. Army used. People here only consider material materials, or only involve unilateral activities. In the final analysis, it is an activity that gradually improves from handicraft to sophisticated mechanical technology. The relationship between these activities and the war itself is like the relationship between sword-making and fencing. As for the moment of danger, the issue of the use of the army when the two sides were fighting each other, the activities of intelligence and courage, and other real war issues were not mentioned at the time.
Talking about the method of warfare for the first time in the siege
For the first time in siege techniques, we talked about the specific implementation of combat, that is, how to use certain intellectual activities of the above materials. However, in most cases, these are just some intellectual activities that can be reflected in new material objects such as approach trenches, parallel trenches, anti-access trenches, and forts in time. Each development of them is marked by the appearance of such a material object. Intellectual activity here is just a link necessary to connect these creations. Since in this form of war, intelligence only appears in these things, it is no longer easy for siege techniques to talk to this degree.
Later tactics also touched this aspect
Later, tactics also attempted to formulate certain mechanical regulations for the general deployment of the army in accordance with the characteristics of the army. Although this has involved specific activities on the battlefield, it still does not involve free intellectual activities in the true sense. It only involves treating the formed battle formation as an automatic machine, which will start acting like a clock as long as the command is given. .
The real method of warfare is only an incidental mention when discussing other issues. People once thought that the real method of warfare is to use prepared means according to the needs of the specific situation. This can only rely on talent and cannot be the object of theoretical research. . However, as the war began to fight each other in the Middle Ages, gradually formed a more regular and more complex form, people have a new understanding of this issue. However, most of these views are incidentally mentioned when discussing other issues in certain memoirs and stories.
Different views on war events have led to the demand for the establishment of war theory. As people have more and more views on war, the study of history needs more and more critical spirit, so people urgently need some universal theoretical basis. In order to have a guideline to resolve disputes and differences that often appear in the history of warfare, because disputes that do not revolve around any center and do not follow clear guidelines are meaningless, and they are also detested by people.
Efforts to establish a dogmatic theory
With the requirement to establish a theory, people strive to formulate some principles or rules, or even systems, for combat. However, they put forward this affirmative goal, but did not seriously consider the numerous difficulties that will be encountered in this regard. As pointed out earlier, combat has no fixed scope in almost all aspects. In this way, every system, that is, every theoretical building, will inevitably have limitations in the comprehensive summary. Therefore, in this case, there is a contradiction between the theory and practice that can never be resolved.
Confined to material objects
War theorists have long felt that it is impossible for the theoretical principles and systems to be limited to the material objects of war or unilateral activities. So how to get rid of this dilemma? They attempt to use calculation methods to draw conclusions that are very certain and rigid in one way or another, just like the scientific research done on preparations for war. With this method, the scope of research must be limited to those areas that can only be calculated.
Quantity advantage
The quantitative advantage is a matter of material. Someone chose it from the various factors that determine victory because it can be incorporated into mathematical laws through calculations of time and space. When it comes to the influence of other factors, they believe that it is the same for both parties and can be offset by each other, so they can be ignored. If they do this accidentally just to clarify all aspects of the quantitative factor, it is understandable; but if it is always the case, and they believe that absolute superiority in quantity is the only rule of victory, they believe that in a certain time and a certain place Creating quantitative superiority is the entire mystery of military art, so this will become a one-sided theoretical principle that cannot withstand scrutiny and practical testing.
Provision of the army
Some people try to develop another material factor, the army's supply factor, into a system in the study of war theory. They proceeded from the fact that the army is an existing material entity, and believe that the issue of supplies is decisive for large-scale operations.
This method may sometimes yield certain positive values, but those values are based on many speculative assumptions and are untenable in reality.
base
A talented person once tried to use the term base to summarize the issues such as the supply of the army, the staffing, the supplement of equipment, the safety of the country’s transportation, the safety of the retreat route if necessary, and even the spiritual factors related to this. stand up. At first, he used the concept of a base to describe the various aspects mentioned above in general without any subdivision. Then he replaced the base with the size of the base, and finally used the angle formed by the army and the base to represent the size of the base. The purpose of all this is to obtain a purely geometric result, which has no practical value. The concept of bases really requires research in terms of strategy. The proposal of this concept will be a dedication. However, the use of this concept like the above is absolutely not allowed. If so, some one-sided conclusions will inevitably be drawn, which will lead the military theorist to the absurd direction, so as to overemphasize encirclement The role of.
Inside
After that, another geometrical principle, which was opposed to the above-mentioned base principle, the so-called inside principle, prevailed in theory. Although this principle is based on a good foundation, that is to say, it is based on the truth that battle is the only effective means of war, but because of its extremely pure geometric nature, it still becomes an alternative that cannot guide real life. A one-sided theory.
The various theories mentioned above should be refuted
These theories, the analytical part, can still be regarded as progress in the exploration of truth, while the comprehensive part, that is, their detailed rules and rules, is worthless.
These theories all try to obtain certain certain values. However, everything in the war is uncertain, probable and accidental, and the calculations that can be used as the basis are often only some frequently changing values.
These theories only examine material factors, and do not conduct any research on the spiritual forces and their effects that are always inseparable from the entire military operation.
These theories only pay attention to unilateral activities, and ignore the process in which the two sides often interact with each other during wars.
These theories exclude genius from the rules
These theories, putting their unclear or unsolvable problems outside the scope of scientific research, are attributed to the field of genius beyond the rules.
These rules are meaningless to the genius, and the genius can ignore or even make fun of them. How naive and pitiful the soldiers who crawled around in the poor rules are! In fact, what a genius does is the best rule, and the most practical work that a theory has to do is to clarify how and why a genius does at a critical moment.
Those theories that are opposed to the spirit cannot eliminate this contradiction no matter how humble their faces are. The more modest they are, the more hypocritical they will be, the more they will be ridiculed and despised, and the more they will be abandoned by real life.
The theory will encounter difficulties as long as it touches spiritual factors
No matter what theory comes into contact with spiritual factors, the problems will increase infinitely. In terms of architecture and painting art, when the theory only involves material aspects, it is still relatively easy to solve, such as the mechanics of the structure and the light problem of the composition. However, as long as the spiritual effect of the creation is involved, when it is required to evoke impressions and emotions in the spirit, all the laws of the theory appear powerless.
Medicine generally studies physical phenomena, and it only involves animal organisms. Animal organisms are changing all the time. This brings great difficulties to medical judgments, which makes doctors’ practical experience. More important than his theoretical knowledge. If you add a mental effect, the degree of difficulty can be imagined. Therefore, those who can use psychotherapy are amazing!
Mental factors must not be excluded in war
Military behavior is definitely not an activity that involves only material factors. It also involves the spiritual force that makes matter vital. Therefore, it is impossible to attempt to separate the two.
Mental factors can only be seen by those with inner vision. This vision is different for everyone, that is, the vision of the same person often has different understandings at different times.
Crisis is everywhere in the war, and all actions are carried out in danger. Therefore, the main factor that affects judgment is the courage in the spiritual category, that is, confidence in one's own strength, in other words self-confidence.
It can be seen from experience that spiritual factors undoubtedly have certain objective value.
Everyone knows the mental effects of sneak attacks, flank attacks, and back attacks. Everyone knows that the morale of the party who starts to retreat is very low, and even the courage is lost. When chasing and being chased, the mental state shown by anyone is completely different; anyone will judge the other party based on his talent, reputation, age and experience, and decide what he should take based on these circumstances Action; anyone will be very concerned about the mental state and emotions of the enemy’s army. The above-mentioned similar mental effects have been proven in experience, and they have appeared repeatedly. So we have reason to believe that they are factors that do exist. If the theory ignores these factors, its value will be greatly reduced.
Practice is the only source of truth. Theory and commander, don't fall into the empty talk of psychology and philosophy.
The main difficulty of combat theory
In order to clarify the difficulties in combat theory and then find out the characteristics that combat theory must have based on these difficulties, we must further study the main characteristics of military activities.
The first feature: mental power and its function-hostile feelings
Struggle is the manifestation of hostile feelings. In the modern large-scale struggle we call war, hostile feelings are usually manifested as hostile intentions of both sides, and there is generally no hostile feelings between individuals. Nevertheless, it is not to say that there is absolutely no hostility. In modern wars, national hatred more or less replaced personal grievances. Wars without national hatred are rare. Even if there is no national hatred and no anger at first, hostility will gradually ignite in the struggle. This is because, no matter whoever commits violence to us according to the orders of superiors, we will first retaliate directly against his superiors before opposing them. Whether it is the nature of humans or the nature of animals, this is the fact. In theory, people are often accustomed to thinking of struggle as an abstract and non-emotional contest of military forces. This is one of the thousands of mistakes made because the theory does not see the consequences arising from it.
In addition to the above feelings, humans have other feelings, such as fame, desire for dominance, and various other passions. Although they are different in essence from the above feelings, they are very closely related to the above feelings and are easy to interact with. combine together.
Dangerous influence-courage
There is danger at every moment of war, and all military activities are accompanied by danger, just as birds must fly in the air and fish must swim in the water. Danger sometimes affects human feelings directly, sometimes indirectly through intelligence. In the former situation, people always try to avoid danger. If they can't avoid it, they will have fear. If this is not the case, then courage must have restrained their instinctive reaction. Courage is not a manifestation of intelligence, it is a form of emotion like fear; fear is the fear of physical harm, while courage is to maintain spiritual dignity. Courage is a noble human instinct. For this reason, we cannot use courage as a lifeless tool that can predetermine its role. Courage is not only a counterbalance against danger, but also a special force factor.
Dangerous sphere of influence
If the impact of the danger on the commander is to be correctly predicted, then we cannot only see the impact of the danger on the emergency. The impact of danger on the commander is not because he himself is threatened, but because the army under his command is threatened; danger always threatens the commander, and always threatens the commander through the commander’s own imagination of it; danger It not only directly affects the commander, but also indirectly affects the commander through a sense of responsibility, which makes him bear multiple mental pressures. When deciding on a general battle, when thinking of the dangers and responsibilities brought about by the action, who wouldn't be more or less mentally stressed and uneasy? It can be asserted that all actions in war, as long as they are actions in the true sense and not simply exist, can never be completely separated from danger.
Other emotional power
We regard the emotional forces provoked by hostility and danger as unique to wars, but this does not mean that other emotional forces in human life have nothing to do with wars. In fact, they will also play a role in wars. Small role. War is the harshest activity in human life, and certain small passions must be suppressed. Those low-ranking commanders are constantly threatened by dangers and tormented by fatigue, and have no time to consider other things in life. There is no room for hypocrisy at the moment of life and death, so this has become the simple character that is the best sign of a soldier. . However, it is different for people with high positions. The higher the position, the more issues need to be considered, the wider the area of concern, and the more complex passionate activities. There are good and bad. Generosity and jealousy, humility and arrogance, gentleness and irritability, all these emotional forces may play a role in the large-scale drama of war.
Everyone’s intelligence is different
In addition to feelings, the intelligence of the commander also has a very large impact. A commander who likes fantasy, fanaticism, and immaturity is very different from a commander who is calm, rigorous, and powerful.